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
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.
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
@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.
I vote, “slightly troubling data from the real world” as the quote of the week.
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.
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.
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)
.
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
@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.
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 🙂
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]
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.
Just an ever so polite reminder to ‘Crispy and Proud of it’ et al.
The ‘hockey stick’ has a very long handle,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif.
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.
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.