Sentences with phrase «pnas comment»

(N) immediately as the following reference, as given in McKitrick and McIntyre's PNAS comment:

I posted on this thread https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/ that the only reasonable way to read Mann's reply to the PNAS comment is that he thinks there is no a priori physical understanding for Tiljander, and therefore either orientation is correct and no one - sided test was used.

Not exact matches

Also, PNAS guidance for comments is limited to about 500 words, so substantive disagreements have to be framed as original research, he said.

Update: Steve Milloy makes a similarly erroneous point commenting on another recent paper (PNAS, 2004) on the same topic

============================= Says Steve McIntyre, commenting on the new sea level reconstruction paper by Kemp et al at PNAS, «Climate Related sea - level variations over the past two millennia»:

If Dr. Hansen never imagined Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large» seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more extreme SRES scenarios.

Posted in Open Threads Tagged arctic, australia, carbon tax, climate change, environment, gillard, global warming, mann, PNAS, rahmstorf, sea ice, sea level, vermeer 22 Comments

Michael Mann's new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, discusses my comment [SMc note — this post is by Hu McCulloch], «Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., «Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present» (PNAS 2006),» that was published in 2009 in Energy & Environment.

Yesterday's publishing of the innocuous - sounding «Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 - 2008», in the journal PNAS, kicked off a veritable storm of comment and debate.

As I mentioned, McIntyre has submitted only one of those letters or comments, as far as I know (the letter concerning Mann et al 2008 in PNAS.]

As the paper was submitted to PNAS on April 5, (http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/tag/reto-ruedy/) and has been in public view for many months now, you could submit a «comment» to the journal.

Posted in Open Threads, tagged arctic, australia, carbon tax, climate change, environment, gillard, global warming, mann, PNAS, rahmstorf, sea ice, sea level, vermeer on July 20, 2011 22 Comments»

I wanted to make a point about an earlier (2013) PNAS paper by the authors that Dr. Curry linked to after my original comment — a paper I was already familiar with.

With apologies in case it's out there and I'm repeating myself, I wanted to make a point about an earlier (2013) PNAS paper by the authors that Dr. Curry linked to after my original comment — a paper I was already familiar with.

Don't forget Steve's comment in PNAS in response to Mann's paper and Mann's reply.

Hulme's comments (assuming you've faithfully transcribed these) on the Anderegg PNAS paper, are similarly odd since that paper doesn't «divide..

In Comment # 551 supra, Phil Clarke notes that Steve McIntyre has posted a new discussion of the Tiljander proxies» uses in Mann08 (PNAS) and Mann09 (Science).

In his comments he adds a good deal of intensity to the issue, writing about «blacklists» and «possible loss of grants» This is just as over-the-top as the PNAS paper, and just as unhelpful — if Pielke's concern is to improve the role of climate science in policy and politics

The theme of the PNAS paper is that CEs are more qualified than UEs to comment of climate science policy because they've published more research papers in the field.

One point that doesn't seem to get mentioned much in all the blogosphere comment; I have the the official PNAS Anderegg paper in front of me and it contains no list whatsoever, black or otherwise.

IMO, your limited critique of Inhofe's list of 17 is in stark contrast with your comments to date on the PNAS paper.

(Besides the pair's 2005 GRL article, Ross McKitrick's misleading list of so - called «peer - reviewed science journal articles» also includes two pieces in the contrarian social science journal Energy and Environment, a comment letter to PNAS and a pair of replies to comments on the GRL article!)

Given the kerfuffle surrounding the PNAS review of Lindzen and Choi, I'll make a few comments here regarding the review of this paper, which has to be regarded as controversial and contentious since it includes criticisms of the IPCC.

Prof HJ Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute, commented formally in PNAS on the R&F paper here: «Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking?

I have posted on the PNAS paper on my weblog — Comments On The PNAS Article «Expert Credibility In Climate Change» By Anderegg Et Al 2010 [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/]