Models Methods Software

Dan Hughes

Tom P. does not meet RealClimate’s Bona Fides Requirements

I made this comment at Climate Audit. I’ll repeat it here:

The degree of inconsistency that RC exhibits becomes more astounding every day.

How many times have we been told that replication does not require that all the original material be readily available. Indeed, we have been repeatedly lectured that true replication is not obtained if only the original material is used. Yet, Tom P. could not have carried out his rapid-response function if Steve had not made all the material available.

By RC’s usual standards, Tom P.’s results could have been considered true replication only if he had started from a clean piece of paper, gone out in the field and gathered up some tree rings, properly selected the data to be used for analyses, developed the analysis methods, produced the coding for the solution of the methods, and then carried out the analysis. ( I’ll let Tom P. skip the Verification and Validation procedures as Climate Science does not do these. )

More and more, it seems to me that RC’s views are shaped by what is convenient in contrast to what they say is the correct approach.

By the usual RC standards, RC cannot accept Tom P.’s analyses and conclusions.


Thinking about this some more led me to the following:

A list of bona fides required by RC prior to Tom P.

1. Certified Climatologist

2. Peer-Reviewed Publications

3. In only the Properly-Certified Journals

4. In only those Journals having a High-Impact Factor

5. Known and verified Educational Pedigree

6. Comments limited to areas consistent with 5.

7. Comments of 6 also limited to the extent of 5 at the time of graduation

8. Replication from a clean slate

9. No reliance on any aspects of previous work

10. No funding by Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, or any organizations associated with Big Fossil in any way

11. No previous work experience in any of 10

12. No funding by “conservative” think tanks.

13. No funding by any think tanks to which 10 gives support

14. Previous work results are known so that source can be used to dismiss or accept all results

15. Proper identification so that 14 can be invoked

So far as I know, Tom P.’s status for any of these 15 items has not been established.

I can reject Tom P.’s results without even looking at the analyses.

Someone at RC will now label Tom P. for convenience in future discussions.

This is astounding to me. Tom P. meets none of the previously required criteria, and yet NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has accepted the results of Tom P.’s black-box analysis. Unquestionably without any provisos whatsoever.

Advertisements

October 5, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized |

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: