A kink in the lizard's tale
By now, you've probably heard the story about the world's disappearing amphibians.
About one-third of species on the threatened list - some winking out of existence in a single season as the disease chytridiomycosis extends its fungal tentacles across the continents; nearly 100 species in captive breeding programmes, often because the risk that wild populations will disappear is considered too high for comfort.
But you probably haven't heard this one; the world's reptiles could be in an equally unhappy situation.
As yet, there isn't a global assessment of reptiles, although the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has begun work on one - more of that in a moment.
In its absence, a group of UK specialists has looked at the data we do have and what it tells us, and asked what we'd see if this limited picture turned out to be representative of the world in general.
You can find it in the journal Diversity.
And it's not pretty. By their analysis, the prospects for reptiles worldwide could be just as bad as for amphibians.
As is often the case in these matters, there's more data from Europe than from less developed parts of the world; and the UK is especially rich in studies (though not in the number of reptile species), thanks to the long tradition of amateur naturalists.
The first finding these researchers made as they trawled the scientific literature was that both reptiles and amphibians appear to be less well-studied than birds or mammals.
Between 2005 and 2009, one scientific paper was written for every 11 amphibian or reptile species. Mammals and birds notched up one paper for every four species.
Globally, only 5% of reptile species are classed as threatened.
But only 16% of species have been properly assessed; and when you ask what proportion of those assessed species are threatened, it turns out to be the same as for amphibians - about 30%.
In Europe, where Red Lists have been compiled for both amphibians and reptiles, the proportion of threatened species is again the same across both groups.
So on the face of it, it looks as though quite an important global conservation issue is being neglected here; and you might well ask "why?"
I had a quick chat with John Wilkinson of the UK charity Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, one of the researchers on this study, to get some ideas.
One very simple fact, he points out, is that reptiles are just more difficult to study.
Many frogs come out to mate spectacularly once a year; and when they're in the throes of mating, there's not much that will make them stop and run away and hide.
So it's relatively easy for researchers to study a site from season to season and get a quick handle on population changes.
(That's not true of all amphibians, of course - the enigmatic caecilians being a good counter-example.)
Reptiles, on the other hand, don't generally go in for such spectacular seasonal manifestations, and just finding them can be an issue, let alone combing the relatively large patches of land they might inhabit to assess numbers.
Even the UK's enthusiasts have not generated the same amount of data for reptiles as for amphibians, he says.
Whereas the year's first spawning of frogs is anticipated and documented and used as a marker for the arrival of spring, there's nothing comparable with reptiles.
In the developing world, conservation groups are now funding regular research trips aimed at finding new amphibian species - and sometimes they pay off spectacularly.
Perhaps something similar is needed now for reptiles.
For a comprehensive picture to emerge, we should look to the global assessment - these are regarded in the field as being just about as definitive as you can get.
But the chances of it arriving any time soon look pretty remote. Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, tells me they just don't have the $2-3m needed to do it.
In the meantime, IUCN and the Zoological Society of London plan to release an analysis of 1,500 species in a few months' time, which they think might provide a more accurate indication of global status than anything we have at present.
Does it - should it - make you feel a little uncomfortable that the world's reptiles might be under threat just as much as amphibians, currently the most threatened group of all - and we just don't know?
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Every thing I read make me feel "uncomfortable" at the moment on many fronts. Somehow, species extinction, banking crises, energy crises, water crises etc. are all linked. 6.5 Billion humans are taking, using, discarding, taking, using, discarding so something person, animal or plant, somewhere has to lose and give and die.
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction" comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
"Does it - should it - make you feel a little uncomfortable that the world's reptiles might be under threat just as much as amphibians, currently the most threatened group of all - and we just don't know?"
"But only 16% of species have been properly assessed; and when you ask what proportion of those assessed species are threatened, it turns out to be the same as for amphibians - about 30%."
- Richard Black
---------------
More than a little uncomfortable Richard!
Richard Leakey's book "The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind" (1996), is one I read a long time ago. And I see there is another book, more recent:
"Sixth Extinction: Journeys among the Lost and Left Behind"
by Terry Glavin (2007)
Then there is that report, chilling in its implications, from the Stockholm Resilince Centre, "Planetary Boundaries." This recent report claims that we humans have already crossed three planetary-boundary thresholds, and that one of them is biodiversity.
Here is an excerpt from the Stockholm Resilience Centre's "Planetary Boundaries":
"Since the advent of the Anthropocene, humans have increased the rate of species extinction by 100-1,000 times the background rates that were typical over Earth’s history (Mace et al. 2005) resulting in a current global average extinction rate of ! 100 extinctions per million speciesyears.
The average global extinction rate is projected to increase another 10-fold, to 1,000-10,000 E/MSY during the current century (Mace et al. 2005). Currently about 25% of species in well-studied taxonomic groups are threatened with extinction (ranging from 12% for birds to 52% for cycads). Until recently, most extinctions (since 1500) occurred on oceanic islands. In the last 20 years, however, about half of the recorded extinctions have occurred on continents, primarily due to land-use change, species introductions, and increasingly to climate change, indicating that biodiversity is now broadly at risk throughout the planet."
As I cannot post a 'pdf' link, here is an 'html' link to the report:
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/quantitativeevolutionofboundaries.4.7cf9c5aa121e17bab42800043444.html
-------------
Note that my first highlighted section gives 25% as the overall rate of species extinction, in good agreement with the ~ 30% reported in this BBC article (note the different extinction rates for different groups!)
I shall stste quite categorically that if you are not worried about these reports, one of us is crazy.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #2
could you give a title for the pdf you would like us to read please?
thanks
Complain about this comment
Amphibians once ruled the planet 400 million years ago, most of them died off in a huge extinction event.
Reptiles came to become the dominant life form (T-rex etc) and they too shared the same fate.
Mammals had the next 65 million years to themselves until when one the mammals started to become dominant over everything, homo sapiens.
Amphibians had there time, they've been going downhill the last 400 million years. We also we have our time until coachroaches or some other life form takes us out, maybe even the common cold.
Complain about this comment
One of the more interesting results of research is the finding of things we were not looking for. Serendipitous discovery has brought remarkable results. Medicines from plants and animals, natural processes that have greater applications, etc. We know there are many environmental issues and we search for key indicators and predicters. As some suggest a coming calamity I offer a Chinese proverb: Discover a well before you are thirsty.
Complain about this comment
World Population 1960: 3 Billion
World Population 2009: 6.8 Billion
More than doubled in less than 50 years.
Since the Dawn of Time the population rose to 3 Billion.
Since 1960 the population rose 3.8 Billion.
And counting...
Complain about this comment
1958 - 1960 was the Great Chinese Famine, also called in China the Three Bitter Years. 36 million people starved to death and births were reduced by 40 million. Before that time 1944-45, as the Japanese retreated from China, food stocks were collected and burned, estimated 20 million starved to death in that winter in one provience alone. Population reductions in Asia have been a common historical theme. It is only in the recent history, 50 years, that there has not been a famine in China. I believe China is the only country with regulations on the number of children a couple may produce. A large segment of the Chinese population is still very poor and have what would be called "a small carbon foot-print", although they would be happy to burn some coal if they had enough food to cook or to provide heat in the winter.
Complain about this comment
And the news today is that the population of Ethiopia -- a land that is so vulnerable to drought and famine -- increased from 40m to 80m in just the last 20 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/africa/8319166.stm
How can we hope for people to take care of the Earth's other species if we can't even take care of our own?
Complain about this comment
2 men e pea pull
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #3:
Yes, of course:
"Tipping towards the unknown"
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
In the sidebar, you can link to the full article in 'pdf' format - it is 36 pages long. The Supplementary Information is also available, as is the 'Nature' shortened version.
And all are available on the web - Open Access, as it should be.
The quote I presented in my post #2 is on page 18 of the 'full scientific article.'
The rest of the article is also highly recommended.
In the 'Nature' short version, there are seven critiques from seven experts. The 'Planetary-Boundary' idea is a new one, as far as I know, and as the authors state in their paper, this is only a first step.
Perhaps this is the 'well' that 'ghostofsichuan's proverb speaks of? (#5)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To JRWoodman #8:
"How can we hope for people to take care of the Earth's other species if we can't even take care of our own?" (#8)
------------------------------------
I've been wondering that myself?
I often turn to quotes when puzzled, why not now:
Freeman Dyson has said:
"Sanity, in its essence, is nothing more than learning to live in harmony with nature's laws."
Which begs the question - what are nature's laws?
And how can we really expect to know these laws when more and more of us are divorced from the natural world? I'm afraid nature shows on TV etc... just won't cut it, nor will reading, nor will blogging...
Nothing will work, in my opinion, except visceral contact with the natural world on a regular basis, and it must be for real.
At the risk of beating and old drum, I would like to try something, just for interests sake. Here is a video my wife 'Underacanoe' sent me this morning, as the Banff Mountain Festival is upcoming, Oct 31 to Nov 7/8, I believe.
It was in the year 2000 that I saw in person, the incomparable climber and author and one-time member of the German Paliament Reinhold Messner.
At first it may seem 'off-topic' to see and discuss this video, but I believe a little reflection will correct this.
Here is a man in-tune with himself, and therefore with nature, in the type of visceral setting I advocate:
Enjoy!
------
Reinhold Messner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOABF4XRHEo&feature=related
-------
- Manysummits -
PS: It is not nearly as dangerous as it looks, given time to become familiar with oneself. Those interested can Google 'Reinhold Messner' for a better look at the man. ( or Wikipedia)
Complain about this comment
I hope everybody goes to the origin paper discussed in Richards article and reads it in full. I'm not sure were Richard and the reports authors get the doom and gloom senario from.
I accept the information in the first half of the paper regarding the level of science done on reptiles and amphibians. I would never be against more science.
I have some problems with the way the decline in UK species is presented. Fig 1 presents four species. Two are seen to increase over the time period (1940-2000) and one remains stable and the last declines. The two that increase are then dismissed in the text because the present data disagrees with single other report. The species shown to decline has a single data point which is high followed by four subsequent records which indicate stability. You could argue that a single data point suggests decline in a single species based on actual amphibian counts.
The next accessment method relies on experts filling in questionaires about their perspeption of amphibian and reptile number. This paragraph ends "this approach clearly lacks quantitative rigour", undoubtedly. It may well simply be measuring to optimism of naturalist. My guess would be recent records would show an exponential fall.
Next we have monitoring of rarer species based on the number of sites (ponds) occupied by the little buggers. These have gone up!! primarily through active intervention to repopulate new sites.
Finally the paper discusses intensive work done in the Netherlands since 1994 assessing a fixed number of sites. It was a conference presentation I'll copy the abstract below, it would be great to see the data, but here's a brief quote
"We show results and discuss trends for each species. Some species show stable numbers, whereas others are declining or increasing." taken in conjunction with the following qoute from the diversity paper "
This quote taken in conjunction with a quote from the Diversity paper "population trends are best examined in the context of long time periods to reduce the influence of short-term fluctuations on conclusions about long-term viability. Amphibian population sizes can fluctuate over several orders of magnitude" suggets little can be summized from this data except there isn't an acroos the board decline in Dutch amphibians and reptiles.
So what do we have. very subjective data suggesting declines and some less subjective field data which suggest on the whole steady state. The interpretation from Richard Black (and I should say the Diversity paper authors). TOTAL DISASTER!!!!!
I don't get it.
(this is not the usual dense climate change paper I recommend everybody read it)
heres the Netherland abstract
Results of 14 years Reptile Monitoring in the %etherlands
Annie Zuiderwijk, Ingo Janssen Monitoring Network of Reptile, Amphibian & Fish Conservation the Netherlands p/a Zoological Museum Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam PB 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam
In 1994 we started a monitoring network for all seven indigenous reptile species: Slow Worm (Anguis fragilis), Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis), Common Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis), Viviparous Lizard (Zootoca vivipara), Smooth Snake (Coronella austriaca), Grass Snake (Natrix natrix) and the Adder (Vipera berus). The monitoring network exists of over 500 localities which were visited seven times a year under favourable weather conditions and in a standardized way. During each monitoring visit all sightings of reptiles were counted. The database allows us to analyze trends for each species at a national and regional level. In 14 years we succeeded in creating a representative network for all indigenous species leading to significant trends. We show results and discuss trends for each species.
Some species show stable numbers, whereas others are declining or increasing. For some species the increasing numbers can be explained by global warming (Sand Lizard, Common Wall Lizard), whereas declining species may suffer from habitat fragmentation or water draw-down. The effect of fragmentation and water draw-down have been quantified for the Viviparous Lizard and the Adder.
Complain about this comment
Re-#12. At 06:40am on 23 Oct 2009, HumanityRules wrote:
Took me quite a while to get through this and I'm not too sure what conclusion to draw from it.
Are you saying, "All's well, nothing to worry about?"
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
thanks, will try to read at lunchtime
Complain about this comment
HumanityRules #12: "I hope everybody goes to the origin paper discussed in Richards article"
Is it just me? I can't find a reference to a paper in Richard's article.
Can you give me a hint or a link?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
"How it originated and how it kills are matters of ongoing research."
- Richard Black's column, Aug 26, 2009.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8222549.stm
---------
"Scientists have unravelled the mechanism by which the fungal disease chytridiomycosis kills its victims."
- Richard Black's column, Oct 22, 2009.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8319467.stm
----------
503. At 12:59pm on 19 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote: (Biases, U-Turns blog)
"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress. " - Carl Sagan
-------------
To 'HumanityRules' #12:
What's your point?
And why did you choose your blogging name?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 at #15
I believe the article Richard refers to is the following one:
Trevor J. C. Beebee, John W. Wilkinson and John Buckley
Review: Amphibian Declines Are Not Uniquely High amongst the Vertebrates: Trend Determination and the British Perspective
Diversity 2009, 1(1), 67-88; doi:10.3390/d1010067 - published online 24 September 2009
It is an open access article, and the link is:
http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/1/1/67
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #17: "...and the link is:..."
Thanks simon-swede. I see now, it's the first Article under the heading...
"Latest Articles from Diversity"
on the link where Richard says...
"You can find it in the journal Diversity."
Complain about this comment
HumanityRules #12: "I have some problems with the way the decline in UK species is presented. Fig 1..."
As far as I can see from a quick scan, the discussion around that figure involves consideration of how well certain data sets match up to each other rather than to demonstrate a decline.
They say for example...(about Fig 1)
"The dramatic apparent increase in common frogs (R. temporaria), for example, ran contrary to evidence of major declines in this species across much of Britain during the 1960s [32] and thus confused the issue of assessing status changes"
So they say there is already other evidence of a decline (their ref [32]), and that the data in the graph is therefore not representative of the actual population.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
I probably won't be reading your planetary boundaries thing, as it starts with the premise that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions and gors downhill from there
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK
I probably won't be reading...
That is a truly, amazingly, arrogant comment.
Complain about this comment
I live in NW Leics in the village of Whitwick.In the allottments just up the road there are common lizards and slow worms in abundance.However their habitats are not protected and given our councils keenness to develop land,there future looks bleak.the great crested newt is also a local speciality but every time it stands in the way of development its pond is filled in in double quick time and nothing is said!
Complain about this comment
@ChangEngland #21
Manysummits and I have a history of disagreeing about AGW. He posts stuff which supports his point of view, but which has already been shown to be incorrect or a little economical with the truth (the article not manysummits).
The planetary boundaries thing has been posted before.
Complain about this comment
@ davblo2
You can click on the diversity link and hunter the article on the journals page or go here http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/1/1/67 and then click on the pdf link at the side
@ manysummits'
"What's your point?" My point would be read the original article and tell me you can come the usual dire conclusion that Richard Black always seems to do. I realise saying things aren't really so bad sounds like utter madness
@ johno43
I'd like to suggest you worry less. The fact is more and more land is becoming list/protected. globally wilderness protection is exponentially growing. But my position would be we need balance so sometimes the odd pond needs to be filled in for the sake of development. You can find some data at this UN site if you register. http://www.wdpa.org/Default.aspx if
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutneyUKOK #23:
"He posts stuff which supports his point of view, but which has already been shown to be incorrect or a little economical with the truth (the article not manysummits)." (#23)
----------
As usual, you have it about 180 degrees wrong.
It is I, manysummits, who support the view of the experts in the field, be they climatologists or biologists, ..., and not the other way around.
My science background gives me perhaps some insight into these matters, but is not necessary, just as not knowing how to fly and land a Boeing 747 has never prevented me from boarding one.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #25
just one recent example:
you posted here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html#P87123125
and here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html#P87156110
and here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html#P87156720
Steig finding warming in Antarctica
I posted here (twice):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html#P87158941
to show how Steig's over extrapolation of his own results, invalidated his conclusions
But you didn't respond, but then again, if I show your argument to be invalid, you never do respond. Repeating the same stuff isn't a response
My science background gives me perhaps some insight into these matters, but is not necessary, just as not knowing how to fly and land a Boeing 747 has never prevented me from boarding one.
So,with your science background, explain climate sensitivity so our leaders can be better informed at their shindig.
Complain about this comment
interesting how even Zuiderwijk seems to fall into the trap of the quick and dirty answer of global warming when it comes to explaining an increase in the population of sand lizard in the Netherlands whereas the same author cooperated on a study (Rashid) on the decline of sand lizard on one island and an increase on the adjacent island (so both subject to global warming to exactly the same degree) which concluded that habitat change had no or very little influence on sand lizard populatios in those areas. Something else must be going on..
Maybe a gross generalization (and there are plenty of exceptions to it) but significant difference between amphibians and reptiles is that the later or often much longer lived and reach sexual maturity much later. Therefore they are much less suited to the "quick" short-term funding study that unfortunately prevails these days. I think in a previous posting I commented on how a short field trip we undertook recently almost doubled the number of known adults of the Western Painted Turtle (Pacific population) which is considered endangered over here (BC, Canada), by simply going into areas which are less frequently visited, not within easy reach of the typical university Master's student, and therefore under-researched as is so much around here.
Does this mean, if our experience is typical, that the population of this thing is actually doing well and not endangered? I couldnt tell you... the main difficulty with especially turtles is that they ARE so long-lived but an abundance of adults tells me nothing about recruitment.. it may well be that they are in serious decline but we wont know until new generations of juveniles reach adulthood which is typically when we first tend to see (and count)them as they have survived the trials and tribulations (predation)of growing up to a less susceptible size..quick, nice and cheap. But fecundity and recruitment monitoring takes long term studies which are not in existence or fundable at present(Zuiderwijk's 14 year monitoring in the Netherlands is an exception unfortunately). So it relies on me and the likes of me, who can collect data while doing something else which is being paid for, to shed some light on this question. Which is no way to go about it as such casual and fragmentary data has great difficulty standing up to the statistical rigidity required. And we can keep making statements on AGW effects and other "guess" factors affecting endangered species which cannot be disproven because we spend neither the time nor the $$$ to trying to get to the bottom it.
Complain about this comment
#25 mangochutney
but mango, when someone like manysummits posts a link to a peer reviewed paper and you claim you've trumped it with a rant by mr mcintyre of climateaudit, those with a science background will just not give the two equal consideration.
i scan various scientific sites and magazines and do keep an eye out for 'climate science fraud/scam/incompetence unveiled - there is no agw evidence' headline, but no luck yet (believe me i would love it to be true too so i can save the money i spend on carbon offsets!!.....and i know they're not perfect).
that said, would be nice not to hijack another interesting postwith the agw debate. could the article manysummits posted be relevant all the same since a reptile is not really gonna care what is trashing its habitat.
Complain about this comment
#11 manysummits
looks pretty difficult to me :o)
thanks for posting the link. i have terrific admiration for those that can master a skill to (especially to that level) that i have totally and utterly failed at. my rugby player build and fear of heights doomed my interest in climbing years ago so i satisfy mayself with bumping along the valleys and enjoying the view looking up!
btw - did he do that just to avoid paying the cable car fare??
Complain about this comment
#12 HumanityRules
the way i read the paper, these guys have done a lot of research, agreed the monitoring of reptile numbers could be better but have concluded 'Overall, questionnaire surveys have probably given a generally fair impression of population trends' with the classic proviso 'but this approach clearly lacks quantitative rigour.'
what do the questionnaires show? a pretty drastic decline in reptile numbers. you really must be a 'glass half full' character to believe this paper does anything but paint a pretty bleak picture.
also, since wilderness protection is minute on a global scale and quite often not even protection, then i think worrying a little more is in order - in fact the vast majority of the population don't worry at all about the stuff so perhaps we should do their worrying as well :o)
Complain about this comment
#27 paulvanp
Nice post Paul. Balanced.
My guess would be that most data in this field is genrated in an ad hoc way. One thing I've taken from reading some of it is that amphibians populations (and maybe reptiles) can explode and crash in dramatic ways naturally. To extrapolate from a small number of data points to give a trend in a single species and to an even greater extent to a whole class of animals seems a most unscientific thing to do. But I accept you have to start somewhere.
The spread of chytridiomycosis in amphibians may have been exasperated by humans, seems unlikely to be due to climate change and does have potential natural explanations. The fact people are more ready to jump to the conclusion that dirty of Man is to blame again is more to do with the climate (political not weather) than anything to do with the data.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #28
Doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference with you guys, you keep referring to the Hooky Hockey Stick, despite McIntyre having shown how bad it was in a peer reviewed publication.
Also McIntyre generally refrains from attacking the person, something that cannot be said for the team over at RealClimate
Complain about this comment
#32 mangochutneyukok
let's step back a bit. i've been accused of deferring to authority but at least i try to ensure those really are 'authorities'.
who is this mr mcintyre? he's primarily a blog editor with a background (30 years) in the mineral business and his much vaunted peer reviewed work appears in distinguished journals such as 'energy and environment' (who's editor says about the rag - i'm following my political agenda).
this is not climateaudit vs realclimate, it's sceptic blogs vs the whole of mainstream scientific community. let's get things in perspective, this really is a case of the mouse that roared.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #33
does it matter who he is and where it's published?
surely the only quesiton that matters is "are the conclusion correct or not"?
(i think you will find the answer is "yes")
Complain about this comment
#33, ross
I noted that Mann et al have responded to some of the arguments by McIntyre and McKitrick in PNAS by stating that McI and McK raised no valid issues regarding the paper ‘Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia’ (Mann et al, 2009, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:13252–13257.
The reply from Mann et al, ‘Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust’ (PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 E11) rebuts the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick about the paper and shows that they are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations about what was included in the original paper, or on some incorrect (they used teh word 'bizarre' at one point) assumptions or conclusions.
Complain about this comment
but then you need to read about Manns upside down use of the data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7556
professor Atte Korhola:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272
"Jokimäki is absolute right: it is not worth reacting to every criticism on Internet. Researchers could be doing nothing else, if we started to do that. The criticism by McIntyre and CA is an exception maybe in the sense that it relates strongly to the previous discussion, and the criticism in CA previously directed to the same issue (statistical analysis of proxy material) has been shown to be scientifically valid (Wegman committee). McIntyre & co also try to publish their results and criticism in scientific forums.
The criticism by McIntyre and Climate Audit has to be taken seriously. RealClimate by Mann & co is mainly ridiculing [Climate Audit] in the latest blog post. In the long run, they may well turn out to be shooting themselves in the foot.
As i've said before, why don't the tree ring people just ask statasticians (not necessarily McIntyre) to check their work before publishing?
Complain about this comment
#36, Mango
Concerning the upside down claim by McIntyre, the reply by Mann et al in PNAS and referred to at #37 addressed this explicitly. They wrote:
“The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”
Once again, the reply from Mann et al is published as ‘Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust’ (PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 E11).
Complain about this comment
I guess time will tell, Simon
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS