John McLean still manipulating data

8 thoughts on “John McLean still manipulating data”

  1. This Grant Foster guy blogs as Tamino in a website called “open mind”.

    He’s an angry loner hell bent on proving anybody who challenges AGW orthodoxy wrong. He’s been proven wrong more than a few times by other people who have pointed out serious flaws in his analyses.

    Foster doesn’t acknowledge those critiques, even when pointed out to him.

    I don’t blame McLean and Carter for ignoring him.


  2. This continue to highlight the huge double standards … the IPCC makes one of the two errors in 3000 pages of text and given tremendous grief – yet Carter and McLean who appear to make errors in almost everything they’ve produced (and then to hide it with misrepresentations of the actual situation) but barely given any profile in the media at all. And these are the two individuals who have provided the misleading information to gullible coalition members Barnaby Joyce and Nick Minchin. This type of deliberate BS ultimately led to the downfall of Malcolm Turnbull.

    If Carter and Maclean were really honest about their science, then they would explain why the Foster et al paper is wrong – and would have done so when requested by the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    I am afraid, as we suspected, the two individual either very poor scientists or they are complicit in a deliberate misrepresentation of the seriousness of global climate change in order to support special-interest.


  3. Veto: McLean et al applied a filtering process that removes a long term trend. They justified this action by saying it removed ‘noise’, when comparative analyse of the original data and the filtered data shows that it amplified the noise whilst removing longer-term changes.

    The lack of response to Foster et alis pretty damning. As someone on Skeptical Science put it: “A scientist caught manipulating data to achieve a pre-determined result”.


  4. Funny, still nothing from The Australian or Andrew Bolt on two high profile aussie climate scientists getting busted fudging their data! A sign of a lack of balance?! What could be going on?


  5. Marc H, we appreciate your input and comments, but be fair and honest here. At the time of this posting, the link you have above was not up and frankly had it been, how the hell would we have known about it? Mclean and Carter are not responding to emails and queries from reporters about this and this is nothing on their home pages. McLean’s web site page still says:

    Comment in response to Foster et al’s reaction to
    our paper on the influence of ENSO on temperatures

    A response to our ENSO paper by Foster, Annan, Jones, Mann, Renwick, Salinger, Schmidt and Trenberth has been posted on the website of Kevin Trenberth. Although the response is formatted as if for the Journal of Geophysical Research, to our knowledge it has not yet been published in that or any other refereed journal.

    The informal nature of the Foster et al critique makes it inappropriate for me to respond in detail to it here, but should the criticisms be published in the normal manner we authors will respond as appropriate.

    Our paper – McLean, J.D., C. R. de Freitas and R.M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D1404, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

    Commentary paper – no reference possible. Paper not published (as at 11 Sep 2009).


  6. Talk about misrepresenting facts… What the hell is a “right of reply?” Journals traditionally offer authors the courtesy of publishing responses to criticism of their work, but it still has to pass the normal standards of scrutiny. The editor’s initial contact with McLean et al, as quoted in their rant, made quite clear that (emphasis added) “Your reply will be reviewed and, if acceptable, will be published…” It’s fairly common for replies to be denied publication for a variety of reasons, so for the authors to act as if it’s “unprecedented” is disingenuous at the very least. Every author has the right to reply to published criticism, which McLean et al clearly exercised, but no author ever has a right to have anything published in any journal.

    By the authors’ own admission, the response by McLean et al “almost entirely restates material that was included in the original paper.” That alone would merit rejection as its publication adds nothing new to the discussion. Their submitted reply does not address the very real and very major errors in the original work other than to re-argue that their math does something that it demonstrably does not do. In their abstract they make the direct claim “should any such trend exist, it follows from our analysis that in most part it would
    be a response to the natural climate mechanisms that underlie the Southern Oscillation.” The whole Foster et al paper was a demonstration of how that inference does NOT follow from the analysis done.

    Also, in their presentation of reviewer comments McLean et al quote reviewer 3 as saying “But as it is written, the current paper almost stoops to the level of ‘blog diatribe’. The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature.” to suggest that the reviewer was dissatisfied with Foster et al’s comment when in fact the same reviewer’s comment begins- “The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can’t see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings. So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted.”


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s