Global temperature has not increased since 1998

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Charles Lindbergh was an ardent supporter of the third reich. It didn't stop him from being a brilliant aviator.

Would you like to debate Global Warming?

Wow, terrible analogy.

You should be careful what you ask for, Green will destroy you.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Only problem was that Mann appears to have FUDGED THE DATA. He is guilty of the scientific equivalent of HERESY.

If your allegations were true he would be unemployed.

Link to actual science.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Jack78

You continue to offer political connection BS while ignoring the science. If Mann's calculation is incorrect it needs to be corrected and then those corrections require a reevaluation of impact on scientific conclusions. This happens all of the time in the scientific process, moron.

19 July 2006

The missing piece at the Wegman hearing

Filed under:

• Paleoclimate
• Climate Science

— group @ 8:37 PM
It's not often that blogs come up in congressional hearings, but RealClimate was mentioned yesterday in the Energy and Commerce hearings on the 'Hockey Stick' affair. Of course, it was only to accuse us of being part of tight-knit social network of climate scientists, but still, the public recognition is nice.

There is much that could be said about the hearings (and no doubt will be) and many of the participants (Tom Karl, Tom Crowley, Hans von Storch, Gerry North) did a good job in articulating the big picture on climate change independently of the 'hockey stick' study as we've highlighted before. But it seems to us that there was a missing element in the discussions. That element was the direct implication of the critique that was the principal focus of Wegman's testimony and that was mentioned periodically throughout the day.

Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05's arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree - both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance.

But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all.

This is what MBH would have looked like using centered PC analysi s:

Red is the original MBH emulation and green is the calculation using centered PC analysis (and additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series). (Calculations are from Wahl and Amman (2006), after their fig. 5d). Pretty much the same variability and the same 'hockey stick'. We'd be very surprised if anyone thought that this would have made any difference to either the conclusions or the subsequent use of the MBH results.

In fact, it's even more simple, Throw out that PC analysis step completely, what do you get?

Again, red is the original MBH98 multiproxy+PC analysis, green is if the raw data are used directly (with no PC analysis at all). (This comes from Rutherford et al (2005) and uses a different methodology - RegEM - to calibrate paleoclimate proxy data against the modern instrumental record, but that doesn't make any difference for this point).

Why doesn't it make any difference? It's because the PC analysis was used to encapsulate all of the statistically relevant information in the N. American tree ring network and so whatever patterns are in there they will always influence the final reconstruction.

So what would have happened to the MBH results if Wegman and his colleagues had been consulted on PC centering conventions at the time? Absolutely nothing.
Can we all get on with something more interesting now?

Yes, it looks like an intentional case of "fudging heresy" to me ....

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

If your allegations were true he would be unemployed.

Link to actual science.

Remind me again how many times guys with tenure are fired for making outrageous claims?

He was repudiated.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Wow, terrible analogy.

You should be careful what you ask for, Green will destroy you.

That's where you have a real problem, pal. If the purpose of this board is to humiliate others, why not name it something else. How, about "Pissing Contest?"

I admit to being a bit of an idealist. I think this board can be something more. Something along the lines of an actual discussion forum.

If by being "destroyed" it means I learn something, I'd be happy to be "destroyed."

If by being "destroyed" it means we play "who can piss further," I'll simply bow out.

Of course, without putting much effort into it, I can piss much further.

But, I digress.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Yes, it looks like an intentional case of "fudging heresy" to me ....

jack,

I'm getting pretty sick of your attitude.

I'm going to ask you some basic questions.

First, your response to me saying "I don't know" was to accuse me of putting my head in the sand.

Do you acknowledge that there may be some intelligent people who may come to different conclusions?

If yes, then would you retract the head in the sand accusation?

Second, do you acknowledge that it was you who brought the political into this discussion?

Third, do you acknowledge that some people may view your cherry-picking of sources as somewhat suspicious?

Fourth, do you acknowledge that bias occurs on both sides of the global warming equation?

Fifth, will you cease attacking the messenger as your primary defense against other viewpoints?

Sixth, will you acknowledge that your argument is harmed by admitting you don't read contrary viewpoints?

Seventh, do you really believe that we understand all the variables associated with climate change?

I'm going to await your responses to these questions. Then we will decide whether to continue. As it stands, you and I aren't having a discussion. I'm not interested in having a "pissing contest."

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

...
If by being "destroyed" it means I learn something, I'd be happy to be "destroyed."
....

How about learning that respect for a differing view is won based on its merit, not by deception.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately for you, your golden-boy, Michael Mann, appears to have his own political and scientific agenda.

Politics is not science. You are confused - that's why I brought it up. Mann is also Caucasian.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Worse, he appears to be manipulating the facts to suit his theory.

Ouch. You do know that that cardinal scientific sin trumps by a factor of 10,000 which company one works for or where they receive donations.

You didn't comprehend the posted articles?

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Oh, I expect you to thoroughly vet each political candidate. ....

It's just not getting thru to you. Science itself is not political. The hypotheses, the experiment design, the data, the analysis, and the conclusions are all in plain sight for review. Has nothing to do w/politics.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

... First, your response to me saying "I don't know" was to accuse me of putting my head in the sand.

Your "I don't know" declaration was made in reference to you believing the distorted info in SoF, which leads one to conclude "nobody knows" so what the point in doing anything ....

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Do you acknowledge that there may be some intelligent people who may come to different conclusions?

Absolutely, but I'd expect that the "different eye-opening conclusion" not be derived based on distorted information.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

If yes, then would you retract the head in the sand accusation?

No, you refuse to seriously consider your conclusion was formed on distorted information. That is a head-in-the-sand position.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Second, do you acknowledge that it was you who brought the political into this discussion?

Absolutely. The "talking heads" on the right are leading the view you've adopted (thru enlightenment) ... The science is apolitical - there's no need for a divide along political affiliation lines. The hypotheses, the experiment design, the data, the analysis, and the conclusion are there for all to see. As I suggested, you should consider who the powerful right most closely represent and what the vested interests are.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Third, do you acknowledge that some people may view your cherry-picking of sources as somewhat suspicious?

I'm referring to the science and those who actually understand it.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Fourth, do you acknowledge that bias occurs on both sides of the global warming equation?

More on one side than the other ... one side is more focused on the science.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Fifth, will you cease attacking the messenger as your primary defense against other viewpoints?

You've proven beyond a doubt that you don't know the difference between "attacking the messenger" and "attacking the positions/points made made by the messenger" using facts. You fail to recognize that discussions on this topic has been taking place for several years and that some sources have already been vetted and their veracity judged.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Sixth, will you acknowledge that your argument is harmed by admitting you don't read contrary viewpoints?

I can read contrary viewpoints. When trusted experts on a given subject have already read a viewpoint and have identified clear and repeated flaws, it's logical to not waist your time. Seems straight forward to me.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Seventh, do you really believe that we understand all the variables associated with climate change?

Clearly not. But I've already indicated that many times. But you now chose to ignore an accurate picture of what we do know and at what level of certainty.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

That's where you have a real problem, pal. If the purpose of this board is to humiliate others, why not name it something else.

Now you understand WH. Nobody is ever wrong, ever.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Now you understand WH. Nobody is ever wrong, ever.

Correction: Some pretend they are never wrong, ever. Right tuffy?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Your "I don't know" declaration was made in reference to you believing the distorted info in SoF, which leads one to conclude "nobody knows" so what the point in doing anything ....

First of all, thanks for answering the questions.

But, I must ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Your chronology is also wrong.

If you recall, my exact quote was: Global Warming is like religion, I don't know and neither do you.

To which, you made an accusation that I didn't understand the argument. Further, you stated that "it's like me to not even try."

Of course, that is completely false and baseless.

As is your recent comment that I advocate doing nothing.

If you want to know what I suggest, why don't you ask?

Absolutely, but I'd expect that the "different eye-opening conclusion" not be derived based on distorted information.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of your source.

There are actually more damning characteristics in that Wegman report than fudging data.

Check it out:

The House Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University, who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They have now produced a report that devastatingly demonstrates what we sceptics knew all along, that the hockeystick is pure nonsense. Of course, the language is much more diplomatic than that, but the effect is no less dramatic. Among the conclusions in the summary are:
• Mann et al. misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.
•A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appears to review each other’s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer review and temperature reconstructions.
•Although the researchers rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.
•Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.
•Policy-related climate science should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review involving statisticians.
FULL WEGMAN REPORT at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...man_Report.pdf

From: The Week That Was

Don't take my word for it. Dive into the details. The Wegman report is actually indicting the entire infrastructure used by the so-called global warming experts.

Again, don't make assumptions about what I think about it, ask me directly.

No, you refuse to seriously consider your conclusion was formed on distorted information. That is a head-in-the-sand position.

Have I refused to seriously consider that? How about asking me?

What I am CLEARLY trying to do is show you is that the GW issue isn't as cut and dry as you'd like.

The ONLY justification I can think of for posting on this forum is an exchange of information. If you summarily dismiss other viewpoints before considering them (or not reading them) I have no reason to do the research necessary for a well-informed discussion.

Absolutely. The "talking heads" on the right are leading the view you've adopted (thru enlightenment) ...

You are treading on dangerous ground here. It isn't as clear cut as right versus left.

I'm after truth. No party has a monopoly on that.

The science is apolitical - there's no need for a divide along political affiliation lines.

Do you really think that the left isn't driving the science?

Let me broaden my bias commentary: There is bias in everything done by every human on the planet.

There is more bias in certain avenues, but, to suspect that Professors at Penn State aren't capable of an agenda, is pretty naive.

The hypotheses, the experiment design, the data, the analysis, and the conclusion are there for all to see.

It really isn't that easy. Without going into a long-winded discussion of statistics, observer bias, etc..., one must always be critical of any data presented.

As I suggested, you should consider who the powerful right most closely represent and what the vested interests are.

Again, don't assume that I'm not aware. However, I'm more interested in the actual discussion than who is making them. Remember, I'm not afraid of the messenger or the message. It's YOU that cherry-picks the data.

I'm referring to the science and those who actually understand it.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are totally dismissing the concerns of some well-educated people. Your assumption being that only one side understands the issues. Correct me if I'm reading this correctly.

More on one side than the other ... one side is more focused on the science.

Never mind, I intepreted the previous sentence correctly.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Dive into the Wegman report. See who wrote it. Find out if you can dismiss their concerns so easily.

You won't be able to.

You've proven beyond a doubt that you don't know the difference between "attacking the messenger" and "attacking the positions/points made made by the messenger" using facts.

False. Shall we catolgue your responses? How many people have you summarily dismissed? How many have I?

Let's use the book State of Fear as an example. You didn't read it. Yet, you obviously spent time hiding out in someone else's intepretation.

What if Mann was completely wrong? You would be guilty of not doing your own thinking. You would dismiss the messenger and the message without doing your own thinking.

I think you'll find that I have been far more receptive to alternate viewpoints than yourself.

You fail to recognize that discussions on this topic has been taking place for several years and that some sources have already been vetted and their veracity judged.

Does that mean that everyone is satisfied or that the discussion is closed?

If it's closed, why do you feel the need to re-engage. Just simply state, "I've got it all figured out. My mind is closed."

Bob, was kind enough to do something similar. I respect a good, honest blockhead far more than an intellectually dishonest hack.

I can read contrary viewpoints. When trusted experts on a given subject have already read a viewpoint and have identified clear and repeated flaws, it's logical to not waist your time. Seems straight forward to me.

It seems that this should be translated as: One side is able to dismiss the other sides' experts without being challenged.

You've de facto bowed down to their intepretation without questioning it. Example: State of Fear.

Pretty dangerous ground. Gives one side far too much intellectual lee-way for comfort.

Clearly not. But I've already indicated that many times. But you now chose to ignore an accurate picture of what we do know and at what level of certainty.

I haven't ignored anything. I've told you, I don't know. If you want me to flesh out what I think, why don't you ask?

We are dealing in basic seamanship here, jack. I've had to determine if you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas. By answering the questions, I think the answer is yes.

But, I could be wrong.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Correction: Some pretend they are never wrong, ever.

thanks for making my point for me.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

He was repudiated.

Link please.


Here's some info for people who are interested. It doesn't sound anything like what Polynikes is portraying.


And of course the kicker is, regardless of Mann's "agenda", the hockey stick exists and has been independently verified in a number of ways.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Link please.


Here's some info for people who are interested. It doesn't sound anything like what Polynikes is portraying.


And of course the kicker is, regardless of Mann's "agenda", the hockey stick exists and has been independently verified in a number of ways.

green,

You asked for a link. Please follow along with what I'm writing to jack. I don't know anything about you. However, what I've read indicates that you may start from a similar premise to jack. Something along the lines of: "If you question Global Warming you are either uneducated, far right wing, or getting most of your pay from big oil."

If that remotely describes how you feel about people who have unanswered Global Warming questions, please just follow along.

For example, your link is in my most recent response to jack. It's called the Wegman report.

For now, jack and I are going to be discussing this.

Thanks.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

For example, your link is in my most recent response to jack. It's called the Wegman report.

My understanding is the Wegman report says Mann used the wrong statistical technique. You've claimed he dishonestly manipulated data and was "repudiated". Those are two very different things, and as I said earlier you get caught doing something dishonest in science and your career is over. You can crack about tenure all you want but it is no defense against dishonesty in research. Just ask that Korean guy that went from a star of South Korea to a pariah overnight.

Meanwhile, the existence of the hockey stick increase in temperature has been independently verified by continuing research. So regardless of of the quality of Mann's papers, the sudden increase in temperature still exists. He was essentially vindicated by a 2006 National Research Council report (discussed in my link in my previous post). From the report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

My understanding is the Wegman report says Mann used the wrong statistical technique. You've claimed he dishonestly manipulated data and was "repudiated". Those are two very different things, and as I said earlier you get caught doing something dishonest in science and your career is over. You can crack about tenure all you want but it is no defense against dishonesty in research. Just ask that Korean guy that went from a star of South Korea to a pariah overnight.

Meanwhile, the existence of the hockey stick increase in temperature has been independently verified by continuing research. So regardless of of the quality of Mann's papers, the sudden increase in temperature still exists. He was essentially vindicated by a 2006 National Research Council report (discussed in my link in my previous post). From the report:

green,

I thought I politely asked you to just follow along. Now, unless jack waives off, I'm going to address further statements to him. I find that in order to respond appropriately, one musn't be pulled in too many directions.

I will quote this finding from Wegman:

Wegman explains and demonstrates in simple terms the statistical error made by Michael Mann et al. It will produce “hockeystick” shapes even if the input data are pure noise. McIntyre shows evidence for a Medieval Warming that is greater than the Modern Warming.

Add to that the reports findings that they statistics cited by the dominat group of climatologists appear to be reviewed by each other.

"As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet appa