Global temperature has not increased since 1998

[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 apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used."

Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.

Finally, I will reproduce the most damning finding

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.

Just to flesh this out a bit, here is another link exploring the Wegman report:

Statistics needed

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."

When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Finally:

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

There is plenty more. I'd rather discuss this with jack, unless he's done.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Finally, I will reproduce the most damning finding

Again, you act as if Mann intentionally and dishonestly analyzed his data to find a trend. If you'd read the Wegman report and not just the industry funded front group spin you'd see Wegman considered it an honest mistake.

Originally Posted by actual Wegman report

However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the NAS report confirms the existence of the hockey stick shape in warming as well as the fact that you can remove the PC analysis and still see the shape.







Fuss all you want about the Mann papers and the Wegman report. The abrupt warming still exists and has been demonstrated by a number of researchers using a variety of methods.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Again, you act as if Mann intentionally and dishonestly analyzed his data to find a trend. If you'd read the Wegman report and not just the industry funded front group spin you'd see Wegman considered it an honest mistake.


And you continue to ignore the fact that the NAS report confirms the existence of the hockey stick shape in warming as well as the fact that you can remove the PC analysis and still see the shape.







Fuss all you want about the Mann papers and the Wegman report. The abrupt warming still exists and has been demonstrated by a number of researchers using a variety of methods.

jack, I don't want to push you during this fragile time of your mental rebirth, but, I do want to know if you'd like me to address green's comments.

Let me know.

[lars]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

jack, I don't want to push you during this fragile time of your mental rebirth, but, I do want to know if you'd like me to address green's comments.

Let me know.

Jack's silence suggests he is out of his league. You will be better off addressing Green. He will actually have a discussion. Jack is just a green's parrot anyhow. He gets his information from Green's sources. But, me thinks he is out of resources at this point. Green is the one you should work with.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by lars

Jack's silence suggests he is out of his league. You will be better off addressing Green. He will actually have a discussion. Jack is just a green's parrot anyhow. He gets his information from Green's sources. But, me thinks he is out of resources at this point. Green is the one you should work with.

Lars,

You may be correct. However, I'll give jack a little more time.

It doesn't happen often, but, I've seen incredibly intransigent people grow intellectually. Once they realize that there are often people of good faith on both sides of an issue, it opens their mind.

The people who can't (or won't) grow, spend most of their time demonizing the other side. They make them into caricatures. They view the other side as cartoon figures. They ascribe motives and beliefs to the other side that they may not have. The other side effectively becomes monsters.

It's the only way they can dismiss perfectly valid concerns and conclusions with such alacrity.

What I think jack is finding is that the Global Warming crowd is insulated. It's self-serving. As Wegman pointed out, they have difficulty going back on their previous public stances without losing face. Funding and professional respect demands finding a link between man and climate change.

Those ulterior motives gives the "Man is the primary cause of recent global warming" premise, a very shaky intellectual base.

I think jack is intelligent enough to see this. He also answered direct questions and even admitted an error.

If he comes back with something along the lines of, "I have thought about your concerns. I understand how someone could have difficulty with some of the methodology employed. But, I still have concerns that global warming is strongly influenced by man."

He will have shown monster growth. Further, it would be the start of an intellectual exchange where everyone benefits.

I'm much more comfortable starting from a position of mutual understanding than: Polynikes, you don't try to understand. Or, you have your head in the sand.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by lars

Jack's silence suggests he is out of his league. ... and other assorted BS

Originally Posted by poly

Lars,
You may be correct. However, I'll give jack a little more time.

It doesn't happen often, but, I've seen incredibly intransigent people grow intellectually. Once they realize that there are often people of good faith on both sides of an issue, it opens their mind. ... and other tea-time musings.

... or ... some of us have real lives with personal and professional obligations that require full bandwidth. IOW, I'm not on Wells every day.

You and lars sound like a couple gossipy housewives at the kitchen table sipping tea and sharing nonsense - of course, I'd expect that of lars.

And WTF is up with your sissy inability to exchange with more than on individual at a time?? Don't fret, poly, I grant you permission to exchange with anyone offering pertinent information on the subject at hand. BTW, GS knows more about this subject than you, me and the rest of the posters combined.

I'm under deadline most of today but should have some time to respond latter this afternoon.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Jack78

... or ... some of us have real lives with personal and professional obligations that require full bandwidth. IOW, I'm not on Wells every day.

You and lars sound like a couple gossipy housewives at the kitchen table sipping tea and sharing nonsense - of course, I'd expect that of lars.

And WTF is up with your sissy inability to exchange with more than on individual at a time?? Don't fret, poly, I grant you permission to exchange with anyone offering pertinent information on the subject at hand. BTW, GS knows more about this subject than you, me and the rest of the posters combined.

I'm under deadline most of today but should have some time to respond latter this afternoon.

jack,

Glad to see you are ok. I did laugh when you made the comment about not being on Wells every day. This coming from the guy who usually responds immediately to everything said.

As far as responding to green, I thought I was clear: I only have time for one project (you) at a time.

I hope green knows more on the subject than you and I. In that case, there's a better chance that we'd learn something.

Sipping tea? I also laughed at that one. I really can't picture myself EVER doing that. MAYBE talking politics before a lift to get myself fired up. But, over tea? Nah.

I look forward to your response.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

... As far as responding to green, I thought I was clear: I only have time for one project (you) at a time.

This excuse is so incredibly lame. There's no reason not to respond to anyone bringing valid information re: the topic under discussion. Learn to multi-task.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I hope green knows more on the subject than you and I. In that case, there's a better chance that we'd learn something.

So what are your thoughts re: the discussions found in the dozens of past Wells threads on GW/GCC, including State of Fear, and in which GS participated?

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by polynikes

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."

And my point was that GW is nothing like religion. Our understanding of GW has grown significantly over time and continues to progress by way of the scientific method. Your comments also play off of Crichton’s own projection of GW where he falsely references the level of disagreement within the GW science community and so proclaims that his guess was as good as anyone’s.

What do you advocate we do based on what we know now about GW, polynikes? Of course we must be mindful of your opinion that we lack “useable knowledge”.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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:

Yet I was commenting on the “enlightenment” you experienced by reading SoF, a book whose conclusions are aided by several very specific misrepresentations of science, as discussed in articles I linked for you (attacking the message, not the messenger). …. But you moved the subject to Wegman, whose own constructive conclusions, were mired within the congressional FUD effort. …

To enlighten everyone, you march out a link to a disturbingly warped spew from a well known corporate front group funded by Exxon. BTW … Heartland’s is also a corporate front funded by big oil. McIntyre and McKitrick – direct links to oil interests. Committee Chairman Barton, himself is a former oil exec who represents Texas oil constituents and who is, surprise, is a leading “denier”. Whose ox gets gored if the status quo is disrupted, polynikes? … and you parrot every spun position … but hey, you’re enlightened. I particularly like your extensive use of enlightened terminology like “fudged the data” and “heresy” and “repudiated” and “damning” and “indictment” and “manipulating the facts” and “political agenda” …. A sure sign of open mindedness.

Regarding Wegman:
His conclusion about the appropriate use of centered/non-centered statistical bias seems to add value. There s/b as much shared expert consultation between the disciplines as provides value. But, importantly, you continue to ignore that the proper application of Wegman’s statistical recommendation makes virtually no difference to the results published by MBH98. The “hockey stick” result has been confirmed by Nature, NAS, and others.

His comment re: separation of functional duties is valid and basic, although the functional duties were largely separated in the MBH work. The participation of outside disciplines, i.e. statisticians, helps all involved.

His point re: the data used doesn’t seem all that valid. All are attempting to interpret patterns based on the full set of available data.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

What motive does the left have to “drive the science”? What agenda are you talking about? Again, the science itself is not political – the movement of the implications of science into the policy arena is totally political.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

Thus peer review, and if Wegman’s participation/conclusions help nudge the review process to be more thoroughly executed, great.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

Yes, we know you pay little attention to who’s pushing/spinning FUD at every opportunity. Re: me cherry picking-data: BS. Where?

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

SoF is the prime example of you not understanding the difference. I linked the analysis of subject experts who read the book and pointed out specific instances of misleading information. I don’t need to read the book to verify that. As a matter of fact, you’re the perfect example of reading a book containing high technical content while not having the benefit of full context on which to draw and make sound judgment … Result: Your thinking was warped by false “enlightenment”.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

… yet it's me who's scratching my head at your blatant hackery.

No, poly, the discussion isn’t closed but I’d bet you haven’t bothered to look at the past discussion threads.

Originally Posted by polynikes

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.

I do dismiss known corporate front groups whose goal is to protect vested interests in the status quo and whose past work has been proven intentionally misleading/inaccurate.

Re: SoF, I linked experts on the science who recognized several individual misrepresentations of the science – there was no new work/science presented. But I guess that has you stumped.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

... Sipping tea? I also laughed at that one. I really can't picture myself EVER doing that. MAYBE talking politics before a lift to get myself fired up. But, over tea? Nah.
...

Don't feel threatened, poly, some housewives lift too ...