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
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
James Sexton says:
November 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@ur momisugly 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.
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?
James Sexton says:
From the linked article, Wegman says:
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.
Daily Mail’s jumped on the anti-Wegman bandwagon –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332347/Influential-climate-change-report-copied-Wikipedia.html
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?
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.
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.
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.
——————-
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
Robinson says on November 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm
It’s aimed at Cancun.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
.
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.
The warmers are getting desparate if this is the best they can do.
Meanwhile, on things Cancun, another Hollywood inllectual is putting her weight behind things: Scarlet Johansson.
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/11/23/scarlet-johansson-save-poor-climate-catastrophe
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.
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.
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!!
@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.
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.
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’.)
.
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.
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.