Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I'm not sure describing it as "fiddling the facts" is particularly helpful. What I would like to know, though, is whether MBH98 went through the famous peer-review process, and, if so, why these errors (many of which should have been apparent both to the original authors, and to the reviewers) were not corrected.
The Wegman Panel Report on here goes into this, and recommends more stringent review processes. As for the term "fiddling the facts" it is succinct how would you put it? You are right this should not have happened and there are many speculations as to why it did but I think it is quite clearly to do with political manipulation of science and Mann got sucked in. This political interference in science has to be a major concern for all and if we allow it to continue we will have policy moulding the results of scientific research as we see with AGW in all sciences. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by APL: quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I'm not sure describing it as "fiddling the facts" is particularly helpful. What I would like to know, though, is whether MBH98 went through the famous peer-review process, and, if so, why these errors (many of which should have been apparent both to the original authors, and to the reviewers) were not corrected.
The Wegman Panel Report on here goes into this, and recommends more stringent review processes. As for the term "fiddling the facts" it is succinct how would you put it? You are right this should not have happened and there are many speculations as to why it did but I think it is quite clearly to do with political manipulation of science and Mann got sucked in. This political interference in science has to be a major concern for all and if we allow it to continue we will have policy moulding the results of scientific research as we see with AGW in all sciences.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by APL: quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I'm not sure describing it as "fiddling the facts" is particularly helpful. What I would like to know, though, is whether MBH98 went through the famous peer-review process, and, if so, why these errors (many of which should have been apparent both to the original authors, and to the reviewers) were not corrected.
.... As for the term "fiddling the facts" it is succinct how would you put it?...
Take two........... I rather doubt that IPCC, at the time of the third reporting cycle, were aware of the weaknesses in the MBH98 data. It is precisely this sort of thing which makes me a sceptic (rather than a denialist). I keep hearing "look at the science" from AGW proponents, but the application of scientific methods by them seems to me to be very haphazard |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I rather doubt that IPCC, at the time of the third reporting cycle, were aware of the weaknesses in the MBH98 data.
Of course this is a fundamental question where the IPCC is concerned, but they have known since the 3rd report and are still perpetuating the 'hockey stick' model regardless. The second point is that the IPCC members are politicians not scientists who are geared to making policy decisions. quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
It is precisely this sort of thing which makes me a sceptic (rather than a denialist). I keep hearing "look at the science" from AGW proponents, but the application of scientific methods by them seems to me to be very haphazard
I am not a denialist where AGW is concerned because there is not enough known yet, I am a sceptic and proud to be. As an engineer you learn to be sceptical, to check and double check everything - this is supposed to be the case in science too and it appears that in the politically correct climatology arena it no longer is. I know that is unfair as there are many scientist dedicated to true science - but how does an ordinary member of the public distinguish between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'? So I follow these simple equations: Science = believable Politics = scepticism Politics + science = scepticism |
| |
|
|
JL & APL,
Your scepticism seems closely allied to where I'm coming from. I'd be interested in what you think the "real" objectives of the politicians are in supporting the AGW hypothesis.
For myself I've a pretty clear belief that there will be a minority who come from a truly green agenda but the vast majority will be either be the usual opportunistic (pro or sceptic) to further their own careers or will be those with a real eye on the Oil Peak scenario and the need at some point in the relatively near future to migrate to other energy sources anyway.
|
| |
|
|
quote: I am not a denialist where AGW is concerned because there is not enough known yet, I am a sceptic and proud to be. As an engineer you learn to be sceptical, to check and double check everything -
How much checking would you do before using, in a critical part of a system, a concrete or fuel or paint that has a 35% higher level of some impurity in it? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
JL & APL,
Your scepticism seems closely allied to where I'm coming from. I'd be interested in what you think the "real" objectives of the politicians are in supporting the AGW hypothesis.
For myself I've a pretty clear belief that there will be a minority who come from a truly green agenda but the vast majority will be either be the usual opportunistic (pro or sceptic) to further their own careers or will be those with a real eye on the Oil Peak scenario and the need at some point in the relatively near future to migrate to other energy sources anyway.
Now there's a question and a half! I suspect there are a myriad of different reasons: For most, it will be that they daren't go against the Greens, because they simply don't know enough (there's safety in numbers!) For a few, there is the bonus of being able to control people's lives For a few, there is an opportunity to raise money through taxation to spend on their pet projects For a few, they understand the science and they are following a "better safe than sorry" approach For a few, they are convinced that it is the right thing to do (there really are some politicians who do want to do the right thing, even if they sometimes don't know what the right thing is!). |
| |
|
|
quote: Your scepticism seems closely allied to where I'm coming from. I'd be interested in what you think the "real" objectives of the politicians are in supporting the AGW hypothesis.
Feedback from colleagues is that the calm, measured assessment of the science given to ministers in private briefings scares the wotsits out of them. As an aside, prior to the IPCC 2001 report, does anyone know whether the MBH temperature reconstruction was well known? Or is it famous just because it was picked out by the politicians as a vivid illustration at the final meeting on the preparation of the summary for policy makers? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Feedback from colleagues is that the calm, measured assessment of the science given to ministers in private briefings scares the wotsits out of them.
I also occasionally brief ministers, and I think that comment would hold whenever they might need to reach a decision. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
How much checking would you do before using, in a critical part of a system, a concrete or fuel or paint that has a 35% higher level of some impurity in it?
This is a broad question the answer depends on whether you are producing the concrete, fuel or paint or developing/maintaining the critical system, or whether you are a user/consumer. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Your scepticism seems closely allied to where I'm coming from. I'd be interested in what you think the "real" objectives of the politicians are in supporting the AGW hypothesis.
This is a very complex question really and it does not apply just to AGW either. In simple terms though the motivating reasons can be many from self-serving, strong belief, political orientation, peer pressure to genuinely honest reasons, but when things go wrong no matter the motivation always turns to face saving. Where AGW is concerned though (in the UK don't really know about elsewhere) there is a new environmental industries emerging, new environmental taxes being considered as well new environmental legislation - this is worrying because all these indicate a self-serving government. On legislation I read that certain pro-AGW political groups are advocating AGW sceptics be on par to holocaust deniers - now talk about extremism. I mean who are these people? Any decent person would have to be an AGW sceptic just to condemn these types. |
| |
|
|
quote: This is a broad question the answer depends on whether you are producing the concrete, fuel or paint or developing/maintaining the critical system, or whether you are a user/consumer.
You are maintaining the critical system, and you are also a user. You have a choice about whether to use the normal supply of concrete, fuel, or paint, it's just quite a bit more expensive. You can only do basic tests of the effects of the substandard material, and they indicate that there is a possibility of costly damage or critical failure. But you're not sure whether the tests are valid. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
You are maintaining the critical system, and you are also a user. You have a choice about whether to use the normal supply of concrete, fuel, or paint, it's just quite a bit more expensive.
You can only do basic tests of the effects of the substandard material, and they indicate that there is a possibility of costly damage or critical failure. But you're not sure whether the tests are valid.
Well OK but this is why we have standards and procedures. And when things do go wrong corrective feedback mechanisms (Murphy's law always applies  ) |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by APL: quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I'm not sure describing it as "fiddling the facts" is particularly helpful. What I would like to know, though, is whether MBH98 went through the famous peer-review process, and, if so, why these errors (many of which should have been apparent both to the original authors, and to the reviewers) were not corrected.
The Wegman Panel Report on here goes into this, and recommends more stringent review processes. As for the term "fiddling the facts" it is succinct how would you put it? You are right this should not have happened and there are many speculations as to why it did but I think it is quite clearly to do with political manipulation of science and Mann got sucked in. This political interference in science has to be a major concern for all and if we allow it to continue we will have policy moulding the results of scientific research as we see with AGW in all sciences.
Your link was to M&M's guff. Try:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversyQUOTE "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[32] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[33] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[34] UNQUOTE M&M's work hasn't stood the test of time. QUOTE The Wegman report has itself been criticized on several grounds: The report was not subject to formal peer review [42] [43] The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. [44] Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions.[44] The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria and does not prove a conflict of interest [45]. Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science.[46] Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine."[42] Mann has said that the report "uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and a mineral-exploration consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago."[47] UNQUOTE Cheers |
| |
|
|
Just noticed. The Wegman report wasn't peer reviewed? Is that true? If it hasn't been peer reviewed it could be any old guff
When I have time or if any of you could point me to links showing that this Wegman report is authoritative then let's see it.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Just noticed. The Wegman report wasn't peer reviewed? Is that true? If it hasn't been peer reviewed it could be any old guff
When I have time or if any of you could point me to links showing that this Wegman report is authoritative then let's see it.
Sorry folks. Couldn't let go of the hockey stick pun intended. From http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/c...he_hockey_stick.htmlFrom the perspective of climate science or policy Rep. Barton’s inquiry is simply inane. There will be little insight gained on climate or how we might improve policies on climate change through his “investigation.” As Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written in response to Rep. Barton, “These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harrass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.... If the Committee indeed has a genuine interest in the science of global warming, you should withdraw these letters and instead schedule a long-overdue Committee hearing on climate change.” Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits. The great irony here is that in many instances the supporters of the hockey stick have often been their own worst enemies and fed the flames of this debate, which now threatens the integrity of all of climate science, and to turn all of climate science into climate politics. The debate also consumes a lot of scarce attention on the climate issue – attention that would be better devoted to debates about policy options. ENDQUOTE So it looks like some politician named Barton started Wegman off on this. This Barton seems biased. |
| |
|
|
So it was this Barton who asked Mann for all his data etc.
QUOTE
The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements. [23] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review
UNQUOTE
So there were TWO studies of Mann's work - one by the NRC and the other by M&M. Funny how we've been beaten over the head by this M&M work rather than the NRC work. And guess what? -looks like NRC supports Mann and Barton's pals er.. don't.
Sceptics. Always trying it on.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate: Sorry folks. Couldn't let go of the hockey stick pun intended. From http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/c...he_hockey_stick.htmlFrom the perspective of climate science or policy Rep. Barton’s inquiry is simply inane. There will be little insight gained on climate or how we might improve policies on climate change through his “investigation.” As Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written in response to Rep. Barton, “These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harrass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.... If the Committee indeed has a genuine interest in the science of global warming, you should withdraw these letters and instead schedule a long-overdue Committee hearing on climate change.” Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits. The great irony here is that in many instances the supporters of the hockey stick have often been their own worst enemies and fed the flames of this debate, which now threatens the integrity of all of climate science, and to turn all of climate science into climate politics. The debate also consumes a lot of scarce attention on the climate issue – attention that would be better devoted to debates about policy options. ENDQUOTE So it looks like some politician named Barton started Wegman off on this. This Barton seems biased.
He's got form http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton Rep. Barton has been regarded as a "skeptic" on global warming[4] and his opposition to addressing global warming has been consistent and long-term. As a powerful chairman with primary responsibility over the energy sector, Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming. In 2001, Barton declared, "as long as I am chairman, (regulating global warming pollution) is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that."[5] Barton led opposition to amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act in 2001, opposing an amendment to require the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels as called for by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the U.S. is a party to.[6] In 2003, Barton again opposed amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the National Energy Policy Act of 2003, opposing a nonbinding amendment that would have put Congress on record as saying that the U.S. should "demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change."[7] In July 2003, Barton offered an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to remove language that both recognized global warming and called on President Bush to reengage with the international community to find solutions.[8] In addition, Barton has consistently opposed proposals to reduce the nation's dependence on oil – a chief contributor to global warming.[9][10][11] |
| |
|
|
Ta TS. Reckon this hockey stick is ancient history now. When was it done? 10 years ago?
I mean if you look at other studies entirely independent of Dr. Mann and even doing more stats on Mann's work guess what?
Yup. Hockey stick. Anyrate you seen the width of Mann's error bars? You could fit the Pepsi Max roller coaster in there!
Made me ill that roller coaster. Avoid Blackpool.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Ta TS. Reckon this hockey stick is ancient history now. When was it done? 10 years ago?
I mean if you look at other studies entirely independent of Dr. Mann and even doing more stats on Mann's work guess what?
Yup. Hockey stick. Anyrate you seen the width of Mann's error bars? You could fit the Pepsi Max roller coaster in there!
Made me ill that roller coaster. Avoid Blackpool.
The "Hockey Stick" is commonly called MBH98 (Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998) so it is almost 10 years old. IIRC the first IPCC report that included it was 2001, and McIntyre & McKitrick's criticism was published in 2003. You know, of course about http://www.realclimate.org/ and http://www.climateaudit.org/ ? I think these are good sources for the 2 sides. Of course, Wikipedia is also a good starting point with copious references, although it is not authoritative in itself. I'd be interested to know of other sources that are as useful as the above. Few of us have the time or expertise to read all relevant original papers. |
| |
|
|
