Thanks.

Sure we can — if your position is that the IPCC has handled the HS controversy perfectly, then yes we’d disagree.

In your professional judgement, how big a part of the issue of D&A is the HS? 1%? 10% 37.3%? My understanidng of recent comments is that without the HS the IPCC consensus would not be weakened one bit … do you agree?

Thanks!

With respect to point 1 I think that is a furphy. Economics, like climate science (particularly paleoclimate science), is a non-experimental science where there is (typically) no laboratory available to replicate results. Despite this, it is standard practice in economics to make full code and data available to all others on publication of a paper. Indeed, this is a condition of publication for many of the best journals. Thus, I would argue that you are wrong to say that “reproducibility in a science where there is only one realization of the thing being studied is a different beast”.

Furthermore, I would argue that if climate science is being driven by selfish motives and a quest for fame then it has substantial inherent problems. Also, talk of other scientists as competitors is a fundamentally flawed premise for science. People are people and this will always occur to a degree, but it is inimical to the proper practice of science.

Thank you for your post. It seems to me that there are three separate issues here.

1. Reproducibility of results and the “free rider” problem. You are correct that this has been a fraught issue in environmental science as opposed to other disciplines, though the situation is changing. The problem is that both climate data and models are labor and time-intensive to run. Many members of the community hold on to their results and only release them to certain collaborators- in part so that they can get credit. By contrast, in a laboratory setting, you are expected to be able to reproduce answers because you can collect your own data. Instead, investigators in climate science are confronted by people who simply want the end results of years of research. Some researchers respond to this by releasing their data to others who will look at it in a synthetic sense (a la Mann) but not scoop them on results based on the individual records. While the situation is changing- more and more of the models and the data are available online, the fact remains that reproducibility in a science where there is only one realization of the thing being studied is a different beast. I think Mann et al. should make their original programs and data available- but this will not be possible in all cases. Just as a researcher shouldn’t be obliged to turn over his machine to a competitor for free just so that person can reproduce his results.

2. The nature of scientific advice. Let’s say you have cancer and want the best available care. Do you go for the “community standard” or the experimental treatment recommended by the top specialist in the field. Seems to me the answer is going to depend on your personality. There is no right answer, and both answers involve separate risks. The IPCC has to balance using results that are out of date and inconclusive with using the latest results that may be wrong.

For the rest one cojld recall that Mckintyre as much as said he thought the stick was like a mining scam, something he knew about from his business history. So where he says “replicate” it seems pretty obvious he wanted to get the raw original information and use it to pin Mann’s hide to the barn door. Mann seems to have been smart enough to send him running all round Robin Hood’s barn to find the door still locked. Now he wants “code” and there is a great confusion about what “code” is that. Everything else is pure grandstanding, and there is a great deal of that in his endless demands for information, and tedious posturing about what scientists are supposed to be doing, framed by the ludicrous standard of perfection he would use to defame them, and widening suspicions which already encompass all the other climate scientists Mann has ever shared a coffee with, so it seems, and now von Storch. The whole story is hilarious (not tragic) The researcher regression is not exactly a new phenomena is it? Soon Mcintyre will be claiming he has not received something he demanded two years ago (who is he to demand or require anything no one has a public duty to give him?)
Has he chased any other scientists who told him to get stuffed?

Do you not agree when a scientist says “replicate” he probably means reproduce by other means or methods out of which new science may emerge, since all you get from true replication is a statment that the other guys did what they said they did (thank you, Robert, who posted this idea in a page I have forgotten).
Isn’t this consistent with the way you described how science is done? But then the twain will never meet, will they? M&M are engaged in demoliton, nothing else. They do not aim to leave a new structure of information but a pile of ashes. And
they have become really boring. If thjis job needs to be done it is for the courtroom (where one suspects they would not fare well).They are not going to climb down and admit science is done in the scattered, messy way that you and Mr. James Annan describe, which I do not doubt is a correct description. MBH are engaged in science. Other scientists, real ones, can say if they ever screw up. Surely the comment from Professor von Storch scores a bull’s eye on all that (as well as showing that he deserves to continue wearing the crown in climate science as he does it with style).

So let Professor Mann respond as he may be advised by comptetent legislative counsel, and once the stage is set after a suitable campaign , wipe the floor with the dismal crowd of deniers, the distraction has gone on long enough.

Nature has an interview with the IPCC’s rajendra Pachauri.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436007a.html

Here are relevant excerpts:

Good response:

“Do you feel obliged to respond?

I will first consult my colleagues in the IPCC. Over the next days we will decide whether and how to react. We might not do anything at all.

What kind of information would you consider providing?

I would not hesitate, out of courtesy, to provide basic information about how the IPCC functions and about the manner in which we choose our authors. This is a well established and absolutely transparent process. The only criteria are scientific merit and integrity. I don’t think we need to provide more information than that. I guess it will be sufficient to mention the processes and procedures of the IPCC and to refer the committee to our website.”

Not so good:

“Was it unwise to give Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ so much prominence in the IPCC’s summary for policy-makers?

No. It is no exaggeration and it doesn’t contradict the rest of the IPCC assessment. Of course you can always argue about details. But we assess all the available literature, and we found the hockey stick was consistent with that.”

The fact that he is even being asked this question should be enough for him to offer a more nuanced reply. How about: “I am sure that at the time we would have done nothing different. but with the advantage of hindsight, it is clear that by emphasizingto a single study we opened the door for a narrow debate, when the IPCC presents a large body of literature to reach conclusions that do not depend critically upon any one single paper.”

Good reply:

“Do you think individual scientists such as Mann need to be better protected against pressure from politicians?

The IPCC cannot do that. But Mann and his colleagues are distinguished, independent scientists who are able to explain their points of view. These letters don’t curb their independence. And the recipients don’t need to provide all the information requested. By and large, I don’t regard this as a threat to the scientific community.”

Thanks for your comments. In reply to your question, yes, “discerible influence” is the language that the IPCC uses and is based on a literature that I would characterize as wide and deep. As far as paragraphs, I’ll defer to Shep or Genevieve, but I think it has somethng to do with controlling spam.

I am going to more rigorously follow my own advice around here and not enter into scientific debates. My case is that action on climate change (and for what I mean by action, read my papers, start here http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1761-2005.32.pdf) can and should be independent of all of these diversionary debates on climate science, enjoyed a great deal by both sides. In other words, if you think the IPCC is right or wrong, I don’t care, I can make a case for actions that do not depend on this difference. This is the proverbial third way.

IPCC does include a page on this hypothesis (6.11.2.2)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/246.htm

Lacking data in support for the cosmic ray hypothesis that has been floating around for at least three decades, what more can IPCC do?

Another thing is worth mentioning because so many get it wrong: MBH 98 was published *after* the Kyoto treaty was drafted and thus can’t have influenced it. Those who wish to attack the Kyoto treaty will have to find another target.

If you wish to imply Kevin that the MBH paper was primarily a political exercise, then your analogy is reasonable. Since it is being treated as a scientific paper, one is entitled to expect a different approach are we not ?

Better example, I have a neat experiment using a special form of palladium electrodes in a weak H2O2 solution that produces an excess of energy and some thermal neutrons. You cannot reproduce the result, but that is, I claim, because you are not using exactly the same sort of palladium electrodes, and your solution is not quite right. However I refuse to say exactly what the electrodes are, or what the solution is, except that they are “conventional”. If I was funded by public money to carry out the original experiments, would the government be entitled to the appropriate details of the experiment ?