2011-06-26 07:07:50McMan(n)ufactured Controversy II: Gish gallop attack on Kemp 2011 and the PNAS fails objective reality test
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Not sure if McIntyre is going to retract any of the errors and half-truths within the next few days, but if not, here's 

McMan(n)ufactured Controversy II: Gish gallop attack on Kemp 2011 and the PNAS fails objective reality test

just in case.  If go after him, we need to get it right, as he's actively involved on our blogging turf.

2011-06-26 07:43:37
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.46.95

grypo,

I don't agree with some of your criticisms of McI's points:

- On the 4-year restriction: The letter from PNAS states it, and the linked PNAS policy does not contradict it. I would also interpret the official position to be the more restrictive. So I think there is something to explain.

- It is true that having Choi review Lindzen's paper on the topic they've worked together on is unacceptable. However, the 4-year policy indicated above does not restrict on the basis of "publishing together on the same topic," but on publishing together: The focus seems to be on the relationship, not the topic. Again, I think there IS something to explain.

I think you may be over-doing it.

2011-06-26 08:32:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.93
I'd suggest focusing more on the fact that McIntyre is ignoring the science again. In the renewable 'controversy', he engaged in pure ad hominem. In this case, he's complaining about a journal's review process, and ignoring the quality of the papers in question and the science therein. How the "auditor" has fallen. I'd also define the acronym JGR and provide a link to support the statement that it rejected the paper as well. There are also a couple of quotes in the middle of the post which it's not clear that they came from McIntyre, and there's no mention that Lindzen chose Happer as his second reviewer, who has zero climate science research background (Chris Colose had a good post on Happer in 'Even Princeton Makes Mistakes').
2011-06-26 11:55:50
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Neal,

- On the 4-year restriction: The letter from PNAS states it, and the linked PNAS policy does not contradict it. 

Thanks.  It's actually a link in the page linked from the letter.  But it's unecessary so I'll just delete that line.

 I would also interpret the official position to be the more restrictive. So I think there is something to explain.

Not sure what you mean by official position.  The 2 year v 4 year window?

 It is true that having Choi review Lindzen's paper on the topic they've worked together on is unacceptable. However, the 4-year policy indicated above does not restrict on the basis of "publishing together on the same topic," but on publishing together: The focus seems to be on the relationship, not the topic. Again, I think there IS something to explain.

Choi is his new co-author and has nothing to do with the old papers.  That was Chou, back in 2001.  So I'm not the one making the distinction of people publishing on similar subjects, it's the PNAS in it's rejection letter, not the time window policy.  They didn't want Chou to 'review his own work'.  McIntyre attempted to compare Chou 2001 with Cazenave in 2007, but the rejection had nothing to with the timing, it was the subject matter.  It's difficult to explain.  Also this is the complete line from the rejection letter:

it is good scientific practice to involve either some of those who have raised the counter-arguments (and may be convinced by an improved analysis) in the review or to solicit at least the assessment of leading experts that have no direct or indirect affiliation with the authors.

PNAS was not rejecting Chou, they just wanted more reviews from other people.  I'm going to reword that part

I think you may be over-doing it.

I thought I was taking it easy.  :)  Do you mean overall, or just on the parts you brought up?

2011-06-26 11:56:54
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Thanks Dana

 

I'll get get another draft out tomorrow.

2011-06-26 20:53:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.103.153

My point is that you need to be dead-accurate with your analysis of McI's mis-statements, or you will be hoist by your own petard.

As I read it, it does seem odd that Cazenave was allowed to review the paper by Rahmsdorf et al., when they had published recently together. McI has a point. Some justification is needed.

2011-06-26 22:35:47
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Neal, believe me, I want to be dead-on.  I'd much rather have it wrong here than out there.  I'm even having reservations about posting it because he's a spin machine, and any argument may not matter to the people we want to reach.  He made several errors, but his point will return to the reproducibility of Lindzen v Kemp, and that's easy to spin in people's eyes.  It gets back to the general idea of fairness.  So we need to be able to defend the logic there. It's probably smart wait a couple days and see if he digs in his heels, or withdraws the errors.  But we shouldn't forget.  This is how he gets away with what he does.  Most of the conspriracy memes, pal review, fradulent scientist, etc can be traced back to his sly suggestions.  This time he's made a direct accusation of preferential treatment and hypocricy.  Somebody has to call him out and expose him.  Why it's us and not the scientists themselves, I have no idea.  It's a little frustrating defending an institution that seems almost oblivious to the attacks.  We know they are not, but most people are pretty clueless about it.

 

I posted another draft, just in case John or whoever thinks it's correct to use.  I know severral people wanted to do this type of series for McIntyre.