Mr Ward’s fantastical claims
Due to popular demand, here is a response to Mr Ward’s claims, dated 2 April 2014. Mr Ward’s words are in italics. Erroneous claims are in red.On the Journal of Economic PerspectivesOf the 14 data listed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1 of the paper, at least four were wrong.There were two errors in Table 1 and one error in Figure 1. Mr Ward has known the correct number of errors since October 2013.there was only one study that showed significant positive effects from global warmingTwo estimates show net positive effects. Mr Ward was aware of this in October 2013. I am not aware of any claim to significance, which is a problematic concept in forecasting.he refused to give any undertaking to write to the journal to correct themAn erratum and update is scheduled to appear in the Spring 2014 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.On the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Controlmade four errors in his representation of the 17 data used in Figure 1 and Table 1There was one error. Mr Ward has known this since October 2013.it was still only the 2002 paper in Professor Tol’s dataset that showed any significant net benefitsSee above.On IPCC WG2 AR5A section had been inserted on ‘Aggregate impacts’In fact, that section was moved from Chapter 19 to Chapter 10. As far as I am aware, Mr Ward did not raise this concern with the IPCC. He was informed no later than 2 April 2014 that the text was moved rather than added.three errorsMr Ward had spotted only one error. He has known since October 2014 that the other two alleged errors are, in fact, correct.only 1 of the 20 data2 out of 21still contains at least three erroneous data pointsMr Ward misrepresents IPCC procedures. The IPCC cannot revise history and changed the Final Government Review draft. The typographical error found by Mr Ward will be corrected in the published report, that will appear in due time.On errataGiven that Professor Tol seemed determined not to correct his papersTwo errata are in the process of being published. Both errata show that the errors had a minimal and statistically insignificant effect on the quantitative results, and no effect on the qualitative insights.The third journal decided against an erratum. Instead, the editor invited Mr Ward to submit a formal comment. If that passes peer-review, I will be invited to write a rejoinder. As far as I know, Mr Ward has yet to submit that comment.
Sent by gReader Pro