Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:02:54 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Eeyore

In comparison Loehle accepted a little peer review criticism of his work virtually
instantly and republished with minor corrections inside ~ 6 months. The interesting
thing is that the criticism of Loehle's work was in minor detail only and did not
affect its basic premise, whereas Mann's work fell totally on its head.

No, he didn't deal with several other serious objections. Just one,
if I recall.

CITE !

Not for you. One of the web sites (which you are well aware of, but
don't seriously read) discusses it, informally but in an informed way.

If you were interested in having someone actually address themselves
to Loehle's paper through a quality peer-reviewed periodical, Loehle
will need to actually get it published in a respectable periodical
first, peer-reviewed. No one needs formally deal with something that
is just tossed out into the public, without informed review even.

His proxies show a record that matches the historical record brilliantly.something that
Mann totally failed to do.

Without admitting anything one way or another on your point... Hell,
an idiot with a least square linear fitting program and nothing more
than that, including ZERO skill at climate, could get a better fit to
some selected historical record than realistic, physical science,
modern global climate model ensembles can manage. The reason should
be dead obvious to you. The terribly sad thing is that it isn't.

You actually think you are making a point, when it's just the
opposite.

Jon
.