McLean et al respond and the saga heats up

6 thoughts on “McLean et al respond and the saga heats up”

  1. … And they’re still pushing their dodgy Figure 7 with their “trick” of changing the baseline between panels to hide the incline…


  2. Ove,

    Great work, as usual, but is it McLain or McLean? Might need to correct your title. The same goes for ‘idiologically’. Should be ‘ideologically’, unless this is a Freudian slip, combining illogically, ideological idiocy that we’ve come to expect from this bunch. If that’s the case, good one Ove.


  3. What’s the problem with your comprehension, Ove? As our response said, the derivative method was only used to determine the period of the time-lag, a period that was very similar that determined by Phil Jones, one of our critics. Once we’d established the time lag, the Discussion and Conclusions are based only on applying that time lag to the raw data.

    It’s quite true that our response didn’t spend a lot directly rebutting Foster et al. That was because those criticisms were misdirected and on some issues downright mendacious.


    1. John, Regardless of how you justify the data filtering you used, the fact remains that it washed away long-term temporal correlations and greatly exaggerated short-term (year to year) co-variance. Everybody knows ENSO has an influence on global weather and temperatures, but your technique greatly exaggerated this effect.

      But most importantly, you incorrectly interpreted your results as indicating a majority of the longer-term observed global warming was driven by ENSO, which is obviously not the case. You can dither about all you want about why you did what, who said what to who in private emails you have illegally obtained, who posted their manuscripts in their web site, etc. But the only fact the world cares about is that the conclusion of your manuscript is wrong, has been proven so, and the more you refuse to accept this, the more your meager credibility shrinks.


  4. Nothing wrong with my comprehension, John. I’ve read your paper and the Foster et al paper, and am quite shocked by either your poor understanding of how to analyse climate data or your complicity in deliberately hiding what you didn’t want to find. The latter would be consistent with your membership of the ideological group, the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

    Putting that aside, and seeing that you have not been able to counter the fatal errors found in your paper by Foster and colleagues, can you answer the following questions:

    1) Will you and Bob Carter retract the paper and admit the errors publicly?

    2) Given that Bob Carter has actively spread these errors and misinformation far and wide, will Bob Carter now apologise to Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, Nick Minchin and the many other politicians that he has misled.

    (I note that Bob Carter was featured talking about this study on the recent Four Corners episode)

    3) Given that Bob Carter wants to “Kill the IPCC” because it made a couple of relatively minor errors (out of 3000 pages), do you think that Bob Carter should be made to resign from James Cook University? Afterall, this is not the first time that adjunct Professor of Bob Carter has been caught out perpetrating a misinformation campaign on the issue of climate change.

    4) Do you support a full investigation of you, Bob Carter, Ian Pimer and other sceptics/denialist scientists that have been found to be in such serious error? Or should different standards be applied to these individuals as opposed to the IPCC?


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