Wegman responds to USA Today

He certainly understands John Mashey. Here are some examples of the debunking for this whole affair:

Wegman whiners: this post’s for you

Here’s the USA Today article

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “Wegman responds to USA Today

  1. “He certainly understands John Mashey. ”
    I’m not sure anyone understands Mashey. However, Wegman is uniquely positioned to understand the flaws in Mashey’s report.

  2. “these attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar.”
    He means he’s never been caught before

  3. The plagiarism charge, reported by USA Today, is not the worst part of the indictment of the Wegman report. It is the easiest to understand and report on, and I think that is why USA Today focuses on it.
    The Wegman report is purported to be an independent analysis of MBH ’98, when in fact, a lot of it was simply copied from the McKintyre and McKittrick 2005 paper. In addition, its criticism of the non centered proxies used by MBH, which was simply an echo of M&M was incorrect.
    Since then a lot of papers on climate reconstruction have been published in the peer reviewed literature and all are shaped like a hockey stick.

  4. I wonder if Ray Bradley will make a statement? If I remember correctly, Bradley was found to have ‘borrowed’ a considerable portion of his ‘seminal’ textbook from a previous author.
    Bradley’s original contribution was the removal of the string ‘carbon dioxide’ as a cause of increased tree growth. (Bradley wanted to emphasize the assumed link between CO2 and temperature, of course).

  5. Wow, the skeptical community entirely dissected the bs plagiarism claim over a month ago and now the alarmists are bringing it up? Is their attention span as deficient as their critical thinking?

  6. It makes you wonder why the experts USA Today consulted failed to notice the Bradlley text they falsely alleged had been plagiarized by Wegman had in fact been copied and/or paraphrased by Bradley from Fritts 1976 without citation, as reported by Steve McIntyre? It’s not like the fact was unknown to the general public through the blogosphere with a few seconds searcch with a search engine.

  7. I love the answer to proof that a vital piece of Cliamte science is bunk is to point out the bits that you copied and not the actual sicence, brilliant, next they’ll be just making things up as they go along, oh wait that’s what the models are for.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/23/old-climate-models-do-a-bad-job-with-clouds-so-a-new-model-says-warming-must-be-worse/
    Here come the trolls. By the way trolls, might be worth reading the book on the right called ‘The hockey Stick illusion’, although I will not hold my breath as it goes against the doctorine. Great book by the way.

  8. Louise says:
    November 23, 2010 at 10:53 am
    “these attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar.”
    He means he’s never been caught before

    You owe Mr. Wegman an apology. He did not plagiarize Wegman. If you think otherwise, you are going to have some very tall explaining to do on how it is possible for Wegman to plagiarize a work copied by Bradley without citation from Fritss 1976.

  9. Wegman doesn’t appear to be favouring the “It’s a report what else do you expect???” defence I see repeated often here. It’s a shame there wasn’t room in the screengrab to include his actual defence
    “Wegman said he and his report co-authors felt “some pressure” from a House committee to complete the report “faster than we might like.” But he denied that there was any attempt to tilt the influential climate report politically.”
    This suggests that he accepts the plagiarism is real and is not acceptable and is saying it was done to complete the report on the required deadline.
    It is useful though that the “Wegman whiners: this post’s for you” handily lists all the previous posts about the issue so we can compare the defence put forth here with Wegman’s.

  10. eadler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
    Congress asked Wegman to reproduce M&M for purposes of validation. It is a dishonorable act for you to deliberately misrepresent this obvious fact in a bid to harm Mr. Wegman’s professional reputation with a false claim of plagiarism.

  11. “He certainly understands John Mashey”. Well, that’s more than I do. This is confusing. Who is accusing whom of plagiarism? Plagiarism of what? Which one is the skeptic, Mashey or Wegman? If you post articles by illiterate journalists, they need an explanation to go with them. Better still, just post the explanation.

  12. @D. Patterson
    “It makes you wonder why the experts USA Today consulted failed to notice the Bradlley text they falsely alleged had been plagiarized by Wegman had in fact been copied and/or paraphrased by Bradley from Fritts 1976 without citation, as reported by Steve McIntyre? “
    Probably because it’s simply not the case as can easily be seen by McIntyre’s excerpts e.g.
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
    Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (left). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. (right): Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. These are termed sensitive (from Fritts, 1971).”
    You may notice that “from Fritts 1971”. McIntyre’s argument is that 1976 might be a better reference. It’s enormously silly to try and pretend that because McIntyre thinks there’s a better reference that better reference is therefore “uncited” and therefore the work used in Bradley’s book is uncited. Even if you accept McIntyre’s arguments totally then the claims are cited just not cited optimally.

  13. Just read that USA Today article:
    just few points from this para alone….
    -Bradley only objected via Masheys analysis? – so he never read the report himself or if he did he did not ‘instantly’ recognised plagiarism?
    – Masheys analysis took a whole freekin year????
    – copying without credit? – has anyone read the bibliography?
    and finally, what about the USA Today ‘example’ in the link given – it’s pathetic! The WR is a summary report and by definition must use common language and terminology of previous publications. Moreover, in presenting the summary type view – it seems (to me) that Wegman et al are demonstrating that they have (necessarily) had to read and understand the basic premises in order to undertake their mathematical method analysis. I would take the view that the written description (which may well be re-written in a highly similar vein, but with more personal understanding ‘tweaks’) is correctly undertaken and in order to give the background information, cannot be done any other way! I mean, how else do you describe a tree ring, for example?
    Honestly, I have never seen so much smoke being generated from such a tiny spark! And that can really be the only explanation – its a smokescreen!

  14. Enneagram says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:20 am
    Gotto pay rights to copy 🙂

    Wrong, the Fair Use Doctrine for a report commissioned by Congress is privileged use of copyright material, even when Bradley copied the material from Fritts 1975 without citation and with uncited alterations to Fritts expression and idea of the work.

  15. sharper00 says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:26 am
    In other words, not even you understand what you are talking about…..

  16. [snip – policy, invalid email address]
    sure, that’s the reason (wink)
    doesn’t go away just because you don’t want to see it.
    [no, asdf.com is one of the catchphrases we watch for, famous troll “TCO” used asdf.com as a bogus email address ~mod]

  17. sharper00 says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:21 am

    This suggests that he accepts the plagiarism is real and is not acceptable and is saying it was done to complete the report on the required deadline.

    No, it suggests he was under pressure to hurry, exactly as it states. YOU suggest otherwise, but nobody in here really cares what YOU suggest, other than perhaps eadler, because you obviously have an axe to grind. You can’t argue the facts (Wegman is correct) so you’d rather argue something immaterial as a distraction.
    Mark

  18. We should review for our trollish friends.
    Bradley’s name is mentioned in the report 35 times. Here are some of the examples of Wegman’s failure to “cite”, copied from the report….
    Featured prominently in the IPCC report was the work of Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Raymond Bradley,……
    Table 1 based on Bradley (1999) illustrates……
    Table 2 found in Bradley (1999), which was reproduced from Bradley and Eddy
    (1991) summarizes……
    After Bradley and Eddy (1991)….
    See Bradley (1999) for a discussion……
    together with his colleagues Dr. Bradley and Dr. Hughes, continued…..
    in previous studies by R.S. Bradley…….
    Then in the section titled “BIBLIOGRAPHY Academic Papers and Books”, Bradley is referenced 13 times.
    Yeh, he sure tried to pull a fast one there. If this is the best the alarmists can do in form of a rebuttal, the game’s over.

  19. sharperoo: both can be accused of being sloppy in citing references. The difference is that Bradley was writing professionally and didn’t properly credit. (Presumably he was making money on Fritts’ efforts. ) Wegman was doing a public service. A very important public service, I might add.
    Again, the content of Wegman’s report has never been successfully refuted. That’s all that matters here. You people can slime him all you want. It won’t change the content of the report.

  20. eadler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
    I have briefly read Wegman, (I confess to skipping the detailed statistical bumpf as far too mind blowing for me!) but I have not noted anywhere in the report where it says that they specifically analysed Manns methods and code, etc. It would be appreciated if you could indicate where such analysis is present.
    I did note in the Exec Summary, it specifically states that Mann never provided the full code or data so presumably such an independent analysis wasn’t possible and this seems to be generally mentioned elsewhere, in that they have deconstructed Manns work, along the lines of M&M and confirm M&M’s findings. Or have I got that wrong?

  21. I suspect a majority of this silly gorilla poop viral PR is “funded” and this is a lame pre-play before the New Congress drags all the AGW lame asses into the “Chamber” for a Congressional Hearing.
    This “Hearing” will be a sight to see!!!
    They may even decide to “Tar and Feather” Al Gore. Nasty thought but I have to admit, I’d vote for that!

  22. …as in most “Team” efforts, they shoot the messanger
    if they can’t kill the message.
    At least the folks in Cancun will have something other to
    talk about instead of Republicans in the House and drug
    lords in the countryside.

  23. The cowardly trolls are working themselves up into a lather about this again.
    They must sense that their dogma is inexorably going down the tube.
    Just be happy about the damage your silly beliefs have already done to the world’s poorest & most vulnerable, trolls! Leave it there.

  24. In a way, the plagiarism is a minor distraction from the actual problems of the Wegman paper. From http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/#comment-6510 where those that understand the maths can read for themselves the analysis that leads to the conclusion of:
    “Indeed, the real reasons Wegman et al never released “their” code nor associated information are now perfectly clear. Doing so would have amounted to an admission that the supposed “reproduction” of the M&M results was nothing more than a mechanical rerun of the original script, accompanied by a colossally mistaken interpretation of M&M’s methodology and findings.”

  25. James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:14 am
    Wow, the skeptical community entirely dissected the bs plagiarism claim over a month ago and now the alarmists are bringing it up? Is their attention span as deficient as their critical thinking?
    ===
    LOL,
    That was my take but they decided on new “Alarmist” Spin.
    Let’s see if Congress has “enough” Bug Spray and Sense.

  26. This is the dumbest thing ever…
    It’s always appeared to me that logic hasn’t been a great strength of the AGW crowd but surely even they can see that attacking Wegman for plagiarism for a chapter of his report on basic background information about (the pseudoscience of) paleoclimatology doesn’t contradict in any way, shape or form the fact that Wegman tore Mann and friends a new a**hole over Wegman’s specialty, statistics.
    You’re grasping at straws and you really should stop…

  27. The arguments raised against Wegman are ridiculous; he didn’t write a paper using copied material, he wrote a report assesing the maths in the paper he was asked to report on by the US Congress. What is so difficult to understand?
    IMHO, the argument put forward by Mashey is incomprehensible nonsense which should have been ignored.

  28. From what I understand from the various pieces done on this site, it wasn’t a peer reviewed paper anyway, just a simple report, where cut-and-paste is about expected. If it’s just to inform a congressional committee of some information, it doesn’t matter. There wasn’t any science, or independent research or any proofs or anything in it.

  29. @theduke
    “Again, the content of Wegman’s report has never been successfully refuted. That’s all that matters here. “
    Well I would think the quality of the work also matters or does that standard only apply to things you disagree with?
    There’s a very odd divide and right at the centre of it is the Mann-Wegman-Deepclimate thread.
    We have one group of people who argue simultaneously that Mann’s work was invalidated by Wegman because it showed he used a bad method to reach the correct result but Wegman’s bad method is irrelevant while also saying that Deepclimate’s substantive criticisms should be dismissed because of the conspiracy theory stuff (while themselves also claiming a massive conspiracy of scientists and world governments to create AGW in the first place).
    I cannot accept the chain of reasoning above. It’s contradictory and reveals only one principle “When someone agrees with me they’re right no matter what. when someone disagrees with me they’re wrong no matter what”. That’s before we even get into McIntyre’s claims about Bradley which so paper thin I keep expecting the whole thing to be revealed as some sort of joke.
    I can accept Mann’s method is flawed but the conclusion is correct. I can accept whether Wegman plagiarized is not particularly relevant to his conclusions but is still an issue that needs explaining.
    Just as some cannot ever bring themselves to say Mann made some mistakes there are many others who will never bring themselves to say Wegman was wrong to plagiarize, indeed they’re happy to redefine plagiarism as “ok” to let it through.

  30. I wonder whether Wegman will every agree to release his code? I don’t buy the idea that sworn, supposedly scientific testomony before congress should be held to a lower level than normal academic publications. In the 1990s extensive presentation of raw data and materials was not the standard, but it has been over the last five years or so. At one point, Wegman said that he was planning to an academic publication for his congressional analysis. Why did he seem to give up on that?

  31. Louise says:
    November 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    “…..where those that understand the maths can read for themselves the analysis that leads to the conclusion of:
    …. Doing so would have amounted to an admission that the supposed “reproduction” of the M&M results was nothing more than a mechanical rerun of the original script, …..”
    ======================================================
    lol, right, Louise, would you be as so kind to point to the “maths” that indicate reproduction of M&M?

  32. sharperoo wrote: “I can accept Mann’s method is flawed but the conclusion is correct.”
    Really? What “method” proves his flawed method led to a correct conclusion?

  33. D. Patterson says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:25 am
    “eadler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
    Congress asked Wegman to reproduce M&M for purposes of validation. It is a dishonorable act for you to deliberately misrepresent this obvious fact in a bid to harm Mr. Wegman’s professional reputation with a false claim of plagiarism.”
    You should apologize for accusing me of a dishonorable act. In fact Wegman said he was asked to do more than reproduce what M&M did.
    Quoting from the Wegman Report itself:
    “The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been interested in an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b) [MM03, MM05a, MM05b] as well as the related implications in the assessment.”
    An independent verification is the opposite of reproducing the work of M&M. Simply reproducing the work, and claiming it is an independent verification is what is dishonorable. In fact the so called indpendent verification makes precisely the same errors as M&M made, so it is not at all what Wegman claims was requested.
    http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/#more-2745
    In fact M&M’s claim that the method of M&M has a good chance of producing hockey sticks is actually wrong. M&M examined 10,000 instances of random noise, and found about 1% had a significant Hockey Stick Index. They didn’t mention that there were and equal amount of hockey sticks that pointed negative.
    Wegman has never produced the code that was used in his so called “independent verification”.

  34. If mother nature isn’t cooperating, obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. They are doing it here on this topic right now. Try not wasting too much breath, my fellow WUWT?er’s. Could sure use some of that GW where I live. It is cold as a witches mammalian protuberance (Anthony runs a clean blog). My post on the last Wegman thread still stands.

  35. James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    “Louise says:
    November 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    “…..where those that understand the maths can read for themselves the analysis that leads to the conclusion of:
    …. Doing so would have amounted to an admission that the supposed “reproduction” of the M&M results was nothing more than a mechanical rerun of the original script, …..”
    ======================================================
    lol, right, Louise, would you be as so kind to point to the “maths” that indicate reproduction of M&M?”
    http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/#more-2745
    “The first thing I noted in my original discussion was that, although the PC1 shown was supposedly a “sample”, it was identical in both the M&M and Wegman et al figures. How did that happen? A quick peek at the code gives the answer – this PC1 is read from an archived set of PC1s previously stored, and is #71 of the set. The relevant lines reads: …”
    The results shown by Wegman indicate that he used code identical to Wegmans, and it was not really an independent verification. To date he has not supplied the code that was used. The evidence points to an exact copy.

  36. Continuing discussion of the plagiarism claim against Wegman seems a very foolish move for the AGW crowd. The true agenda behind this weak complaint has already been revealed in correspondence between Ray Bradley and a third party which reads –
    “I filed a complaint with George Mason University (where Wegman is a Professor) & they have set up a committee to investigate my complaint. I[A] recent letter from their Vice-Chancellor indicates that they expect the committee to report their findings by the end of September.
    That’s the long & short of it. I have told the University that I am prepared to drop this matter if Wegman makes a request to have his report withdrawn from the Congressional Record. No response on that.
    Thanks
    Ray [Bradley]”
    What is most revealing is that this was a request for the withdrawal of the whole report rather than corrections or additions to references and attribution for material in the report. CA has a thorough discussion of the implications of Bradley’s correspondence here-
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/21/bradley-tries-to-deal/
    However in attacking the Wegman report, the sound and fury that AGW believers are creating could prove very useful. I would love to see the report reworked with special attention to the social networking section. Especially after the Climategate leak showed that the situation was worse than Wegman indicated. I am sure that Mann’s email 31/10/03 which included the line –
    “Let’s let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against M&M.”
    -requires further investigation. Just who were these supporters in higher places?

  37. From the Wegman Report Executive Summary:
    “It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to those of MM. This recreation supports the critique of the MBH98 methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean value of zero.”
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
    Peter Bloomfield of the NRC agreed:
    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

  38. Wegman can easily position this inquiry in a wider context, which will get excellent press for the ill wind toward problematic climate science that is blowing around the country of recent years.
    This is a windfall opportunity for increased public awareness of the weakness of IPCC supported consensus climate science.
    It is a gift. We keep getting these gifts from the IPCC supported consensus climate science followers. Just a few gift examples are: Climategate itself; No Pressure; Patchy, IAC report on IPCC, and everytime Gore & Mann opens their mouths. : )
    Precious gifts.
    John

  39. The trolls here today appear to assume that folks who read WUWT are as ignorant of the facts as they are.
    So this must be the war on skeptics we were told about last month. Pretty weak.
    Based on their announcement, that we would be “debating” the “facts” of global warming theory, I had expected folks would use real names and debate “facts”. Looks like what we have here instead are the class of some community college professor who know nothing about the issues and think “debate” means to argue for the sake of argument, and who feel they need to malign their opponent since they can’t even win even those arguments.

  40. @ eadler and louise
    Do you people even read the stuff you guys are throwing around?
    From the linked article,“Thus, McIntyre and McKitrick’s original Fig 1-1, mechanically reproduced by Wegman et al, shows a carefully selected “sample” from the top 1% of simulated “hockey sticks”. And Wegman’s Fig 4-4, which falsely claimed to show “hockey sticks” mined from low-order, low-autocorrelation “red noise”, contains another 12 from that same 1%!”
    Wow, pretty damning stuff, it appears the writer of this article is stating Wegman copied M&M and then misrepresented the significance of the graphs. Let’s go to the report itself and see what it says about figure 4.4
    “Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications. then, immediately under the hockeystick graphs,
    “Discussion: Because the red noise time series have a correlation of 0.2, some of these time series will turn upwards [or downwards] during the ‘calibration’ period6 and the MBH98 methodology will selectively emphasize these upturning [or downturning] time series.
    Yeh, he copied, he said he did! Further, when reading after the word “discussion” we can see that the graphs in 4.4 weren’t implied to be random, but rather illustrative. It states clearly some will turn upward while others turn downwards. All of the graphs shown in 4.4 turn upwards. So, clearly Wegman’s graph weren’t placed to reflect a random selection of the runs. More from section 4
    “We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b). While at first the McIntyre code was specific to the file structure of his computer, with his assistance we were able to run the code on our own machines and reproduce and extend some of his results. In Figure 4.1, the top panel displays PC1 simulated using the MBH98 methodology from stationary trendless red noise.”
    You guys are something else.

  41. eadler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Thank you so much for demonstrating so clearly once again how you are incapable of understanding plain English or the scientific method and/or willfully pretending so.

  42. You guys are something else.

    They blindly read DC (and the like) and assume he *must* know what he is talking about (he agrees with the consensus and all that) and then reword and repost what he is claiming (ironic, eh?) without understanding the details.
    When ideology is involved, a person can make himself believe all sorts of things simply by ignoring anything contrary.
    Mark

  43. Louise says:
    November 23, 2010 at 10:53 am
    “these attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar.”
    He means he’s never been caught before

    I would imagine that Wegman critics have been burning the midnight oil, scouring the interweb for any trace of plagiarism he may have committed in past decades – to establish a “pattern”.
    Anything they found which could have been questioned (or distorted) would have been trumpeted from the highest mountain from the likes of Schmidt, Tamino, Romm et al.
    It’s been over a month now, and strangely, there has been no sounding of the horns.
    Louise, your statement is trolldribble.

  44. sharper00 says:
    November 23, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    ‘I can accept Mann’s method is flawed but the conclusion is correct.’
    Enough said. Guess the brain washing is working then or as you say do you acept the conclusion even though you know the method is wrong. Sorry Antony but you cannot do anything about people that just cannot see what is wrong with comments like this.
    Or WUWT has finally gotten true trolls that only write comments without substance to get a rise.

  45. For those who really want to know what the scientific debate is about I STRONGLY recommend reading Dr Lindzen’s submission to congress. It is complete and up to date having been submitted on 11-17-2010. It is only 48 pages long and covers the real debate very well. It says almost nothing about the hockey stick, since the hockey stick adds almost nothing to the scientific debate. IMHO it was intended as a marketing tool from the day it was first contemplated.

  46. James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    @ eadler and louise
    Do you people even read the stuff you guys are throwing around?
    From the linked article,“Thus, McIntyre and McKitrick’s original Fig 1-1, mechanically reproduced by Wegman et al, shows a carefully selected “sample” from the top 1% of simulated “hockey sticks”. And Wegman’s Fig 4-4, which falsely claimed to show “hockey sticks” mined from low-order, low-autocorrelation “red noise”, contains another 12 from that same 1%!”
    Wow, pretty damning stuff, it appears the writer of this article is stating Wegman copied M&M and then misrepresented the significance of the graphs. Let’s go to the report itself and see what it says about figure 4.4
    “Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications. then, immediately under the hockeystick graphs,
    “Discussion: Because the red noise time series have a correlation of 0.2, some of these time series will turn upwards [or downwards] during the ‘calibration’ period6 and the MBH98 methodology will selectively emphasize these upturning [or downturning] time series.
    Yeh, he copied, he said he did! Further, when reading after the word “discussion” we can see that the graphs in 4.4 weren’t implied to be random, but rather illustrative. It states clearly some will turn upward while others turn downwards. All of the graphs shown in 4.4 turn upwards. So, clearly Wegman’s graph weren’t placed to reflect a random selection of the runs. More from section 4
    “We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b). While at first the McIntyre code was specific to the file structure of his computer, with his assistance we were able to run the code on our own machines and reproduce and extend some of his results. In Figure 4.1, the top panel displays PC1 simulated using the MBH98 methodology from stationary trendless red noise.”
    You guys are something else.
    The criticism of M&M is that the MBH98 produced an upward pointing hockey stick because of an inherent bias in their methodology. They fooled a lot of people by presenting a number of graphs of upward pointing hockey sticks produced from red noise. The point is that this is a fallacious argument, when 1% of the red noise results in upward pointing hockey sticks and 1% results in downward pointing hockey sticks. Showing only the upward pointing graphs, and claiming this proves that there is a bias in the analysis of MBH 98, is an incorrect argument. The question is was this a result of a conscious desire to deceive, or did they really miss the point. Whichever it is, it is pretty clear the both M&M and Wegman’s Report made the identical errors. It is clear that Wegman did not produce an “independent verification” because he used M&M’s methodology and software, and made the same fallacious argument.
    Since hockey sticks like MBH 98 appeared in only 1% of the cases when random noise was fed into it, it seems to me there is 99% confidence that MBH98 ‘s results are not the result of analysis of random noise.
    In addition other forms of analysis of proxy data consistently produce hockey sticks. It is pretty clear that any unbiased investigation of what Wegman has done, would condemn it as wrong and misleading. We will see what George Mason University’s investigation says.

  47. From reading the above comments, I don’t think that most of the WUWT readers grasp the implications of what is unfolding here. To do that, you’d have to actually go read the article over at Deep Climate that Louise, eadler, et. al. have linked to. Of course, most of you here probably won’t read it because to you it’s ‘warmer pr0n’. I’m not going to even try to explain it all here in a few paragraphs. But I will summarise:
    1. Wegman was asked to *independently verify* the findings of M&M05, which were critical of the statistical methods used by MBH98,99.
    2. Wegman was asked to do this because he is supposedly a statistician of some skill.
    3. So all he does in the end is run *McIntyre’s code* with *McIntyre’s saved-off data set* (this is proven by Deep Climate with hockey sticks that are identical *to a pixel*). He didn’t do one single iota of statistical analysis himself, or at least, there is no evidence that he did.
    4. It gets worse. McIntyre’s saved-off data is a hand-picked selection of the top 100 most upturned hockey stick shapes out of a run of *10,000* (contrary to what most people believe, the fact that a hockey stick in the context of representing a PC1 turns up or down at the business end is not really significant. It’s the ‘hockey stick index’, as McIntyre calls it, that’s important. But of course it looks better to the person on the street if it turns up).
    5. Wegman thought that McIntyre used an algorithm called AR1 with a parameter of .2 to generate the red noise. But now it turns out that McIntyre used ARFIMA, which has much higher persistence (more akin to using AR1(.9)). So it was a questionable algorithm to use to generate the red noise, because (surprise, surprise) it would be more likely to produce PC1s that were hockey stick shaped.
    And how do we know all this? Because McIntyre archived his code and data right here:
    ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750/
    So not only did Wegman plagiarise a large portion of the text in his report, he also plagiarised *most or all of the statistics*. He was supposed to audit The Climate Auditor, but he didn’t do anything of the sort. From here it’s looking like Wegman is in big trouble academia-wise, and the report should be retracted. Not to mention what the implications are of basing your conclusions on a hand-picked sampling amounting to only 1% (100/10000) of the total *random* simulations that were run. Does that sound scientific, or does it seem like someone with an agenda?

  48. James Sexton says:

    Do you people even read the stuff you guys are throwing around?

    From the linked article, Wegman says:

    Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications.

    But James, if *you* bothered to read that whole article you would discover that (somehow) Wegman assumed that McIntyre used AR1(.2) to generate his red noise. In fact, as Deep Climate verified by reading McIntyre’s archived code, he used ARFIMA instead. Huge difference. It is more like AR1 with a parameter of .9 (way more *persistent*), and is much more likely to produce a hockey stick shape when you derive a PC1 from the resulting red noise.
    And, of course, you probably don’t have a problem with someone drawing the conclusions of their report from a hand-picked sample representing only 1% of the total 10,000 simulation runs. Does that seem like proper use of statistics to you, or does it in fact seem like someone with an agenda?
    Between these revelations and the plagiarism, Wegman is in deep academic doo-doo. He was tasked to *independently verify* the statistics used in M&M05 and he obviously did nothing of the sort. The Wegman Report turns out to be nothing but a stitch-up, and is likely to be retracted as a result.

  49. slightly O/T but
    Is it me, or does there seem to be a concerted flaming effort by the warmists hereabouts and elsewhere?
    This whole Wegman thing is way old and it just seems as if deliberate flaming is taking place. Thing is, it’s a terrible faux pas by the warmistas if there is such a campaign as it is simply reminding everyone of how weak the AGW arguments are ahead of Cancun!
    Perhaps we should treat the warmistas with the same contempt that they show those outside their little campus?

  50. Martin Brumby says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:55 am
    Just be happy about the damage your silly beliefs have already done to the world’s poorest & most vulnerable, …
    —-
    …. and they surely are happy.
    They were desperate for the Arctic ice to follow the prophecies of the Goreacle. They yearned for the loss of Arctic ice. Why ?? …… so that they could save the Arctic ice, of course ??
    Now there are lots more poor and vulnerable to save ……. with taxpayer’s money, of course.
    I’ve read on here on several occasions that the global warming hoax is the biggest lie ever told. I don’t think so. I think it’s just the baby brother of “Poor people are better off under socialism”. Watch out poor people – fake-socialism is even worse.

  51. I’d love to know how the original attack article got placed in USAToday. If a PR agency pitched the story and that PR agency was put up to it by the Team, then its potential evidence of possible witness tampering by Bradley. If Bradley is trying to intimidate Wegmen into withdrawing his testimony, then that could trigger felony charges against Bradley. The team is playing a very dangerous game.

  52. Robinson says:
    November 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    I see The Mail has now has an article on Wegman. It seems to me that someone is promoting this story. I don’t think the MSM would have picked it up through research and investigation; something they do very little of these days.

    ——————-
    Robinson,
    Looks like a pre-Cancun mini-offensive coordinated to offset some pre-Cancun bad news coming to the AGW folks.
    A fore-shadow?
    John

  53. Robinson says on November 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    I see The Mail has now has an article on Wegman. It seems to me that someone is promoting this story. I don’t think the MSM would have picked it up through research and investigation; something they do very little of these days.

    It’s aimed at Cancun.

  54. Of course someone is promoting this garbage: deepclimate, Mashey and the activists scientists, some of them working in a building paid for a retired oilman… I guess the irony must escape them.

  55. “Between these revelations and the plagiarism, Wegman is in deep academic doo-doo.”
    Doubtful, ignoring the fact that Bradley’s work was cited by Wegman in his report and a report for Congress is not a scholarly work. A report created for Congress is a protected activity.

  56. James Sexton says: “Wow, the skeptical community entirely dissected the bs plagiarism claim over a month ago and now the alarmists are bringing it up? Is their attention span as deficient as their critical thinking?”
    It took them that long to all lock arms and sing kumbayah.

  57. This is all bullshit!
    1) Does anyone dispute that Greenland circa 1000 years ago was warmer?
    2) If you do, how do you explain 1000 year old burial grounds still under permafrost?
    3) Assuming you don’t dispute 1) or 2), how do you explain localised warming for circa 400 years? were global atmospheric & oceanic transfer mechanisms suspended?
    DaveE.

  58. Steve Metzler, November 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm says:
    … you would discover that (somehow) Wegman assumed that McIntyre used AR1(.2) to generate his red noise. In fact, as Deep Climate verified by reading McIntyre’s archived code, he used ARFIMA instead.

    ARFIMA , as in “Autoregressive Fractionally Integrated Moving Average”?
    And we are to understand that Deep Climate, by “reading McIntyre’s archived code” verified this technique was used?
    I wasn’t aware Deep Climat was in any way qualified, schooled or educated (either formally, via self-education or night school) in statistics to make a claim such as this?
    What are the chances he (DC) is in error?
    What are the chances he is only a ‘proxy’ for another (underlying) party promoting this thrust?
    .

  59. Turns out that Mashey’s wife, Angela Hey, is a ‘management consultant who helps ventures commercialize technology and launch new products’ and is involved with Cleantech Open. And Cleantech Open, of course, ‘fund and foster the most successful cleantech startups on the planet’. So, Mashey’s fervor may have that most rational of explanations: self interest.

  60. Just a couple questions:
    “He was supposed to audit The Climate Auditor, but he didn’t do anything of the sort. ”
    Where does it say that? i really do not know if he was supposed to or not, but I was under the impression that it had nothing to do with this. If the climate auditor is incorrect, attack him, not Wegman who was simply writing a report for congress. His job was simple, to write a report that Congress could use to gauge useful science from.
    “independent review”. I am really unsure what is meant by this. Was he supposed to just redo the science to make sure there was no mistakes in the results, or was he supposed to reinvent the wheel? The assumption that an independent review would mean making your own red noise is a big assumption for this. Its at the best a weak attack, assuming you are not misleading people into thinking there is something there that is not. Was the analysis done by McIntyre incorrect? That is a different question then what you are all posting here.
    And this has nothing to do with plagiarism. I don’t care how you want to smear this report, but whatever you say there has zero to do with plagiarism and everything to do with a very ugly attack on a Congressional paper. Make up your mind what your problem is first. Is it the plagiarism? If so, back yourself up in that regard. If the results are dodgy, then attack that.
    You can’t attack the report from two different directions and expect a reasonable person to not assume you are being cruel and unusual. Feel free to respond. But I should warn you that I will return attacks with attacks…if you keep it civil, so will I.

  61. So now the attention is on the Wegman Report. With friends like these plagarism hysterics AWG does not need enemies. Wegman Report simple, incestuous group of climatology members engage in group think, cannot comprehend statistics and will not call in proffessional statistitions to check their maths.

  62. Waded through the Eadler vomit, and the un sharperroo poo, its decidedly louise and guys not worth even the time taken to read. We feed the trolls!! sigh!!

  63. @Steve Metzler
    Points 1 -5…my answer: So? Doesn’t bother me as a scientist.
    Why do you expect a fully independent review? It is as if you are looking for clean room reverse engineering. Sorry, but that is a waste of time and not needed. All Wegman needed to do was review MM code and statistics. Why reinvent the wheel if the wheel was already made?
    Sorry, but your points are weak.

  64. Gentlemen
    Frankly, I am getting pretty fed-up with the AGW academic communities on this issue. I draw a line when any group (AGW or not) believes they may establish such standards as to prevent United States Congress from executing its duties. I would respectfully submit that the Congress has a constitutional right to commission any study, report, or document it sees fit. And further that the standard for the production of said document is up to Congress alone. If it cannot be shown that Wegman has violated a standard of presentation established by the commissioning congressional committee, or by any standard established by Congress as a whole, then this issue is moot.
    It is beyond absurd to suggest that Congress may not exercise it Congressional powers of oversight on matters of policy implementation to: detect and prevent poor administration, inform the general public, ensure policies reflect the public interest, and gather information to develop new legislation or to amend existing statutes. And it is not acceptable to tolerate the intimidation of such persons as Congress might seek for advice. Nor is it acceptable to punish by “private academic trial” any person who’s duty it is to advise Congress under a “standard” not established by Congress or in federal law.
    To my knowledge the only applicable federal laws are those of copyright and false designations.
    In cases copyright 17 U.S.C. § 107 is clear on weither Wegman may copy Bradley’s material. The applicable statue reads:
    “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
    The purpose of the Wegman document is to comment/criticism on the works of Bradly and others as a duty to Congress.
    Clearly Wegman was not using his report to “supersede” the “original work” and “substitute the review for it”.
    While it might be argued that 15 USC 1125 (False designations) might apply as a civil matter; 15 USC 1125 Section a) would require a showing that the document was “used in commerce”. Cleary a document specifically used for the purposes of advising Congress would not be a “use in commerce”.
    I see no violation of federal law. I do see an attempt to intimidate persons empowered by congress to collect information and report back. In effect, an attempt to obstruct the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Plainly put this is “Contempt of Congress”.
    When any group, in this case the AGW community, believes that it may impede the powers of Congress to obtain whatever information Congress needs; I believe they are acting against the very foundations of the government itself. No matter the cause, I draw a firm line in opposition to that proposal.
    It is my sincerest hope that Congress will make that point crystal clear.
    Regards, Kforestcat
    P.S. I am not a lawyer. The above represents a private opinion.

  65. Steve Metzler, in all the sniping, back-biting, academic ‘malpractice’ charges, the technical obfuscation, the mathematical subterfuge and philosophical dissembling by ‘The Team’ and their supporters, I have forgotten now-
    has it been shown that using white (or was it red?) noise datasets fed into the Mann-O-Matic tree-ring data processor (purported to ‘act’ as a temperature proxy and yielding ‘tree-thermometer’ data back thousands of years) –
    – results in the all too familiar upward-bladed Hockey Sticks (e.g. featured prominently in previous years IPCC reports)?
    (A quick perusal of Deep Climat’s graphs do not show anything BUT hockey sticks, albeit some with different-sized blades; perhaps I am simply expecting the running of Mann’s Mann-O-Matic yielding something other than ‘hockey sticks’ for the inputting of random or nearly random ‘test’ data as ‘proof’ his algorithm is ‘clean’.)
    .

  66. Boy, do I ever understand speeding tickets. Speeding tickets relate to dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s under deadline pressure. As a special educator, we have thousands of ‘i’s and ‘t’s, most of which have nothing to do with whether or not a students is making substantial progress towards grade level standards (IE catching up).
    So in this case, do the errors invalidate the conclusions? Not one tiny bit.

  67. So many people will be able to go to their grave without any trace of worry about the kind of world they’re leaving to their children and grandchildren, and we have wonderful sites like WUWT to thank for it. It’s so reassuring to know it’s not really getting warmer, or if it is it’s not our fault and it’ll cool off again real soon, and if it doesn’t then a bit warmer is good for us. It’s nice to have that reaffirmed day after day in the face of otherwise slightly troubling data from the real world. And if Mr Wegman and Mr MacIntyre’s next work is a study of the mean height of American males, taken from a random sample of delegates to a basketball convention, I’m sure you’ll be in here defending that with the same vigour and blind enthusiasm and yes, whininess. If that’s a word.

  68. Crispy and Proud of it.
    Read Lindzen’s submission to Congress. Your above post is a fact free zone and speak to a dogmatic belief in CAGW on your part.

  69. Steve Metzler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    James Sexton says:
    Do you people even read the stuff you guys are throwing around?
    …..
    You said, “But James, if *you* bothered to read that whole article you would discover that (somehow) Wegman assumed that McIntyre used AR1(.2) to generate his red noise. In fact, as Deep Climate verified by reading McIntyre’s archived code, he used ARFIMA instead. Huge difference. It is more like AR1 with a parameter of .9 (way more *persistent*), and is much more likely to produce a hockey stick shape when you derive a PC1 from the resulting red noise.
    And, of course, you probably don’t have a problem with someone drawing the conclusions of their report from a hand-picked sample representing only 1% of the total 10,000 simulation runs. Does that seem like proper use of statistics to you, or does it in fact seem like someone with an agenda?”

    ========================================================
    Sis, I’m not a statistician. I’ve taken some statistics classes. That said, I know what I read, I quoted it back to you. I know what was implied, the implications were clear. I, also, know the statistical significance of 1% and whether it is significant or not. Do you?
    =======================================================
    Again you said, “Between these revelations and the plagiarism, Wegman is in deep academic doo-doo. blather, blather, blah, blah….”
    =======================================================
    You guys are hilarious. You are attacking M&M by proxy? You mention plagiarism? I’ve posted here that Bradley was mentioned 35 times in the report. Some 13 times in the bibliography. He stated in his report to congress that he used M&M’s code, but only because Mann wouldn’t submit his! IT’S RIGHT THERE IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY!!! You want to blather on about academic acrimony? Why don’t you discuss M&M if you want to attack the statistics? I can supply the link if you or DC have the eggs to do so. It has been my experience that CA allows open debate. Give it a whirl! But, that’s not what I find laughable.
    What I find laughable is the admittance of the logarithmic nature of heat caused by CO2. This concept is fairly well accepted by both alarmist and skeptical communities. In any of the graphs offered, be it Mann et. al. or M&M or Wegman, do you see a logarithmic graph? You’re chasing an academic fantasy. Its a discussion of statistics. Not reality. (BTW,I bet on the statisticians, but that’s just me.) The entire prospect is preposterous. No, I’m not talking about the critique of Wegman, that’s expected, albeit several years late. Nor am I talking about the back and forth of M&M and Mann et. al. That, too, is expected. BTW, we forgot to include other statisticians such as McShane to the list, why don’t you guys go for the triflecta? Oh, right, there are more that disagree with the way the hockey stick is created. But that brings us back to my point of hilarity.
    By this tree ring, or a collective of tree rings, hundreds of years old, I can tell you with certainty that in the year of our Lord 1535, the global average temperature was 57.56 degrees Fahrenheit and through the rest of the century, the global anomaly was -0.22 degrees Fahrenheit.
    Yeh, I’d hang my hat on that, too. And you’re going to worry that Wegman didn’t mention Bradley a 36th time? No sis, if this is your position, you’ve much more to worry about than that.
    Good luck,
    James Sexton

  70. @Steve Metzler
    “Points 1 -5…my answer: So? Doesn’t bother me as a scientist.
    Why do you expect a fully independent review? It is as if you are looking for clean room reverse engineering. Sorry, but that is a waste of time and not needed. All Wegman needed to do was review MM code and statistics. Why reinvent the wheel if the wheel was already made?
    Sorry, but your points are weak.”
    Your idea doesn’t sound very scientific to me. It amounts to an assumption that M&M had the correct idea and all they had to do was check the arithmetic.
    This does not amount to an independent review. Actually what M&M did was nonsense. They used an noise algorithm that generated some persistant noise, used the MBH data and counted how many hockey sticks were generated. It was about 1% of the cases for upward pointing hockey sticks and 1% downward.
    They falsely claimed that MBH98’s method was likely to be generating upward pointing hockey sticks for PC1, even if it were fed random noise, despite the fact that an equal number of downward hockey sticks were generated, and 99% of the time upward pointing hockey sticks did not appear. This actually shows that it is unlikely that random noise was responsible for the making the first principal component into a hockey stick
    They also accepted M&M false allegation that only one principal component was used by MBH98 in their paper. Actually 4 were used.
    Of course if you are going to assume that what Wegman did was right, and he didn’t have to do any more, you are not going to deal with the points that were made by DC. That is your privilege, but you can’t declare on that basis that you have won the argument about this.

  71. I think it`s OBVIOUS that Wegman plagiarised.
    He used “words” and “language”. And BOTH “words” and “language” have been used by other people.
    Therefore Wegman plagiarised words and language.
    This is the frightening future we face from the socialist-left world. Speak against them, and they will just make up stories against you.

  72. And Pamela, I was going to vote for “So in this case, do the errors invalidate the conclusions? Not one tiny bit.” as quote of the week. Since it’s equally applicable to Wegman, McIntyre and Mann et al. Wegman’s report is clearly so flawed we should probably all just pretend it never existed from here on in. McIntyre made useful points about Mann’s inadequate use of PCA. And despite the errors, the result is much the same as Mann’s later study where he modified the technique. And of course the hockey stick results have been independently verified. Over and over again.
    And don’t give me the ‘fact free zone’ nonsense Doug. Find me any facts in this current thread, outside of Steve Metzler’s summary of the problems with Wegman. And ‘dogmatic beliefs’? Puhleeze. I lurk here, and at The Air Vent and occasionally Jo Nova’s blog, and I have a number of AGW sites bookmarked as well. I’ve been trying to get my head around the science and the uncertainties involved for about three years. I’m not a scientist or a statistician, but I can see where the weight of evidence leads. And I’ve seen enough to consider an accusation of ‘dogmatism’ from a denizen of this blog to be pretty damned funny.

  73. eadler, November 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm says:
    … They used an noise algorithm that generated some persistant noise, used the MBH data and counted how many hockey sticks were generated.

    I perused the graphs plotted over at Deep Climat, and I didn’t see any flat lines or even downward turning hockey sticks … ergo the Mann-O-Matic tree-ring data processor still creates upward-bladed hockey sticks when fed random data*?
    I also note that replications using LabVIEW result in, um, well, the author at that blog states: “Voila! A Hockey Stick from noise…
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/michael-mann-averaging-error-demo/
    He even includes the source code (for those of you presenting severe allergic reaction to “R”). Just for info, a 30-day trial of the full LabVIEW dev platform can be downloaded from the ni.com website (850 some MB) …
    (* subject to some stipulations)
    .

  74. Ben says:
    November 23, 2010 at 6:10 pm
    Just a couple questions:….. very nice!
    Kforestcat says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:11 pm
    Gentlemen
    Frankly, I am getting pretty fed-up with the AGW academic communities on this issue. I draw a line when any group (AGW or not) believes they may establish such standards as to prevent United States Congress from executing its duties….Perfect!
    To both, great arguments, wish I’d have thought of them myself! It would have saved me considerable time and effort. (Well, a few minutes, anyway.) These guys are fun to play with!

  75. Pamela Gray says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:59 pm
    I vote, “slightly troubling data from the real world” as the quote of the week.
    ======================================================
    Seconded! Volumes can be written upon such words!

  76. Actually what M&M did was nonsense. They used an noise algorithm that generated some persistant noise, used the MBH data and counted how many hockey sticks were generated. It was about 1% of the cases for upward pointing hockey sticks and 1% downward.

    I suggest you go back and actually read their analysis of MBH98/99, as well as the subsequent work they’ve done. It is clear you’ve only picked up your talking points from listening to others complain and, as is often the case with a grapevine tale, you’ve muddled much of what was really said (and done.)
    There are numerous problems with MBH98/99, not all of which directly involve the “method” itself, some of which are the simple failures of the authors to demonstrate (or prove) their own assumptions.
    Mark

  77. Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    and yes, whininess. If that’s a word.
    Yes, it is a word: a word , and your post is an insidious example of it.
    Generally WUWT is characterized by combativeness instead, against bad data, faulty logic and unsubstantiated by data model claims.

  78. Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
    “….Wegman’s report is clearly so flawed…..”
    =======================================================
    Yeh, sure, please point, specifically, to the flaws. Start with the statement, be it textual or mathematical, show where in the report it is stated, and then the reasoning behind your assertion that it is flawed. If you can do that, I will, with most certainty, consider your arguments. Please expect follow-up questions.

  79. KenB says:
    November 23, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    I tried to warn you. Sound and fury from Crispy and friends, signifying nothing. Anthony called it when he said “whiners”. DeepClimate should do something more valuable with his time in regards to the climate debate. How long did he spend spinning this fantastic tale of misdirection? Did they see weakness in Wegman’s rebuttal skills and they pounced? Sure looks that way to me.

  80. Loved Crispy’s “do it for the children and grandchildren” crap. How many have come to this site and tried to pull that bullshit line?!?! What a crock of hooey. Next comes the oil company shill diatribe. Another brainwashed useful idiot.

  81. Crispy and Proud of it.
    This current thread is NOT about the science. If you want some facts regarding the issue outlined in this thread they are everywhere. You can start with my post on the subject:
    “…………..Wegman is in deep academic doo-doo.”
    “Doubtful, ignoring the fact that Bradley’s work was cited by Wegman in his report and a report for Congress is not a scholarly work. A report created for Congress is a protected activity.”
    The fact is Wegman cited Bradley many times in that report, including in the bibliography. The other fact is that he was writing a report to Congress and that is, and should be, a protected activity. Precisely to prevent the type of intimidation that Bradley’s email makes clear he is attempting to do.
    Neither of your posts indicate the you are actually researching the science or even the economics. If you really want to know what the skeptics arguments are then do as I suggested before and read Dr Lindzen’s submission to Congress. If you don’t understand something research it, just as I did. Then come back and actually argue the facts if you still believe we are headed for catastrophe. Hint: Temperature has gone up over the last 200 years and so has CO2. If you believe this alone is cause for concern then you are willfully ignorant of the real debate.

  82. Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
    And I’ve seen enough to consider an accusation of ‘dogmatism’ from a denizen of this blog to be pretty damned funny.
    The difference of the denizens of this blog with the denizens of Real Climate for example, is that they are dogmatic on demanding,
    1)Original data available to all researchers,
    2)clear methods, including programming code, available to all researchers
    3) correct use of statistics
    4) error calculations on all plots
    5) global evaluation of models: example anomalies might fit but temperatures are off by more than the projected heating in 100 years.
    6) etc. wherever the scientific method is not followed.
    I am a scientist, and am dogmatic about following the scientific method, and not astrology type hand wavings.on which the AGW religion relies.

  83. Well, it’s been 2 hours since
    James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    I’m full, sated and tired. More, my cat is messing with me.
    Good evening to all.
    PS, don’t mess with my treeometers while I’m away!

  84. this sorry episode is a good example of the power of personal destruction and distraction
    the only reason that we’re even talking about this is ClimateGate. An anonymous blogs claims to have found plagiarism in a 4 year old document to 1. attack the criticizer of Mann and 2. distract from Climategate itself.
    It was highly useful when the VA AG filed his suit against Mann…then Mann’s advocates could whip this out to make Mann look falsely accused by a plagiarist.
    The tactic has been so successful that blogger (including CA) have spent considerably effort looking into it. The humor being that Wegman’s main point was the statistical point that McIntyre was right, and whatever was “lifted” from Bradley was background stuff…Wegman is not a dendro.
    Since the congress has been taken over by the Rs, this will certainly get widespread play in the press…when another hearing is scheduled. And certainly no one in the press will give a nuanced look a this.

  85. @eadler, 23/11/2010: “Showing only the upward pointing graphs, and claiming this proves that there is a bias in the analysis of MBH 98, is an incorrect argument. The question is was this a result of a conscious desire to deceive, or did they really miss the point. Whichever it is, it is pretty clear the both M&M and Wegman’s Report made the identical errors. It is clear that Wegman did not produce an “independent verification” because he used M&M’s methodology and software, and made the same fallacious argument.”
    I think you may be showing your ignorance here. It is indeed true that short-centring in random red noise will produce hockeystick shapes both up and down the red noise exercise was to show that, and proved it so, by judicious selection of the proxy data MBH’s short centring technique gave an upward tick at the end of the time period. It doesn’t have this upward tick if the bristlecone pines are removed. No statisticians disagree with M&M, or Wegman, not even the NAS investigation disagrees, nor does Ian Jolliffe. Short-centring is a technique unknown in statistical circuits and there have been no peer-reviewed papers extolling it as a valid statistical technique for getting signals out of random noise.
    I suggest you read Andrew Montford’s Hockeystick Illusion the scales will fall from your eyes.

  86. Doug Badgero, as you say, this thread is not about the science of AGW, and my comments do not touch on it. I do not see how you can draw any conclusions about my knowledge on the subject. I will do as you suggest and read Lindzen. I searched Google Scholar a few weeks back looking for a recent Lindzen paper setting out his case for a low climate sensitivity to CO2 – since that is his primary departure from the mainstream – with no success. Hopefully he makes his case in the submission to congress. No doubt we’ll get a chance to talk about the ‘real debate’ on another thread. Happy to engage. Blogs on both sides have far too few contrarians.
    James Sexton, I’m not a stats man, and neither, as you’ve said, are you. I’ve gone through the DC post, and DC, unlike McIntyre, does go to the trouble of carefully explaining the statistical reasoning. Eadler and Steve Metzler clearly are stats men, and have spelt out the main problem with Wegman duplicating and rubber stamping M&Ms approach, rather than reporting on their varacity. Do you think Congress was well served by this? Answer Eadler and Steve rather than bait me.
    anna V, where does plagiarism fit into your list? Is it at No.7? Is No1 a go at Phil Jones? Do we have to go through that again? No2 You want programming code? Surely if you’ve got the data one writes ones own code? Isn’t the point to replicate results, and not just repeat? No3 Statistics. Indeed. Cuts both ways… ‘it’s been cooling since 1998’ and so on. And what did you think of Lubos Motl framing the question for Jones starting at 1995 to get just the right answer about statistical significance to create a cheap meaningless PR coup? No4 Error calculations on all plots. Like in the IPCC report, sure. No.5Models. Couldn’t agree more. Lots of work to be done on models.
    [Snip] If you want to believe the few over the many, and conjecture over data, because it suits your view of the world or whatever, that’s your right. Don’t call me an idiot for following the data to a conclusion that gives at least a reasonable amount of concern for the future. You’re hanging around on a site that gave the world ‘Carbonic snow in the arctic’, for Chrissakes. Hang on, so am I 🙂

  87. Moderator, did you receive a 10.47 comment from me? Was there a problem with it? It was a polite reply to a lot of the above. Do comments often disappear into the ether? Should I save a copy before I hit the send button? Cheers
    [REPLY: The post in question ended up in the SPAM cache. On its own or moved there I do not know. I can, move it out for approval…. I you agree to allow me to snip the aggressive ad-hom and characterizations for it (the last paragraph). If not… It can stay there. .. bl57~mod]

  88. Please guys stop feeding the Trolls, you can tell the trolls as they have nothing to add to the discussion but unsupported drivel eg:-
    eadler says: – Instead of shwoing M&M’s work is incorrect because he knows he can’t ha attacks a report (and thats all it was) that proves that M&M’s work is correct, It’s simply puppy kicking because he’s scared to bedate M&M’s work.
    Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
    ‘And don’t give me the ‘fact free zone’ nonsense Doug. Find me any facts in this current thread’
    When in the story at the very top are all the facts he needs its under ‘Wegman whiners: this post’s for you’, but instead of learning something he did not know he simply came here and tried to Troll. It is something I have seen time and time again by expert trolls, not miss guide fools.
    These trolls have taken far to much time up and unless they can show why M&M’s work and not a report that simply chekced the numbers is correct then ignore them for the forum trolls they are.

  89. It is pitiful to watch all of the trolls squirm as they are being batted about by those who do understand the Wegman report. Nothing they have said really was very persuasive when the arguments are compared.

  90. Sorry, kinda OT. Does anyone have a link to the Lindzen congressional report pdf? Anthony’s link on the Nov 17 post seems to be cactus. Doug? Many thanks.

  91. D. Patterson says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:29 am
    Wrong, the Fair Use Doctrine for a report commissioned by Congress is privileged use of copyright material, even when Bradley copied the material from Fritts 1975 without citation and with uncited alterations to Fritts expression and idea of the work.
    _________________________________________________________________________
    From the US Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
    “…Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
    The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
    The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment;
    I found nothing about the use of copyrighted material in a Congressional report. I did not read the law and all the rulemaking since I do not have a week, but I would no be surprise that there is an exemption, since Congress ALWAYS exempts themselves from the rules they want US to live by.
    D. Patterson, it would be nice if you have a link supporting your statement since it would completely kill the debate.

  92. Sorry if I come across as a troll. Perhaps this was a bad post to choose to weigh in on, since stats is not my strong point. Eadler and Steve Metzler are certainly not trolls – they offer a perspective on the topic. Geronimo tries to take them down. We all let our confirmation bias kick in and cheer for whom best suits our perspective. I look forward to trying to get to the bottom of it all.
    My original intention was satirical. I think blog science is pretty silly. Most people come to sites like this to be reassured. Wegman under attack? Check out WUWT, they’ll set it straight. And yes, the same confirmation bias happens at the AGW sites. I think everyone needs to get out more. The Judith Curry approach, perhaps. But in the end, if we want to learn about the science, I think we should study the science. Not so much what people with agendas SAY about the science.
    Christopher Hanley, thanks for the link to the animation. I think it’s a bit of train wreck. I wish I could pause it and study it properly. It seems to splice the Mann global temp reconstruction onto the Vostok core data (Antarctica, one location) and then throws in the NOAA Greenland cores – just one location, mind you. Do you think that’s kosher? The temp scale on the left jumps around, but it is seriously sub zero, but as the longitudinal scale lengthens the Mann Hockey stick is allowed to shrink, so that the modern uptick in temperatures seems to take us to… er, about 30 below zero according to the scale. I guess the point to be illustrated is that ice age temperature anomalies are on a par with what’s happening now. Is that the point? And sure, they are, on a millennial scale. But that has nothing to do with the present rapid warming as CO2 forcing accumulates heat, over and above natural variability, does it? nevertheless, the animation is reassuring if you just want to be… reassured.

  93. eadler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
    Since then a lot of papers on climate reconstruction have been published in the peer reviewed literature and all are shaped like a hockey stick.
    ——————————————–
    Because all hockey sticks are designed in the shape of a hockey stick. Like all scams are designed to scam people. Nobody designs scams as a means of assisting the poor and destitute. The poor are taken care of by the Mother Teresas of the world while the scams are designed by hockey-stick designers and their expensive computer models repeating the same lines of code, reading the same homogenised (cooked) data.

  94. Larry in Texas says:
    November 24, 2010 at 1:05 am
    It is pitiful to watch all of the trolls squirm . . . [edit] . . .

    ——————
    Larry in Texas,
    What is even more pitiful is they want us to do their research for them. Maybe they are under aged trolls who don’t get out much on their own without parental supervision of their troll masters at RC?
    For instance, there is this pitiful plea.

    Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 24, 2010 at 1:12 am
    Sorry, kinda OT. Does anyone have a link to the Lindzen congressional report pdf? Anthony’s link on the Nov 17 post seems to be cactus. Doug? Many thanks

    Yuck, I just had a mental flash of a pre-pubescent troll-like being chained to his computer by RC overlords. : )
    John

  95. “Crispy and Proud of it.” on November 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm says:
    … but I can see where the weight of evidence leads. And I’ve seen enough to consider an accusation of ‘dogmatism’ from a denizen of this blog to be pretty damned funny.

    Never mind “adjusted temperature datasets” by GISS for instance that ‘induce’ warming into graphed temperature data?
    Right.
    How do you guys (and some gals) justify this sort of thing? How can you a claim a clean conscience and yet totally accept (we have seen no ‘papers’ from warmistas decrying these ‘adjustments’) ‘tainted data’?
    It boggles the mind … it must induce a good case of ‘cognitive dissonance’ on your part, and due, in part to uncritical thinking and ‘herd mentality’; on that last note it does help (in maintaining heard compliance) that if one of you breaks ranks/expresses a counter thought to ‘warming’ (or the cause) you are excoriated by your *own* kind; this assures a certain level of ‘compliance’ in your belief system’s world.
    .

  96. Gail Combs November 24, 2010 at 4:01 am says:

    “…Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work …”
    The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

    I found nothing about the use of copyrighted material in a Congressional report.
    … it would be nice if you have a link supporting your statement since it would completely kill the debate.

    Use your head and please re-read this section and you should have your answer:
    “…Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. ”
    Okay, for the Wegman paper, we can clearly see we aren’t talking the ‘reproduction’ of an entertainment piece (e.g. a movie whose purpose for ex. is viewing), and, we aren’t reproducing this work in the New York Times (a venue for printed material) again for viewing, but rather for a ‘research-oriented’ report (a review of a research paper, M&M) for congress (and probable eventual inclusion in the Federal Register. )
    As to ” it would be nice if you have a link”: do you expect the ‘law givers’ to specifically include every foreseeable circumstance under which a ‘work’ might need citing, excerpting or inclusion? Pls, use some common sense and don’t act like a ‘sheeple’ requiring constant direction and leadership …
    .

  97. Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    “No2 You want programming code? Surely if you’ve got the data one writes ones own code? Isn’t the point to replicate results, and not just repeat?”
    Yes. No. Yes.
    If the point of the exercise is to replicate the results you absolutely need the code. Without the code it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to replicate the results as you would not know what proceedures were used to produce that result. After all if you want to replicate the result you need to repeat the exercise using the same methodology used previously which is given by the code.

  98. Gail Combs says:
    November 24, 2010 at 4:01 am

    No special exemption for Congress is necessary. The copyright law/s have always included the exception for “fair use” and “fair dealing” as the means of implementing the original purpose of copyright law, securing publications for comment, review, and otherwise advancing the public benefit. The U.S. Code is explicit below where it says, “reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports….The Committee has considered the question of publication, in Congressional hearings and documents, of copyrighted material…the Committee believes that the publication would constitute fair use.”
    -CITE-
    17 USC Sec. 107 02/01/2010
    -EXPCITE-
    TITLE 17 – COPYRIGHTS
    CHAPTER 1 – SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
    -HEAD-
    Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
    -STATUTE-
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
    use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
    copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
    section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
    teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
    scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
    determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
    is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
    such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
    educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
    relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
    value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
    of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
    above factors.
    -SOURCE-
    (Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec. 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546;
    Pub. L. 101-650, title VI, Sec. 607, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5132;
    Pub. L. 102-492, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3145.)
    -MISC1-
    HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
    HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
    General Background of the Problem. The judicial doctrine of fair
    use, one of the most important and well-established limitations on
    the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be given express
    statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. The claim
    that a defendant’s acts constituted a fair use rather than an
    infringement has been raised as a defense in innumerable copyright
    actions over the years, and there is ample case law recognizing the
    existence of the doctrine and applying it. The examples enumerated
    at page 24 of the Register’s 1961 Report, while by no means
    exhaustive, give some idea of the sort of activities the courts
    might regard as fair use under the circumstances: “quotation of
    excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or
    comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical
    work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s
    observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work
    parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations,
    in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work
    to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or
    student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;
    reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or
    reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or
    broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being
    reported.”
    Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use
    doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has
    ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of
    reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each
    case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the
    other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though
    in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for
    balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various
    ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards
    which have been adopted in section 107: “(1) the purpose and
    character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
    nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of
    the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the
    portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
    the copyrighted work.”
    These criteria are relevant in determining whether the basic
    doctrine of fair use, as stated in the first sentence of section
    107, applies in a particular case: “Notwithstanding the provisions
    of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such
    use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
    specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
    news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
    use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
    copyright.”
    [….]
    When a copyrighted work contains unfair, inaccurate, or
    derogatory information concerning an individual or institution, the
    individual or institution may copy and reproduce such parts of the
    work as are necessary to permit understandable comment on the
    statements made in the work.
    The Committee has considered the question of publication, in
    Congressional hearings and documents, of copyrighted material.
    Where the length of the work or excerpt published and the number of
    copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the
    work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate
    legislative concern, the Committee believes that the publication
    would constitute fair use.
    During the consideration of the revision bill in the 94th
    Congress it was proposed that independent newsletters, as
    distinguished from house organs and publicity or advertising
    publications, be given separate treatment. It is argued that
    newsletters are particularly vulnerable to mass photocopying, and
    that most newsletters have fairly modest circulations. Whether the
    copying of portions of a newsletter is an act of infringement or a
    fair use will necessarily turn on the facts of the individual case.
    However, as a general principle, it seems clear that the scope of
    the fair use doctrine should be considerably narrower in the case
    of newsletters than in that of either mass-circulation periodicals
    or scientific journals. The commercial nature of the user is a
    significant factor in such cases: Copying by a profit-making user
    of even a small portion of a newsletter may have a significant
    impact on the commercial market for the work.
    [….]
    The criteria of fair use are necessarily set forth in general
    terms. In the application of the criteria of fair use to specific
    photocopying practices of libraries, it is the intent of this
    legislation to provide an appropriate balancing of the rights of
    creators, and the needs of users.
    AMENDMENTS
    1992 – Pub. L. 102-492 inserted at end “The fact that a work is
    unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
    finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”
    1990 – Pub. L. 101-650 substituted “sections 106 and 106A” for
    “section 106” in introductory provisions.
    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1990 AMENDMENT
    Amendment by Pub. L. 101-650 effective 6 months after Dec. 1,
    1990, see section 610 of Pub. L. 101-650, set out as an Effective
    Date note under section 106A of this title.

  99. Crispy says:
    “But that has nothing to do with the present rapid warming as CO2 forcing accumulates heat, over and above natural variability, does it? nevertheless, the animation is reassuring if you just want to be… reassured.”
    You are making a somewhat baseless assumption. CO2 ‘forcing’ is a matter of great dispute. If there was empirical, testable and measurable evidence showing the percentage of the [very mild] 0.7° warming over the past century, the issue would be settled. But there is no such evidence.
    Estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 range from a small fraction of a degree per doubling, to a fairly preposterous 3°C or more. So far, the real world observations support the lower figures.
    The null hypothesis of natural climate variability fully explains current temperatures, with no need to violate Occam’s Razor by introducing an extraneous entity such as CO2. True, CO2 likely has a small effect, possibly as much as 1°C per doubling. But that is too insignificant to be of any great concern.
    According to the scientific method, you must be able to provide testable observations showing how much of the few tenths of a degree rise in temperature over the past century is due to CO2, and how much is natural climate variability. If you cannot show those numbers in a falsifiable manner, you are at the Conjecture stage of the scientific method. You are speculating, which is no way to set policy.
    You cannot show that today’s climate is any different than numerous times throughout the Holocene and during prior interglacials. Maybe these charts will help:
    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    The current climate is very benign. A 2° rise would be inconsequential to most of the planet’s inhabitants. Larger rises have happened many, many times before, and CO2 levels appear to be only an effect of warming, not a cause.
    Keep in mind that the IPCC now openly admits that “climate change” is simply a front for raising taxes, redistributing national wealth, and world government. There is simply no credible evidence that the increase in CO2 is a problem.

  100. Sorry folks. I had to break off at 2:00AM my time last night. I’m 5 hrs ahead of EST…
    _Jim says:

    ARFIMA , as in “Autoregressive Fractionally Integrated Moving Average”?
    And we are to understand that Deep Climate, by “reading McIntyre’s archived code” verified this technique was used?
    I wasn’t aware Deep Climat was in any way qualified, schooled or educated (either formally, via self-education or night school) in statistics to make a claim such as this?
    What are the chances he (DC) is in error?

    Virtually non-existent. I just happen to be a professional programmer (and electrical engineer by education so I can handle the math), and was looking at McIntyre’s R code myself. He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.
    And if you actually took the pains to read the article over at Deep Climate, you could see for yourself that doing this adds more persistence to the red noise, thus making it more likely to recover a hockey stick shaped PC1 from the noise. Please refer to the last diagramme in DC’s article, and of course, the accompanying text above and below it.

  101. Steve Metzler,
    More than twelve years after MBH98, Michael Mann still refuses to share his raw data, metadata and methodologies with skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist].
    Unless Mann, Bradley and Hughes totally “open the books” on exactly how they reached their conclusions, and fully answer the questions raised by skeptical scientists, their Hokey Stick is not science; it is IPCC propaganda.

  102. Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    “…..Answer Eadler and Steve rather than bait me.”
    ========================================================
    Uhmm, yeh, you’re right, I do, indeed, bait people.
    James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Steve Metzler says:
    November 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    and,
    James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    @ eadler and louise
    =======================================================
    So we can see that I did answer both mentioned and more! Sadly, though, neither decided to respond to me. Its difficult to have a one-sided exchange.
    Just to be clear,
    Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    “So many people will be able to go to their grave without any trace of worry about the kind of world they’re leaving to their children and grandchildren, and we have wonderful sites like WUWT to thank for it.”
    and
    Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
    “….Wegman’s report is clearly so flawed…..”
    Was that you? Baiting……right. Let me write that down.
    Crispy, it is my practice to give as good as what is being offered. If someone wants to have a rational conversation about the science behind climatology, I’m happy to engage reasonably. If someone wants to come here and start babbling about plagiarism to in a report to Congress where the aggrieved party is mentioned 35 times! and specifically referenced 13 times in the bibliography and specifically references the reading material the aggrieved party is whining about….or when someone says Wegman copied M&M and thus invalidates his findings, I’m forced to wonder where they’ve been for the last several years and why their reading comprehension skills are so low that they don’t understand what “we were able to run the code on our own machines and reproduce and extend some of his results… means. Either way, I may tend to lose some of my civility when either events or like events occur. If you truly wish to discuss CAGW in a rational manner, then welcome.

  103. Steve Melzer 6:35 am –
    “I just happen to be a professional programmer (and electrical engineer by education so I can handle the math), and was looking at McIntyre’s R code myself. He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.”
    Steve McIntyre covered this in 2006 –
    http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/03/more-tangled-webs/#comments
    Specifically, “In our red noise discussions, we did two calculations – one with ARFIMA noise and one with AR1 noise. The ARFIMA noise produced pretty hockey sticks but introduced a secondary complication and replications have focused on AR1 examples. To set parameters for the simulation, we calculated AR1 coefficients on the North American AD1400 tree ring network using a simple application of the arima function in R:
    arima.coef = arima(x,order=c(1,0,0))
    This is what Ritson is criticizing, arguing that application of a standard arima function to a tree ring network without previously removing trends is incorrect. Now it seems to me that Ritson has recently argued that VZ’s implementation of MBH made some sort of ghastly error by removing a trend prior to regression – so it’s hard to say what Team policy is on when trends should be removed and when trends shouldn’t be removed – but that’s a story for another day.
    However here my point is different. Whatever the right method may be, the method that I used simply followed Mann’s own methodology.”
    Now I’m not clever enough to be able to comment on that, but does it answer your point?

  104. redneck says:

    If the point of the exercise is to replicate the results you absolutely need the code. Without the code it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to replicate the results as you would not know what proceedures were used to produce that result. After all if you want to replicate the result you need to repeat the exercise using the same methodology used previously which is given by the code.

    I’m afraid you just don’t get how science is done at all. Wegman is a *professional statistician*. As in… that’s what he does for a living. All McIntyre needed to do was tell Wegman what raw data he used and what methodology he used, and Wegman should have been able to reproduce McIntyre’s results himself in just a few days honest work. Then he would have noticed that by using AR1(.2) to generate the red noise, that he *couldn’t reproduce McIntyre’s results*. That is how science is done.
    But, no, he instead took the lazy way out and just copied McIntyre’s results without bothering to verify them. And for that he will be hung out to dry.
    Also, a statistician knows well better than to cherry-pick just 1% of the simulations that were run and call that the ‘results’. That’s *scandalous* behaviour. That’s why I call the whole thing a ‘stitch-up’ of Mann et. al.

  105. smokey says:

    …with skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist].

    ROTFLMAO! See my last post (November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am).

  106. Apologies for slight offtopicness, but I thought for our troll friends it might be useful to hear a real scientist’s opinions on how things should be done.
    “If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”
    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
    “The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another”
    “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
    “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.”
    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
    All attributed to RPF, sums up most of what’s wrong with the CAGW crowd in my opinion. And as if to demonstrate his greatness, he also predicted the whole lot falling down again:
    “When things are going well, something will go wrong.
    When things just can’t get any worse, they will.
    Anytime things appear to be going better, you have overlooked something.”

  107. Re: Steve Metzler November 24, 2010 at 6:35 am
    No address if he (DC) is a ‘proxy’ for someone else in this ‘thrust’? (An answer avoided is an answer still in search of ‘an answer’.) It makes perfect sense if one’s case, if one’ premise is flawed,to employ an another, perhaps a little known ‘flak’ to first run the ‘play’ down the field … should a biggie like Gavin or Rabett do the same, and fail, well, there’s just too much for those guys to lose if this current play doesn’t pan out.
    Also, perhaps you’d like to try out the LabVIEW app I cited above and witness hickey stick creation, *if* you’ve overcome the learning curve associated with that particular graphical programming language … The link if you can’t find it above is: http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/michael-mann-averaging-error-demo/
    This app will run under LV 8.0 (just tried it, it’s written in 7.1 and the author will make a LV 8.6 version available if requested)
    Perhaps you can also address the issue of repetitive hockey-stick recreations using the Mann-O-Matic; seems no one has been able to demonstrate anything but hockey sticks using Mann’s code/algorithm.
    .

  108. It is a waste of breath to start quibbling with people who do not have self knowledge, but the following has to be refuted since it is completely false:
    Crispy and Proud of it. says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    No4 Error calculations on all plots. Like in the IPCC report, sure.
    The IPCC in AR4 is not giving errors on its “projections” and model plots. Any errors are on the data. The models are spaghetti plots that give the optical illusion of an error band unless one reads the AR4, which I have done. In
    8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability
    end of first paragraph:
    The above studies show promise
    that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
    may be developed, but because the development of robust
    metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
    in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
    reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.

    In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and metrics in the eye of the modeler, which seems to be usual with climate “science”.
    For the innocent among us, likelihood is a strict measure of the errors entering any propagated calculation and is the way to get error bars instead of pasta.
    It is not an easy task, no way, but still, without errors we are into astrology models ( they have computerized ones now a days).

  109. Sorry, I mis-spelt Steve Metzler’s name in my 7.06 am comment above.
    BTW only 23 comments have been published on the Daily Mail article. Mine was never published and I suspect they’ve closed off the comments as too many were critical of the article.

  110. Steve Metzler wrote:
    “And, of course, you probably don’t have a problem with someone drawing the conclusions of their report from a hand-picked sample representing only 1% of the total 10,000 simulation runs. Does that seem like proper use of statistics to you, or does it in fact seem like someone with an agenda?”
    Well if M&M did in fact, hand pick their sample then I would agree with your conclusion, but you are merely speculating. How do I know this? Because M&M doesn’t say anywhere that they “hand picked a sample.” So you go to DeepClimate and read some opinion that because 1% was used, then this must have been hand picked – an opinion that you now regurgitate as fact.
    For anybody who has any background in statistics, random sampling is a standard and accepted technique to gain information about a population. A sample of 1% from 10,000 is 100. As long as this was selected randomly – ie by using a random number generator – then it is likely to represent the whole population to a high accuracy. There is nothing sinister about this, nor does it point to an ‘agenda’ as you claim.
    Where is your evidence that they hand-picked the sample?

  111. Good grief! Who woke up all these trolls? Its like a Lord of the Rings movie!
    I had no idea the Wegman Report hurt them this bad!
    They obviously dont even understand what a report is in the first place.
    hehe.

  112. Steve Metzler says:
    November 24, 2010 at 6:35 am
    “And if you actually took the pains to read the article over at Deep Climate,…..”
    ========================================================
    Steve, why do you think people here haven’t read the article? I’m willing to bet many regulars here are re-reading the damned thing.
    It seems the point of contention is the AR1 vs ARFIMA. Looking at the code snippet, it seems M&M did use ARFIMA, as opposed to AR1 as Wegman claimed, and it is somehow very significant towards the critique of Mann? But, even before the writer gets to the point, we see this “It’s true that NRC did provide a demonstration of the bias effect using AR1 noise instead of ARFIMA. “
    Yeh, ok, got that. Then there’s the hand waving about copying M&M’s code. Wegman stated that he did. Did you bother to read the report? The rest is simply advocacy and cheer-leading.
    Steve, is there any point to that article or reason why anyone should care about this?
    What part of we were able to run the code on our own machines and reproduce and extend some of his results… do you guys not understand? ITS IN THE REPORT!!! AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS!
    Another point totally missed by DC was the fact that in the report, Wegman shows where he couldn’t use Mann’s code because Mann refused to provide it.
    One other thing. Doing a graph comparison, DC shows us a graph (right) red noise null proxies. that carries striking similarities to some graphs produced by McShane and Wyner.

  113. “”Steve Metzler says:
    November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am””
    Have you looked at Mr. Wegmans credentials? Yea, he’s lazy…go with that. Has it occured to you that, as stated numerous times here and in the report to congress, that his results were identical BECAUSE he was able to collaborate with Mr. McIntyre, to obtain, duscuss and understand the code used and the file structure utilized? That this was part of the verification of M&M’s critique of Mann that Congress had SPECIFICALLY requested of Wegman?
    None of the collaboration that took place between McIntyre and Wegman has ever taken place with Mann…why? Mann has doggedly denied sharing, collaborating, explaining, to/with sceptics…why? His position better reflects the attitude of an 8 year old’s selfish response to others with, “because I don’t have to share, it’s mine!”
    Many of the pro-AGW attitudes/remarks here reflect the attitude of the overly protective parents of the above mentioned 8 year old’s selfish behaviour, that respond with, “You’re right son, that’s your’s and you don’t need to share or play with those dumb kids anyway. C’mon, I’ll play with you. We’ll show them!”
    “”John Whitman says:
    November 24, 2010 at 5:08 am””
    John, the word “Crispy”, to my understanding, is a slang word I’ve come across in FL denoting a senior, or as I have recently become: blue-haired. Sorry to dispose of the more easily entrained idea that these people are just too young to understand or be objective.

  114. Jockdownsouth says:
    November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am
    Steve Melzer 6:35 am –
    “I just happen to be a professional programmer (and electrical engineer by education so I can handle the math), and was looking at McIntyre’s R code myself. He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.”
    Steve McIntyre covered this in 2006 –
    http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/03/more-tangled-webs/#comments
    Specifically, “In our red noise discussions, we did two calculations – one with ARFIMA noise and one with AR1 noise. The ARFIMA noise produced pretty hockey sticks but introduced a secondary complication and replications have focused on AR1 examples. To set parameters for the simulation, we calculated AR1 coefficients on the North American AD1400 tree ring network using a simple application of the arima function in R:
    =======================================================
    Ouch! That’s gotta hurt. Oh well, that was fun while it lasted. Does any DC fan have anything to add?

  115. re: Wegman whiners
    If this is an indication of the quality of the “attack team” put together by the Community College profs, they better do a better job of drafting talent.

  116. “”Crispy says:
    November 24, 2010 at 4:04 am””
    “…We all let our confirmation bias kick in and cheer for whom best suits our perspective. I look forward to trying to get to the bottom of it all.
    My original intention was satirical. I think blog science is pretty silly. Most people come to sites like this to be reassured. Wegman under attack? Check out WUWT, they’ll set it straight. And yes, the same confirmation bias happens at the AGW sites. I think everyone needs to get out more. The Judith Curry approach, perhaps. But in the end, if we want to learn about the science, I think we should study the science. Not so much what people with agendas SAY about the science…”
    As a fellow ‘Crispy’ I agree with most of the above, I would amend thus: “We all let our confirmation bias kick in and cheer for whom follows the scientific method that most closely reflects our observational data.”
    The question, debate, and discussion circles around who/how, and to what degree this has been achieved. In regards to the current Wegman see: James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    and: James Sexton says:
    November 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    These really are enough of a refutation.
    Perspective as such may help give us direction in pursuing a given direction when in search-mode but offers nothing in regards to results: the results are what they are, regardless of perception/perspective. MBH was thoroughly deconstucted by M&M, or as far as it could be without having the specific code and methodology used by MBH. Congress wanted verification from Wegman as to the veracity of the critiques and methods leveled by M&M. Wegman achieved this and verified that the M&M critique was valid and that some of the statistical methods used by MBH were inappropriate. The North report corraborated Wegman’s results while admitting that Wegman went further in their efforts; North agreed (under oath) that their results, essentially, were in agreement.
    Here’s where my own “confirmation bias” kicks in: IMO (I’ve read others that might agree with me on this) There has been an underlying political agenda being foisted upon us since the early 1970’s (’60’s maybe) starting whith the “Coming Ice Age” scare ‘tatctic’, evolving into the current warming scare. That is, that global banking cartels wanted a centralized global government to better control the volatility of global currencies. Utilizing energy consumption control, again globally, to achieve this end. My point: that the MBH study was politically motivated, hence the code and methodology COULD NOT be shared as the underlying motive would be exposed. It was fraud at the start, in the middle and presently. The MC&W paper corroborated what M&M, Wegman and North found. Perhaps you have been following this as I have been: from the sidelines and may recall that many times on this site and others that AGW”s have MANY times cited the Wegman and North reports as VALIDATING/EXONERATING the MBH products. Isn’t it funny the stance they are now taking? That irony really should make this fun reading except for the fact that billions of our tax dollars have been wasted (your tax $$) and they want MORE!! I’ll start laughing as soon as I stop crying.
    Hope this helps.

  117. Gaylon says:
    November 24, 2010 at 8:00 am
    John, the word “Crispy”, to my understanding, is a slang word I’ve come across in FL denoting a senior, or as I have recently become: blue-haired. Sorry to dispose of the more easily entrained idea that these people are just too young to understand or be objective.

    ——————–
    Gaylon,
    Yikes! Horrible is the possiblity of a senior pre-pubescent troll-like being.
    I can imagine that maybe on the wall above his computer is inscribed these words, “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here.”
    [thanks Dante Alighieri]
    Those cruel IPCC masters, to treat him so.
    John

  118. I should add as further evidence for politcal collusion in regardes to the MBH products that the congressional outcome was to uphold that the criticisms of M&M were valid, yet the committee STILL upheld the results of MBH as being correct. How is this possible? There was a pre-determined political outcome that had to be upheld.
    Recall that the McS&W paper showed (as was shown at the original hearings by Wegman et al) that the results were skewed due to improper use of statistical methods and showing that there were/are no statistically significant results to be found in the MBH et al datasets concerning global temperature trends.

  119. Vince Causey says:

    Where is your evidence that they hand-picked the sample?

    All the questions you people keep asking me are answered in the article over at Deep Climate. There is a *link* to McIntyre’s M&M05 code and saved-off cherry-picked ‘top 100 hockey sticks’ in the article. Deep Climate found *all twelve* hockey sticks that were shown in the Wegman Report in that top 100. The results were cherry-picked/unfairly biased/whatever you want to call it.
    There is in fact a piece of code (that Deep Climate shows) used by McIntyre to select only those results that have a very pronounced hockey stick shape. The facts are there for all to see if you’d only bother to read the article for comprehension. Please deal with the facts like rational people do (not necessarily directed at you, Vince, more a general observation about the inanity of the comments here).
    Pro tip: someone who knows what they are talking about and can back it up with facts is NOT a troll.

  120. Steve Metzler,
    Briffa also produced a hokey stick chart. But he heavily cherry-picked his tree samples. In fact, if a single tree [YAD061] had been eliminated, there would be no hockey stick in his published chart.
    Further, Briffa selected his trees from a very small data set, when a much larger set nearby was available. He didn’t use the larger data set because it did not produce the desired hockey stick shape.
    The whole Mann clique does the same thing, and they refuse to cooperate with skeptical scientists trying to replicate their data, methodologies and metadata. Read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford [available on the sidebar to the right].
    Montford draws no conclusions, he simply presents facts and allows the reader to arrive at the conclusions. For a sample of Montford’s writing, see this short summary of the Team’s shenanigans:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

  121. Steve Metzler November 24, 2010 at 9:48 am says:
    Pro tip: someone who knows what they are talking about and can back it up with facts is NOT a troll.

    … but, failure to address posed questions is …
    (Note: He doesn’t challenge the assertion that Mann-O-Matic code produces hockey sticks.)
    I’ve got to run, but, Happy T-day at any rate Steve.
    .

  122. Punksta Posted on Nov 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM at climate audit

    So McIntyre cherry-picked, and Wegman just copied his results. Had Wegman done a proper job, he would have found he could not replicate McIntyre.
    Well – looks like case closed, the hockey stick lives…

    and Steve McIntyre responded:

    Steve: your assertions are untrue. The bias introduced by Mannian short-centering has been confirmed not just by Wegman, but by the NAS panel on the simple AR1 case.

    Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Reply
    This is nonsense.
    No one seriously contests the bias introduced by short-centering. In addition to Wegman, the point was confirmed by the NAS panel.
    The effect of short-centering on the MBH network was to promote the bristlecones into the PC1 where Mann thought that they were the “dominant” component of variance, rather than merely one small regional artifact.

  123. Hey, professional code guy………..
    What do these statements mean to you? And what do the statements imply?
    “##2. SIMULATION FUNCTION
    #two alternative methods provided: arima and arfima; only arfima used in simulations here
    #NITER IS parameTER
    #returns eigen1 – mannomatic eigenvalues; eigen 2- princomp eigenvalues and 3 – PC1s mannomatic (hockeysticks) 4- PC1s princomp”

  124. Down goes Wegman, down goes Barton ( no chair for dorks), down goes Watts.
    [Reply: Another comment insulting our host, and down goes “John McManus.” ~dbs, mod.]

  125. And while we’re waiting for our “someone who knows what they are talking about and can back it up with facts” to get back to us on AR1 and ARIFMA, we can all ponder Ross McKitrick’s comment over at CA.

    This is a bizarre summary. We used 10,000 red noise series to benchmark the RE score, but there was no cherry-picking a 100-series subset; and certainly no use of a white noise benchmark. Nor do W&A offer such an argument. I take it the crackpot who wrote that didn’t include any page references or source citations; more to the point he would be unable to provide any if pressed.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/#comment-245719
    In that comment, he also addresses another DC strech.
    Makes good reading.

  126. And just for proper context, here are relevant passages from MM05.

    Computer scripts used
    to generate simulations, figures and statistics, together with
    a sample of 100 simulated ‘‘hockey sticks’’ and other
    supplementary information, are provided in the auxiliary
    material1. We carried out 10,000 simulations, in each case
    obtaining 70 stationary series of length 581 (corresponding
    to the 1400–1980 period).

    Also

    The simulations nearly always yielded PC1s with a
    hockey stick shape…

    If “back up with facts” ever makes it back, maybe he can also comment on Figure 2 in MM05, which caption reads:

    Histogram of ‘Hockey Stick Index’ for PC1s. For
    the 10,000 simulated PC1s described in text, the histogram
    shows the distribution of the difference between the 1902–
    1980 mean and the 1400–1980 mean, divided by the 1400–
    1980 standard deviation. Top: Conventional (centered)
    calculation; Bottom: with MBH98 data transformation.

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
    Is it possible poor old DC found the part of the code that picked out the “sample of 100 simulated ‘hockey sticks’…” and convinced himself that’s all MM05 looked at?

  127. I’m a bit late on this one, but in case anyone is still reading can I make the point that the argument that there is no basis in the decentred PCA analysis because red noise series are as likley to turn up as turn down at the end is simply incorrect in teh context of MBH. The point is that MBH used the PCA in another step – where the de-centred PCAs were used as an explanatory variable in a regression of (perfectly standard) PCAs of temperature. So hockey sticks that pointed down at the end would just be given a negative coefficient and ones that pointed up a positive coefficient. McIntyre and Mckitrick pointed this out in their GRL article in 2005. Here is the relevant extract
    “The hockey sticks were upside-up about half the
    time and upside-down half the time, but the 1902–1980
    mean is almost never within one s [standard deviation] of the 1400–1980
    mean under the MBH98 method. PC series have no
    inherent orientation and, since the MBH98 methodology
    uses proxies (including the NOAMER PC1) in a regression
    calculation, the fit of the regression is indifferent to
    whether the hockey stick is upside-up or upside-down. In
    the latter case, the slope coefficient is negative. In fact, the
    North American PC1 of Mann et al. [1999] is an upsidedown
    hockey stick, as shown at ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/
    paleo/contributions_by_author/mann1999/proxies/itrdbnamer-
    pc1.dat.”
    The whole article is worth reading http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
    People who think an eminent statistician like Wegman would make the elementary mistake they describe are not to be taken seriously

  128. John M says:
    November 24, 2010 at 11:47 am
    Is it possible poor old DC found the part of the code that picked out the “sample of 100 simulated ‘hockey sticks’…” and convinced himself that’s all MM05 looked at?
    ========================================================
    It is starting to appear that this is the case. He took code snippets but failed to look at the code in its entirety. This was either real lazy, or intentional. Which, I find humorously ironic.
    What is even more interesting, both Macs have recent comments on CA, yet, no one from DC is directly address either one…?????? In fact, Steve’s comment is sitting at the bottom of the page with that “reply” button just sitting there, waiting to be pressed.
    Oh well, maybe in the next month or so they’ll have invented another story about Wegman to where once again, I’ll have to find all of the studies and re-read them just to find the assertions from the warmistas were once again, invented.
    I wonder where the obsession over the Wegman report comes from? It’s not like there haven’t been other papers written that totally destroys the hockey sticks, jeez. They invent plagiarism as an attempt to discredit Wegman, where it is quite obvious that he didn’t. Now their inventing some bizarre copying/misinterpretation of Wegman to M&M.

  129. James Sexton says on November 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Oh well, maybe in the next month or so they’ll have invented another story about Wegman to where once again, I’ll have to find all of the studies and re-read them just to find the assertions from the warmistas were once again, invented.
    I wonder where the obsession over the Wegman report comes from? It’s not like there haven’t been other papers written that totally destroys the hockey sticks, jeez. They invent plagiarism as an attempt to discredit Wegman, where it is quite obvious that he didn’t. Now their inventing some bizarre copying/misinterpretation of Wegman to M&M.

    Because it appeared in the Congressional Record or something. Most people would not bother to read the back story on various blogs, so discrediting what appears in the congressional record, even through the use of fantastic lies, is the thing of importance.

  130. Steve Metzler,
    “There is a *link* to McIntyre’s M&M05 code and saved-off cherry-picked ‘top 100 hockey sticks’ in the article. Deep Climate found *all twelve* hockey sticks that were shown in the Wegman Report in that top 100.”
    Ok, I’ve found the relevant code and the DeepClimate response.
    #SAVE A SELECTION OF HOCKEY STICK SERIES IN ASCII FORMAT
    order.stat<-order(stat2,decreasing=TRUE)[1:100]
    order.stat<-sort(order.stat)
    hockeysticks<-NULL
    for (nn in 1:NN) {
    load(file.path(temp.directory,paste("arfima.sim",nn,"tab",sep=".")))
    index<-order.stat[!is.na(match(order.stat,(1:1000)+(nn-1)*1000))]
    index<-index-(nn-1)*1000
    hockeysticks<-cbind(hockeysticks,Eigen0[[3]][,index])
    } #nn-iteration
    dimnames(hockeysticks)[[2]]<-paste("X",order.stat,sep="")
    write.table(hockeysticks,file=file.path(url.source,
    "hockeysticks.txt"),sep="\t",quote=FALSE,row.names=FALSE)
    The first line sorts the set of PC1s by descending HSI and then copies the first 100 to another array.
    =========================
    Well, that may be a case of confirmation bias. Firstly, there is no mention of HSI (hockey stick index) in the code. Secondly, I cannot see how you could ascribe an index number for something as vague as 'hockeystickness'. You'd have to do that by eye. And thirdly, I'm not sure how you could sort something with a single iteration – you would need 2 levels of nesting.
    I'm not saying DeepClimate is wrong, just that I'm not convinced that that code snippet supports the conclusion that it was designed to mine hockey shapes.

  131. I wonder if they’ll ever tire of being so fundamentally wrong each and every time they bring up Wegman?

  132. Vince Causey,
    MM05 do indeed define a “hockey stick index”

    For convenience, we define the ‘‘hockey
    stick index’’ of a series as the difference between the mean of
    the closing sub-segment (here 1902–1980) and the mean of
    the entire series (typically 1400–1980 in this discussion) in
    units of the long-term standard deviation (s), and a ‘‘hockey
    stick shaped’’ series is defined as one having a hockey stick
    index of at least 1 s.

    However, as I said before, Figure 2 in their paper is for all 10,000 calculations.

  133. kwik says:
    November 24, 2010 at 7:57 am
    Good grief! Who woke up all these trolls?
    Eco-trolls are drawn to character assassination like moths to a flame.

  134. James Sexton says:
    November 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    John M says:
    November 24, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Is it possible poor old DC found the part of the code that picked out the “sample of 100 simulated ‘hockey sticks’…” and convinced himself that’s all MM05 looked at?

    It is starting to appear that this is the case. He took code snippets but failed to look at the code in its entirety. This was either real lazy, or intentional. Which, I find humorously ironic.

    Neither. You should go back and read some of DC’s “early” posts on this subject when he was first attempting to learn what Steve had done. DC did not get it, not in the least. His background on the subject matter appeared weak at best, if not entirely non-existent. DC began with the assumption that Steve was wrong and has literally spent the past several years looking for a way in which he can prove his own foregone conclusion. Hardly the scientific approach, but give a dog his bone, he stuck with it… until he realized the best he could do was impugn the integrity of the hall of famer that backed-up Steve’s initial analysis.
    Really, think about it, DC’s argument is that Steve is wrong because a) Wegman plagiarized the background section regarding Bradley’s work and b) Wegmans analysis was not original. Seriously. It beggars belief that anybody in their right mind would believe this idiot, yet here we are arguing with utter morons who are doing exactly that. None of them understand the underlying statistics or methods, yet somehow they just know DC is correct. Amazing.
    For the record, I needed neither Steve’s nor Wegman’s analysis to see the flaws in MBH98/99. The entire argument should have ended in peer review when assessing the validity of using PCA (or any variance based detection method) on this data. We never would have gotten to this stage had a single, independent statistician been one of the reviewers.
    Mark

  135. Vince Causey says:
    November 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    I’m not saying DeepClimate is wrong, just that I’m not convinced that that code snippet supports the conclusion that it was designed to mine hockey shapes.

    The first line is not “sorting by decreasing HSI,” it’s sorting on decreasing stat2, likely variance since that’s how you would sort them. Variance is really the only “measure” you can sort by.
    DC really takes himself seriously… no kidding.
    Mark

  136. Mark T says:
    November 24, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    Thanks for the DC background. I remember before he had his own blog he made several appearances at CA. Seemed to be learning statistics as he went. Sometimes showed some insight, but other times got his head handed to him statistically.

    None of them understand the underlying statistics or methods

    I can’t claim to understand them in detail myself, but even just a little bit of reading through MM05 and reading the thread Jockdownsouth linked to earlier (http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/03/more-tangled-webs/#comments) makes me think of a mechanic, who after you’ve told him your engine blew up 30 seconds after he did an oil change, and you point to the still fresh path of oil from his bay to your car, tries to argue that the problem is that you used the wrong kind of vacuum cleaner the last time you swept out your car.

  137. Apologies again for going quiet. I’m at least 5 hrs ahead of most of you here, and ‘work’ is a 4-letter word that gets in the way sometimes…
    Let’s get back to where this discussion all started so that we have a baseline to work from, rather than disparate commenters coming at me from all angles. First, I quote the caption under Figure 4.4 of the Wegman Report (p. 33) which shows 12 ‘hockey sticks’:

    Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications.

    This is *very* important. He goes on record saying that the MBH98 algorithm derives hockey stick shaped principle components (PCs) from red noise generated using “[AR(1) with parameter = 0.2]”.
    But we can see from McIntyre’s archived code that the ARFIMA algorithm was used instead:

    #NOW DO SIMULATION
         	method2<-"arfima"
    .
    	   #SIMULATE RED/WHITE NOISE
    	     #arima version (not used here)
    		if (method2=="arima") {b<-array (rep(NA,nyear*n), dim=c(nyear,n) )
    		for (k in 1:n) {b[,k]<-arima.sim(list(order = c(1,0,0), ar = Data1[k]), n = nyear)}
    		} #arima bracket
    	      #arfima version (used here)
    		if (method2=="arfima") {N<-nrow(tree);
    		b<-array (rep(NA,N*n), dim=c(N,n) )
    		for (k in 1:n) {
    			b[,k]<-hosking.sim(N,Data[,k])
         			}#k
       		}#arfima

    You can see from the last diagramme in Deep Climate’s article that the NCR was completely unable to replicate McIntyres PC ‘hockey sticks’ using red noise generated from AR(1) with parameter = 0.2. Instead, they had to crank the parameter all the way up to 0.9! This gives a much higher persistence to the noise, and isn’t realistic at all (it gives the noise about a 19-year persistence, whereas AR1(.2) gives only a 1.5-year persistence). So, let’s recap:
    1. Wegman says the red noise was generated using AR1(.2), when in fact it was the equivalent of AR1(.9).
    2. This proves Wegman didn’t perform proper due diligence with respect to validating McIntyre’s methodology. The PC plot used in Wegman’s Figure 4.1 (p. 30) and all 12 PC plots in Figure 4.4 were taken from McIntyre’s cherry-picked 100 out of 10,000 simulation runs, which could not possibly have used AR(1) with parameter = 0.2. Deep Climate has conclusively shown that to be the case.
    Discuss this one point, please. And please don’t keep asking me questions that are answered by the Deep Climate article. It shows that you didn’t bother to read it.

  138. Mark T, John M,
    Thanks for the clarification. There is definately something wiffy about DC’s conclusions that don’t stack up. The logic seems to be: M&M has stated that Manns methods produced mostly hockey sticks, but I’ve found some code that saves the 100 most hockeyfied shapes. Therefore, M&M have deliberately presented a cherry picked sample to ‘prove’ that Manns methods were biased towards hockey sticks.
    This is the prosecutors fallacy – because a hockey stick sort is used to select specific data, and a biased sample selection would use a hockey stick sort to mine the data, then M&M falsely presented biased data.
    And he’s spent several years of his life on this quest? Wow!

  139. Mark T says:
    November 24, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    James Sexton says:
    November 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    John M says:
    November 24, 2010 at 11:47 am
    Is it possible poor old DC found the part of the code that picked out the “sample of 100 simulated ‘hockey sticks’…” and convinced himself that’s all MM05 looked at?
    It is starting to appear that this is the case. He took code snippets but failed to look at the code in its entirety. This was either real lazy, or intentional. Which, I find humorously ironic.
    “……..Really, think about it, DC’s argument is that Steve is wrong because a) Wegman plagiarized the background section regarding Bradley’s work and b) Wegmans analysis was not original…..”
    Yeh, I think I mentioned earlier that they were attacking M&M by proxy, which, clearly, they are.

  140. Steve Metzler says:
    November 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Steve, now you are intentionally being obtuse and obfuscating. Stop it. Read the code in its entirety. I believe you will find that you were mislead. I tried to give you a hint for discovery of this fact, but you either didn’t read my statements or ignored them. More over, you were “straight up” told that this assertion about AR1 not being ran by M&M was blatantly false. Does this look familiar?
    Specifically, “In our red noise discussions, we did two calculations – one with ARFIMA noise and one with AR1 noise. The ARFIMA noise produced pretty hockey sticks but introduced a secondary complication and replications have focused on AR1 examples. To set parameters for the simulation, we calculated AR1 coefficients on the North American AD1400 tree ring network using a simple application of the arima function in R:
    arima.coef = arima(x,order=c(1,0,0))

    More to the point, the NAS even states you’ll get hockey-sticks with AR1. So, even if the lies were true, there is no point in furthering the argument, with the exception of yet another patently blatant attempt at character assassination.
    Further, you’re changing your argument.
    You earlier stated, “He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.” Well, which is it that he “definitely” used? Was it ARFIMA or AR1(.9)? (please try to tell me they are synonymous.)
    Steve, believe it or not, there are some of us here who welcome an intelligent discussion of relevant issues. Character assassination of a guy that was asked by congress for an assessment of a few studies, several years ago, isn’t one in which someone should engage. You don’t like his assessment? Fine, but people don’t have to make stuff up. Engage in the math and science. Really, what’s next from the team? Are they going to ask him when he quit beating his wife?

  141. As to more of the BS that DC floated,
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/#comment-245719
    “This is a bizarre summary. We used 10,000 red noise series to benchmark the RE score, but there was no cherry-picking a 100-series subset; and certainly no use of a white noise benchmark. Nor do W&A offer such an argument. I take it the crackpot who wrote that didn’t include any page references or source citations; more to the point he would be unable to provide any if pressed.”——Ross McKitrick
    Steve, both Ross and Steve Mc are right there. Why don’t you just go and ask them for clarification. I’ve found them both to be quit gracious and patient with proper inquisitors. Ask them something about their work, notate it, then check for any inconsistencies between their work and statements. Then you don’t have to attack by proxy, nor do you have to put your stock in the interpretations of their work in 3rd parties such as myself or DC. It’s really not that difficult. Backward engineering is rife with pratfalls. Its best not to attempt it if one doesn’t have to.

  142. James Sexton says:

    You earlier stated, “He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.” Well, which is it that he “definitely” used? Was it ARFIMA or AR1(.9)? (please try to tell me they are synonymous.)

    Completely missing the point. Wegman says that M&M produced their red noise using AR1(.2). But they *didn’t*. This *fact* is conclusively demonstrated by Deep Climate. For the *umpteenth time*, see the last diagramme in Deep Climate’s article and the accompanying text above and below. I reproduce only a small portion of it below, as pasting large parts of it in here just makes for a tl;dr post:

    So Wegman et al’s “compelling” demonstration is shown to be completely false; the biasing effect of “short-centered” PCA is much less evident when applied to AR1(.2), even when viewing the simulated PC1s in isolation. To show the extreme effect claimed by McIntyre, one must use an unrealistically high AR1 parameter. This is yet one more reason that the NRC’s ultimate finding on the matter, namely that “short-centered” PCA did not “unduly influence” the resulting Mann et al reconstruction, is entirely unsurprising.

    (my emphasis added)
    Further discussion on this point is futile, as you are obviously trying to draw attention away from the elephant in the room: Wegman didn’t do what he was tasked to do. He took obvious shortcuts. Forget about the plagiarism aspect of the text (for the moment). The statistics were also plagiarised directly from M&M with no apparent attempt to verify them independently. If he did, he would have noticed that the red noise could not possibly have been generated using AR1(.2)!

  143. Steve Metzler says:
    “…you are obviously trying to draw attention away from the elephant in the room: Wegman didn’t do what he was tasked to do.”
    That there, folks, is a prime example of psychological projection. The ‘elephant in the room’ is the fact that MBH was thoroughly debunked by Wegman, McIntyre and McKittrick – in the Congressional Record.
    So of course the alarmist crowd says, “Oh, look over there! A bird!”☺

  144. So the one specific argument relates to Wegman’s use of AR(1)/ARFIMA. It’s a pity you guys had to do so much spewing about “cherry-picking” and the ridiculous claims of “using only 1% of the simulations” (see Figure 2 of MM05) to try to draw McIntyre and McKitrick into this, which threw me a little, but I now see the tactic of attacking by proxy.
    Don’t know if McIntyre and McKitrick will go out of their way to defend Wegman, since they’ve already commented on direct attacks on themselves, and Wegman doesn’t do blog defending, so he may be vulnerable here, but for the record:
    DR NORTH. We also question some of their statistical methodology, in fact, some of the same claims that were put forward by Dr. Wegman and you will hear some later as well.
    I don’t think there is anything dishonest about it or anything like that, but I think that the analyses that the Wegman group did really were–some of those were examined by the statisticians on our committee and I don’t think that we are in any great disagreement about it.
    *************************************************
    MR. WHITFIELD. And I think that is the whole basis of this hearing because this hockey stick–all of us are concerned about global warming but I do think we have an obligation and responsibility–everyone has latched onto this hockey stick and almost created a panic in a way, and maybe we should be panicked, but I think it is important that we understand how the hockey stick came about, and that is what we are talking about today. Now, Dr. North, do you agree with Dr. Wegman’s centering analysis or not?
    DR. NORTH. I do. I think that he is right about that. However, you know, we have to be careful here and not throw the baby out with the water.
    **************************************************
    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.
    ****************************************************
    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.

  145. _Jim says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    ” eadler, November 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm says:
    … They used an noise algorithm that generated some persistant noise, used the MBH data and counted how many hockey sticks were generated.
    I perused the graphs plotted over at Deep Climat, and I didn’t see any flat lines or even downward turning hockey sticks … ergo the Mann-O-Matic tree-ring data processor still creates upward-bladed hockey sticks when fed random data*?”
    You may have perused the graphs, but it is clear that you didn’t read the text. It is pointed out that 10,000 PC1 graphs were created using proxies generated by red noise as intputs. Only 100 looked like hockey sticks based on the hockey stick index values. These were selected and saved as proof that MBH’s procedure would create a hockey stick out of red noise. The other 9,900 graphs were discarded.
    Recall M&M’s description of the “sample” PC1 in figure 1 (Wegman et al 4.1):
    The simulations nearly always yielded PC1s with a hockey stick shape, some of which bore a quite remarkable similarity to the actual MBH98 temperature reconstruction – as shown by the example in Figure 1.
    That’s “some” PC1, all right. It was carefully selected from the top 100 upward bending PC1s, a mere 1% of all the PC1s.

    I also note that replications using LabVIEW result in, um, well, the author at that blog states: “Voila! A Hockey Stick from noise…
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/michael-mann-averaging-error-demo/
    He even includes the source code (for those of you presenting severe allergic reaction to “R”). Just for info, a 30-day trial of the full LabVIEW dev platform can be downloaded from the ni.com website (850 some MB) …
    (* subject to some stipulations)”

    DC shows using McIntyre’s code that they selected 100 PC1’s that look most like the hockey stick from 10,ooo cases saved those to show everyone and discarded the rest. This shows that ony 1% of the time will the red noise create a PC1 that looks like a hockey stick using the non centered procedure used by MBH. Based on that we are 99% confident that random noise will not create a hockey stick. This is pretty good confidence that the PC1 stick created by MBH using their procedure did not create a hockey stick out of red noise.
    The web page you have linked to, focuses only on the first principal component i.e PC1. In fact there is a procedure for selection of the number of principal components that should be used to create a simpler expression that is a fair representation of the data. Using only PC1 is not correct. Actually the noncentered procedure used by MBH in the original paper makes use of PC1 and PC2. Using the centered procedure on the same data, the first 4 principal components are needed, and they will produce a hockey stick graph, even though PC1 in this case does not look like a hockey stick.
    The author shows sample graph of PC1 derived from centered and non-centered procedure at the end of the post, with the title “Voila a Hockey Stick from Noise” but doesn’t specifically state how each case was selected. Until he does that, I am not convinced that his graphs prove anything.

  146. Steve Metzler wrote:
    ““And, of course, you probably don’t have a problem with someone drawing the conclusions of their report from a hand-picked sample representing only 1% of the total 10,000 simulation runs. Does that seem like proper use of statistics to you, or does it in fact seem like someone with an agenda?”
    Well if M&M did in fact, hand pick their sample then I would agree with your conclusion, but you are merely speculating. How do I know this? Because M&M doesn’t say anywhere that they “hand picked a sample.” So you go to DeepClimate and read some opinion that because 1% was used, then this must have been hand picked – an opinion that you now regurgitate as fact.
    For anybody who has any background in statistics, random sampling is a standard and accepted technique to gain information about a population. A sample of 1% from 10,000 is 100. As long as this was selected randomly – ie by using a random number generator – then it is likely to represent the whole population to a high accuracy. There is nothing sinister about this, nor does it point to an ‘agenda’ as you claim.
    Where is your evidence that they hand-picked the sample?”
    In his post DC goes through McINtyre’s code and demonstrates that the samples were pulled if they showed a values in the calibration period that were more than one standard deviation above the data.

    Now, was a random sample of these PC1s saved? Or perhaps just the first 100 (which would also be reasonably random)? Not quite.
    ############################################
    #SAVE A SELECTION OF HOCKEY STICK SERIES IN ASCII FORMAT
    order.stat<-order(stat2,decreasing=TRUE)[1:100]
    order.stat<-sort(order.stat)
    hockeysticks<-NULL
    for (nn in 1:NN) {
    load(file.path(temp.directory,paste("arfima.sim",nn,"tab",sep=".")))
    index<-order.stat[!is.na(match(order.stat,(1:1000)+(nn-1)*1000))]
    index<-index-(nn-1)*1000
    hockeysticks<-cbind(hockeysticks,Eigen0[[3]][,index])
    } #nn-iteration
    dimnames(hockeysticks)[[2]]<-paste("X",order.stat,sep="")
    write.table(hockeysticks,file=file.path(url.source,
    "hockeysticks.txt"),sep="\t",quote=FALSE,row.names=FALSE)
    The first line sorts the set of PC1s by descending HSI and then copies the first 100 to another array. That array is then sorted by PC1 index so that each PC1 selected for the archive can be retrieved from the appropriate temporary file and saved in ASCII format.

  147. Steve Metzler says:
    November 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    James Sexton says:
    You earlier stated, “He definitely used ARFIMA rather than the AR1(.2) algorithm that Wegman somehow assumed he used.” Well, which is it that he “definitely” used? Was it ARFIMA or AR1(.9)? (please try to tell me they are synonymous.)
    Completely missing the point. Wegman says that M&M produced their red noise using AR1(.2). But they *didn’t*. This *fact* is conclusively demonstrated by Deep Climate. For the *umpteenth time*, see the last diagramme in Deep Climate’s article and the accompanying text above and below. I reproduce only a small portion of it below, as pasting large parts of it in here just makes for a tl;dr post:
    So Wegman et al’s “compelling” demonstration is shown to be completely false; the biasing effect of “short-centered” PCA is much less evident when applied to AR1(.2), even when viewing the simulated PC1s in isolation. To show the extreme effect claimed by McIntyre, one must use an unrealistically high AR1 parameter. This is yet one more reason that the NRC’s ultimate finding on the matter, namely that “short-centered” PCA did not “unduly influence” the resulting Mann et al reconstruction, is entirely unsurprising.
    Further discussion on this point is futile, as you are obviously trying to draw attention away from the elephant in the room: Wegman didn’t do what he was tasked to do. He took obvious shortcuts. Forget about the plagiarism aspect of the text (for the moment). The statistics were also plagiarised directly from M&M with no apparent attempt to verify them independently. If he did, he would have noticed that the red noise could not possibly have been generated using AR1(.2)!
    ====================================================
    Isn’t that nice, we can agree on a point! I agree, that we should forget about the plagiarism. It isn’t pertinent to the discussion, nor was it ever. I believe I’ve substantially shown where it was never a case of plagiarism. But then, so have thousands of other people.
    But, you said,Completely missing the point……., …..No, no I’m not. For the umpteenth time, (while I admit to being vague at some times) this isn’t the case. I’ve asked you to read the code in its entirety. Either you haven’t, or you’ve misinterpreted, or you are of a character of something less than who I wish to engage. I’ve shown you where two of the people that have direct knowledge are, yet, you persist here, engaged with me.
    You said,(in your most recent statement) The statistics were also plagiarised directly from M&M … Friend, that’s very hard to reconcile when from the report itself says, “While at first the McIntyre code was specific to the file structure of his computer, with his assistance we were able to run the code on our own machines…” And still, you persist in using the word “plagiarised”[sic], all the while, I’ve repeated this same statement over and over again from Wegman’s report.
    You also said, “But they *didn’t*. This *fact* is conclusively demonstrated by Deep Climate.”
    No, no it’s not. There are some wild assumptions made by DC. Obviously, they are not correct. See the statements by Steve Mac, Ross Mac, the NAS and anyone else who actually cared to follow the statistics and statements. Or, it could be, that DC found something that no one else has found, in spite of rigorous attempts of refutation. Really, it can’t be both ways. Either the warmistas are really very smart in which most people are wrong, or over the past several years, they couldn’t find what DC did. Even though they were directly refuted. Think about that for a second. Are you telling me it didn’t occur to Mann, Whal, and all the other cast of idiots that Wegman did a statistical no-no? Yeh, ok, tree rings are validated by whom? All the while they couldn’t rebut this contention? Really? Is this your position? Tell DC to keep trying, he’s not quite there.
    Again, I’ll point you to your arguments earlier in the conversation. But lately, you said,“If he did, he would have noticed that the red noise could not possibly have been generated using AR1(.2)!”
    Again, no, that hasn’t been shown. It was asserted. Nothing more, nothing less.
    I could and probably should go on about your changing arguments. And I will if you persist in the unseemly persecution of a person that has no axe to grind in this discussion. Wegman was asked
    by this nation to give his opinion. He gave it and went back to whatever the hell he was doing. He was never engaged in the climate debate, and after his report he still wasn’t. Is there no low you people won’t stoop to?
    The fact is, what is obvious, by your own words, is that you don’t know AR from ARFIMA from ARIMA. And you people worry about what a non-descript statistician thinks about the climate debate several years ago? Why? When reality is kicking your ass throughout history, present, (and by all meaningful predictions), tomorrow.
    Pathetic.

  148. Calling it a night, Happy Thanksgiving to all! It is a good time to consider all of the bountiful blessings that are bestowed upon us.!

  149. “”eadler says:
    November 24, 2010 at 8:53 pm””
    Sorry about this but I’m missing something concerning the issue of de-centering and the 1% of upturned hockey sticks out of a run of 10,000. And this may be a stupid question but:
    Assuming (I know, I know – don’t assume anything, still…) that M&M was similiar to what MBH did, in order to deduce their method and code, and they were successful at reproducing the results, hence the critique, why would MBH report a result out of 1% with an uptick when clearly (or not?) the majority of their (MBH) test runs must have produced flat-line or down-tick hockey sticks…many of which had been stored in the now infamous “Censored” htp file?
    Actually anyone can answer, I just want to understand.
    Thanks,
    Gaylon

  150. eadler,
    “In his post DC goes through McINtyre’s code and demonstrates that the samples were pulled if they showed a values in the calibration period that were more than one standard deviation above the data.”
    Yes, thank you for that, I got it one wrong. As John M explained
    “MM05 do indeed define a “hockey stick index”.
    My bad.
    However, he added “as I said before, Figure 2 in their paper is for all 10,000 calculations.”
    The assertion being made is that M&M fraudently mined hockey stick shapes and presented this as conclusion that Manns methods always produce hockey sticks. As Ross has explained on this “We used 10,000 red noise series to benchmark the RE score, but there was no cherry-picking a 100-series subset; and certainly no use of a white noise benchmark.”
    Someone is drawing the conclusion that because hockey stick shapes were saved to a dataset this proves they were presented as evidence that Mann’s methods produce only hockey sticks.

  151. Hi Gaylon,
    You asked:
    “…why would MBH report a result out of 1% with an uptick when clearly (or not?) the majority of their (MBH) test runs must have produced flat-line or down-tick hockey sticks…many of which had been stored in the now infamous “Censored” htp file?”
    The answer to your question appears to be that nothing matters in mainstream climate science, except keeping the AGW scare going in high gear in order to keep the grant money flowing.
    For example, Mann’s censored file, which was discovered by chance by Steve McIntyre, debunked the MBH hockey stick. It is crystal clear that specific data was hidden [censored] by MBH, so the remaining proxies would generate an alarming hockey stick shape.
    In normal times being caught in that kind of dishonesty would have put an end to the matter, and resulted in the destruction of Mann’s reputation. The “censored” file shows conclusively that MBH deliberately used bad proxies in order to generate false results: the infamous Hockey Stick chart used extensively by the UN/IPCC. [For more background I recommend A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, available along the right hand sidebar at the top of this page.]
    But these are not normal times, and Mann’s clique understands that. Thus, his chart using the Tiljander upside-down proxy was recently published, despite Mann being previously informed that the sediments used were not pristine, but were the result of grading, which put older soil on top of newer sediment; by using an honest proxy the resulting chart would have shown a downward pointing hockey stick, rather than what Mann wanted: another scary looking rising hockey stick.
    Mann was informed of this beforehand, but he published the false results anyway – knowing that a compliant media would not report it, nor would the corrupt climate peer review system of tame journal boards, nor would fellow travelers on the same grant gravy train, including referees and universities. Only the blogosphere has exposed Mann et al. as scientific charlatans who lie outright for grant money, fame, and endless trips to vacation spots around the world at the public’s expense.

  152. Thanks Smokey, I appreciate your response and in closing…that’s what I suspected.
    Have a great Turkey Day!!

  153. eadler made this assertion indicating his lack of understanding:

    DC shows using McIntyre’s code that they selected 100 PC1′s that look most like the hockey stick from 10,ooo cases saved those to show everyone and discarded the rest.

    You and DC alike don’t understand much about anything when it comes to this subject. There’s no such thing as a hockey stick index nor is there some way to subjectively (or objectively) sort, as the code snippet indicates, on “PC1’s that look most like the hockey stick.” The sort was on stat2, as I’ve already pointed out, which is likely variance. Variance, btw, is also the parameter on which any vectors that result from an eigenvalue-like decomposition are typically sorted.
    Before you comment further on this, or any related statistical subject, I’d suggest you actually make an attempt at understanding the underlying concepts before passing on another’s information as if it is correct. You don’t know enough to critically assess what DC is doing, yet you believe him anyway, probably because you want what he says to be true. Bad new: DC doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
    Mark

Comments are closed.