—

Roger,

The following email was sent to Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and David Russin. Could you help? Could someone acknowledge the issue?

Dear Sirs,

[snip]

—

—

January 6th

Dear Timothy,

In reference to your article on Pajamas Media;

“Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated”

where you state;

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

Could you provide a corroborating source statement from NASA GISS? If you cannot, will you issue a retraction?

Thanks

—

—

Dear Sirs,

There appears to be a case of false attribution in one of your articles

(Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated)

where the author states

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

I’ve been trying to obtain from PJM either a retraction or a corroborating source statement where NASA GISS state the above. I have yet to receive an acknowledgment of an email sent to the PJM editorial department (via the contact page) alerting PJM to this issue over two weeks ago. I have since sent another email by the same method and posted several comments on the thread, also to no avail. I would be grateful if you would look into this.

I’ve included the two emails below along with a comment from the thread which provides context of what the data showed and what NASA GISS said about it / interpreted from it.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Regards

Lazar [snip]

—

re significance, I was not directing the comment at you, just agreeing with your statement and giving references for Noah and others. You clearly understand the science that I wish others would.

“no meaningful”

Indeed.
‘CO2 has risen by x amount’ is not a test of statistical significance, nor is it an indicator of effect size.

Useful books;

Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate Methods (1986)
by Sam Kash Kachigan
ISBN 978-0942154993

Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences (2005)
by Daniel S. Wilks
ISBN 978-0127519661

Let me point out that it is you who consistently “move the goalposts”.

First you repeat the author’s claim…

“GISS is clearly claiming 1998 was the warmest year on record”

After demonstrating that GISS did not make any such claim, and that they explicitly disavowed that interpretation, you changed the claim to…

“NASA data showed 1998 as the warmest on record”

After pointing out that the difference was within the margin of error, again as stated explicitly by GISS, you changed the claim to…

“alarmists-did indeed make such a proclamation”

Some unnamed, unsourced ‘alarmists’ allegedly said something like that is now your claim.

Which has nothing to do with my original issue with the author making a *false* attribution;

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

remember that this was the original issue that *you* took up with me.

“There is no point in talking”

Bye!

There is no point in talking to someone who isn`t interested in the truth. Good luck in your delusional world.

I’m still anticipating a reply to the issue of false attribution and other issues I have raised above and in two emails.
Even an acknowledgment that the issue has been raised in form of a comment or email to me would be appreciated.

It would be helpful if you could cut down the length of your responses and not raise *new* points whilst other items remain under discussion.

“The point is, GISS data was the basis of newsstories and articles that supposedly proved that 1998 was the warmest year on record”

Learn to disaggregate issues. The issue I raised with the author, which you then took up with me, was that the author’s claim…

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

…is false. I have asked PJM to provide a source statement “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”. And I have provided evidence to show that they didn’t.

Whether or not someone else (you don’t specify who) made that claim is *a seperate issue*.
Is ‘GISS data were used by others to make the claim’ your way of backtracking from ‘GISS proclaimed’? Ah well.

I’ll provide one comment; GISTEMP is an open source product. Any idiot can download the data to make false or exagerated claims, just as any scientist can download the data to produce useful research. It is the idiot who is responsible for those false claims, and the scientist for the research, not GISS.

“What Hansen said previously is of no account, because his staff processed the data and provided a result which he was doubtlessly pleased with.”

That is a meaningless, illogical statement.

“You can`t have it both ways; either GISS data was wrong or it isn`t.”

I acknowledged and never denied the error, how is this ‘having it both ways’?

“Why are we having this argument at all if that isn`t the case?”

Try and follow the discussion.

“then you change tack”

I have not ‘changed tack’. I stand by all claims.

“and claim Giss made the necessary corrections. Which is it?”

You are offering a false binary.

1) ‘GISS did not proclaim 1998 the hottest year’

does not contradict

2) ‘GISS made corrections to 1998′.

You are having problems with logic and following the discussion. Continuing is pointless.