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
Sorry can’t help myself, some of these RC trolls are hilarious.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yuck, I just had a mental flash of a pre-pubescent troll-like being chained to his computer by RC overlords. : )
John
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.
.
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 …
.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry folks. I had to break off at 2:00AM my time last night. I’m 5 hrs ahead of EST…
_Jim says:
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.
Crispy,
This is accessible from the older posts on WUWT just go backwards to the post about Lindzen’s testimony:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf
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.
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
@ur momisugly 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.
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?
redneck says:
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.
smokey says:
ROTFLMAO! See my last post (November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am).
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.”
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.
.
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).
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.
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?
Should Peter Bloomfield be “hung out to dry” too?
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.
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.