Nations walk out on Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's why: because, being no expert in statistics, I'd have no clue which one of the two (or neither) is right. My choice, like that of, I'm sure, at least 95% of posters in this forum, would be as random as flipping a two (three way coin).

But herein you have still provided the answer, as the objective statistician is far more qualified to render judgement on the data distributions and correlations than the so-called climate change experts with bias either way. Anyone who has completed even a modest probability - statistics course has been exposed to the elementary rigor of such analysis (e.g. ANOVA) and the rating of conclusions at qualified confidence levels directly supported by the dataset and fidelity of the source(s).

In God We Trust...all others bring data.

Edited October 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

Here's why: because, being no expert in statistics, I'd have no clue which one of the two (or neither) is right. My choice, like that of, I'm sure, at least 95% of posters in this forum, would be as random as flipping a two (three way coin).

You don't have to understand statistics to understand the argument and why it might be relevant to climate policy. SteveMc is basically saying the experts you wish to defer to are fooling themselves into believing things that are are not supported by the data though the use of bad statistics. How can you possibly ignore that damning criticism when SteveMc has already been proven right in the past?

1) deferring to the prevailing opinion of qualified professional in the subject;

But you are not deferring to the professionals. You are deferring to political activists who claim to tell you what the professionals are saying. More importantly, there are different expertises at work here. Climate scientists are not experts in statistics and their use of statistics is being criticized by experts in the statistics. To be consistent with your own logic you should be derrefing to the statistical experts and not the climate scientists when it comes to questions of statistics. Why the inconsistencies? If a statistical expert is telling you that climate scientists are misusing statistics don't you think you should listen? No one is asking you to understand the statistics - just accept the opinions of the real experts instead of the non-experts who happen claim they are experts. Edited October 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

You don't have to understand statistics to understand the argument and why it might be relevant to climate policy.

Right, it almost invariably comes down to "you don't have to understand to make your invaluable comment".

But you are not deferring to the professionals. You are deferring to political activists who claim to tell you what the professionals are saying.

US Academy of Science not professionals, but "political activists"? Say who, new Einstein?

Climate scientists are not experts in statistics and their use of statistics is being criticized by experts in the statistics. To be consistent with your own logic you should be derrefing to the statistical experts and not the climate scientists when it comes to questions of statistics. Why the inconsistencies. Why don't you listen to the statistics experts when it is not convenient for you?

Statistics is a tool, rather than a science per se. Qualified professionals use it to process data and undestand processes in the nature. Correctness (or not) of their analysis can only be confirmed by other qualified peers, who are also trained in, and undestand statistics. Laymen can only be limited to picking what they need / like to hear, without any relevance to the actual state of beings. It's a random and pointless process, i.e. obvious and guaranteed waste of time.

[Riverwind]

US Academy of Science not professionals, but "political activists"? Say who, new Einstein?

The boards of all of these professional societies are run by political activists (that is why they choose to run for the board in the first place). You would know this if you have ever been a member of these types of professional associations. The membership was never asked to vote before the boards passed the resolutions supporting action.

Statistics is a tool, rather than a science per se. Qualified professionals use it to process data and undestand processes in the nature. Correctness (or not) of their analysis can only be confirmed by other qualified peers, who are also trained in, and undestand statistics.

Bad statistical methods are bad no matter what processes are at work. More importantly, SteveMc has found many examples where the climate scientists like Mann routinely ignore the peer reviewed literature on the natural processes when they apply their statistics. The authors of the original studies used by Mann are record saying Mann has misused their data.

You are basically saying that you will refused to believe that climate scientists have made a mistake until they admit they have made a mistake. That kind of blind thinking is a recipe for a policy disaster.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

The boards of all of these professional societies are run by political activists (that is why they choose to run for the

Indeed, if the professional members of academy are "political activists", then general forums would be the place where all the newest achievements and breakthroughs will be found. Let's see who'd want to live in the world where all matters are ruled by popular vote with general access and zero qualification threshold.

You are basically saying that you will refused to believe that climate scientists have made a mistake until they admit they have made a mistake. That kind of blind thinking is a recipe for a policy disaster.

No, I'm only saying that beliefs should be assigned to things spiritual. In science, engineering, and generally, rational world, there's no need to "believe" because points and postions are proven. So, one either proves their point among those who are also qualified in the matter, or refrains from addressing something they don't understand.

Of course there would be exceptions. In which case, general Web forum would be the perfect outlet to vent frustration. Not that it it would have anything to do with the science per se.

[Moonbox]

And so, I (and, in my opinion, every rationally thinking individual) would only have the meaningful choices of 1) deferring to the prevailing opinion of qualified professional in the subject; OR 2) themselves becoming experts, analysing existing research and presenting their findings to the attention of qualified professionals in the subject.

The problem is that the 'qualified professional' is working in a field of research that has proven it cannot predict anything accurately. Our weather experts can't accurately predict weather one week from now yet you and the 'mob' have decided that they can accurately predict long term future climate patterns. The 'science' is about as accurate as throwing a bottle into the ocean and predicting what beach it will eventually wash up on.

You and the bandwagon are VASTLY over-estimating the qualifications and capabilities of 'experts' in an unexact science and this foolishness is compounded when you lash out at people who actually use their brains and question the conclusions.

Climate science is not anything like a normal professional science. This isn't medicine, chemistry/physics or engineering. There's no way to demonstrate cause/effect or treatment results. There are too many radical variables to provide statistically significant data. The problem with climate science right now is that it's DELIBERATELY ignoring these variables and encouraging self-serving knee-jerk reactions to conclusions that they still haven't come close to proving.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Moonbox

[Riverwind]

So, one either proves their point among those who are also qualified in the matter, or refrains from addressing something they don't understand.

Your problem is you assume that the the "people qualified in the matter (as you define them)" care about finding the truth. The fact is scientists are human and are falliable - both as organizations and as groups. You cannot blindly trust them. In the ideal world science would eventually prevail over petty politics eventually but we don't have the time to wait for that because the governments are being pushed to adopt economically disasterous policies today.

In anycase, you may wish to bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence that the case for AGW is being greatly exagarrated for politicial reasons but that does not make it any less true.

[myata]

Climate science is not anything like a normal professional science. This isn't medicine, chemistry/physics or engineering. There's no way to demonstrate cause/effect or treatment results. There are too many radical variables to provide statistically significant data. The problem with climate science right now is that it's DELIBERATELY ignoring these variables and encouraging self-serving knee-jerk reactions to conclusions that they still haven't come close to proving.

Of course it's not. We have real experts, right here.

[Moonbox]

Of course it's not. We have real experts, right here.

The priests are all telling me Jesus is the son of God and who am I to question the experts?

Not being a climate science 'expert' isn't an excuse for not having a brain. Apparently you think so.

[waldo]

This is getting rediculous.

Here is a report on the quality of statistics used by climate scientists by one of world's leading experts in statistics:

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/071...gman_Report.pdf

So what are going to do now? Come with some ad hom attack on Dr Wegman so you can continue to live in a fantasy worlds were climate scientists are trustworthy professionals?

Yes... if you're going to reference dated, recirculated and already dispatched aspects of the AGW debate... it is getting ridiculous. As learned as you claim to be - perhaps - you might attempt to be reasonably topical.

Way back... when it actually came out... Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded directly to the McIntyre and McKitrick "audit"... and certainly, we should recognize the credentials, or lack thereof, of both McIntyre and McKitrick: Steve McIntyre is a retired mineral-exploration businessman who operates the principal climate change deniers website, www.climateaudit.org & Ross McKitrick is an associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph.

If you really want to go after the "hockey stick", perhaps go after the latest updated research... research that extended upon the proxy data (one of the criticisms of the "Wegman Report") - Executive Summary / Supporting Information

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validatedwith model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.climate

As for that Wegman Report... you, yourself, do an injustice to the actual report since it draws nor implies any suggestion of a lack of trustworthiness on the part of Mann, Bradley or Hughes... per your implication, "So what are going to do now? Come with some ad hom attack on Dr Wegman so you can continue to live in a fantasy worlds were climate scientists are trustworthy professionals?"

Your, "one of world's leading experts in statistics” - Wegman, was tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes had statistical merit..... was the narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component correct? Wegman was not asked to advise on what effect the principal component centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction results... the point being... it made no practical difference to the reconstruction.

Independent reevaluation of the Mann-Bradley-Hughes Northern Hemisphere Climate Reconstruction:

.

.

The centering issue raised by McIntyre and McKitrick in GRL (2005a), if approached properly (i.e. using full standardization of individual records), is influencing the reconstruction in a minor way and is in fact confirming the robustness of the MBH reconstruction within its own framework.

[Riverwind]

Wegman was not asked to advise on what effect the principal component centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction results... the point being... it made no practical difference to the reconstruction.

Again. You don't understand what you quote. It is trivially true that the centering did not affect the SHAPE of the reconstruction. The problem is with the SIGNIFICANCE of the reconstruction. i.e. there is no evidence that the reconstruction provided any meaningful information and it is not possible to make any claim about past temperatures using the reconstruction. This is why SteveMc was able to feed red noise into Mann's algorithms and produce the same result (e.g. the algorithm did nothing but force the data to take on the shape desired by Mann).

Your next line of obfuscation will likely be a claim that other studies have "replicated" the hockey stick. However, those studies all have there own statistical problems which render them meaningless but even if that was not true the fact that the IPCC continues to use results from a study that has been inrefutablely shown to have no statistical merit is evidence that the IPCC itself is not a trustworthy organization.

[waldo]

Again. You don't understand what you quote. It is trivially true that the centering did not affect the SHAPE of the reconstruction. The problem is with the SIGNIFICANCE of the reconstruction. i.e. there is no evidence that the reconstruction provided any meaningful information and it is not possible to make any claim about past temperatures using the reconstruction. This is why SteveMc was able to feed red noise into Mann's algorithms and produce the same result (e.g. the algorithm did nothing but force the data to take on the shape desired by Mann).

Your next line of obfuscation will likely be a claim that other studies have "replicated" the hockey stick. However, those studies all have there own statistical problems which render them meaningless but even if that was not true the fact that the IPCC continues to use results from a study that has been inrefutablely shown to have no statistical merit is evidence that the IPCC itself is not a trustworthy organization.

and if that is your real premise... that it's not the shape of the reconstruction, rather the actual reconstruction - itself - then why bother to feed us the Wegman report... from your so-called prominent statistician? The reconstruction - the shape of the reconstruction... speaks volumes on its own.

actually I was going to throw your second point into the previous post. Yes, there are many other studies that have done exactly that... they have replicated the "hockey stick". You were the one that concentrated on Mann, Bradley & Hughes; hence, I responded in kind. Certainly, if you're prepared to label these other studies, without reference, as obfuscation, I expect you'll offer your own countering data/studies... waiting.

I've provided you a follow-up Mann study that reinforces the original study... both have significant statistical merit. I've provided you a an independent counter to the principal Wegman concern, a concern Wegman didn't even qualify as to its impact on the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction. The Wegman report offers no such, as you state, "irrefutable evidence"... certainly, your biased and unqualified labeling of the IPCC has no merit/substantiation... certainly, not based on anything you've just offered (re. McIntyre & McKitrick and Wegman). Just your saying it, doesn't make it so

[Riverwind]

and if that is your real premise... that it's not the shape of the reconstruction, rather the actual reconstruction - itself - then why bother to feed us the Wegman report... from your so-called prominent statistician? The reconstruction - the shape of the reconstruction... speaks volumes on its own.

The shape means nothing if the statistical algorithm is designed in a way that will create the same shape from any input - including red noise.

From Wegman:

In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and

their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and

offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that

their observations were correct. We comment that they were attempting to draw

attention to the deficiencies of the MBH98-type methodologies and were not

trying to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions.

...

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the

hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium

cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our

background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low

frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that

was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses,

thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the

methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The

paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims

essentially unverifiable.

I've provided you a follow-up Mann study that reinforces the original study... both have significant statistical merit.

It is junk too and the supporting evidence for that claim can be found on SteveMc's site. Keep in mind that SteveMc was completetely vindicated the when a panel of statistical experts looked at his criticisms of MBH so anyone who claims to care about what the experts have to say cannot rationally refused to look at SteveMc criticisms of subsequent work by Mann et. al.

I've provided you a an independent counter to the principal Wegman concern, a concern Wegman didn't even qualify as to its impact on the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction. The Wegman report offers no such, as you state, "irrefutable evidence

The Wegman report confirms that MM03, MM05a and MM05b demonstrates, irrefutably that the conclusions of MBH cannot be supported with the data and methods used in the study. Trying to obsur this fact with references to "other" studies is sophistry. Edited October 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[crazykai]

The extent, effects, costs and nessecarly adaptions to man-made climate change will always be debatable, but the basic science isn't. It's as clear cut as smoking causes cancer, liquor makes you drunk, and you can't breathe water. Ever notice the people who don't believe in climate change also don't believe other basic common scientific consciouses, like sex ed reduces abortions, poverty, crime, welfare use, population thus cost of living and so on; the theory of evolution and so on. And it's always because some corporation or church spreads lies to protect their own interests.

As a side note, one of the good things, and the biggests economic effect of the HST is shift taxes on fossil fuels that will reduce climate change. Now we have something to bargain back with at on the international stage, all thnaks to the Liberals and no thanks to the Conservative. Of course, they can always admit it was their idea all along.

[Riverwind]

It's as clear cut as smoking causes cancer, liquor makes you drunk, and you can't breathe water.

You could not be more wrong. All of the examples you listed are things that are verifiable through real experiments (i.e. the effect of alcohol can be demonstrated by drinking some). There are no real experiments that can verify the AGW claims and the theoretical knowledge only tells us that as CO2 increases the temps go up. The theory cannot predict how much of temperature rise will occur, how fast it will occur or what the net effects will be. The latter is what we really care about when it comes to deciding what to do.

Ever notice the people who don't believe in climate change also don't believe other basic common scientific consciouses

Ever notice how the people who blindly defend the so called consensus resort to ad hom attacks and smears?

[waldo]

and if that is your real premise... that it's not the shape of the reconstruction, rather the actual reconstruction - itself - then why bother to feed us the Wegman report... from your so-called prominent statistician? The reconstruction - the shape of the reconstruction... speaks volumes on its own.

The shape means nothing if the statistical algorithm is designed in a way that will create the same shape from any input - including red noise.

Why you continue to reference the very much dated and irrelevant Wegman Report is beyond me… it’s old 2006 news – no one gives it any credence today. I’ve shown you the impact of factoring the statistical concern the Wegman Report raised into the MBH reconstruction… it makes no practical difference to the reconstruction!

Even though there are a myriad of studies/models/algorithms out there… that all bring forward the “hockey stick” reconstruction… for some reason you’ve decided to concentrate on the oldest, the original MBH… and even then you don’t reference their more current/updated study – why? Really, c’mon – as I said, since you self-described yourself an expert, you really should get current and speak to the studies of, oh… say Briffa… or Wahl and Ammann… or Orlemans… or… Osborn/Briffa… or… Kaufman… or… unique studies and diverse algorithms that all bring forward and corroborate the original (and updated) MBH reconstruction.

actually I was going to throw your second point into the previous post. Yes, there are many other studies that have done exactly that... they have replicated the "hockey stick". You were the one that concentrated on Mann, Bradley & Hughes; hence, I responded in kind. Certainly, if you're prepared to label these other studies, without reference, as obfuscation, I expect you'll offer your own countering data/studies... waiting.

I've provided you a follow-up Mann study that reinforces the original study... both have significant statistical merit.

It is junk too and the supporting evidence for that claim can be found on SteveMc's site. Keep in mind that SteveMc was completetely vindicated the when a panel of statistical experts looked at his criticisms of MBH so anyone who claims to care about what the experts have to say cannot rationally refused to look at SteveMc criticisms of subsequent work by Mann et. al.

If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you need to provide a link for that supporting evidence… again, you saying it doesn’t make it so – nor does it give any opportunity to refute. I trust that since you provided a link to the Wegman Report (now dispatched as irrelevant) you can similarly provide a link to something that qualifies your claim (re: panel of statistical experts vindication). If you can’t support anything you’re stating, you’re the one generating “noise”.

I've provided you a an independent counter to the principal Wegman concern, a concern Wegman didn't even qualify as to its impact on the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction. The Wegman report offers no such, as you state, "irrefutable evidence"... certainly, your biased and unqualified labeling of the IPCC has no merit/substantiation... certainly, not based on anything you've just offered (re. McIntyre & McKitrick and Wegman). Just your saying it, doesn't make it so

The Wegman report confirms that MM03, MM05a and MM05b demonstrates, irrefutably that the conclusions of MBH cannot be supported with the data and methods used in the study. Trying to obsur this fact with references to "other" studies is sophistry.

Nothing’s being obscured – again, the Wegman Report and raised statistical concern has been shown as irrelevant to the MBH reconstruction results. You were the one that first raised a reference to other studies… suggesting any reference “to them” would be obfuscation. Clearly, your claims are… simply your claims and without anything to support them, one could suggest your own reasoning/methodology is specious or fallacious.

[Riverwind]

Why you continue to reference the very much dated and irrelevant Wegman Report is beyond me… it’s old 2006 news – no one gives it any credence today.

The need for the Wegman report in the first place demonstrates that the climate science community is not willing or able to identify these kinds of the problems with their science. The MBH reconstruction was actually used in AR4 despite the known problems. This should be a serious concern to anyone that cares about the integrity of science used by the IPCC.

I’ve shown you the impact of factoring the statistical concern the Wegman Report raised into the MBH reconstruction… it makes no practical difference to the reconstruction!

You really need to stop arguing about things you do not understand. The MBH reconstruction is as meaningless as a crayon drawing from a 3 year old. Wegman clearly states that it tells us nothing about the past because the statistical methods are flawed.

Even though there are a myriad of studies/models/algorithms out there… that all bring forward the “hockey stick” reconstruction… for some reason you’ve decided to concentrate on the oldest

Because Myata keep going on about the need to listen to experts and I used that to demonstrate that the statistical experts feel that climate scientists don't understand statistics. The fact is all of the reconstructions have similar problems but it is difficult to convene a Wegman panel for every one of them in order to pound this point into the head of the credulous AGW fanatics.

Here is a link that describes why Mann 2008 is complete junk too: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

Nothing’s being obscured – again, the Wegman Report and raised statistical concern has been shown as irrelevant to the MBH reconstruction results.

The report says:

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the

hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium

cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.

That is a polite was of saying the paper is junk and its results should not be used. The "makes no difference" argument is only made by people who don't know what they are talking about and that unfortunately includes many climate scientists. Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[jbg]

When you say "nations of the world" you could have said "the developing nations," but for some reason chose not to.

*************

To them, Kyoto and Copenhagen represent big fat cheques which they can stuff into their various Swiss bank accounts.

The US has taken the same position. Obama, your hero, has said the US wants an entirely new protocol, as it was not part of Kyoto. It has it's own ideas about what are to go into Copenhagen, and those ideas are most unlikely to include vast sums of welfare cash for corrupt third world dictators.

You nailed it, with one minor quibble; these countries are not "developing"; they're mostly stagnating.

[Argus]

The extent, effects, costs and nessecarly adaptions to man-made climate change will always be debatable, but the basic science isn't.

What planet are you posting from? If the basic science weren't debatable then there wouldn't be so many people debating it.

We're talking here, of computer modelling. That is the entirity of the evidence which supports the global warming crowd. And as anyone who ever took a computer class well-remembers GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

[Wild Bill]

What planet are you posting from? If the basic science weren't debatable then there wouldn't be so many people debating it.

We're talking here, of computer modelling. That is the entirity of the evidence which supports the global warming crowd. And as anyone who ever took a computer class well-remembers GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Back in the mid 80's I took a job at a small department of a long-established one-time big but now shrinking manufacturer. I had just came from the high tech world of selling newfangled computer chips and was quite 'leading edge' in using personal computers. Immediately I saw the most amazing situation with my immediate manager. Quite probably I was the only one in the building to recognize it but being the new kid I knew enough to keep my mouth shut!

This guy was using one of the first spreadsheet programs to draft up business plans and forecasts. He had stuff all over the page about projected sales, costs, profits, volumes and everything you could think up. He had numbers all over the pages that looked simply great!

He was impressing the hell out of HIS bosses and getting all kinds of support for his pet projects. There was just one problem. All the hard numbers in his spreadsheets came from assumptions. He seemed to just pull guesses out of his ass and let the spreadsheets replicate them into an impressive report!

No one else ever seemed to ask "Where did that cost come from?" or "Where did that projection of annual units sold come from?" They just saw the spreadsheet and were blown away by how you could change one number and the program would instantly make every other number jive with the new input.

Eventually of course that manufacturer had to start downsizing and there went my job. I think there's just a parking lot left where I used to work. It was a good life lesson. Never again did I assume that management knew what they were doing!

That's the problem with computer models. The first big and bad example was probably the one from the Club of Rome about depletion of the earth's resources. It was a very crude program and the program writers had never intended it to be taken as accurate. To them it was just an example of what could be done. Like any model it relied on what basic info was fed into it. If that was wrong or incomplete then you could not expect an accurate answer.

When the politicians and academics got hold of it they were ecstatic! It was their new golden calf idol! Or perhaps, a wondrous magic 8 Ball that you shook and waited for the answer to float up to the little window on the side.

Billions of dollars and perhaps even billions of people were spent and inconvenienced on false assumptions from a computer model that even its developers understood to not be accurate.

[myata]

Not being a climate science 'expert' isn't an excuse for not having a brain. Apparently you think so.

But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.

[Shady]

But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.

Well, I for one am glad to hear that the science is in fact not settled, as the global warming advocates tried to tell us, not that long ago.

[waldo]

Why you continue to reference the very much dated and irrelevant Wegman Report is beyond me… it’s old 2006 news – no one gives it any credence today.

The need for the Wegman report in the first place demonstrates that the climate science community is not willing or able to identify these kinds of the problems with their science. The MBH reconstruction was actually used in AR4 despite the known problems. This should be a serious concern to anyone that cares about the integrity of science used by the IPCC.

What known problems? You’ve highlighted the Wegman Report identified concern related to centered principal component analysis… I’ve already provided you a link from an independent study that shows the MBH reconstruction is unaffected by either correcting for that centered principal component analysis step… or by completely throwing out the principal component analysis step in its entirety. Same results – same MBH reconstruction.

I’ve shown you the impact of factoring the statistical concern the Wegman Report raised into the MBH reconstruction… it makes no practical difference to the reconstruction!

You really need to stop arguing about things you do not understand. The MBH reconstruction is as meaningless as a crayon drawing from a 3 year old. Wegman clearly states that it tells us nothing about the past because the statistical methods are flawed.

You need to accept that the statistical aspect Wegman identified… that you keep harping on… doesn’t make a squat of difference to the MBH reconstruction results. Accept it – (most) everyone else has. Who hasn’t?

Even though there are a myriad of studies/models/algorithms out there… that all bring forward the “hockey stick” reconstruction… for some reason you’ve decided to concentrate on the oldest, the original MBH… and even then you don’t reference their more current/updated study – why? Really, c’mon – as I said, since you self-described yourself an expert, you really should get current and speak to the studies of, oh… say Briffa… or Wahl and Ammann… or Orlemans… or… Osborn/Briffa… or… Kaufman… or… unique studies and diverse algorithms that all bring forward and corroborate the original (and updated) MBH reconstruction.

Because Myata keep going on about the need to listen to experts and I used that to demonstrate that the statistical experts feel that climate scientists don't understand statistics. The fact is all of the reconstructions have similar problems but it is difficult to convene a Wegman panel for every one of them in order to pound this point into the head of the credulous AGW fanatics.

Again, Wegman’s statistical concern has been dispatched… you previously mentioned that “SteveMc was completetely vindicated when a panel of statistical experts looked at his criticisms of MBH”. I asked you to provide a reference for that assertion… I note, your reply fails to provide that reference. I’ll ask one more time for that reference, and if it’s not forthcoming, I’ll feel obligated to additionally dispatch your assertion concerning “vindication by a panel of statistical experts”.

Here is a link that describes why Mann 2008 is complete junk too: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

And Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded to the original … responded to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

McIntyre and McKitrick raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available at www.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.

If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion you need to provide a link for that supporting evidence… again, you saying it doesn’t make it so – nor does it give any opportunity to refute. I trust that since you provided a link to the Wegman Report (now dispatched as irrelevant) you can similarly provide a link to something that qualifies your claim (re: panel of statistical experts vindication). If you can’t support anything you’re stating, you’re the one generating “noise”.

Nothing’s being obscured – again, the Wegman Report and raised statistical concern has been shown as irrelevant to the MBH reconstruction results. You were the one that first raised a reference to other studies… suggesting any reference “to them” would be obfuscation. Clearly, your claims are… simply your claims and without anything to support them, one could suggest your own reasoning/methodology is specious or fallacious.

That is a polite was of saying the paper is junk and its results should not be used. The "makes no difference" argument is only made by people who don't know what they are talking about and that unfortunately includes many climate scientists.

No… it shows that the Wegman statistical concern was taken seriously. It shows that others, independently, proved that the MBH reconstruction results are unaffected by the statistical concern raised by the Wegman Report. It shows that MBH took it upon themselves to extend upon their original study, to significantly expand their proxy data… and in so doing… to additionally and more extensively corroborate their original reconstruction. (I’ve previously provided you a link to that updated MBH study and supporting data).

[Riverwind]

What known problems? You’ve highlighted the Wegman Report identified concern related to centered principal component analysis…

It it clear you are unable or unwilling to comphrend points that go against your religious creed. I will highlinght two key findings from Wegman that I linked before:

In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and

their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and

offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that

their observations were correct.

This makes it clear that SteveMc and RossMc were completely vindicated by Wegman and anyone who suggests that something about their analysis is wrong is basically making stuff up. This also establishes SteveMc and RossMc's credentials as a statistical analysts because when independent experts looked into they turned out to be right and Mann, Bradley and Hughs ended up looking like incompetent undergrads.

The last point is important because the claims and counter claims did not stop with Wegman. You have basically repeated the counter claims by Mann and others which SteveMc has debunked repeatedly on his blog. After Wegman no rational person could place any weight on the opinion of Mann and others when it comes to statistics if that opinion contradicts the opinion of proven experts like SteveMc and RossMc. Unfortunately many people are irrational because they cannot admit that their priests by be wrong.

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the

hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium

cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.

This makes it clear that MBH is meaningless and that it results should not be used in any subsequent analysis. It does not make a difference whether "other studies" using "other methods" are better the MBH reconstruction is still junk.

Wegman put it best when he said: "Bad Method + Correct Results" equals "Bad Science".

This was a principle that was drilled into my head in university but its clear that many climate scientists never learned or choose to ignore this. The fact that they are willing to ignore such a basic prinicipal of science in their defence of MBH demonstrates that they not only lack the statistical background required to do the science they do they are also not trustworthy scientists.

The fact that the IPCC ignored that basic prinicipal when it published AR4 demonstrates that the IPCC itself is not trustworthy.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Moonbox]

But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.

The irony of your statement is once again flying right over your head.

Not being an expert doesn't make someone 'clueless' about a subject. You don't need to have a PhD or an MBA to question the methods, conclusions and motives of someone who does. Look how well following the 'experts' worked out in the US financial crisis. You didn't need a heavy education in finance or banking to figure out that fully financing a 40-year variable rate mortgage on a tight income was a bad idea. You similarly didn't have to be a finance guru to understand that investing in commercial paper backed by previously mentioned mortgages was also not so wise. The 'experts' however, convinced everyone it was all very safe.

The climate has warmed and cooled on a cycle for millions of years for reasons we do not yet fully understand. The research being done on the subject is in its infancy yet the 'experts' are presenting it to us as if it's an exact science when anyone with a brain can see it is not. These two reasons alone are enough to question their motives, methods and conclusions.

Unfortunately, we have people like you mocking and ridiculing those of us with a healthy dose of skepticism. Blindly believing what the 'experts' are telling you and declaring that those of us without their 'scientific' background have neither the intelligence or legitimacy to question their conclusions is nothing short of dogmatic. You can directly compare this with the blind faith of a religious fundamentalist.

Mock us if you want, but we're not the ones sounding stupid right now.