Saturday, March 1, 2014

McIntyre, Mann, and the Gaspe cedars

Sixteen years later, people are still arguing about Mann's 1998 Nature paper (MBH98) on multiproxy (112) reconstructions. McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) wrote a paper in Energy and Environment in 2005, and I find myself still arguing about that.

The 2005 paper was a major resource for Congressman Barton's 2006 inquisition of Mann. One of its featured criticisms was the Gaspe dataset, number 53, and in particular the fact that Mann had padded some missing data from 1400 to 1403 with the 1404 value. And Barton directed Mann et al to explain.

One thing not often now mentioned is that in that paper, M&M actually did what many other critics should have done. They repeated the calculation with their criticism made good, to see what effect it had. This was in their Figure 1. They showed the effect of marking those four Gaspe years as missing, and then the effect of using a centered mean rather than Mann's famous calibration mean. They got a surprisingly large difference, which has been much cited in recent days. This post reports on my investigation of that surprise.

Barton got statistician Wegman to report, and his report was heavily based on the M&M 2005 papers. He said of this
"In MBH98, the first four years of both of these series were extrapolated. The extrapolation has the effect of depressing early 15th century results, and was not disclosed by Mann et al. until a later paper, "
This depressing effect was based on the M&M calculation reported in their Fig 1.

I'll show that the effect of padding those four years was limited to just those four years, and is minor. The effect Wegman describes was due to a coding rule in which M&M in effect removed the effect of Gaspe not just the four years in question, but all years from 1400-1450.

I have previously criticized the use Wegman made of the M&M 2005 GRL code for supposedly showing how noise could generate hockey sticks. There there was a clearly deliberate selection of the top 100, ordered by "hockey stick index", from which the displayed samples were chosen. In the case described here, there is no indication that the amplification of the effect was deliberate. In fact, M&M say they are following a policy of Mann's. However, the effect as presented is misleading, in that the change shown is due to the application of a rule rather than the actual effect of the padding.


M&M Fig 1, seen in perspective

Here is the original M&M05 Fig 1

The top panel shows their MBH emulation, which they say appears to be completely accurate. The second shows supposed effect of replacing the 1400-1403 years of proxy 53 (Gaspe) by NA, the R marker for missing. There is a moderate deviation in the years 1400-1450.

The bottom panel shows the effect of changing the offest mean to centered. I'll say more about that in a future post.

I'm rerunning the M&M code, so I'll show that my version does indeed reproduce that plot. I've used a bit of color:


Now I'll plot the same data but superimposed. This emphasises that the Gaspe deviation affects the years 1400-1450.

I've made the panel 3 plot faint, since it isn't the current subject.

For the remaining plots, I'll focus on the years 1400-1450. Here is again the data from panels 1 and 2

Padding with numbers

Mann used the 1404 value (0.723) to pad, and as Wegman suggests, this was a low point. The range from 1404-1450 was from 0.618 to 1.351. So I tried using 1.351, and got this:



This compares Mann's padding with the effect of padding with that max. It isn't very different at all, even using the max, and if you focus on the annual non-smoothed values, only the 1400-1403 values are changed. Much less effect than with NA.

What the M&M code does.


The recon work is done in a function NHbeta() in the file ee2005functions.r. They loop over the 11 periods, of which the last is 1400-1450. For each period they set up a "roster" of proxies that will be used. The statement defining it is:
roster<-!is.na(proxy[period[k+1],])

Here period[k+1] points to the first data point in the period, ie year 1400. So by setting the 1400 value to NA, the program removes Gaspe entirely for that period. They might as well have set the values from 1400-1449 to NA. In fact, I checked that doing that has the same effect.

Conclusion

Padding as Mann did with the Gaspe cedars had a very small, local effect. The M&M sffort to replace with missing values triggered a large response. But it was an artefact.





208 comments:

  1. By calling it an artifact, are you applying a euphemism to what should be rightly called a massive failure by M&M ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, they claim that they are applying a rule from Mann's algorithm. But I see no basis for that quoted. It seems to be an inferred rule - Steve M likes doing that. But the first rule about inferring rules is, look at what actually happened. Gaspe was included.

      There are 46 years of data in the period, and four missing. People often seek to make use of data with missing values, and they do it by estimating them somehow. Mann may well have had a rule for doing that. He could have done something more sophisticated than just extrapolating, but the difference would have been very small.

      I should add that my sensitivity test here extrapolates using the max value over the period. That is a bad and biased extrapolation, and is done to show the extreme effect possible. Mann's extrapolation is far more reasonable.

      Delete
    2. I now know what M&M means. Mountains & Molehills.

      Delete
  2. If you see fraud and do not say fraud, then you are a fraud

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly don't think there is any kind of fraud here.

      Delete
    2. The accusation of fraud could be a fraud.

      JCH

      Delete
    3. > If you see fraud and do not say fraud, then you are a fraud.

      Does that apply to the Auditor? Here he is:

      > As I’ve observed from time to time, I don’t publicly say everything that I think.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/78844823835

      The Auditor does mention fraud stories from time to time, though.

      Wonder why?



      Delete
  3. Hello, Nick,

    Hope you are well 3 years on from that curious event in Lisbon now deservedly assigned to obscurity.

    A very useful piece of detective work here on M and M's "revealing the decline". No wonder you inspire such opprobrium whenever you venture onto Climate Audit or WUWT. I limit my visits to such places partly to avoid losing faith in human nature, though I did look at CA today to find.... yet another attack on Michael Mann and the "fraudulent" 1998 paper. I left a comment, in reply to a comment by McKittrick, pointing out your post, so, you never know, you might get a few extra visits to your blog from the "audit community".

    As to your not calling "fraud" on the coding error you have uncovered I agree with you absolutely. There is no evidence that this was the result of anything more than incompetence by The Auditor and his co-worker and to claim fraud on the basis of no evidence would be to descend to their level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bill,
      Good to hear from you again. Yes, nothing much came of that meeting. I still have good memories of Lisbon though.

      I actually don't think it's incompetence either. I think they build a rule structure in their minds, work through on that basis, and insist their rules are so obvious that little mention is required. It could be no other way. And of course here the rule is imputed to Mann, with no basis cited.

      I thought at first it was a coding error too, but I think they are convinced their rule is valid. I think they should just make it clear to the rest of us that their result is based on it, and even better, give a proper basis for imputing it to Mann.

      Delete
  4. Nick,
    You've missed 100% of the important points.
    1) Mann's method required a data set to be present at the start of a period to be used in that period. Thus this data set should have been completely excluded from that period according to Mann's own methodology.
    2) Even more important: The early data was ALL inadmissible. One or two tree samples do not make a valid data set. And that's all that was there in those early years. Go look what the originators of that data set did. They excluded everything before 1601.

    You're only proving what M&M showed, but don't understand the results of your own analysis enough to recognize it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (To better understand the variability issue, go back and look at material from our "Almagre Adventure". I was initially shocked when samples I took only a few inches apart on the same tree varied by several hundred percent. But in context, it made sense.) See here.

      Delete
    2. MrPete,
      "Mann's method required a data set to be present at the start of a period to be used in that period. "
      Do you have a citation for that? Like, something Mann said?

      At one level it's obviously true. If there is missing data, something extra has to be done to use it. But here that's what he did. He extrapolated.

      It's a classic missing data situation. There are 46 years of data, four missing. Is it better to scrap the 46, or use some predicted value for the other four. In many situations, the data is used.

      Here M&M have claimed a rule that lets them throw out data. But does that achieve a better history?

      "The early data was ALL inadmissible. One or two tree samples do not make a valid data set."

      I don't have your dendro expertise - I have to trust to Nature reviewers etc.

      Delete
    3. Hi Nick,
      "I have to trust to Nature reviewers etc." -- well, if you're going to test a data set, and particularly if you're going to evaluate the work others do to test a data set, it really helps to have enough background to know whether the data set fits any kind of standards.

      One of the sad things about Nature and too many other journals is that reviewers simply seem to ignore the basics.

      I don't have a ton of dendro expertise. It takes almost none to recognize that this kind of data is hugely variable. And particularly if one's dealing with radially deformed data sources. Obviously you're reviewing earlier data and analysis, so for that purpose we'll ignore the recent public admission by The Experts that radially deformed data sources should never have been used in the first place. :-D
      A number of experts weighed in on such things back in 2007 when we were discussing methods with respect to BCP sampling. IIRC, you can also find the same info in the various online guides describing how dendrochronology analysis works.

      Delete
    4. Mr. Pete: "Go look at what the originators did..."

      No MrPete, YOU "go look" at what "the originators" did, and that means going back to their paper and working through it, in the way that Nick has done with numerous papers both from orthodox climate scientists as well as those from McIntyre and others who are openly hostile to leading climate scientists. All your citations on this post are to the Climate Audit Blog, a non-peer reviewed commentary. Why? Are you incapable of reading any other sources on Climate Sicience. Try looking at some actual scientific papers rather than assuming with no very obvious evidence that the Mind of McIntyre will flawlessly reveal all.

      When you have read the papers do please come back and tell us.

      OH, yes and I believe, rather than the symbol, :-D, in your post there should be a citation to the unamed "Experts". Would you be so kind as to provide one.

      Delete
  5. Nick, as others have noted, we know that Mann did this because M&M replicated his results only by replicating his stepwise procedure. And while Mann didn't document it properly, he complained about their lack of exact replication until they DID replicate the stepwise procedure. I leave it to you to decide on the ethics of that little shenanigan.

    To make this whole thing clear, I have charted an example of the extent to which Mann decided NOT to "infill" the rest of his data to avoid losing valuable information, in implementing his stepwise procedure. This is all over at CA but here's one of the two charts I created. What you are looking at is the number of "lost" data years in each series (with bigger bubbles when there are multiple series for that year/lost combo).

    Clearly, Mann's extension of the one series to avoid losing data was quite the exception.
    (As I note at CA I probably don't have the exact right source data; you can easily replicate this visual experiment with the correct data if I don't have the right source.)
    http://www.climateaudit.info/data/mbh98/new/1403MBH98-ITRDBLost.png

    I hope this visualization is helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MrPete,
      Thanks for the visualization. I don't think it is quite right; the time intervals were not all 50 years, but
      period.m=c(1981,1820,1800,1780,1760,1750,1730,1700,1600,1500,1450,1400)

      Segmentation must lose some data, because it creates fragments. The question is whether you throw away the fragments, or infill. Infilling adds error, so should only be done when there are many years of data to lose, and few to infill.

      And yes, I'm sure MBH98 weren't consistent.

      Delete
  6. Nick,
    For you to justify leaving out the context of what M&M **really** said in MM05, you need to demonstrate that you can replicate MBH98 without using Mann's "stepwise" process. Otherwise, all you are complaining about is that M&M did exactly what Mann did.

    Remember, M&M said: "The only difference between the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98. Under MBH98 methods, a series had to be present at the start of a calculation step in order to be included in the interval roster. In only one case in the entire MBH98 corpus was this rule broken – where the Gaspé series was extrapolated in its early portion, with the convenient result of depressing early 15th century results."

    You quoted the first sentence but left out the rest. AFAIK, this procedure is required to replicate MBH98. If you can replicate without it, then you have something novel. Otherwise, you're just following the same path as M&M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MrPete,
      "you need to demonstrate that you can replicate MBH98 without using Mann's "stepwise" process. Otherwise, all you are complaining about is that M&M did exactly what Mann did."

      Obviously they didn't do exactly what Mann did. They show their different answer.

      There is no reason why a stepwise process can't be implemented with infilling. Mann did it. As I said at CA, I think that he should have declared a policy that includes rational infilling, and stuck to it. That would indeed be MBH policy. But the essential story of MM2005, is that MBH was inconsistent, not following MBH methods, so M&M will fix it for them.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Pete,
      This is "CalvinBall" stuff, time to lay-off the juvenile gotcha games.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvinball



      Delete
  7. Seeing the "extra" line of code that changes the process and the lack of admission of methodology and the accidental misunderstanding of the question and the data either added or dropped at C|A, it makes you wonder about the gold mine promotions and their profitability. I'm Canadian and I remember the free helicopter rides for mining executives. It can be a dirty business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeing the "extra" line of code
      Well, yjey do need to build a roster. I'm pointing out that it is the interaction of that criterion with the removal of extrapolation that makes the big change, not the effect of extrapolation itself.

      Delete
  8. People would be better served by reading M&M2005 before reading completely misleading criticisms of it, such as this misguided argument by Nick, that inadvertently confirms one of the main conclusions of their paper.

    The issues that Nick suggested were stealthed in are actually discussed front and center in the M&M paper. [Nick also claims he actually read the paper before critiquing it, I think that if he actually did so, it was with his eyes closed.]

    MBH have provided the code to the PC analysis used for their tree rings. It is an easy exercise to determine whether this code can handle missing data or not. If Nick disagrees with the published assertion by M&M that Mann's PCA tree-ring code cannot handled missing years, then it is reasonable for Nick to point out where M&M got it wrong. It is inappropriate to blame M&M for faithfully replicating foibles in Mann's code, though, if the original foibles were present in the original code.

    If this code cannot handle missing data, then an emulation of that code in "R" must honor that behavior of the original code.

    So if analyzing the interval 1400-1449 actually used by MBH and the original version of Gaspe only extended to 1404, then, if the original code would have rejected the interval 1404-1449, then the emulation code in "R" must also, if the point of the analysis is to determine the effect of extrapolating the original data series from 1404 back to 1400.

    Again the problems here are:

    • The data series Gaspe was extended by to 1400 by adding the value at 1404, in order to allow this series to be used.
    • Otherwise this data series would have been rejected by Mann's original code.
    • However this modification of the original data file were not disclosed in MBH.
    • Instead the starting data of the series was erroneously listed as 1400, rather than 1404.
    • Nick's own code demonstrates that if the original version of Gaspe were used, and rejected by MBH98 due to being incomplete for this period, then the effect on the reproduction is substantive.

    A minor undisclosed manipulation of data isn't necessarily a bad thing (it only modestly affects replicability). A major undisclosed manipulation (defined in terms of the substantive nature of this manipulation on the reported outcome) however must be disclosed.

    It seems to me the only "way out" is to show that MBH 98 would not have rejected Gaspe had the 1400-1403 points not be extrapolated.

    Saying "if I had done B instead of A" does not help, because we're not discussing hypotheticals, we're discussing what was actually done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrick,
      "it is reasonable for Nick to point out where M&M got it wrong"
      They do grumble a lot about how Mann only in this case extended data. But when they introduce panel 2, they don't say, to make Mann consistent, we've changed that decision. They say
      "The only difference between the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98". And so Wegman, and you at Lucia's, take the message that the extrapolation has a huge effect. But no, it's the discard rule that has the effect. That's what I'm showing here.

      Now for sure Mann's 1998 methods could be improved. He's been doing it. But this saying, this must be rejected to be consistent, is not improving it. It's discarding information. If you genuinely want to improve Mann's method, you would consistently implement what you think is the best policy, not a gotcha policy. I think here that would be a rational scheme for preserving data with infilling. perhaps downweighting as more filling was used.

      "It seems to me the only "way out" is to show that MBH 98 would not have rejected Gaspe had the 1400-1403 points not be extrapolated."
      "we're not discussing hypotheticals, we're discussing what was actually done"

      How is "would not have rejected" not hypothetical. And how is Panel 1 not "what was actually done".

      Delete
    2. As Eli recalls, some of the other series were padded in a similar way on the other end to extend the to 1980, Can't find the reference at the moment.

      Delete
    3. Nick... I dont think anybody had the interpretation that you did about the extrapolation. It was clear, at least to me, that the "only difference ... is the extrapolation" was always provided in context with the year 1400 requirement, and thus one would have to be an idiot to assign the difference fully to the values in 1400-1403.

      In other words, as others have said, you show what most of us already assumed or understood about Mann's undisclosed extension and have inadvertantly confirmed M&M's point.

      Delete
    4. Nick: But no, it's the discard rule that has the effect. That's what I'm showing here.

      But you are neglecting the fact that Mann's tree-ring PC code was incapable of processing intervals with missing data points. You can't show what would have happened had you used the original Mann code with the interpolation but without a separate discard rule, because Mann's own code was incapable of handling this separate case.

      So the two are intrinsically linked here, and the very argument you are giving is for a hypothetical case that could not have been tested using Mann's own code.

      Nick:
      How is "would not have rejected" not hypothetical. And how is Panel 1 not "what was actually done".


      It's not hypothetical because we know that's how Mann's code worked.

      It's almost certain that Mann ran his code with the original version of Gaspe, realized it his reconstruction failed to verify for 1400-1449, recognized the problem as his reconstruction missing this interval, then modified the data file to allow the Gaspe series to be included in his reconstruction for this period. Panel 2 is a replication then of something that was actually done.

      You can believe that he didn't do this, but I find it highly implausible that Mann would have known to make the Gaspe modification prior to running his code and looking at his result.

      [However, I don't think it's a completely fair criticism to say he was looking at the outcome (a flattened curve) when he made the decision to modify the Gaspe series, but I can see confirmation bias saying "okay… got what looks to be the right answer … so I can move onto other things now." ]

      One thing that "didn't happen", that is a hypothetical, would include the suggestion given by Mann that he could have equivalently started his series in 1404 rather than 1400. Could have is different than "did". I believe if it had occurred to him prior to publication, he would have switched to this method. He certainly would not have then erroneously listed Gaspe as starting in 1400 rather than 1404.

      In any case, it's not a hypothetical that if you run the original version of Gaspe through Mann's original code, it would have rejected Gaspe and if you ran the modified version of Gaspe through Mann's code it would retain it.

      I also think that Gaspe prior to 1450 is of such poor quality that it should not have been used in any case. As M&M 2005 point out "The underlying dataset is based on only one tree up to 1421 and only 2 trees up to 1447." I

      For "what really happened" in the sense of "what was the temperature like", not including Gaspe should produce a better rendition of what really happened than including Gaspe. Panel 2 is more likely to be a proper replication of what actually happened than panel 1.

      Likewise using correctly centered PCs should give something close to "what actually happened" than not using correctly centered PCs. Thus I think without comparison to other data, I'd expect panel 3 to more closely replicate the actual temperature variation for 1400-1449 than panel 1.

      Delete
    5. Sorry this was meant to read: You can't show what would have happened had you used the original Mann code without the interpolation but without a separate discard rule, because Mann's own code was incapable of handling this separate case.

      Delete
  9. Nick
    I think you are being incredibly disingenuous.
    You say:
    "they don't say, to make Mann consistent, we've changed that decision"

    MM05 very clearly states:
    "The only difference between
    the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98. Under MBH98
    methods, a series had to be present at the start of a calculation step in order to be
    included in the interval roster. In only one case in the entire MBH98 corpus was this
    rule broken"

    Do you really understand the above text to mean the change was only due to the 4 years of padded data, and that the following sentence about a series having to be present at the start of the calculation step in order to be included was about something else entirely ?

    I look forward to Eli telling us what the other padded series were. You'd think Mann would have mentioned it. If another one is found, shall we place bets on whether the inclusion by padding improves or worsens the verification statistics ?

    PS your comment form submissions fail for chrome under linux

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None,
      I can see now that they meant it as an explanation of what thjey did. But it isn't an explanation. They didn't say that they implemented this rule deduced from the custom they describe, and that's what made the difference. Instead they say that the change was due to the extrapolation. And that was the message that people like Wegman took away.

      I often find this with Steve Mc. He says things that just look wrong to me, like the extrapolation. I protest, and a whole chain of reasoning gets explained to me that is supposed to make it right. It may even be OK reasoning, but it's unstated. so you can't challenge it unless you dig in.

      We had one the other day with a claim that Man had said that Oxburgh had exonerated him. The claim was stated in quite specific terms. But to me - hang on - he didn't mention Oxburgh anywhere. So then a whole rigmarole - well he mentioned this list, and this must have included Oxburgh because ..., and he said this about this list ...

      In other words, a long disputable argument. But that's glossed over. It's just Mann said...

      Sorry about the comment form. I don't control this stuff - it's just Googleware.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I had no trouble following what McIntyre was doing here. I was really surprised that you didn't fully understand it. It seemed pretty clearly explained to me in this paper. My only guess here, other than some level of animosity on your part towards McIntyre that prevents you from charitably interpreting his words, is perhaps it's a cultural difference. Empirical science versus applied science for example.

      Regarding Oxburgh, you can dispute whether Mann's lawyers were referring to Oxburgh, when (it appears) they plagiarized the text from the SKS site and inappropriately applied it to Mann's supposed personal exoneration, but you can't dispute that Oxburgh doesn't actually mention Mann.

      At some point you run out of investigations if you enumerate all of the post climategate investigations, and don't find Mann's named mentioned.

      Like you, I wish at times that McIntyre would use a different approach. But it's his blog. I often think the same thing about Mann, like when he labels other scientists as "anti-science" for daring to disagree with the king (aka himself).

      Delete
    3. Nick
      You say "Instead they say that the change was due to the extrapolation. And that was the message that people like Wegman took away."
      What Wegman said according to the quote at the top of the page is:

      "The extrapolation has the effect of depressing early 15th century results, and was not disclosed by Mann et al. until a later paper"

      Imo you are putting words into Wegman's mouth by saying that he has taken away the wrong message. He is simply stating exactly what happens: the padding of the series causes it to be included in the 1400 step which depresses early 15th century results. In other words exactly what MM05 stated clearly in their paper.

      What is it that makes you think Wegman misunderstood this, and that you are not just misunderstanding Wegman ? Has he made a subsequent statement about this ?

      Delete
    4. None,
      "Imo you are putting words into Wegman's mouth by saying that he has taken away the wrong message."
      He's conveying the wrong message, and I'm presuming that he believes it. He's blaming the extrapolation.

      The problem with this hiding of a chain of consequent actions that M&M invoked is that the hearer has no idea what they are. Where in Wegman's statement was anything said about 1450? Maybe someone could inject a rule that says Gaspe should be discarded completely? How do we get told what the alternative consequence is supposed to be?

      If you don't extrapolate as Mann actually did, then there are all sorts of ways the situation could be handled, eg inserting another period break at 1404, or indeed discarding Gaspe completely. Discarding from 1400-1450 is just one. And to say it is "MBH method" is pure speculation. "MBH method" is what they did.

      Delete
    5. "He's conveying the wrong message, and I'm presuming that he believes it. He's blaming the extrapolation."

      You think he's conveying the wrong message, I think he's summarising accurately what happens (as you'd expect in the abstract you quote from).

      "Discarding from 1400-1450 is just one. And to say it is "MBH method" is pure speculation. "MBH method" is what they did."

      MBH method was to pad the data so it was included in the 1400 step. ie they padded tree ring series data consisting of 1-2 tree cores (too few to provide any meaningful data) between 1404-1450 so it would be included in the 1400 step.

      MM05 showed that without this special padding the early 15th C reconstruction was noticably higher because, as they clearly stated, using MBH98 methods, without this special case unique undisclosed data padding, the series would not have been included. It should not be included due to quality control issues, never mind anything else.

      Every sensible way of handling the data (and i'm afraid there is only one - do not include it in at the very least 1400-1450 because it does not pass basic quality control due to extraordinarily low core counts) results in a higher 15th C value.

      I have emailed Professor Wegman to ask if he misunderstood MM05 concerning the effect of the data padding.

      Delete
    6. > [Y]ou can't dispute that Oxburgh doesn't actually mention Mann.

      Carrick can dispute that Nick disputes actually that Oxburgh was mentioned, but that's not what Nick said:

      > We had one the other day with a claim that Man had said that Oxburgh had exonerated him.

      That Oxburgh exonerated him in the "doctored quote", Carrick.

      And I hope you can guess by now that the Auditor was wrong, for he has changed his tune since then and anybody who read Mike's memo can read it.

      Has Carrick read Mike's memo?

      ***

      Here's a random link where the Auditor is practicing more Omertà:

      > As I’ve observed from time to time, I don’t publicly say everything that I think.

      http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9998

      Of course, the Auditor expects that otters who follow this commonsensical guideline echo the silence of the lambs.

      http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/

      Delete
  10. Eli: "Can't find the reference at the moment."
    MBH98 Data SI:
    "Small gaps have been interpolated. If records terminate slightly before the end of the 1902-1980 training interval, they are extended by persistence to 1980."
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/extref/392779A0.Data.html

    I'm sure Mann just forgot to mention that a series was also extended from the other end. Easy to forget as there is only one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Mann, Bradley and Hughes extended the Gaspe series four years by persistence which is perfectly consistent with the what was done on the training interval. Cry Eli a river.

      Delete
    2. Yes, if you are living in the upside down bunnyworld, it may be easy to confuse the 1400-1450 interval with the 1902-1980 training interval. The series extended to 1980 by persistence were marked to the SI by their actual end years, but Gaspe series is given the start date 1400. Probably just an oversight. Of course, latter is also "perfectly consistent" with the fact that when the Gaspe series was used another time (in NOAMER "PC" calculations), and was not extended (i.e., excluded from AD1400 calculations), the start year is marked with the actual year 1404.

      Delete
    3. Eli, I wouldn't have accepted this as an explanation from a student, were I to have found it in his thesis.

      It was modification of data without disclosure, then changing the start date to make it match the modified data, giving at least the appearance of trying to hide his tracks, that is the issue.

      Even if you can find other examples where Mann did this, I don't think you'd actually be "helping him" in the process. (Just like your conflating simple misconduct with fraud isn't helping.)

      I'm willing to pass off one example as incompetence or inexperience. If you're able to establish that this is a pattern on his part (this is actually what you are arguing), then what you're demonstrating is this must have been deliberate deception.

      Delete
    4. So why didn[t McIntyre run the series down to 1404 rather than eliminating the series completely in the 1400 run? Doesn't McIntrye scream endlessly about others throwing out data?

      Delete
    5. Eli, are you playing dumb or is it really so that after all these years you don't understand the stepwise procedure of MBH9X? In order a series to be included to a step ADXXXX, it needed to have data for all years (except those close to 1980 as noted above) from XXXX on.

      Delete
    6. Eli: So why didn[t McIntyre run the series down to 1404 rather than eliminating the series completely in the 1400 run? Doesn't McIntrye scream endlessly about others throwing out data?

      Shouldn't you ask this question of Mann?

      McIntyre wasn't trying to create a new reconstruction, but replicate the reconstruction performed by Mann and to test the effect of various data manipulations (in particular the undocumented extension of the Gaspe series from 1404 to 1400).

      Anyway, I throw away data all the time. Hopefully Steve McIntyre won't yell at me. Mostly we keep the last couple of weeks of data in a lab measurement. Everything before that was "practice". When I collect data in a bursty-noise environment, I use automated processing that picks the intervals where the non-stationary noise has a relatively smaller amplitude (see, e.g., "fluctuation-based processing").

      Other than questions of research mistakes in failing to document the modification of Gaspe, the biggest issue with Gaspe is it really needed to have been dropped for this interval in any case. Data quality does matter.

      Delete
  11. It seems to me that what keeps happening relative to Mann's work is a matter of missing the forest for the trees (pun not intended).

    What's important in leading edge research is whether or not the conclusions of the papers are supported by the data. All the M&M/Wegman critiques are going into ridiculous machinations of detail that have thus far had no bearing on the conclusions of MBH98/99. Mann and his colleagues were very careful not to overstate the position evidenced by their data. They provide very wide bands of uncertainty and state that they believe warming of the 20th century is unprecedented in the past 600-1000 years (respectively).

    As far as I can see, none of the "auditing" done relative to Mann's work has produced anything that changes these conclusions expressed in their research.

    I've said this many times in the past (other than here) that, if M&M want to definitively show that there is something wrong with Mann's research, the best way to do that would be to replicate it and see if they get something different. I fail to see why McI would not do this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basically what Gerry North said

      "I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research."

      Delete
    2. Robh,
      It's had little publicity, but M&M did replicate MBH98 in theit paper. It's that code I've been running. And they did a plot with centered differencing. It's panel 3 in the first plot.

      One of Mann's objections is that centered differencing needs to carry more eigenvectors in PCA. And it's true that M&M used the same selection (Mann's) for both MBH and their centered. I'm looking to see if I can work out how it should be done.

      Delete
    3. Eli: This is what North said, under oath. He, and the NAS statistician, agreed with Wegman.

      "CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time
      is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you
      dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
      DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
      criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
      report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn't
      mean they are false.
      CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right
      conclusion and that it not be--
      DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
      CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you
      purport to be the facts but have we established--we know that
      Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann's methodology is incorrect. Do
      you agree with that? I mean, it doesn't mean Dr. Mann's
      conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have--and if
      you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that
      Dr. Mann's methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified
      by independent review.
      DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
      CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the
      microphone.
      MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our
      committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers
      and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
      We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented
      at much greater length by Dr. Wegman."


      http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais

      Delete
    4. Robh: Mackintyre has stated many times that hsi intention was not to prove or disprove the MWP or LIA.

      Wegman said it best: "Wrong methods plus right answer = bad science"

      Apparently the IPCC agrees, as Mann's hockey stick has been replaced by Molberg's reconstruction, which does not have the flat handle of Mann's stick.

      Delete
    5. Captain FlashheartMarch 4, 2014 at 7:56 PM

      That would be Wegman the plagiarist, right Les Johnson? Does he have a (plagiarized) statement along the lines of "fraudulent methods plus any answer = bad science"?

      Why do you climategate types insist on using the work of a confirmed liar and fraud?

      Delete
    6. Captain Flashheart, you're skating pretty close to libel there. This whole thread is an outgrowth of a libel suit from Mann to Steyn and CEI. And we have the irony of the discussion of "tone" from a critic on a thread where you follow with this dreck. Well played.

      Delete
    7. Eli/North " It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research."

      It's also important to note that more modern reconstructions do not support MBH 98, including Mann 2008 EIV, outside of the period where instrumental data were present. However, these other reconstructions do pass cross-validation tests with each other. The results of MBH 98, outside of the instrument period, are almost certainly wrong, except at the most color-with-crayons level imaginable.

      That's the real takeaway. The very weak conclusion that "the recent warming is outside of that observed for the last 1000 years"… I'm not even sure that's valid at the 95% CL, once you match the frequency resolution of the paleo reconstructions to the modern reconstructions. People who don't work with sampled data aren't always aware of the effects of low-passing data are, but one of them is the reduction in maximum excursion of a time series.

      Delete
    8. Les Johnson... "Wegman said it best: "Wrong methods plus right answer = bad science""

      What Wegman has stated, though, is highly irrelevant. I would venture to say that nearly ALL early research is based on "wrong methods." You just can't jump from not knowing to perfect science. Scientific research is iterative. Each research paper is a stepping stone to a better method and more accurate conclusions.

      Delete
    9. Nick... My point is that M&M's examination (or "audit" if you will) has not produced results that would change the conclusions of Mann's original research.

      Delete
    10. Nick: One of Mann's objections is that centered differencing needs to carry more eigenvectors in PCA. And it's true that M&M used the same selection (Mann's) for both MBH and their centered. I'm looking to see if I can work out how it should be done.

      Since you're mentioning it, here's my two cents:

      Start with the text books would be my suggestion. The conventional view is that centered PCAs are better. If I understand Mann's criticisms it was the the PCA with the "hockey stick" was being left out in some reconstructions, and that no objective criteria were being used for truncation of the PC expansion.

      Then when you get your hands dirty, try and generate a series of Monte Carlo data where you know the signal. My preference is to use "captured noise" then add a known signal to this. E.g., take proxies that are not thought to be temperature proxies… these should be usable noise sources.

      Then do the reconstruction with different approaches. Then compute the transfer function between the reconstructed signal and the original one. This will allow you to examine the fidelity of the reconstruction frequency-bin by frequency-bin.

      For validation, my preference would be to interleave the calibration and verification periods (maybe 10-year segments, interleaved). I think Mann made a significant error by dividing his data into a calibration period from 1905-1980 and a verification period from 1854-1904. As he mentions in his paper, there is a lot of uncertainty in the 1854-1904 data, which I don't think is folded into the verification statistic. As a result his low-R2 scores may result the weakness in the instrument data as much as the proxy data.

      I'd probably try 1900-1980 for both calibration and verification, with as I mentioned, 10 year segments. I don't work with observational data that often, but I know there are better approaches. However, I'd think it'd be relatively easy to modify the M&M 2005 code to test cross-validation schemes other than the one actually used in MBH98.

      Delete
    11. Flashheart: It was Wegman's grad student who did the plagiarism. Wegman, as supervisor, would still be reponsible, but he did not plagiarize.

      Do you disagree with the sworn statements of the NAS? They agreed with Wegman.

      Robh: Certainly, often more is learned from mistakes, than from successes. However, if one keeps trying to repeat those mistakes, then nothing will be learned.

      At least you imply that Mann's efforts are mistakes.

      Delete
    12. Honestly, this thread is like stepping into Alice in Wonderland, where words get taken to mean anything a person wants.

      Nick says:
      "It's had little publicity, but M&M did replicate MBH98 in theit paper."

      What on earth are you talking about ? The first line of the abstract on MM05 says:
      "The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann
      et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width
      series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring
      network"
      ie in MM05 McIntyre and McKitrick successfully emulated the results of MBH98.
      The reasons for their failure to do this in their previous paper was:
      1) MBH98 stated they used the Gaspe series (which started in 1404), but did not disclose they padded it, and for that reason it had not been included in the 1400-1450 step
      2) MBH98 used incorrect PCA techniques.

      Both of these points are bad science. Undisclosed modification of data, which materially affected the result, and incorrect use of a statistical tool. Yet somehow, in Wonderland, McIntyre and McKitrick are the bad guys for raising these issues.

      [Still no word from Prof Wegman :-( ]

      Delete
    13. Les Johnson... "Apparently the IPCC agrees, as Mann's hockey stick has been replaced by Molberg's reconstruction, which does not have the flat handle of Mann's stick."

      It seems to me the conclusions expressed in MBH98/99 didn't have anything to do with the flat handle. If you'll remember, this was a first of it's kind reconstruction. MBH appropriately included wide error bars, and they provided caveats in their language. That is the hallmark of good early research. It is subsequent research that should endeavor to reduce uncertainties and tease out a more accurate presentation of the data.

      The IPCC wouldn't, and shouldn't, wed itself to any piece of research when more accurate subsequent research has been produced. That's not any kind of indictment of Mann's work by the IPCC. That's just science moving forward.

      Delete
    14. Les... "At least you imply that Mann's efforts are mistakes."

      No. I'm not saying that Mann's efforts are mistakes. Nothing of the sort.

      What I'm saying is all research is going to contain mistakes. That's the nature of operating at the boundary of human knowledge. The whole point to research like this is to advance our knowledge. Did MBH98/99 do that? Yes, it very clearly did. And it has spurred a lot of other people to explore the further and deeper.

      You seem to be of the notion that Mann's work should have contained absolutely no errors. In that I would say you're expecting something that would have been impossible, and something that will always be impossible in the area of cutting edge research.

      Delete
    15. None... "Both of these points are bad science. Undisclosed modification of data, which materially affected the result, and incorrect use of a statistical tool. Yet somehow, in Wonderland, McIntyre and McKitrick are the bad guys for raising these issues."

      Did those points raised by M&M05 in any way alter the conclusions expressed by MBH98/99? Or, even more importantly, do they in any way alter the results of multi-proxy reconstructions of the past 1000+ years?

      I'd have to say no on both counts. So, I'm failing to see the importance of M&M05 relative to our expanding understanding of the subject matter.

      Delete
    16. RobH, again you are ignoring newer research that invalidating MBH 98/99. Why is that?

      Delete
    17. Carrick... Maybe because the newer research doesn't invalidate MBH98/99. As has been pointed out many times, the newer reconstructions actually support the conclusions of MBH98/99.

      Delete
    18. RobH
      "Did those points raised by M&M05 in any way alter the conclusions expressed by MBH98/99?"

      Yes, they certainly do. The headline conclusion of MBH98:
      "Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400"

      Now go back to the top of this page, and look at the third picture from MM05 (captioned "Archived Gaspe and centered PCA") - this is the one that shows MBH98 run with the unmodified Gaspe, and the corrected PCA procedure. Now look at the temperature at both ends of the graph and you can see that from the proxy reconstruction you simply CANNOT say with any certainty at all that temperatures now are warmer than at any point since 1400. So the MM05 criticism is valid and it does affect the central conclusion of MBH98.

      "Or, even more importantly, do they in any way alter the results of multi-proxy reconstructions of the past 1000+ years?"

      MM05 is a critique of MBH98 methodology. How can it possibly have anything to do with other reconstructions ? Who is saying it does ?

      Delete
    19. None... Are you forgetting that the M&M05 graph you're referring to ends around 1950? Maybe 1960?

      There's a whole 0.5C of warming in addition to that which makes up the basis of MBH98's conclusions.

      Delete
    20. "None... Are you forgetting that the M&M05 graph you're referring to ends around 1950? Maybe 1960? "

      It ends in 1980. You could conceivably want to claim that the right hand side should be .1 to .2 degrees higher, but the problem with that approach is you are then comparing non smoothed temperatures (from the late 90's when the MBH98 was being produced), with smoothed proxy series values which is not comparing like with like. If you use a trailing 10 year average on the late 90's temperature you're probably only going to be able to add .05 - .1 degrees. Then you need to bear in mind that on the other end of the proxy reconstruction there is going to be rather large error bars which take you above that anyway.

      So really, no, you can not salvage MBH98 from the criticisms of MM05 by sticking the real temperature onto the end of the proxy reconstruction (something which no real scientist would ever do, of course). With the archived Gaspe and corrected PCA, MBH98 study does not support its headline claim.

      Delete
    21. None... I don't think this is 1980: http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/1980-MM05.png That's mid-century.

      You realize, though, that the whole point to MBH98/99 was that they were comparing the modern temperature record to their multiproxy data to come to their conclusions. It's a bit far-fetched to attempt to ignore 0.5C of the warming since mid-century.

      Delete
    22. "None... I don't think this is 1980: http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/1980-MM05.png That's mid-century. "

      RobH, you can see in the reconstruction images at the top of the page that the reconstruction date is approx 1980, but if you read the papers you can see the reconstruction ran to 1980 (for example, the proxy training period was in the PCA calculations was 1902 to 1980 - difficult to do if the proxies ended in 1950 I think you would agree), so all my points from my previous comment are valid. In particular just to restress it even if you were to add the temperature record onto the end of a proxy record of the study, the error bars of over .2 deg on top of the archived Gaspe and corrected PCA version of MBH98 in from 1400 would still take it up to, if not higher, than current temperatures, making it impossible to state that modern temperatures are unprecedented since at least 1400.

      Delete
    23. None... Yes, I see that. I also see in Nick's reconstruction of McI's data that it goes further than the M&M05 graphs. I was pointing out that the M&M05 graphs, which you referred to, don't end at 1980. At least the smoothed data does not end at 1980.

      But again, my point is, based on the available data and Mann's reconstruction they were justified in their conclusions that it was "likely" that temps were higher today than at any time in the past 1000 years. McI's tweaks the far end of the chart a bit but not enough to change the conclusion of the paper.

      I don't believe your assumption that that the error bars related to Gaspe change the conclusion of the paper. You would have to apply the same assumption to the modern temperature record, which by 1999, had just seen a strong El Nino with temps that rose 0.6-0.8C over that of ~1980.

      Delete
    24. "I was pointing out that the M&M05 graphs, which you referred to, don't end at 1980. At least the smoothed data does not end at 1980."

      On the contrary, the MM05 graphs I referred to at the top of the page, displayed by Nick, do end in 1980.

      "But again, my point is, based on the available data and Mann's reconstruction they were justified in their conclusions that it was "likely" that temps were higher today than at any time in the past 1000 years. McI's tweaks the far end of the chart a bit but not enough to change the conclusion of the paper."

      Firstly, MBH98 did not claim it was "likely", but stated it as a fact:
      "Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400."

      Secondly I think you are still incorrect that the errors did not affect the conclusion of the paper. Look at MBH98 fig 5. that shows the 1400 temperature having a 2std deviation error band of over 0.25 deg C. Let's assume for the moment that error range is correct (I have no idea how it has been calculated).
      Now add this (at least) 0.25 degree anomaly to the over 0.3 deg C anomaly (I am looking at the non smoothed data) that the MBH98 procedure produces with archived Gaspe data, and corrected PCA and the result is an anomaly of approx 0.65 deg C.

      Taking yearly temperature anomaly data from here:
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.annual_nh.txt
      the largest 3 anomalies from the previous 8 years to 1998 was:
      1990 0.404 0.378 0.437 0.386 0.422 0.354 0.454 0.373 0.438 0.346 0.463
      1995 0.473 0.440 0.499 0.455 0.492 0.423 0.524 0.435 0.509 0.409 0.535
      1997 0.461 0.429 0.485 0.441 0.480 0.405 0.516 0.423 0.496 0.393 0.525

      (column 2 is the median anomaly)

      Clearly MBH98 claim does not stand.

      "I don't believe your assumption that that the error bars related to Gaspe change the conclusion of the paper. "
      The error bars are related to the total reconstruction in the context of using the archived Gaspe data, and the correct PCA technique.

      "You would have to apply the same assumption to the modern temperature record, which by 1999, had just seen a strong El Nino with temps that rose 0.6-0.8C over that of ~1980."

      You don't get to apply reconstruction error bars to direct temperature measurements, so I would not have to apply the same assumption at all.

      Btw, the 3 years either side of 1980:
      1977 0.034 0.021 0.047 0.015 0.053 -0.014 0.082 0.011 0.056 -0.019 0.087
      1978 -0.057 -0.070 -0.041 -0.077 -0.036 -0.106 -0.008 -0.080 -0.031 -0.110 -0.001
      1979 0.011 -0.005 0.027 -0.009 0.031 -0.037 0.058 -0.014 0.036 -0.043 0.065
      1980 0.071 0.061 0.084 0.052 0.091 0.023 0.120 0.048 0.094 0.018 0.125
      1981 0.239 0.225 0.248 0.219 0.259 0.190 0.289 0.214 0.262 0.184 0.293
      1982 -0.022 -0.042 -0.008 -0.042 -0.002 -0.071 0.028 -0.050 0.004 -0.079 0.034
      1983 0.173 0.153 0.189 0.152 0.193 0.123 0.223 0.144 0.198 0.114 0.228

      and the 4 years including and prior to 1998, when the paper was published:

      1994 0.272 0.242 0.301 0.254 0.289 0.215 0.329 0.235 0.307 0.204 0.338
      1995 0.473 0.440 0.499 0.455 0.492 0.423 0.524 0.435 0.509 0.409 0.535
      1996 0.169 0.135 0.195 0.152 0.187 0.113 0.225 0.132 0.204 0.101 0.235
      1997 0.461 0.429 0.485 0.441 0.480 0.405 0.516 0.423 0.496 0.393 0.525
      1998 0.602 0.565 0.634 0.582 0.621 0.546 0.657 0.561 0.639 0.532 0.669

      Where do you get your 0.6-0.8 number from ?



      Delete
    25. I am of the opinion 0.3+0.25=0.55 but that does not affect the conclusion of the previous post :-)

      Delete
    26. As Carrick has shown: The "corrected" M+M version diverges more from newer reconstructions than MBH98.

      Are you as happy as Carrick with that?

      Delete
    27. wozni
      No, because it's wrong.
      I think you have misunderstood Carrick's statement, although given the thread it is a bit confusing. He said:
      "It also makes the difference between MBH98/99 and the newest reconstructions smaller."
      "It" in Carricks context was presumably the corrections made by MM05 (ie using archived Gaspe and correct PCA). This had the effect of elevating temperatures around 1400 by over 0.2 deg C compared to MBH98, making them much more in line with more recent studies.

      Delete
    28. None,
      "This had the effect of elevating temperatures around 1400 by over 0.2 deg C compared to MBH98, making them much more in line with more recent studies"
      One of the ironies here is that Mann gets such a bashing for an alleged nefarious depression of 1400-1450, when lots of MWP enthusiasts now say the MWP was well over by then. The NIPCC's approved version is Lungqvist, who, they say, has the LIA from 1300-1900. They show his plot, in which 1400-1450 is well into the period of decline, and well below modern.

      Delete
    29. None.
      The M+M "corrections" make all of LIA warmer. That is supposed to make the divergence with the divergence with the newer reconstructtions smaller.

      Of course. In an upside down M+M-version.

      Delete
    30. "One of the ironies here is that Mann gets such a bashing for an alleged nefarious depression of 1400-1450, when lots of MWP enthusiasts now say the MWP was well over by then."

      It's suppression of climate variability this particular study gets bashed for. It has no MWP and no LIA. Instead it has smoothed climate variability over a range of only 0.2 deg or so between 1400 and 1900. Compare that with Ljungquist's reconstruction which you referenced which has almost 0.5 deg (even when decade averaged) variation between 1400 and 1900 and that's without even having the MWP (you say).

      Delete
  12. "I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research."

    That's jury ready, and it's devastating to the allegation of fraud.

    JCH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is this:

      "MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our
      committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers
      and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
      We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented
      at much greater length by Dr. Wegman."

      Delete
    2. JCH, this is just an opinion by a non-expert.

      Other than the comment about the tone of the Wegman committee (which I fully agree with), I see this opinion as wrong on a number of grounds.

      It's not the "first of its kind", just the most publicized among peers. (Exposure in Nature makes a difference there.) See this.

      It's not just "slightly flawed." Substantive errors include the improperly centered PCA analysis, errors in the verification statistics, and the inclusion and use of proxies (Gaspe prior to 1450 in particular) that don't meet minimum standards for inclusion in a reconstruction.

      Also, the subsequent research has shown the reconstruction to not be valid and has generally moved on.

      Delete
    3. > Also, the subsequent research has shown the reconstruction to not be valid and has generally moved on.

      Which was Nathan's point at Lucia's:

      > I think the key thing to see here is that NO ONE uses Mann’s original methods anymore. So that’s a key piece of evidence that his methods weren’t great. What I don’t get is why people keep bangnig on about it as if it is somehow relevant. It’s still being used as a (Hockey) Stick to bash Mann with, why? Well, my opinion is that it is a political tool. There’s no need to challenge it scientifically; it’s old news. It only matters from a political persepctive.

      http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/steynmann-steamroller-ii/#comment-126039

      More Omertà from Craig Loehle afterwards, except "let me show you my big CV", paraphrasing, of course.

      And here we get Carrick repeating the tactic of dodging the fact that "fraudulent" does not mean the same thing as "invalid".

      More Omertà, Carrick?

      Delete
    4. willard
      It was Nick who kicked the whole matter off, with a rather inaccurate interpretation of MM05's claims wrt MBH98, cheered on by those who thought this showed some kind of vindication for MBH98 and condemnation of MM05. I agree with you and Nathan that MBH98 is poor science, and fortunately climate science has moved on considerably since then. However it's not the "skeptics" who keep dredging it up, but the "alarmists" for whom no admission of error must ever be made. The whole "defend everything" approach is tremendously damaging.



      Delete
    5. Thank you for your concerns, None. Carrick's comment was in response to JCH's "jury ready" formula, which JCH claims as "devastating to the allegation of fraud." Your "Nick started it" cuts no ice on this matter.

      The point in quoting Nathan's comment was in the bit about Mann being a proxy debate for political libertarian gang bangs. The Auditor dogwhistles what "he does not say". Steyn hears the Auditor perfectly well, and says what the Auditor conveys. This has more political than scientific implications. "Yes, but the science" is the usual trick when CA commenters are being asked to acknowledge the PR nature of their favorite Auditor's audits.

      That you don't get what Nick is getting at only shows that you don't think like a scientist. Nick does what the Auditor ought to have done a long time ago. Let me guess. Another econometrician?

      The Auditor's promise to implement a Brownian set-up for reconstructions has yet to be fulfilled. It may be less sexy than to publish 24-like stories of nefarious malfeasance. And less rewarding too, if we consider that the Auditor is actually wiling to be paid as an adviser for Steyn's "reversed takeover".

      How do you feel about econometry, btw, None?

      Delete
    6. Willard
      This entire page and all its subsequent comments are a result of Nick dredging up MBH98, not Carrick. Your point, if there was any, by reproducing Nathans comment on people banging on about MBH98 when it is acknowledged now it had poor methods doing it for political purposes, must surely be that those criticising it HERE are just using it as a tool to beat Mann with for political purposes. Clearly nonsense.

      I do not have any particular feeling about econometry. I suppose econometrics and climate science must have much in common: difficulty in assumptions of cause and correlation, and results tending to confirm researchers ideologies (from confirmation bias rather than fraud). I guess if you want world fame, huge grants and a chance to save the world a young scientist is going to go for climate science these days though.

      Delete
    7. Btw, the supposed dog whistle argument is just ludicrous. Having failed to undermine (the vast majority of) McIntyre's criticisms, the climate science blog gang has clearly moved on to blaming the "dog whistle". Even if it was true, they themselves have been the worst offenders of "dog whistling", you only need to look at the frenzied press and Greenpeace types seriously worrying about ice at the poles melting and Western civilisation being flooded under 50 meters of water etc, or diseases moving North, or global warming damaging global food supply. Hysterical madness of the crowds, fanned by studies seriously marred by bad data, flawed techniques etc, but press releases sent without any of the many requisite caveats. Yes there is a very loud dog whistle, but it's not McIntyre's.

      Delete
    8. > This entire page and all its subsequent comments are a result of Nick dredging up MBH98, not Carrick.

      And yet Carrick responded to JCH's comment. I expect Carrick responsible for what Carrick writes, and not Nick. The "is a result" relationship does not capture causality very well. Perhaps we ought to ask an econometrist?

      Also, your concept of dredging deserves due diligence. How is it different than auditing? It seems that the Auditor may be said to have dredged a lot since climate2003.com, don't you think?

      ***

      > [Quoting Nathan's comment implies that] those criticising it HERE are just using it as a tool to beat Mann with for political purposes.

      You don't seem to believe Nathan, None, and yet you talk about money, fame, Greenpeace, and hysterical madness of crowd, among other things, which I'm sure you meant as neutral observations. Are these technical matters? Do you really think this is solely or even mainly a technical discussion?

      Really?

      You should read back what you just wrote, and also think about the false blame you put on Nick for doing what you yourself may need to have done before dismissing what Nick does.

      Delete
    9. > [T]he supposed dog whistle argument is just ludicrous.

      And yet the Auditor acknowledges this himself:

      > As I’ve observed from time to time, I don’t publicly say everything that I think.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/78844823835

      There is no need to graduate in econometry to realize that the Auditor does not directly accuse Mann of fraudulent behavior but defend Steyn who does.

      Please tell me how you reconcile your position that the Auditor does not dogwhistle with this episode about Bre-X,

      > After the fraud was proven, without de Guzman, no one seemed to be able to connect the operations at the salting laboratory to potentially interested parties. It never seemed to me that the Indonesian government took a great deal of interest in getting to the bottom of the story.

      http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/06/bre-x-1-the-march-1997-pda-convention/

      Was this was you call dredging? Was it a technical discussion? Did Nick make the Auditor discuss of Bre-X?

      More Omertà, None?

      ***

      > Even if it was true, they themselves have been the worst offenders of "dog whistling"

      Thank you for your tu quoque, None. You'll note though that I don't claim being in it for Da Science. I also can own what I want to say.

      Delete
    10. Willard
      You are very good at making up scenarios ignoring what people actually say, and imputing your own "knowledge" about the matter to come to your conclusions.
      Is it your omertà ?

      As for Steve saying he doesn't say everything he thinks, that's generally what smart and honest people do, as restricting oneself to the facts is the best option. Nor does that imply a "dog whistle", as you like to invent. If Steve points out that the results of MBH98 (to bring things slightly back to the topic of Nick's post) can only be achieved by an incorrect use of PCA, and an undisclosed ad-hoc padded extension to Gaspe, for which its first 50 years were based on 1-2 tree cores (far below what could be considered in any way reliable), amongst other problems, then there are clearly only a few options, amongst them fraud and incompetence. It is not a "dog whistle" to point out serious errors in a study, even when one of the possible causes is fraud. I am curious if you think undisclosed extension of a series constitutes fraud though ? It's definitely not good practise.

      "Please tell me how you reconcile your position that the Auditor does not dogwhistle with this episode about Bre-X"

      Right so he's not allowed to talk about anything to do with an actual fraud, where there is some level of similarity in the sense that external analysis does not hold up the original claims, not even very rarely, because that might be a "dog whistle" and thus everything else he has written is a dog whistle ? The world laughs at you and your incredibly thin skin. To quote Curry, don't you think you should put your big boy pants on ?

      "Thank you for your tu quoque, None."

      It's not "tu quoque" because you are not accusing me of "dog whistling" nor I of you. If you were really concerned about dog whistling though, it would make sense to be concerned with the worst dog whistling.

      Delete
    11. Regarding Willards previous post, I suggest Western nations approach poorer nations, telling them to stop burning oil. When they say "You're even worse", we win the argument by thanking them for their "tu quoque". Everyone will be very impressed, and we will no longer need to be worried about CO2 production or global warming.

      Delete
    12. > It's not "tu quoque" because you are not accusing me of "dog whistling" nor I of you.

      Surely you must be joking, None. The tu quoque in they themselves have been the worst offenders of "dog whistling" is quite obvious. You excuse the Auditor's dogwhistling because there are worse "offenders" that him. That there are worse "offenders" than the Auditor does not justify what the Auditor does. In fact, what worse "offenders" do has very little to do with what the Auditor does. Besides, worse "offenders" do not make the Auditor do it.

      Here's something to get you started on tu quoques:

      http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/543/506

      ***

      Also note that your " I suggest Western nations approach poorer nations, telling them to stop burning oil" is an appeal to ridicule.

      Thank you so much for your concerns.

      Delete
    13. > [The Auditor']s not allowed to talk about anything to do with an actual fraud, where there is some level of similarity in the sense that external analysis does not hold up the original claims, not even very rarely, because that might be a "dog whistle" and thus everything else he has written is a dog whistle ?

      The Auditor is allowed to do anything he fancies, None. As long as it's legal or at least not subject to lawsuits, he can pursue any interest he fancies, including homoerotic regalia. It's a free world.

      The Auditor must put his big boy pants and own what he does, though. The same applies to his sycophants, which I believe includes you, None. That you observe a "level of similarity" between what Mike did and frauds like Bre-X or Enron looks a lot like a way to dogwhistle the possibility that Mike commited a fraud.

      Perhaps you simply disagree about what "dogwhisling" means, None. As the Auditor says, maybe it's just a vocabulary thing:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31268600509


      ***

      So the Auditor does not say that Mike is a fraud, but what he did looks a lot like what we can see in frauds like Bre-X and Enron, right?

      There is a point where even non-dogs can hear the whistled accusations, None, and where the Auditor might be saying what he thinks a bit more of than what he presumes when he says so.

      ***

      Finally, I will acknowledge your claim about Omertàs:

      > [Not saying what one things is] generally what smart and honest people do, as restricting oneself to the facts is the best option.

      I even agree with it. Now, please tell me why the Auditor burdens Nick over and over again with commitments he does not bear, and when Nick ignores the Auditor's abuses, he says things like:

      > More omerta, Nick?

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/8195679480

      What applies to "smart and honest" people like the Auditor should apply to Nick too, don't you think, None?

      PS: I hope you begin to realize why I'm using the "more Omertà" line at Nick's. I hope Nick too.

      Delete
    14. Willard, you're really grasping at straws now - I have at no point "excused the auditors dogwhistling" because as you will note if you read what I write, rather than what you wished I had, I claim he has not been dogwhistling. Ludicrous as it is, if one wants to for the sake of argument claim that for pointing out "errors" which amongst other possibilities could be interpreted as fraud (for example undisclosed Gaspe extensions) is a dogwhisle then as far as dogwhistling goes, that is rather mild in comparison to what is thrown at McIntyre in the other direction. If one were really concerned about dogwhistling (I'm sure those accusing McIntyre are really not interested in the slightest) then McIntyre would not be the main concern.

      If you don't wish to be consistent, and want to persist in imputing your own interpretation of things into others writings regardless of the facts, I can't really be bothered continuing on that particular line of argument.

      However regarding your most recent post about Nick I have a question. While I have occassionally laughed over Nick's Bill Clintonesque defence of many items of contention between McIntyre and conventional climate science, perhaps you can help me with the recent episode because I'm not certain I'm following.

      As I understand it, McIntyre claimed Mann claimed that the Oxbrough inquiry exonerated him. Now, I did see that there was a heading in Mann's plea titled "The exoneration of Dr Mann", under which he listed the enquires, though not by name. Two paragraphs under that he stated "All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann".

      Now plainly, Oxbrough's inquiry did not in any way look at Mann's work or criticised behaviour, for example his passing forward at least one email requesting Wahl to delete files under FOIA contention. So if Mann is claiming Oxbrough's inquiry cleared him, it clearly did not.

      Nick's defence, as I understand it, is that since Oxbrough is not named explicitly, McIntyre is inventing things. Clearly if one of the four PS/UEA inquiries listed is not Oxbrough's as Nick claims, then it must be another. But, as I understand it, there are only 4 - what is the other ? In this case, do you think that Nick's arguments are the arguments of an intelligent person or just someone arguing for arguments sake ?

      Delete
    15. > I have at no point "excused the auditors dogwhistling" because [...] I claim he has not been dogwhistling.

      Surely you must be joking, None, for here's your counterfactual:

      [None's Counterfactual] Even if [the Auditor dogwhistles], they themselves have been the worst offenders of "dog whistling"[.]

      This counterfactual commits a tu quoque, and as such excuses the Auditor's dog whistling if only for the sake of argument.

      Understanding how None can entertain a counterfactual while denying its antedecent is left as an exercise to readers.

      ***

      > I did see that there was a heading in Mann's plea titled "The exoneration of Dr Mann", under which he listed the enquires, though not by name. Two paragraphs under that he stated "All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann".

      To what "that" refers, None, the section's title?

      If that's the case, then we could argue that you may not have read Mike's memo and that the Auditor's presentation led you astray or that you must be joking, None.

      Do you have a link to Mike's memo, by any chance? The Auditor never offered one. In fact, This never offered one either at Judy's:

      > See what happens when the Auditor does not link to the documents he criticizes.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/#comment-470253

      See what happens when the Auditor does not link to the documents he criticizes.

      Delete
    16. Willard
      "Surely you must be joking, None, for here's your counterfactual:

      [None's Counterfactual] Even if [the Auditor dogwhistles], they themselves have been the worst offenders of "dog whistling"[.]

      This counterfactual commits a tu quoque, and as such excuses the Auditor's dog whistling if only for the sake of argument."

      So your "counterfactual" involves taking a hypothetical construct "Even if...", and promptly ignoring the fact that it's hypothetical ?

      "To what "that" refers, None, the section's title?"

      To clarify (though I think its rather obvious), "Two paragraphs under the paragraph where he listed the investigations exonerating him, and still in the section headed 'The exoneration of Dr Mann'. Someone somewhere posted the link to Mann's amended complaint at Steyn's site, I think it might have been at Lucia's somewhere:
      http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6110.pdf

      I don't understand why you are posting a link to a comment of yours at another site, saying exactly the same thing as you quote yourself having said ? Is that supposed to mean something ?

      You did not answer my question about whether I was interpreting Nick's argument incorrectly, or whether he was implying there was another unnamed inquiry when he was disputing McIntyres claim that Mann was claiming the Oxbrough inquiry exonerated him - is there an answer ?

      Delete
    17. Missed a closing quote, in case that confuses you, should read:
      "Two paragraphs under the paragraph where he listed the investigations exonerating him, and still in the section headed 'The exoneration of Dr Mann'"

      Delete
    18. Thank you for having provided the link to Mike's memo, None. Now I suggest you provide a quote that illustrate Nick's position. As a reward, I will quote the relevant paragraph in full.

      ***

      Meanwhile, I will comment on this:

      > So your "counterfactual" involves taking a hypothetical construct "Even if...", and promptly ignoring the fact that it's hypothetical ?

      "It", whatever it is, only involves the fact that you seriously entertain the counterfactual. One does not simply entertain a possibility and then pretend "oh, but it's false anyway". Besides, this only distract us from the fact that to provide an excuse for a possible behaviour is still an excuse, None.

      You seem to dispute that the Auditor dog whistles. Here's some evidence that he does:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/dogwhistling

      To dispute that the Auditor dog whistles is unwinnable (in Auditor's parlance), This. All you can do is to keep arguing by assertion, an assertion that is readily false. No wonder you focus on piling on verbal abuses, None. Speaking of which, you are using very similar tricks as This over there, None:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/

      And you use the same quoting pattern.

      Hmmm. Big hmmm.

      Do you know what is sock puppetry, None?

      Delete
    19. willard, what with your inability to understand simple sentences, out of context and misunderstood quotes, red herrings, various false accusations followed by now your apparent paranoid tendancies, discussing anything with you has become too much effort. Bye. PS it's incredibly unlikely "this" (never heard of him/her before) and I are even in the same country, never mind being the same person. You are delusional, suggest you consult a psychologist.

      Delete
    20. Now guessing you mean "thisisnotgoodtogo" from their posting times I can see they are probably from the states, and I'm in Europe. As I said, you are delusional.

      Delete
    21. Where have I claimed that you and This were the same person, None? Please tell me where I have said so, and I will retract the sentence. I try to be precise. Et cetera.

      I hope you are beginning to get what dog whistling means. I also hope you are beginning to get that you justify your ad hominems on the basis of seeing tricks the Auditor uses day in, day out. They don't look that optimal when they don't lead to the conclusions you'd expect, don't they?

      I could not care less about your real identity, None. You are None to me. That you use similar moves as This is just a nice coincidence.

      In Climateball (tm), only the moves matter .

      ***

      You failed provide Nick's specific claim regarding Oxburgh, None.

      In any case, here's the relevant paragraph:

      > In April 2010, the University of East Anglia convened an international Scientific
      Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit". Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt."

      Now, please tell me to what "the scientists" refer in that paragraph.

      ***

      You know, None, the Auditor moved to another sentence ages ago.

      You should have heard the whistle blown.

      Delete
    22. "Where have I claimed that you and This were the same person, None? Please tell me where I have said so, and I will retract the sentence. I try to be precise. Et cetera.

      I hope you are beginning to get what dog whistling means. "

      Willard, you are proving my earlier point. If you don't think I am "this" then readers can make their mind up about how ridiculous that kind of implication make you look, and we can continue with the facts. I'm not going to whine about your dog whistling, just going to laugh at how stupid it makes you look. As I said, the whining about "dog whistling" with McIntyre is only done because he has been incredibly accurate with his criticisms. Pointing out undisclosed extensions to data series used in studies should rightly raise questions about the study and the scientists who produced it - that kind of thing is precisely the kind of thing that constitutes fraud in scientific research. Where or whether it crosses the line from incompetence to fraud is not something for McIntyre to decide, and presumably why he generally sticks to the just criticising the papers, and doing a good and accurate job of it.

      "Now, please tell me to what "the scientists" refer in that paragraph."

      Why don't you just read the report:
      http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

      "8 The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted."

      It refers to the CRU scientists only.

      Quite how they decided the CRU scientists acted with rigour and honesty when they also in the report discuss their emails urging the deletion of information under FOIA request (that is a crime apart from incredibly bad science!), and deliberately answering email requests for data incorrectly is beyond me. I guess it's what they call a diplomatic solution - don't mention most important points, concede some of the other points in the fine print, but then say everything is fine. Why you are bringing up the Muir Russel report, when we had previously been discussing the Oxburgh report, and Nick's refusal to accept that Mann was referring to it as exonerating him is a little confusing. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Along the way we find that the Muir Russel inquiry did not clear Mann either though, so probably a path worth travelling anyway. Interesting to point out that Mann does not refer directly to this inquiry either, so maybe following Nick's theory Mann is not talking about that one either (despite quoting directly from it).

      Delete
    23. Sorry I realised your quote was from Oxbrugh's report (quoting itself from Muir Russel's), not from Mann's plea, so Mann has not directly quoted from it (but is presumably still one of the 2 implied exonerating CRU inquiries unless someone can find any others...)

      Delete
    24. You can ignore my directly previous message it's a bit confusing as to what I mean by "quote" ie whether i mean the "> In April 2010..." or the "the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt." part. The latter comes from Muir Russel.

      As for you providing the quote from Nick, I think you have not understood my point. I'm talking about the following link and its subsequent discussion:
      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/#comment-479402
      Nick says "Steve has totally failed to connect the Oxburgh panel claims with Mann’s complaint... It isn’t mentioned anywhere by name in the complaint. And you’ve got to do a lot of dubious interpretation to derive it from some broad descriptions."
      Yet Mann writes "Following the publication of the CRU emails, Penn State and the University of East Anglia (in four separate instances)" obviously including Oxburgh and Russell, and three paragraphs later "All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann."

      Do you agree with Nick that McIntyre is doing "a lot of dubious interpretation" to suggest Mann is claiming Oxburgh and Russel exonerated him or do you agree that it is the natural implication of what Mann has written, ie that he has been exonerated by Oxburgh and Russell ? I think this is such a clear case of Nick just arguing for arguments sake that i'm concerned i'm missing something, or completely misunderstanding Nick's complaint - that was why I asked for an external opinion about it earlier.

      Delete
    25. None,
      "completely misunderstanding Nick's complaint"
      Yes, I think you've missed it. Steve referred to
      "Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results"

      Sure sounds like Mann said that. It's very specific. But he didn't. It's a claim made up by Steve. Mann didn't mention Oxburgh.

      Now maybe, as you say, a proper deductive chain for it can be constructed. I think it has a lot of dubious elements. But the way Steve put it doesn't allow you to look into that. He just says Mann said it.

      Same with the topic of this post. M&M said "The only difference between the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98." But it isn't. Some missing value treatment is required, but there are many choices. Some, in terms of data loss, have more downside than others. They have chosen one with lots of downside - discarding Gaspe pre-1450. But they don't tell you that. They just say - without the extrapolation, this is the result.

      Delete
    26. Dear None,

      That there are similarities between you and This is quite obvious for the simple reasons that the kinds of moves Climateballers can play is limited. That your quoting style is the same is first and foremost an amusing coincidence. Being able to finding similarities between None and This is funny to me.

      The main point behind this exercise was to make sure we share the concept of dog whistling. If you believe that what I did was to dog whistle, then I'm afraid you will have to accept that the Auditor dog whistles too. I basically used the same tropes he did. Heck, I even used his words, e.g.:

      > Hmmm...

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/416972661

      Your assertion that the Auditor does not dog whistle can't stand on your verbal abuses alone.

      ***

      The main assertion that I challenged was this one:

      > As I understand it, McIntyre claimed Mann claimed that the Oxbrough inquiry exonerated him. Now, I did see that there was a heading in Mann's plea titled "The exoneration of Dr Mann", under which he listed the enquires, though not by name. **Two paragraphs** under that he stated "All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann".

      Had you read the paragraph you cite as evidence of Mike's claim that Oxburgh exonerated him, you would have switched to another paragraph. We can surmise that instead of reading that paragraph, you trusted the Auditor's judgement on that matter. That claim is simply not in that paragraph.

      The "doctored quote" episode was a dud, None. Nick was right. The Auditor was wrong on that one.

      See how simple it is to progress when we use quotes and links?

      Now ask yourself why the Auditor never linked to Mike's memo.

      ***

      Due diligence applies to everyone. Questioning Nick's rationality because he does what the Auditor implores is suboptimal, None. Trying to shame him may be worse, if possible.

      You're losing energy chasing ghost dogs, None, and you make yourself vulnerable. You ought to know better than that.

      Delete
    27. willard,
      So you are adopting the "Nick defence" that Mann is NOT claiming the CRU enquires exonerate him. When declaring that all "the above" investigations exonerated him, after previously mentioning ALL investigations including CRU, he should certainly have clearly stated he was not including the two CRU investigations as having exonerated him. Without additional information, a reader must conclude the "all of the above" included all the investigations mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs following the heading of "The Exoneration of Dr Mann". Furthermore, if he did not include the CRU ones which other ones did he also not include ? It's impossible to know, and renders the "all of the above" as meaningless.

      Personally I find this kind of word games very boring - and Bill "that depends on the meaning of the word 'is' is" Clintonesque as I said earlier. Following that lame interpretation, someone could claim "all the inquiries found Mann guilty of fraud", and when any particular inquiry is pointed out not to have found Mann guilty, they could just respond, "I have not named that inquiry who said I was including it ?". Anyone without an axe to grind in the debate will clearly accept that by mentioning the CRU investigations, then under the same section concerning exoneration claiming that ALL the above inquiries exonerated him, Mann really is claiming the CRU inquiries exonerated him.

      "Had you read the paragraph you cite as evidence of Mike's claim that Oxburgh exonerated him, you would have switched to another paragraph."

      I have no idea what you are talking about, have you missed a "not" in there ? "Switching paragraphs" is an insane claim - paragraph one lists all the inquires, paragraph 2 talks about one in particular and paragraph 3 says "all the above inquiries exonerated dr mann". If Mann's intention in paragraph 3 is not to state all the inquiries listed in paragraph 1 exonerate him, he should not be writing science papers because he does not follow the normal rules of logic, nor english.

      "Some missing value treatment is required, but there are many choices. Some, in terms of data loss, have more downside than others. They have chosen one with lots of downside - discarding Gaspe pre-1450. But they don't tell you that. They just say - without the extrapolation, this is the result."

      You have clearly not understood the problem. MBH98 used a process which ONLY included a proxy in a period calculation if it was present at the start of the period.
      The Gaspe data was not present at the start of the 1400 period (it started in 1404). Some missing value treatment is categorically _NOT_ "required". Such special treatment is not applied to any other proxies in order for them to be included in a step, even in one case where it misses by 2 years rather than Gaspe's 4. Nor was their ad-hoc padding so that it would be included in the 1400 step disclosed in their paper. It's not even as if with the padding it was decent data, the 1404-1450 section of the data consisted of between 1 and 2 cores, FAR too few to provide any kind of usable signal, and the scientists who created the series stated that it was only usable as a proxy from 1550-1600 if I remember correctly. So MBH98 specially padded a series so that it's very poor data would be included in a period calculation where it would otherwise not have been, which had the result of suppressing temperatures for that period. Is undisclosed padding of data an acceptable scientific practice ?

      Delete
    28. "only usable as a proxy from 1550-1600"
      Just for the avoidance of doubt, when I say "from" I mean from that range onwards, not just over that particular range.

      Delete
    29. Btw, just to point out, for I think the third time:
      "But they don't tell you that. They just say - without the extrapolation, this is the result"

      They categorically do not, they say:
      "The only difference between
      the two series is the extrapolation of the first four years in MBH98. Under MBH98
      methods, a series had to be present at the start of a calculation step in order to be
      included in the interval roster. In only one case in the entire MBH98 corpus was this
      rule broken – where the Gaspé series was extrapolated in its early portion, with the
      convenient result of depressing early 15 th century results."

      It's perfectly clear to everyone else (except Nick). In this one case, Gaspe, the data was extrapolated in its early portion, to include it in the early 15th C step, which suppressed the early 15th C step results.

      Delete
    30. None,
      "If Mann's intention in paragraph 3 is not to state all the inquiries listed in paragraph 1 exonerate him, he should not be writing science papers because he does not follow the normal rules of logic, nor english."
      For the umpteenth time, Mann does not write the legal pleadings. That's what lawyers are for.

      Delete
  13. RobH: What Wegman has stated, though, is highly irrelevant. I would venture to say that nearly ALL early research is based on "wrong methods." You just can't jump from not knowing to perfect science. Scientific research is iterative. Each research paper is a stepping stone to a better method and more accurate conclusions.


    That's a gross over simplification of what happens in science. The question isn't whether the methods are perfect (pretty much doesn't happen) but whether they are "good enough".

    It's generally agreed that using improperly centered PCs is a methodological error, in the sense that it introduces a significant amount of bias in the results towards hockey-stick shapes.

    The fact that MBH98 is completely inconsistent with newer reconstructions outside of the calibration interval is certainly evidence that the methods were not "good enough", so no, what Wegman said was not "highly irrelevant". (That will be the limit of my defense of him.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "MBH98 is completely inconsistent with newer reconstructions..."

      Carrick, why don't you show this?

      Delete
    2. Carrick... Yes, I would agree. It is a simplification. It was intended to be that.

      You state, "The fact that MBH98 is completely inconsistent with newer reconstructions..."

      Really? Can you define what you mean by "completely inconsistent?" When I look at the graph below, I can't hardly find MBH98/99 amongst all the subsequent reconstructions.

      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

      It should be noted that entire reason this is being discussed here, today, now nearly 15 years after the original research was done, is that we have a high profile libel case in process. McI is generating material on his website related to and in defense of Steyn and company relative to statements made about Dr Mann and his original research.

      The question at hand is, does any of this even come close to implying that Mann's research was "fraudulent" or that he "tortured data" to get his results? (Noting the former term is extremely specific in its meaning.)

      Delete
    3. Carrick said... "The question isn't whether the methods are perfect (pretty much doesn't happen) but whether they are "good enough"."

      "Good enough" for what? How would one quantify "good enough?" If you look backward at any research, of course it wasn't good enough. That's the whole point. That's what drives science forward. It seems to me what you're saying is the research should have been done better. And I would say, that's what a lot of researchers said to themselves, and many of them endeavored to produce their own reconstructions using what they felt were better methods. They looked at Mann's work, learned from what he produced, and they improved upon it. That is exactly how science advances.

      Delete
    4. Even Mckintyre does not say fraud. Data torture is as far as he takes it, at least as regards the hockey stick.

      However, as regards the investigations "exonerating" Mann, and the outright lie relating about validation statictics, that would be another matter.

      Delete
    5. Les... None of the investigations produced any findings of fraud with regards to Mike Mann's research.

      I don't think the court is going to buy Steyn's (by way of McI) attempts to explore the definition of "exoneration" as a defense against his accusations fraud. Steyn would do well to heed the old adage about the man who attempts to defend himself in court.

      Delete
    6. Exoneration is a word with fairly specific meaning too. It means that you were absolved of specific charges. Absolved means to find innocent, not merely "there is a lack of evidence to convict".

      If an investigation failed to look at you at all, that could not be considered an exoneration. If it did not consider specific issues that we know to be present, it cannot be said that this is an exoneration.

      I think Mann's lawyers copied and pasted text from the SkS site more related to climategate then juxtaposed it with investigations of Mann. I believe that even North's investigation did not consider questions of misconduct, so it cannot be claimed that this is an exoneration.

      It might be the case that McIntyre is enumerating the wrong investigations and Mann's lawyers were thinking of other investigations (while plagiarizing text from the SkS site not directly related to Mann's investigations), but if you enumerate enough of them, and show they don't contain exoneration, eventually you run out of investigations.

      Delete
    7. "Les... None of the investigations produced any findings of fraud with regards to Mike Mann's research."
      Simply because they did NOT investigated Mann's research, at least the ones McIntyre is referring to.

      Delete
    8. Robh:

      "Les... None of the investigations produced any findings of fraud with regards to Mike Mann's research."

      No, the fraud comes in saying that the investigations "exonerated" Mann. they did not exonerate Mann, as they did not investigate him.

      Delete
    9. Les... Perhaps you can explain why Mann's research was being investigated.

      Delete
    10. People who want to torture the word 'exonerated' so that they can attack Michael Mann with it, should probably consult a dictionary.

      Delete
    11. I've really never liked using terms like "zombies" or "trolls." It's pointlessly dismissive of someone who may be (in their own way) attempting to make a point, or more often that not, someone who is attempting to better understand the issue at hand by way of arguing a point.

      Delete
    12. Les Johnson @7:17 am is a good example of what I'm talking about;

      "No, the fraud comes in saying that the investigations "exonerated" Mann. they did not exonerate Mann, as they did not investigate him."

      These accusations rest on the implciit assumtption that Mann is stating that each investigation was explicitly about him and exonerated him directly.

      The response, should they care to read it, is much more general than that;

      "And every one of these investigations concluded that there was no basis to the allegations of fraudulent conduct, data manipulation, or the like" (P. 19).

      This constant attack on a single word is, at best, disingenuous. Less generous people might suggest that it's tactical distraction from the fact that Mann is correct that the investigations findings have shown that the 'skeptics' plethora of allegations are mostly baseless.

      'Exonerated' is just the latest quibble.

      Delete
    13. Michael... Exactly. The heart of the case is over Steyn's "reckless disregard for facts." Mann's attorneys are putting forth that there is overwhelming evidence showing that Mann's work is not fraudulent. When Steyn ignores what is widely available information and continues to make the claim that Mann's work is fraudulent, then he is engaging in libel.

      Neither Steyn nor McI are lawyers and I don't think they realize that the judge is unlikely to have patience for quibbling over the definition of "exonerated." This case is starting to play out something similar to the Kitzmiller v Dover case where the defense was in complete shambles the entire time. The scientists in Kitzmiller were well prepared and made a solid case in defense of science. I expect we'll be see much the same here.

      Delete
    14. This is a bit ridiculous.
      Using Mann's claims at face value, the judge has the exact same amount of evidence Mann also has a reckless disregard for facts the way you're using the argument.
      For example, the investigations just as equally found no evidence of a problem with Mann's opponents, or anyone else in climate science. Thus, any unbiased observer would conclude that the investigations are immaterial to this case.
      What evidence has Mann presented that includes him but excludes Steyn?
      There's plenty of evidence "in defense of science" that Mann was not doing good science.
      The **results** of Mann's work are immaterial from a scientific perspective. Science is all about process, not the final numbers.
      All the defense needs to accomplish is take depositions, from Mann himself, about the scientific work he's done. He must answer, and he must answer under oath. Compare his answers to the facts that have played out over the last 15 years. The facts are overwhelming: Mann refused to show his work. The work he's shown presents examples of pos-hoc modification of his experiments, changing parameters to fit the data.

      The argument is not over results, it's over good science. Good science does its work without bias about outcomes, and blinds itself to the data and parameters whenever necessary to achieve that result. (Google: blind experiment -- to understand the meaning of "blind" I am referring to.) This is not complicated. Any good high school general science teacher can get it.

      To remove our own blindness, completely ignore the data and outcomes. Look at the process. How well does it match the scientific method.

      Delete
    15. > Exoneration is a word with fairly specific meaning too.

      The title of the section in Mike's memo is "Dr. Mann is exonerated".

      Does Carrick dispute that Dr. Mann has been exonerated, in the specific meaning he has in mind?

      More omertà, Carrick?

      Delete
    16. "For example, the investigations just as equally found no evidence of a problem with Mann's opponents, or anyone else in climate science. Thus, any unbiased observer would conclude that the investigations are immaterial to this case.
      What evidence has Mann presented that includes him but excludes Steyn?" - MrPete

      And this is extremely ridiculous.

      Again, you have to wonder if people have read the entire doc are are just relying on the Auditors Quibble's for their information.

      The first paragraph under "Mann is Exonerated" sets the general context; the release of the CRU emails and resulting claims of fraud and data manipulation, then referring to the resultant inquiries findings.

      So, no, "he investigations just as equally found no evidence of a problem with Mann's opponents" - but there is no link of any kind.

      Delete
    17. AER there were comments in some of the UEA centered investigations about abuse of FOIA laws organized through CA

      Delete
  14. None says:
    "Honestly, this thread is like stepping into Alice in Wonderland, where words get taken to mean anything a person wants.
    Nick says:
    "It's had little publicity, but M&M did replicate MBH98 in theit paper."
    What on earth are you talking about ? The first line of the abstract on MM05 says:
    ...
    ie in MM05 McIntyre and McKitrick successfully emulated the results of MBH98.
    "

    So is your issue the difference between "replicate" nd "emulate"? OK, yes, "emulate" is slightly better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So is your issue the difference between "replicate" nd "emulate"? OK, yes, "emulate" is slightly better."

      No my issue was that you said "It's had little publicity". The whole point of MM05 was that they HAD emulated MBH results more or less down to rounding errors, but showed that in order to get those results MBH98 had padded the Gaspe data series (without disclosing this) and inadvertently used incorrect PCA. It had a tremendous amount of publicity.

      Delete
    2. None,
      What was little publicized was that MM05 had recalculated the MBH recon allowing for centered differencing (and Gaspe). So that when Wegman was asked by the House:
      "Does your report include a recalculation of the MBH98 and MBH99 results using the CFR methodology and all the proxies used in MBH98 and MBH99, but properly centering the data? If not, why doesn’t it?"
      he replied:
      "Ans: Our report does not include the recalculation of MBH98 and MBH99. We were not asked nor were we funded to do this."

      And yet he was closely following M&M and using their code. It would seem a natural thing to mention. Instead the talk went on (inconclusively) to Wahl and Ammann.

      Delete
    3. Nick
      "What was little publicized was that MM05 had recalculated the MBH recon allowing for centered differencing (and Gaspe)"

      To keep saying it does not make it true. As I pointed out in a previous comment, the very first line of the MM05 abstract says:
      "the differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann
      et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width
      series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring
      network."

      What does this mean, if not that they replicated the Mann results ? The whole purpose of the paper was to highlight the ad hoc data manipulation and errors necessary to replicate the Mann results using their stated methodology. That was the headline statement of MM05 and to say it did not have any publicity is to say that MM05 did not have any publicity.

      Wegman's team did an analysis of the statistical methods in MBH98. Question 9 concerns Wegman's analysis, not that of MM05. Question 9d, asking if their analysis included a corrected reconstruction, has the simple answer of no it did not. If one understands the question to comprise of asking what was in his study, why would he respond that it was in MM05 and Wahl and Ammans paper ? The questioner is not asking if anyone has ever managed to replicate the MBH98 results.

      Delete
  15. RobH, regarding this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


    Chop it off at 1800 (safely before the start of the temperature data, and allowing for autocorrelation effects). This is what you see. I'd have to accuse of the use of hallucinogens if you claimed these curves resemble each other.

    On the other hand, more recent reconstructions have a surprisingly good level of agreement. However, if you superimpose MBH98 on this, this is what you see. figure.

    It should be noted that entire reason this is being discussed here, today, now nearly 15 years after the original research was done, is that we have a high profile libel case in process.

    Yes, this process was started by Mann. He drew attention to this old, flawed paper and to the fact that he has not withdrawn it let alone admit to the substantive errors in it, but rather doubled down, when the errors were reported. You have an ethical obligation as a research to faithfully report substantive errors. When Mann had the opportunity to reports significant errors, when he published his corrigendum, he merely reported minor editing errors that probably usually would never have warranted an update. Instead this gave him the opportunity to appear to be forthcoming, when in fact he totally failed to do so.

    The question at hand is, does any of this even come close to implying that Mann's research was "fraudulent" or that he "tortured data" to get his results? (Noting the former term is extremely specific in its meaning.)

    Fraudulent is extremely specific in its meaning now? Not so much. It involves evidence of misconduct (there is evidence of misconduct), evidence that the person had something to gain from the misconduct (there is again evidence of this) and assumption of motive, which is an opinion.

    "Good enough" for what? How would one quantify "good enough?

    Good enough that the errors in the methodology don't produce an experimentally incorrect result, within measurement error.

    When we say a paper is in error, we're not being humpty dumpty, letting words mean what we want them to mean, there are very specific tests of this. A paper is in error if the results lie outside of the admitted uncertainty (including systematic effects).

    There are very many papers that are in error in this sense, but it is foolish to claim this is not one of them.

    You can claim the paper is "correct" that the temperatures in the last two decades are warmer than any of the last 1000 years (rough paraphrase of their results), but I don't even think that case can be made with the newer data at say the 95% CL (that's my opinion, and I admit it could be wrong).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrick... Okay. Point by point here:

      1) In reference to your first link. Again, you're creating unreasonable expectations of accuracy. The researchers are not claiming they can achieve a perfect proxy reconstructions on a century scale. It's just not expected, nor possible.

      2) In reference to your second link, I have no way to validate its accuracy the way you've presented the information. The wiki graph that I presented before comes from Robert Rhodes of the BEST project (though it's not an output from BEST data).

      3) "Yes, this process was started by Mann." I would have to take exception to this statement being that it was Steyn who chose to test the limits of free speech by printing what (according to the Judges) is likely to be considered libelous material. Mann is merely responding in order to defend his reputation.

      4) According to the Judge in the case, "fraudulent" has very specific meaning and can be proven true or false.

      5) re: "good enough." Again you're applying standards that would invalidate nearly all past research since current research is now more accurate.

      6) I do claim the paper remains correct in it's conclusion: http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/mbh99-conclusion.png

      Delete
    2. Wlell. M+M's "corrections" make the difference between MBH98/99 and the other reconstructions bigger....

      Happy witn that Carrick?

      Delete
    3. It also makes the difference between MBH98/99 and the newest reconstructions smaller.

      Delete
    4. Carrick is going upside down. Suddenly warmer periods around 1400 and 1500 and around 1780 in M+M makes a smaller difference. All Carrck needs to do is to study his own graph:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4520911/Climate/Proxies/Proxy-Ensemble2.jpg

      Bigger is smaller. Carrick is happy with that.

      Delete
    5. I assume Carrick's comment about a smaller difference is a misunderstanding of the point you're making (?)

      It's worth keeping in mind that MBH99 makes no claim of strong confidence that current temperatures are anomalous in the context of the last 1000 years. The specific word they used was 'likely', which I believe was later clarified as equivalent to the IPCC's 'likely' (>66% chance). Conclusions at the 95% confidence level therefore aren't directly relevant to the stated findings of MBH99.

      Delete
    6. I also think wozni is misunderstanding Carrick.

      Btw, MM05 was a response to MBH98 where the third sentence of the summary at the very top says very categorically:
      "Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400"

      So MBH99 was maybe backtracking somewhat already... but many of the climate activists are seemingly unaware of the uncertainty.

      Delete
    7. Please leave the leftover reconstructions for some wonderful cherry pie.

      Delete
  16. RobH: 1) In reference to your first link. Again, you're creating unreasonable expectations of accuracy. […]

    You're mixing up relative versus absolute accuracy here.

    I'm an experimentalist and I'm not holding them to any standard I wouldn't expect of myself. I don't claim you can get perfect proxy reconstructions and that was not a condition that I listed for invalidating an experimental result. Again what I said was "Good enough that the errors in the methodology don't produce an experimentally incorrect result, within measurement error."

    This has to do with relative accuracy. If the result is consistent with the "true" value within the stated uncertainty (usually we say 3-sigma here), the result is considered a "valid result".

    2) In reference to your second link, I have no way to validate its accuracy the way you've presented the information. […]

    I produced this graph, so I vouch for it's accuracy, and have the scripts and data archived that I used to process it. It's easy enough to replicate. Just let me know and I'll provide the details. Form this, clearly MBH98 is an outlier when compared to the "best" modern replications.

    3) "Yes, this process was started by Mann." I would have to take exception to this statement […]

    I mean it was started by Mann in the sense that he made mistakes (some of which can be construed as misconduct) then failed to clear the air when given the opportunity.

    The actual offense quote if due to Simburg of CEI not Steyn of NRO. That is the limit of my defense of Steyn here--he should not have used the quote, he had the opportunity to retract the statement and declined, he has no sympathy from me. When people act in an irresponsible way, as Steyn did, they are actually putting our constitution under pressure, because this becomes a test of the limits of our rights of free speech. I don't like what he's done, I don't like what he's doing, and no matter who wins, the rest of us lose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrick said... "I produced this graph, so I vouch for it's accuracy..."

      So, that begs the question, if any of what you say has any validity, why not publish it? Do what scientists do. Put your position through the peer review process.

      I don't think that your graph has any validity at all. There. I said it. But me saying that is meaningless. You vouching for its accuracy is the same. It requires a process to validate it.

      Delete
    2. Again here, I'm going to have to challenge the quality and the validity of your representation.

      This is a similar examination that comes from AR4.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

      Once again, we find that the original MBH99 reconstruction to be consistent with subsequent research.

      This diagram is completely inconsistent with yours. The IPCC diagram has gone through extensive review by the most knowledgeable scientists in the field, and had to be signed off by every member nation participating in the report (which includes a number of coal and oil producing nations).

      Delete
    3. I'm using Loehle 2008, Moberg 2005, Ljungqvist 2011 and Mann 2008 (EIV). All of these are available on line. Most of the earlier reconstructions had identified problems and should not be used, so I didn't. Mann 2008 EIV is the curve that Mann identifies as his most robust result from his paper, so it's the one I use. I calibrate the proxies against Ljungqvist 1900-1990 (the overlapping period) so that they have the same common scale. I don't call it temperature but pseudo-temperature because of the issues with temperature in the reconstruction period.
      Other than that (pre 1900), no other adjustments are made to the data series.

      Since you mention Skeptical Science, there is also a similar figure here .

      You can bloviate about this if you choose, but there is a thing called "truth". It is independently discoverable without needing a central Truth Clearing House. I do bounce what I find off against the IPCC, but in this case, they include junk series together with the good ones… likely for the predictable reasons they include lousy climate models with the good ones (international science politics).

      I find it ironic by the way that their Figure 1 (which mysteriously looks an awful lot like mine) is still described as being a hockey stick. What hockey stick looks like this figure?

      Hockey sticks have a blade (the modern temperature increase) and a flat handle (see MBH98). Modern reconstructions do not have a flat handle and shouldn't be described as a hockey stick. Ljungqvist didn't break the hockey stick, they all did. And that includes Mann 2008 (EIV).

      Delete
    4. RobH: So, that begs the question, if any of what you say has any validity, why not publish it? Do what scientists do. Put your position through the peer review process.
      It's a trivial result and it's been replicated. Not publishable. I might as well claim precedence on 1+1 = 2.

      I don't think that your graph has any validity at all. There. I said it. But me saying that is meaningless. You vouching for its accuracy is the same. It requires a process to validate it.

      Oh good grief. You don't even know what the h*ll it means to "validate". I told you I can I produce the information needed for you to verify what I have done.

      That's all I can do for you. But if you think it bothers me that somebody who is obviously as opinionated and uninformed as you are doesn't think my result is "valid", you're barking up the wrong tree, bro'.

      Delete
    5. Carrick... So, let's go back to the AR4 graph again:

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

      Are you telling me that you believe the other 4 reconstructions that are closer to MBH99 are also fraudulent? If not, why is Mike's research being singled out?

      That brings up your graph. Why are you singling out one reconstruction (MBH99) and presenting it relative to reconstructions presented a decade later? Are you trying to show us that science advances? If so, that's great, because that's pretty much all you prove with your graph.

      I would agree with you that is a trivial result. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that it really doesn't have any bearing on the state of multi-proxy reconstructions at all.

      When I say "validate" I'm not talking about about statistical methods. I'm saying tossing out a graph that hasn't gone through some sort of formal review process, and state that it is evidence that a seminal piece of research is wrong, doesn't mean much.

      As for me being "opinionated and uninformed" I believe my position is pretty consistent with the general scientific community. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that Mann's research is not fraudulent, and it also remains consistent with subsequent multiproxy research. That's all I'm defending here.

      Delete
    6. RobH: Are you telling me that you believe the other 4 reconstructions that are closer to MBH99 are also fraudulent? If not, why is Mike's research being singled out?

      None of them are fraudulent. Many of them are flawed, for reasons that have been discussed in the more technical sectors of the blogosphere. No reason to go into a history of it, but there's an informal community of people that have been quietly discussing issues with proxies for years. I think you know why Mann's research is singled out---one of his primary skills is making enemies.

      That brings up your graph. Why are you singling out one reconstruction (MBH99) and presenting it relative to reconstructions presented a decade later? Are you trying to show us that science advances? If so, that's great, because that's pretty much all you prove with your graph.

      That is really the main point. I didn't originally have MBH98, but people keep insisting that this dodgy old result had validity, so I added it to make a point.

      The more interesting point is that modern reconstructions seem to be converging to what might be a real truth. What that means is still an open question, but unlike the Rorschach test-like results of the "old days" of multi-proxies, they do cross-validate (I've checked).

      I would agree with you that is a trivial result. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that it really doesn't have any bearing on the state of multi-proxy reconstructions at all.


      That's an extraordinarily silly argument.

      It's a bloody ensemble of multi-proxy reconstructions, so of course it has a bearing!

      The only reason it's a "trivial" result is it is little more than a plot of several data files already publicly available plus their ensemble average and a confidence interval. Making a graph and computing the ensemble mean and confidence interval are not considered to be "publishable acts", especially if the data are not yours and readily available.

      That doesn't mean it's not interesting… just trivial to produce.

      [continued on next comment]

      Delete

    7. When I say "validate" I'm not talking about about statistical methods. I'm saying tossing out a graph that hasn't gone through some sort of formal review process, and state that it is evidence that a seminal piece of research is wrong, doesn't mean much.


      You don't put a graph that is easily replicated and based on publicly available data through a formal review process. If somebody who is competent wants to replicate it, I can provide them with the information.

      Peer review isn't a validation process anyway. It's a QA/QC process. It's looking for internal consistency of the paper, verifying that the scientific methods were applied correctly, determining whether the results are interesting to the readership of the journal etc.

      Peer review not a substitute for thinking. Simply being peer reviewed doesn't guarantee validity, in fact, other than in the grossest sense, that isn't even tested by the reviewers.

      When you publish, often (but not always) you are making an argument for a position and providing the reasons why you think that position is true. It's then the responsibility of the reader to determine whether they agree or not.

      Most real progress in science comes at the conference level, usually in a bar or restaurant after the sessions are over. By the time it makes it into print, often many people have given their feedback, and generally most people are expecting the results when they arrive print.

      Peer review is important, but it's by no mean the only mechanism by which science communication or even progress gets made.

      As for me being "opinionated and uninformed" I believe my position is pretty consistent with the general scientific community. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that Mann's research is not fraudulent, and it also remains consistent with subsequent multiproxy research. That's all I'm defending here.


      Compared to people who are in the field whose articles I read and sometimes correspond with (think blog threads not email), you do appear to not exactly be up to speed, let us say. Your knowledge seems limited to "things I might say to defend Michael Mann", so that's a limitation.

      But I don't think his research is fraudulent either. But I also don't agree that it's consistent. If you trust Robert Way, get him to add MBH98 to his figure. Or you can do it yourself. I think the take home is "there's a problem Houston".

      I have always viewed that result with deep suspicion and it has nothing to do with an argument over how global the MWP was: The handle is too flat and it resembles pure red noise. It's missing long-period frequency components that are present in individual proxies (e.g. the 60-year "AMO"). Everything pointed to a flawed methodology to me, and I wasn't very surprised when criticisms started coming in (von Storch, Molberg, McIntyre, etc). Nor was I surprised when Mann waved them off, he's never come across as a person who likes humble pie.

      Delete
    8. "Peer review isn't a validation process anyway. It's a QA/QC process."

      Yes. That's exactly what I mean.

      Delete
    9. Carrick... I do not claim to be at the level of someone who is an active researcher in multiproxy reconstructions. I try to keep up with a broad range of climate issues as a non-scientist. But, once again, there's nothing (to my knowledge) that I'm stating that is out of step with the broader scientific community. I'm well connected with a lot of climate scientists and believe that I'm solid in what I'm communicating. Where I'm shown incorrect I'm more than willing to adjust my positions.

      "The handle is too flat and it resembles pure red noise."

      But, once again, this was one of the first large, extensive multiproxy reconstruction produced. Looking back, I think Mike would agree with that position. But you just can't know that when you're on the other side of the timeline.

      Mann, Bradley and Hughes did something new in the field of climate research. They moved the ball forward in a meaningful way. Was their work perfectly accurate? No. Was it better that H.H. Lamb's N. England graph? Clearly. Is subsequent research far better? Of course.

      I keep saying this but you folks are essentially complaining that previous research isn't as good as current research.

      "Mann's research is singled out---one of his primary skills is making enemies."

      I don't think that's quite the case. Ben Santer expresses the same examples of having his research attacked. Stephen Schneider did too. Mike's work has been specifically targeted and he's just responded as he should. The only enemies he seems to make are those who reject the science on climate change.

      Delete
    10. I think it's pretty clear from the researchers he's unfriended that Mann is not very good at team building. While we can complain about the language (and sometimes tactics) of his critics, which I too wish could be dialed down, he's also guilty of wholesale ad hominem's himself. It seems there everybody who disagrees with anything he says is anti-science, paid by the fossil fuel industry or something. Look at the posts he's written at RC… see how many that are openly hostile towards what is fairly moderate criticism of him. That makes enemies, within his community, and only those who "reject the science on climate change" (which is substantially smaller among the critics of climate change science than you might imagine, by the way.)

      Regarding peer review as a type of QA/QC. If you can readily replicate a result, you don't need peer review. As I pointed out Robert Way has nearly the identical curve to mine, except he doesn't have MBH98. Easy enough to add and verify what I've done.

      It's not surprising that newer research gives better results. Sometimes old papers results, when compared to the newer ones, are well outside of their stated errors. I think this is true of MBH 98/99. That isn't an insult to the researcher… errors are tough to nail down and quantify. So it happens. But people shouldn't be reluctant to call a duck, a duck, when it's a duck. It does more damage to ones personal reputation and to the community's reputation when people aren't seen as being forthcoming on the limitations of their and their community's work.

      Okay… enjoyed the chat… have to go back to my regular work schedule now.

      Delete
    11. Given the Wegman social network analysis this is hilarious.

      Delete
  17. [con't]

    4) According to the Judge in the case, "fraudulent" has very specific meaning and can be proven true or false.

    I think you're reading way too much into the opinion of a judge that was rendered when viewed in the most favorable manner to the complainants (which he stated he was doing). Look up the word, I think you'll see that there are many types of fraud, there's legal and scientific fraud, then there's fraudulent used as a polemic. Which did Steyn mean? That's something the jury decides, not the judge, but typically it's given with the most favorable meaning to the defendant, within what are reasonable interpretations.

    5) re: "good enough." Again you're applying standards that would invalidate nearly all past research since current research is now more accurate.


    No it doesn't. You're confusing relative versus absolute accuracy again. see this.

    Absolute accurate measures the distance between two measurements, relative takes this distance and divides it by the measurement error associated with the difference between the two measurements (for simple measurements with no correlation between them, this is just the sum of squares of the two measurements errors). If this distance is greater than 3-sigmas, the measurement is considered to be invalid. Typically for a single measurement, if the magnitude of this value is greater than "3", the measurement is said to be "in error", assuming we have a value we "believe" as being more valid. If we don't, then we just say "the two results do not agree".

    Re 6) the paper can be correct in its conclusions, while getting everything wrong. You could probably have "guessed" that paragraph without writing anything (when is part of the trouble here---definitely issues with confirmation and expectation bias present here).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Make that Simberg not Simburg, my apologies to the Simburg's of the world. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. And to avoid confusion (sorry that we don't have a comment editor here), this should read:

    (for simple measurements with no correlation between them, this is just the square root of the sum of squares of the two measurements errors)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carrick... I find it fascinating that you're reading so much more into this than even McIntyre does.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you could expand on what I'm reading more into that even McIntyre does?

      Seriously, you make statements that are false. I commented on them. If you don't want me to comment on them, don't make false statements.

      Delete
    3. I'm not making false statements, Carrick. You're certainly welcome to disagree with me but it's a wee bit self serving to a definitive state that I'm taking positions that are false. All that does is lead to a pointless round-robin of accusations that lead nowhere.

      Delete
    4. I'm not accusing you of lying (nor do I think you are). You don't have to be dishonest to state erroneous (false) things.

      Delete
    5. But you are saying that you understand and I don't. Whereas, it's just as easy for me to claim the same in response, and that leaves both of us getting nowhere.

      Delete
  20. RobH, you say "I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that Mann's research is not fraudulent, and it also remains consistent with subsequent multiproxy research. That's all I'm defending here."
    Please ignore the curves that result from Mann's and other's research and look at his process.

    Are you claiming that Mann's process back then, the WAY he did his work
    * the way he defined his experiments
    * the way he selected data
    * the way he encouraged/discouraged scientific replication in what he published
    * the way he demonstrated care (or not) to not fool himself or others in his methodology

    Was consistent with others that follow?

    That's factually a difficult case to make. The alarmist climate science community was undeniably opposed to the questions being asked by McIntyre. They circled their wagons. They lost under FOIA. And now they are grudgingly becoming more transparent. That's a big improvement and is slowwwwly gaining ground to become compatible with the rest of science. But its hardly consistent with where Mann and the rest began.

    Just read up on best practices in science, such as Reproducible Research (that's a specific term) to see what I mean. This is not a new thing -- it goes back to the 1990's in detail, and much earlier in concept.

    These are topics that have been avoided but will come out in court if any kind of effective defense is mounted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MrPete
      "the WAY he did his work"
      I think you'll have trouble showing that the way he did his work was inconsistent with those that follow. You keep forgetting that MBH98 was published in a famously exacting journal; that Mann is now Distinguished Professor, AGU Fellow etc. And you're going to produce MrPete, or even SteveMc, to lecture him on proper scientific practice.

      That's not to say that Mann is above criticism. But I do think the ideas of MrPete on how science should be done are eccentric. And there's a natural response that MrPete is theorizing about how science should be done, but Prof Mann does it.

      "They lost under FOIA. "
      Did Mann lose? Where?

      Delete
    2. > MrPete is theorizing about how science should be done [...]

      It's worse than that, as he's theorizing about how replicable should be science.

      And then he points at CA's blog, which has always been, as bender would say in another context, needles in the eyes.

      As long as celebrated lawyers can copy-paste from it, it could be said to be reproducible, right?

      Delete
    3. You guys are too funny :-D

      I gave you a starting link. AFAIK Reproducible Research first gained solid traction at Stanford University. That's not a particularly backwoods context. Blinded Experimentation isn't exactly new either. Your argument about "eccentric" or reproducibility is not with me. Go argue with Stanford, which is concerned enough about the topic that they are forming a major project to investigate what is going wrong in scientific practice and what can be done about it.

      As for whether Mann personally "lost" under FOIA... his "loss" is at least as strong as his "exoneration." :-D

      Delete
    4. By the way, in case it is not already crystal clear from what I wrote above, good scientific practice is not a respecter of "Distinguished Professor, AGU Fellow" etc. In 2005 Prof John Ionnadis selected the most-cited (1000+ citations) studies from the top three medical journals over a fifteen year period. VERY distinguished authors and work by any reasonable metric.

      Would you like to claim that Mann's work has been in the same quality ballpark as the best work done in medicine?

      Think about that, then read on.

      How good was that work? This good: 41% of those 49 studies were later proven to be either completely wrong or way off base. Non-reproducible. Faulty. Incorrect. Bad enough that Stanford is investigating why the best work in science is so bad.

      If you want to argue "well, what do you expect? So what if Mann's work is completely non-reproducible! You expect too much..." you would simply be admitting the emperor has no clothes.

      Again, your argument is not with me.

      Delete
    5. > :-D

      As CB once said to your friend RyanO: "Lose the smilies, they don’t become you."

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/437169937

      The link asked was about Mike's memo, which the Auditor has yet to provide.

      Readers may wonder if an exoneration "as strong as" something does not exist, just as they may wonder where minimization fits into the cycle of denial.

      Delete
    6. (CB apparently never did understand that the problem with treemometers is as simple as a non-monotonic response curve to temperature.)

      I don't know about "Mike's memo" nor about a link that asked about it. I've followed through on a couple of your links up above, and I *can* speak with authority about some of your own doubts and sense of being put upon... because I personally am a tech expert who understands WordPress quite well, and have helped both keep CA running, and helped move it over to WP.com several years ago.

      Your concerns about moderation there are 100% baseless.
      * I just checked the tagged-word list. You're not in there. (Only two people are, FWIW and there's a long history behind each one)
      * There is ZERO staff to focus on moderation, etc. A tiny set of volunteers handles that on an irregular basis. (For example, at the moment I'm spending some not-so-available time responding to you etc... but as of two hours from now most likely I'll be gone for the next three weeks.)
      * WordPress itself does a pretty good job of flagging posts as questionable. Unless you're using nasty, religious or political language, your posts will only be caught if WP thinks there's a problem.

      And That's The Truth. (cue Rowan and Martin)

      Delete
    7. A food fight is your style, MrPete. Remember, you're supposed to be in it for Da Science. You know, the thing that Nick's post reminds you of your pet topic since least 2011:

      http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/29/mosher-on-the-provenance-of-said-et-al-2008/#comment-283568

      But I like when you use words like "non-monotonic". That makes you sound so impressive.

      ***

      > I don't know about "Mike's memo" [...]

      Mike's memo refers to Mike's memorandum.

      You know, MrPete, the object of this post:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/

      And also the object of this other post:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/

      And also this other post:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/

      And this one:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/23/more-sks-in-the-mann-pleadings/

      And this one:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

      And this too:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

      And also:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

      Indeed, the Auditor "occasionally" lapses from his determination to something MrPete has not really said, but we can surmise it's something like Da Science.

      ***

      As for CA's moderation, your poor excuses are duly noted. Speaking of which, your "ZERO staff to focus on moderation" is baseless. We know that the Auditor himself snips and inserts his Voice of God, that he's not alone in having access to all the IPs. Which means you're using a verbal trick with words like "staff" and "focus" to exempt yourselves from getting things done.

      You really think that your shrinking of the URLs under the names of the commenters would go unnoticed, MrPete? When will you authorize a Twitter login? Aren't you supposed to be an Internet guru or something?

      Readers will note that amidst these poor excuses both the Auditor and now MrPete failed to fish my comment out:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/#comment-486106

      You should stick to your pet topic, MrPete. More life stories would be nice too.

      Delete
    8. A food fight is NOT your style, of course.

      Delete
    9. MrPete,
      "Go argue with Stanford, which is concerned enough about the topic that they are forming a major project to investigate what is going wrong in scientific practice and what can be done about it."
      OK, I went looking. And what I found was what seemed to be a hobbyhorse of a very emeritus geo professor (Claerbout), and a few papers from the dep't of stats.

      Delete
    10. "How good was that work? This good: 41% of those 49 studies were later proven to be either completely wrong or way off base. Non-reproducible. Faulty. Incorrect. Bad enough that Stanford is investigating why the best work in science is so bad." - MrPete

      What the delusionists don't get, that this is hardly news and that even when the "science is so bad" it achieves more in a day than all the perfectly mealy-mouthed, snide, quibbling blog posts have achieved in their entirety.

      Delete
    11. [Gaaah. Lost my reply and this blog destroys it if you accidentally press the wrong key.]

      Willard:
      1) I'm not much for food fights. I prefer to sidestep grenades and respond with the truth. Your problem if/when you can't hear or accept what is true.

      2) I never said there's no moderation. If that were so, the "held" comments would never get released at all. I said there's no staff to do it... just volunteers who occasionally help out. Right now there are 900+ on hold because of this issue. I'm sure Steve would love to keep the number closer to zero. I have no idea how many of those are real spam vs good comments. Sad that you were unable to comprehend what I said.

      3) YOU are upset about the "shrunk URL's"??!! WOW!!! I'm not sure if anyone else has spoken up about it. In any case, welcome to the club. I spent hours trying to fix that when we moved to WP.com and ran out of time before solving it. (WP.com is tricky: *no* code changes of any kind are allowed. All formatting etc must be done in CSS. I'm actually pretty pleased that the site looks as good as it does given the extreme constraints.) If you have a solution, I'm all ears :) :)

      I'm more than a bit backed up on life in general, or I would have created a new version of the CA Assistant by now. Lots of life and death situations (including a parent dying and grandchild born two hours apart... talk about a full night!)... and another one on the way.

      SO... you're welcome to volunteer. My point was that most if not all issues of site maintenance at CA are due to lack of manpower, not any willful avoidance.

      Nick and Michael:
      You won't find it online yet. It's still in the works. But here's the help you need to get started: the beginning point is a surprisingly highly cited article: "Why most published research findings are false" by JPA Ionnadis 2005.

      And no, these incorrect "findings" aren't accomplishing a lot. Some of them have done great damage as a matter of fact.

      Bad science is not helpful; at the very least it causes people like Michael to believe that those who argue for better science are "mealy-mouthed, snide" quibblers. Sad for you.

      Anyway, this has been... interesting. Sadly, I need to go disappear for a few weeks. Sorry to leave this conversation suddenly but I have about 5000 miles of driving and a few other responsibilities coming up in the next few weeks. I'll check in if I get the chance but can't promise anything.

      Delete
    12. MrPete,

      You seem to deal in a idealised fantasy-land-science, that hasn't, doesn't and will never, exist.

      Errors are in fact a great source of inspiration and enlightenment in the scientific process.

      It's a pity that some prefer to see these as an opportunity to grind political and personal axes.

      Delete
    13. Surely you must be joking, MrPete.

      What you've thrown at me so far in this thread alone is enough to show that your "I'm not much for food fights" is quite moot. A pity is a mix of ad homs and red herrings. In your last comment alone, we have "I never said there's no moderation" and "YOU are upset about the "shrunk URL's"??", both of which are irrelevant and empty.

      My point is that your "ZERO staff to focus on moderation" was baseless, i.e. just an excuse with hypnotical words. Resources alone may not explain CA's moderation practices, but they sure don't justify them. If the Auditor is there to reply almost as soon as Nick does, he sure can manage a spam folder. And if the Auditor needs staff, let Him hire some: if he made "no long-term commitment to wear a hair shirt", he may expect the same for his crew.

      The point about the shrunk URL was to see what you'd say about something so innocuous. While your "yes, but CSS" is duly noted, you might have a tough time reconciling this with the fact that the names' appearance has not changed with shrunk URLs. To that effect, please recall what another friend of the Auditor once said to him:

      > A friend told me that to look for evidences of dishonesty in little things, as someone who is dishonest in big things will also be dishonest in little things.

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/14168774371

      I surmise nobody knows how moderation is worked out at CA (and perhaps not even WP) and what you call my "concerns about moderation" therefore stands. You're not even close a good working hypothesis why for instance Nick's comments get spammed.

      Please note the only your last comment did not address: Mike's memo. That's perhaps the most revealing evidence of a food fight. You comment on stuff and forget what takes most (I could say 75% just to mimick your appeals to accuracy) of my comment. In fact, your response discharged everything that was included in my comment before that, i.e. Mike's memo and your humorous "as strong as Mike's exoneration".

      Let's hope you dig how your rope-a-dope is a way to behave in a food fights, MrPete, or else I will have to explain that one to you when you return.

      May your newborn grandchild bring you lots of joy!

      [1] http://climateaudit.org/blog-rules-and-road-map/

      Delete
    14. > A pity is a mix of ad homs and red herrings.

      No idea what "pity" does there. It's supposed to be a "food fight".

      Also,

      > Resources alone may not explain CA's moderation practices

      They *may*, of course. But I'm sure the Auditor can ask around and get sycophants to do it for free. I've heard that Dave Springer has some experience.

      Delete
    15. This is truly a laugh a minute. Steve "I want what I want and I want is now, and I am going to yell and scream until I get it and your first priority is to service my needs and even after I get it I am going to scream some more about how you made me wait" McIntyre, wants everyone else to wait on him. GEAFB.

      Delete
    16. > McIntyre, wants everyone else to wait on him.

      No exactly so, Eli. While *MrPete* may convey the idea that my comment has not been fished out of the spam folder because of lack of resource, they do seem to have gone in the spam folder to verify if it was there. Perhaps MrPete has not went there, but we know that the Auditor did:

      > [M]oderation at CA is triggered by various keywords, one of which is in your comment. [...] I examined the pending comments at CA to see if your comment was in moderation and there is no record of it being submitted. The comment number that you show here points to a different comment.

      Also notice what the Auditor does not say.

      He does not say which keyword triggered the spam filter. So I would need to spend time second guessing the Auditor's blacklist.

      He does not say if he saw the comment in the the spam folder. If my comment went into the spam filter, it would be easy to fish it out.

      Something's amiss.

      Delete
    17. Citation for the Auditor's quote above:

      http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9998

      Delete
  21. (And ALL who love good science should be applauding this. It isn't about one individual or the other. That's politics not science. What's good scientific process? Let's support that wholeheartedly.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > That's politics not science.

      Does the "that" refers to what the Auditor does not say?

      The sound of science itself.

      More omertà, MrPete?

      Delete
    2. I'm not subtle in what I write. Just read it plainly. "That" refers to the prior sentence. When we focus on people instead of practices, that's politics.

      It's true that Steve McIntyre occasionally lapses from his determination to be studiously calm in his responses, in the face of unbelievable attacks. But his purpose and focus have always been on scientific practice. If you can't see that, you've not read his blog sufficiently.

      I have some experience in addressing challenging global topics diplomatically (far outside the realm of climate science), and working with others who do likewise. Steve impresses me as doing a particularly good job at this, given the context he's had to work in. Not perfect of course, but truly impressive nonetheless. Again, if you can't see that, I urge you to step back, ignore your own perspective on the specific topic, and look at the big picture a bit more.

      Delete
    3. > It's true that Steve McIntyre occasionally lapses from his determination to be studiously calm in his responses, in the face of unbelievable attacks. But his purpose and focus have always been on scientific practice. If you can't see that, you've not read his blog sufficiently.

      Surely you're joking, MrPete. Chances are you might not win the "read the blog" game. Here's a selection to put your "occasionally in perspective:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/zeverybestofsteve

      Your handwaved voucher for a friend with your own authority might be difficult to reconcile for your request to step back? According to your own definition of politics, this amounts to a political defense.

      Reading the blog suffices to give the impression that this is a personal vendetta. As a personal vendetta, what Steve does makes lots of sense. It's a matter of honor and should acknowledged as such by its commensalist niche. See how much you can sweep under a pronoun?

      Nobody makes the Auditor do what he does. The "doctored quote" was just silly. Refusing to provide a single URL to Mike's memo does not bode well either.

      So again, more Omertà, MrPete?

      Delete
    4. Uhh... we're dealing with more than a decade of experience now. Yes, you can pick out all kinds of interesting stuff out of context, particularly from Steve's early days. And thus your "selection to put occasionally in perspective" does exactly the opposite: it takes a selection of phrases OUT of context, OUT of perspective.

      You've clearly NOT read the blog. Stop reading what others are saying. Go to the source yourself. Read the story as a whole, in context.

      My "handwaved voucher" is based on reading and interacting since 2007 when I first connected with his work and eventually with him. Hardly handwaving. And, I've also invested time to visit some of the scientists involved. Not only their research centers but also visiting and engaging with field work. I'm also related to a climate scientist, FWIW.

      How about you? How much effort have you put into understanding both the questions Steve has been asking, the responses he's received, the goal and focus of his work?

      It's pretty easy to take a person's words out of context and come up with a completely incorrect picture. That's already easy... and going to get worse in the future because while right now we can take written words out of context, audio-indexing will soon make it easy to take spoken words out of context. (Imagine being able to search for any phrase you like in the middle of anybody's obscure speech from 20 years ago, halfway around the world. That's coming.) My point: context is huge and "neverendingaudit" eliminates context. Worthless for real understanding.

      Delete
    5. > It's pretty easy to take a person's words out of context and come up with a completely incorrect picture.

      You mean like the "doctored quote", MrPete?

      Or perhaps like CG I, II, III, MrPete?

      But really, MrPete, do you think that appealing to context will turn the Auditor's "occasional lapses" into Da Science? Perhaps a quote from the Auditor himself may convince you:

      > Sometimes I lapse into controversy, mostly after I’ve been slagged in print somewhere, but I try to stay cheerful.

      http://climateaudit.org/blog-rules-and-road-map/

      Readers will note that the minimization of "sometimes" may be less obvious than MrPete's "occasionally". That CA can be considered polemical is acknowledged right from the start. And if that does not suffice, here are some breadcrumbs for the "Kyoto Flames" story:

      http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/thekyotoflames

      Please make sure to go to the source: context will reveal everything.



      Delete
    6. And your point is, in that link? A bit confusing but I made my way through from the Texas Sharpshooter quote to Steve's very accurate, and funny, post on the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

      That's a very specific form of logical fallacy. AFAIK it was accurately applied.

      What are you hoping for: everyone to avoid accurately describing the poor science done by your favorite alarmist scientists?

      Willard, I do have a great forgettory, but I took the time to look you up on CA. You have a long history of misunderstanding what is being said, and of making charges that are inappropriate. Even so, AFAIK you've never been blocked, banned or censored.

      Compare that to McIntyre. The reason he's not liked is because he's so dad-blamed right so much of the time as he pushes for better scientific practice.

      The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a great example. Anyone who engages in such shenanigans is doing bad science, period.

      Just because Steve uses humor to point out such foibles doesn't make him a horrible guy. Far better to use humor than anger and nastiness?!

      That's why we developed the Starbucks Hypothesis, as another example. Far better to point out issues with laughter whenever possible.

      Well, looks like grandbabygirl #3 is soon to be born. I'll leave you to your pouting. Enjoy!

      Delete
    7. > And your point is, in that link?

      To show that your "occasionally" is a minimization of what the Auditor does, that your appeal to context was fallacious, and that your appeal to Da Science is the usual pea and thimble game trick we can see on CA.

      Do you think making this about me will show anything against that, MrPete?

      Do you think a food fight will distract me from that topic, MrPete?

      Just in case you forgot (I've heard you're inclined to forgettry), appealing to ridicule is a fallacy and the "just joking" card is ungentlemanly:

      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustJokingJustification

      Speaking of which, here's the latest funny:

      > Josh sends the following homage to Nick Stokes:

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/#comment-492822

      To post a caricature always brings levity in the middle of an argument.

      (Incidentally, this renders Steve's "I only post attacks on professionnals" quite moot.)

      ***

      There's also this other one, where the Auditor took interest in homoerotic regalia:

      > As also is well known, Cook posted images in the private SKS archive of himself in Nazi regalia and homoerotic images of several prominent climate skeptics. A strange source for pleadings by a reputable Washington law firm.

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

      Please tell me how humor prevents this from being a smear, MrPete. In a blog post where the main source is Shub's, incidentally. Fancy that.

      Just joking. I like Shub's. Even Shub can be right from time to time.

      Delete
  22. I always thought it was funny that although Mann had coauthors for every paper but he's the only one being attacked by the usual suspects. Makes you wonder about their sincerity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I made this point earlier. Perhaps it tells you something about Mann and his ability to make enemies out of nearly everybody.

      Delete
    2. Attacking his work because Mann is not popular has nothing to do with science. It is an ad hominum attack.
      Thanks for clearing that up.

      Delete
    3. Of course it's not like Mann's supporters don't regularly engage in ad hominems themselves.

      That's the oldest rule in being a verbal bully: Attempt to impose a different set of rules for the person you are debating than the ones you use yourself.

      Delete
    4. Carrick, you mean that Yasmin Said"s social network analysis was merely nothing, no nothing at all?

      Delete
    5. Yep Carrick, you got it right, everyone just hates Mike Mann.

      Coauthors
      Rutherford, S.(20) Bradley, R.S.(13) Hughes, M.K.(13) Schmidt, G.A.(10) Ammann, C.(8) Goosse, H.(8) Wahl, E.(7) Shindell, D.T.(7) Jones, P.D.(7) Zhang, Z.(5) Cook, E.R.(5) Park, J.(5) Briffa, K.R.(4) Ammann, C.M.(4) Timmermann, A.(4) Renssen, H.(4) Evans, J.L.(4) Xoplaki, E.(4) Lall, U.(4) Wanner, H.(4) Emanuel, K.A.(3) Donnelly, J.P.(3) Fuentes, J.D.(3) Luterbacher, J.(3) Cobb, K.M.(3) Cook, B.I.(3) Fan, F.(3) Rahmstorf, S.(3) Crane, R.(3) Tett, S.F.B.(3) Ribera, P.(3) Wagener, T.(3) D'Arrigo, R.D.(3) Lee, S.(2) Adams, J.B.(2) Comiso, J.C.(2) Annan, J.D.(2) Emile-Geay, J.(2) Guiot, J.(2) Crespin, E.(2) Faluvegi, G.(2) Ning, L.(2) Osborn, T.J.(2) Maibach, E.(2) Miller, R.L.(2) Horton, B.P.(2) Keller, K.(2 Riedwyl, N.(2) Rind, D.(2) Kemp, A.C.(2) Delworth, T.L.(2) Sabbatelli, T.A.(2) Sallaz-Damaz, Y.(2) Saltzman, B.(2) Kozar, M.E.(2) Kuttel, M.(2) Shindell, D.(2) Bowman, T.E.(2) Singh, R.(2) Smith, T.M.(2) Somerville, R.C.J.(2) Sriver, R.L.(2) Steig, E.J.(2) Stouffer, R.J.(2) Miller, S.K.(2) Najjar, R.G.(2) Trigo, R.(2) Vermeer, M.(2) Ni, F.(2) Kull, C.(2) Wahl, E.R.(2) Kiefer, T.(2) Wittenberg, A.T.(2) Dubinkina, S.(2) Yiou, P.(2) Schneider, D.P.(2) D'Odorico, P.(1) Davis, R.E.(1) Dettinger, M.D.(1) Diaz, H.F.(1) Druckenbrod, D.L.(1) Dunkeloh, A.(1) Dwyer, G.S.(1) Edwards, A.M.(1) Ehrlich, P.R.(1) Esper, J.(1) Felis, T.(1) Feng, S.(1) Fichefet, T.(1) Finney, B.P.(1) Fischer, E.(1) Fischhoff, B.(1) Fleitmann, D.(1) Folland, C.K.(1) Foster, G.(1) Frauenfeld, O.W.(1) Garcia-Herrera, R.(1) Gardiner, S.M.(1) Garnier, E.(1) Gerber, S.(1) Ghil, M.(1) Gimeno, L.(1) Gleason, B.E.(1) Goes, M.(1) Gonzalez-Gonzalez, V.A.(1) Gonzalez-Hidalgo, J.C.(1) Gonzalez-Rouco, F.J.(1) Gould, R.J.(1) Graham, N.(1) Guilyardi, E.(1) Hardadottir, J.(1) Hargreaves, J.C.(1) Harrison, S.P.(1) Hatfield, J.L.(1) Hegerl, G.C.(1) Hirst, A.C.(1) Holland, G.J.(1) Hughes, M.A.(1) Ide, K.(1) Jacobeit, J.(1) Jacoby, G.C.(1) Jain, S.(1) Jansen, E.(1) Jaquis, R.J.(1) Jones, P.(1) Joos, F.(1) Kageyama, M.(1) Karoly, D.J.(1) Katz, B.(1) Keimig, F.T.(1) Keuler, K.(1) Knight, J.R.(1) Koc, N.(1) Koch, D.M.(1) Kondrashov, D.(1) Konecky, B.(1) Kossin, J.P.(1) Kristjansdottir, G.B.(1) L'Heureux, M.L.(1) Ladurie, E.L.R.(1) Lambert, S.J.(1) Laprise, R.(1) LeGrande, A.N.(1) Hu, Q.(1) Lees, J.M.(1) Legrande, A.N.(1) Leiserowitz, A.(1) Lionello, P.(1) Lough, J.M.(1) Loutre, M.F.(1) Lovejoy, S.(1) Abarbanel, H.D.I.(1) Ma, L.(1) Abbott, M.B.(1) Malone, R.W.

      Delete
    6. I never say everybody hated Mann.

      Pull the other one.

      Delete
  23. Or maybe there is something decidedly nasty at work.

    Think identity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think its Mann's work or Mann's personality the far right deniers hate. His heritage makes him an easy target for some.

      Delete
    2. Think "self appointed spokesman".

      Delete
    3. Think "try not to puke":

      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/mcintyres-role-in-the-latest-teapot-tempest/

      Vintage 2009. Imagine that.

      Delete
    4. Think "If you look at the ingredients in climate science, I hardly need to editorialize":

      http://climateaudit.org/2006/02/18/goldstein-of-caltech-on-misconduct/

      Notice that the F word appears in the sentence just before the one I quoted.

      Delete
    5. To whom does " self appointed spokesman " refer. A google search produces no instance of this phrase describing Mann. There are entries however thus describing McIntyre.

      In one of Styne's timeless articles, he says that Mann is said to be a 'Nobel Laureate" in the complaint. This, of course , is not what the document says. Is this opinion piece the origin of your phrase " self appointed'?

      Delete
    6. Depends what document you are talking about. The original lawsuit, from Mann's own facebook page:
      https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
      Says:
      "Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.""

      No, he was not awarded it along with Al Gore (and before you start arguing with me about that, check with the Nobel Institute, because they also disagree he was awarded it).

      Delete
    7. > Depends what document you are talking about.

      Indeed. Here's the Auditor:

      > Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

      Has the Auditor's provided a source for that quote, None?

      Cue to some random definition for "academic misconduct".

      Delete
    8. Speaking of academic misconduct, here's Hu on a related matter:

      > If the undergrad used a wikipedia graph without providing the proper URL credit to the wikipedia source, as UNEP did here, he or she would be in trouble.

      http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/25/spot-the-hockey-stick-n-2/#comment-194447

      Notice bender's follow-up on "the impression it gives".

      Delete
  24. Think "Nick -ever the Racehorse Haynes special pleader.":

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/#comment-402437

    ReplyDelete