Sentences with word «corrigenda»

Given the serious issues Steve has raised with that paper, any explanatory essay should have been published as an official corrigendum in Science magazine.

It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn't mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine.

3 As emended in the «Corrigenda for Process and Reality,» p. 203 in George L. Kline, ed., Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on His Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice - Hall, 1963).

The senior authors did not agree with the published corrigendum, and albeit to no avail, explicitly had asked the editor for the opportunity of a discussion before he published it.»

[1] Council Directive 2004 / 83 / EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12, and corrigendum OJ 2005 L 204, p. 24).

TCO, I don't know whether you remember the Mann corrigendum of 2004 — where Mann admitted a few errors, not on principal components or verification r2 or bristlecones — and said that it didn't «matter».

Before I could Miller et al came good with an immaculately worded corrigendum — this one leaving no doubt both as to the originator of the insight and their gratitude to him.

Several further papers in other journals are based on the ECHO - G simulation affected by the large drift, and their editors may now have to consider appropriate corrigenda.

The Australian Financial Review is also reporting a kerfuffle about Einfeld J's judgment in SVI Systems Pty Ltd v Best & Less Pty Ltd (with corrigendum dated 1 July 2003)[2001] FCA 279 (20 March 2001).

None of the published corrigenda that we have seen have had a negative impact on the final conclusion.

To date, no such corrigendum has been issued.

So this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mann corrigendum, but rather is a discussion of a subsequent paper by Wahl and Ammann.

However, this new understanding did not result in any sign of a corrigendum being sent to EPSL, so one can only conclude that the deception is deliberate.

We contacted a spokesperson at Nature, who told us «the information at the start of the paper clearly links to the corrigendum.»

Note added in proof: I sent a draft of this blog post to Dr. Klotzbach and he assures me that the non-correction was just an oversight and that they will be submitting a corrigendum.

I see from a response by Gavin Schmidt at RC that a corrigendum to Miller et al 2014: CMIP5 Historical Simulations (1850 - 2012) with GISS ModelE2, from which Marvel et al 2015 took their iRF forcing time series, has also be published.

That even something as simple as the misuse of Tiljander sediments in Mann et al 2008 remains without a corrigendum surely supports Nurse's concern.

But the one vindicated in the corrigendum only speaks positively.

If Mann incorrectly used a displaced version of MBH99 and labelled it as Crowley and Lowery, as Lambert believes, then this screw - up should have been reported to EOS and a corrigendum issued.

My view is that unless Marcott and Shakun distance themselves quickly and visibly from the embrace they are now receiving from the Team and request that Science temporarily retract the paper to allow for a revision / corrigendum — crucially both where the methodology / statistical analysis and the conclusions are concerned - they will be perceived as having gone over to the «dark side» of climate science.

Although Mann et al issued a corrigendum, they said that their major conclusions were not altered.