We love you too Mikey. At least we know he reads WUWT. Get a load of this response to the above:
Tom Nelson has a collection of points about Dr. Mann’s work worth repeating here on the DKE context.
Dunning–Kruger effect – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes
- Priceless ClimateGate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work
- ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: “probable flaws” and “clearly deficient”, and “crap” and “way too defensive”, oh my!
- 2002 Briffa email mentions Mann’s “diminishing support” and the “questionable nature of much of Mann’s verbiage”; says “Mike could be a lot more open about the real uncertainty of his early temperature estimates”
…
…
A few points of my own:
1. Dr. Mann initially agreed to, then stormed out of a TV interview at the OC Water Summit when he found out the local TV station was interviewing Mr. Sowell because of the question he asked.
2. Dr. Mann blocks me on Twitter (and many other people who might ask him inconvenient questions), so I can’t respond.
3. Unlike Dr. Mann, WUWT does allow guest posts from people with alternate viewpoints.
4. I’ll be happy to publicly debate Dr. Mann anytime. If I’m as stupid as he suggests, it should be cakewalk for him.
I agree with Pamela. That must be at least fifteen times I’ve read that Feynman piece over the years, and every time I re-read it I find something new.
The following part applies directly to scientific charlatan Michael Mann’s corrupt pseudo-science:
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of 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.
In other words, complete transparency of all methods, data, code and methodologies is absolutely required. Mann does exactly the opposite, hiding everything he can. He cherry-picks particular proxies and throws out those that do not support his pre-conceived conclusions. Worse, when informed before he published Mann08 that the Tiljander proxy was contaminated and unusable, he went ahead and used it anyway, because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.
Proxies are observations. But you cannot, like Mann, carefully select only those observations that support your conclusions. Feynman had something to say about observations and experiments.
“2. Dr. Mann blocks me on Twitter (and many other people who might ask him inconvenient questions), so I can’t respond.”
You hypocrite.
Why does Mike Mann keep crossing the road?
To escape his own shadow.
Mike has been fighting himself on the “front line” for some time now: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/218435303654948864/photo/1/large
Bill Tuttle says:
“My bad for not realizing that MBH98 was the paper … with “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects”
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/mbh98-mann-hockey-stick“
The MBH98 (or MBH99) paper had no such errors. The McIntyre and McKitrick analysis was dismissed a long time ago: they misinterpreted data from a spreadsheet file instead of using the raw data (that was freely available) which was used by Mann et al. Go ask McIntyre and McKitrick if they reperformed their analysis with the raw data. Also, that link above shows the MBH99 graph, even though the heading is “MBH98: The Mann Hockey Stick”.
“there seems to be some consensus (despite your protest to the contrary) that Mann *did* splice proxy data up to 1980 with instrumental data to 1995 in MBH98.”
Again, go look at the paper. Please. MBH98 overlapped (not spliced) instrumental data from 1902-1995. It wasn’t even an important graph in that paper; what was important were the spatial reconstructions of temps for individual years.
“I’m glad you confirmed that Mann *did* splice the proxies with the actual temperature readings. So, what was your beef about Sowell’s question being “framed in such a way so as to attack the personal character of Mann” again?”
There’s nothing wrong with splicing if the justification is explained clearly. But Mann didn’t splice, he overlapped, which showed that the reconstructed and instrumental trends followed one another. Again, if Sowell wanted to criticize splicing and “hiding the decline”, then his beef was with Phil Jones. That he accused Mann of splicing and hiding the decline shows that he has little regard for facts.
“The Climategate e-mails (cf. “Keith’s science trick” and “Mike’s nature trick”) say otherwise.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html“
Briffa 98 was in Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, not Science. Yes, he did have a “trick” in his 1999 Science article, but my main arguments are that Sowell, and you, are getting your papers, dates and authors wrong. Sowell was reading from a sheet of paper (so presumably he prepared his question in advance), so he had no excuse to not get those facts right. We can’t begin a proper argument until we’re sure that we’re all on the same page, literally.
When is M going to publish a sex filled novel like that other climate worry wort:)
I like the “and his ilk” part. It shows the author’s relative lack of bias.
On the Twitter blocking: he’s blocked me as well. It’s interesting because I have never mentioned him nor do I talk about Global Warming on my Twitter account. I can only assume he blocks those who follow certain people. It’s crazy of course: if you block all the contrarians you’re just preaching to the converted; bathing in self-ingratiation. It helps no-one.
Garrett says:
June 29, 2012 at 7:32 am
The MBH98 (or MBH99) paper had no such errors. The McIntyre and McKitrick analysis was dismissed a long time ago: they misinterpreted data from a spreadsheet file instead of using the raw data (that was freely available) which was used by Mann et al. Go ask McIntyre and McKitrick if they reperformed their analysis with the raw data. Also, that link above shows the MBH99 graph, even though the heading is “MBH98: The Mann Hockey Stick”.
Au contraire — MBH98 *does* have those errors, and M&M’s analysis was confirmed and their findings replicated:
[. . . ]
[ . . . ]
(Quotes taken from Comment on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance’’ by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, Huybers, P. (2005), Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023395, Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union, at
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/hockey_grl2005.pdf
MBH98 overlapped (not spliced) instrumental data from 1902-1995. It wasn’t even an important graph in that paper; what was important were the spatial reconstructions of temps for individual years.
There is no difference between “splicing” and “overlaying” on a two-dimensional graph.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/05/29/mbh98-figure-7-2/
There’s nothing wrong with splicing if the justification is explained clearly. But Mann didn’t splice, he overlapped, which showed that the reconstructed and instrumental trends followed one another. Again, if Sowell wanted to criticize splicing and “hiding the decline”, then his beef was with Phil Jones. That he accused Mann of splicing and hiding the decline shows that he has little regard for facts.
Professor Huybers states otherwise.
Garrett says:
June 29, 2012 at 7:32 am
Yes, he did have a “trick” in his 1999 Science article, but my main arguments are that Sowell, and you, are getting your papers, dates and authors wrong. Sowell was reading from a sheet of paper (so presumably he prepared his question in advance), so he had no excuse to not get those facts right. We can’t begin a proper argument until we’re sure that we’re all on the same page, literally.
The graph you’ve been quibbling about is shown and labeled MBH 98 in several papers — the explanation may lie here:
http://climateaudit.org/2006/05/29/mbh98-figure-7-2/
So, there are *two* versions of the graph floating around, both from Mann and neither one identified as his “official” version. The tenor of the post is that Mann continues to lie about Global Warming and you say that the crucial part of your argument hinges on the fact that Sowell misspoke “Briffa” for “Bradley”?
If you’re the same Garrett Steve B (June 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm) mentions, I think he’s made a valid observation…
%$#@ur momisugly! [Memo to self: stop split-screening when commenting because you’ll lose track of your code…]
@Bill Tuttle
You’ve misinterpreted the work by Huybers. He shows that McIntyre and McKitrick’s work exaggerated potential biases in the MBH98 paper because of their choice of “normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate”. The potential for biases are real, but Wahl and Ammann in a 2007 paper showed that they have little effect on the final result. Huybers recently revisited the issue in a 2010 paper with a different statistical method and reproduced a hockey stick (over the last 150 years) similar to Mann et al. If you’re such a fan of Huybers’ 2005 comments, then please do take a quick look at his 2010 paper, particularly figure 7: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/barcast1_jclimate2010.pdf
Splicing and overlapping are two different things. Don’t try to create your own definition of those words.
Reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium have now been carried out over a dozen times, by different groups, using different proxy data and various statistical methods. All of them confirm the general hockey stick shape. The notion that “Mann continues to lie about Global Warming” is ridiculous in that context. My argument does not “hinge on the fact that Sowell misspoke Briffa for Bradley”. I am pointing out that his whole statement was a mess and that it’s difficult to have a decent argument when the initial premises of that argument are flawed and misleading. Again, Sowell was questioning Mann about “hiding the decline”, which is not an issue in either MBH98 or MBH99 as those two papers use mutliproxy sources, not just tree rings. Also, MBH98 shows reconstructions up to 1980, whereas “hiding the decline” involves removing data after 1960! Sowell’s statement/question made no sense.