Misplaced Pages

Ross McKitrick: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:05, 22 May 2005 editJonGwynne (talk | contribs)2,030 edits Remove more POV - note WMC's unlabelled revert and his statement that he doesn't consider MIT to be an informed source← Previous edit Revision as of 20:29, 22 May 2005 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits Rv: JG just can't cope with the *fact* that the paper was rejected.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Ross McKitrick''' is an ] (PhD 1996 from the ] and the same year appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the ] ). He has recently (since approximately 2002) worked on ]; in this connection he is a ]. His best-known work is , coauthored with ]. This presented an "audit" of work by ] and others; it appeared in the minor journal "Energy and Environment" in 2003. Mann et al. have replied. The matter was later referred to Nature, following which Mann et al. published a corrigendum, including a re-statement of their data and methods, which appeared on July 1, 2004. The corrigendum did not affect the results, however. McKitrick et al. wrote up a longer version of their results, which has yet to be published. '''Ross McKitrick''' is an ] (PhD 1996 from the ] and the same year appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the ] ). He has recently (since approximately 2002) worked on ]; in this connection he is a ]. His best-known work is , coauthored with ]. This presented an "audit" of work by ] and others; it appeared in the minor journal "Energy and Environment" in 2003. Mann et al. have replied. The matter was later referred to Nature, following which Mann et al. published a corrigendum, including a re-statement of their data and methods, which appeared on July 1, 2004. The corrigendum did not affect the results, however. McKitrick et al. wrote up a longer version of their results, which was rejected by Nature.


McKitrick's own ] has been strongly criticised, in particular by ], who has written on his web page about what he considers serious flaws in some of McKitrick's publications. One such flaw is a which Lambert claimed invalidates the conclusions of one of McKitrick's papers. The author's (nb this is the authors response; it is not yet clear whether the journal will accept it) acknowledges the error - describing the mistake as "a small error" without additional detail - but asserts the effects were minor and demonstrates how the error did not alter the paper's conclusions . McKitrick's own ] has been strongly criticised, in particular by ], who has written on his web page about what he considers serious flaws in some of McKitrick's publications. One such flaw is a which Lambert claimed invalidates the conclusions of one of McKitrick's papers. The author's (nb this is the authors response; it is not yet clear whether the journal will accept it) acknowledges the error - describing the mistake as "a small error" without additional detail - but asserts the effects were minor and demonstrates how the error did not alter the paper's conclusions .
Line 6: Line 6:


=== More criticisms of MBH === === More criticisms of MBH ===
] and Ross McKitrick claim to have found further errors in the MBH approach . A paper claiming to show this was rejected by ]. ] has promoted their claims but it is by no means clear that their claims are correct . The essence of the claim is that the statistical techniques used by MBH has a built-in tendency to produce an upward trend over the last century as an artifact of the dataprocessing. MBH deny this. ] and Ross McKitrick claim to have found further errors in the MBH approach . A paper claiming to show this was rejected by ]. ] has promoted their claims but it is by no means clear that their claims are correct . The essence of the claim is that the statistical techniques used by MBH has a built-in tendency to produce an upward trend over the last century as an artifact of the dataprocessing. MBH deny this.


== External links == == External links ==

Revision as of 20:29, 22 May 2005

Ross McKitrick is an economist (PhD 1996 from the University of British Columbia and the same year appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph ). He has recently (since approximately 2002) worked on global warming; in this connection he is a skeptic. His best-known work is Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, coauthored with Stephen McIntyre. This presented an "audit" of work by Michael Mann and others; it appeared in the minor journal "Energy and Environment" in 2003. Mann et al. have replied. The matter was later referred to Nature, following which Mann et al. published a corrigendum, including a re-statement of their data and methods, which appeared on July 1, 2004. The corrigendum did not affect the results, however. McKitrick et al. wrote up a longer version of their results, which was rejected by Nature.

McKitrick's own data analysis has been strongly criticised, in particular by Tim Lambert, who has written on his web page about what he considers serious flaws in some of McKitrick's publications. One such flaw is a programming error with regard to radians and degrees which Lambert claimed invalidates the conclusions of one of McKitrick's papers. The author's response (nb this is the authors response; it is not yet clear whether the journal will accept it) acknowledges the error - describing the mistake as "a small error" without additional detail - but asserts the effects were minor and demonstrates how the error did not alter the paper's conclusions .

McKitrick also wrote Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, coauthored with Christopher Essex and published by Key Porter Books. It was runner-up for the Donner Prize as the Best Canadian Book on Public Policy and finalist for the Canadian Science Writers' Association Book Prize.

More criticisms of MBH

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick claim to have found further errors in the MBH approach . A paper claiming to show this was rejected by Nature. Richard A. Muller has promoted their claims but it is by no means clear that their claims are correct . The essence of the claim is that the statistical techniques used by MBH has a built-in tendency to produce an upward trend over the last century as an artifact of the dataprocessing. MBH deny this.

External links

Categories: