The latest paper that saw the usual suspects trading ‘High 5s’, Marcott et al, published in ‘Science’, has now been blog reviewed, leaving no choice for the authors but to withdraw from publication. The problem is, under the usual climate change ideological premise, nothing will happen.
Steven McIntyre has now done a full audit of their data, and found it ridden with substantial fallacies. He mocks the way the authors have changed the dates of observations in order to achieve a ‘hockey stick’ result: http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
Bishop Hill: Marcott in freefall
Shaun Marcott’s new ‘Hockey Stick’ study ‘in freefall’ — ‘Paper did not pass the sniff test. What does it say about Science that it would publish such a paper?’Marcotts@science.oregonstate.edu
‘McIntyre has posted here about the mystery surrounding the methodology and here about the curious lack of a similar 20th century uptick in Marcott’s PhD thesis on which the Science paper appears to have been based. Willis Eschenbach notes that many of the proxies used fail the paper’s own criteria for inclusion, David Middleton has raised further questions based on examination of individual proxies. Don Easterbrook has further concerns’
I replied to a Gorebot in comments on my post about the Marcott, et al, paper: The warmer years, with more peer reviewing across the internet. These are only a few of them.