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
“”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.
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?
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.
“”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.
——————–
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
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.
Vince Causey says:
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.
Steve Metzler,
One step at a time. Is the argument regarding ARIFMA and AR1 now moot?
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
… 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.
.
Punksta Posted on Nov 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM at climate audit
and Steve McIntyre responded:
Here is a link to McIntyre’s response to the nonsense being purveyed by the trolls:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/08/the-hockey-league/#comment-245884
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”
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.]
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.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/#comment-245719
In that comment, he also addresses another DC strech.
Makes good reading.
And just for proper context, here are relevant passages from MM05.
Also
If “back up with facts” ever makes it back, maybe he can also comment on Figure 2 in MM05, which caption reads:
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?
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
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.
James Sexton says on November 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm
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.
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.
I wonder if they’ll ever tire of being so fundamentally wrong each and every time they bring up Wegman?
Vince Causey,
MM05 do indeed define a “hockey stick index”
However, as I said before, Figure 2 in their paper is for all 10,000 calculations.
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.
James Sexton says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm
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
Vince Causey says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm
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