Rex Murphy's Conflict of Interest on the Oilsands

[Michael Hardner]

We only trust them if they have no done anything to betray that trust. In the case of climate science they have betrayed that trust over and over again and therefore can no longer expect to be trusted.

How have they betrayed a trust ?

[TimG]

How have they betrayed a trust ?

By allowing Mann to get away with the ridiculous abuses that he has gotten away with. I know that you have this nonsensical rationalization that 'Mann has not done anything wrong because his peers have not said he has done anything wrong'. However, I and many other people have looked in detail at his work and concluded it is dishonest garbage. Given that context why should I assume that his peers are honest actors when they fail to acknowledge this obvious truth?

Do you think I should ignore my own knowledge and still trust people who claim things which I know are untrue? What rational reason would I have to do that? Can you give me an example of a situation where you have done what you are asking me to do?

I have also found a comment from Judith Curry (at the bottom of the post):

http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

What basis do have to say that Curry is wrong to say this? Your blind faith that institutions can't fail? The circular logic that Curry must deserve whatever she got because the system can't fail?

I say the system has failed and it can't start fixing itself until people acknowledge there is a problem.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

However, I and many other people have looked in detail at his work and concluded it is dishonest garbage.

Are you talking about the proxy data here ? And if so are you trying to say that contesting the validity of that report means that Mann is a liar ?

I really don't feel like taking the time to read further if that's the case.

Your own knowledge is lacking, I think. You put yourself pretty high up there but I feel that I have caught mistakes in your logic before.

I say the system has failed and it can't start fixing itself until people acknowledge there is a problem.

The system failing - that happens. Betraying a trust implies deception, and malfeasance.

[TimG]

Are you talking about the proxy data here ? And if so are you trying to say that contesting the validity of that report means that Mann is a liar ?

It is a complex issue which does not need to be rehashed. The point is Mann has made many claims and it can be shown that his claims are not supported by the data he used. He is either a liar or simply incompetent. I assume incompetence because deliberately deceptive people are rare - most people simply rationalize what they want to believe.

Your own knowledge is lacking, I think. You put yourself pretty high up there but I feel that I have caught mistakes in your logic before.

I have spent years studying this topic. I know more than you about the underlying science details and you are in no position to claim that my knowledge is lacking. I also don't think you have ever found anything wrong when I was carefully making a point about this topic. What you have done is refuse to acknowledge the obvious conclusions from the evidence and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the limitations of real data. You seem to think that any data fed into a statistical meat grinder must produce a useful result. This is not the case. Noise can often render data useless.

You also did not answer the question about Curry: what basis do you have to say that she is wrong other than blind faith? And why should anyone else join you in your blind faith?

The system failing - that happens. Betraying a trust implies deception, and malfeasance.

Nope. You started with the assertion that we should "trust scientists to not be biased". Losing that trust does not require deception - it only requires actions which make one believe that bias exists. And climate scientists have done many things to make me believe they are extremely biased. Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is a complex issue which does not need to be rehashed. The point is Mann has made many claims and it can be shown that his claims are not supported by the data he used. He is either a liar or simply incompetent.

Even if it was a mistake, then it's just a mistake. A mistake doesn't make one incompetent.

I have spent years studying this topic. I know more than you about the underlying science details and you are in no position to claim that my knowledge is lacking.

Well, it's just an opinion right ? Kind of like an opinion on warming ? Would you like to brandish our credentials at 20 paces ?

I also don't think you have ever found anything wrong when I was carefully making a point about this topic.

I specifically remember calling out something you wrote that misrepresented what statistical regression did. But the details are lost to me.

You also did not answer the question about Curry: what basis do you have to say that she is wrong other than blind faith? And why should anyone else join you in your blind faith?

I didn't read the reference to Curry.

You started with the assertion that we should "trust scientists to not be biased". Losing that trust does not require deception - it only requires actions which make one believe that bias exists. And climate scientists have done many things to make me believe they are extremely biased.

Your discovery of bias in the human heart, and the subsequent desire to remake all institutions seems quaintly naive to me. Of course bias exists, we still need to trust that they will pursue honest knowledge and that the system will work to cast out mistakes.

Honestly, given your outrageous vilification of Mann here, we don't really have a set of common values upon which to base a progressive discussion.

[TimG]

Even if it was a mistake, then it's just a mistake. A mistake doesn't make one incompetent.

It is mistake after mistake after mistake that he refuses to acknowledge and instead insults people that point them out. More importantly - the scientific community sits on its hands instead of standing up for good science.

Honestly, given your outrageous vilification of Mann here, we don't really have a set of common values upon which to base a progressive discussion.

I know you like to denigrate people's opinions by ignoring the forest for the trees but Mann is the symptom not the problem. If a few leading figures in the scientific community would simply acknowledge that Mann has been repeatedly wrong and that it was a mistake for the community to defend him then I would not give a damn about the guy. He only matters because the scientific establishment defends him. He only matters because he is a symbol of the rot within our scientific institutions.

It is also not just my opinion. Curry has the same opinion and she is a published climate scientist. What basis do you have to say she is wrong?

At some point we can agree to disagree but your premise that "scientists should be trusted" becomes kind of pointless. You may trust them but I don't. I feel I have explained my rational and carefully thought out reasons for not trusting them. OTOH, you have not offered any reasons for trusting them other than blind faith.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

OTOH, you have not offered any reasons for trusting them other than blind faith.

My reasons are that the system generally works well, and that conspiracies mostly don't exist. For those of us who don't believe in conspiracies, the last stage in dealing with people who do is experiencing a feeling of extreme tedium when another example of a conspiracy is brought to light.

[TimG]

My reasons are that the system generally works well

IOW - blind faith - blind faith which makes no sense given the specific criticisms of climate science that I have outlined.

For those of us who don't believe in conspiracies, the last stage in dealing with people who do is experiencing a feeling of extreme tedium when another example of a conspiracy is brought to light.

There you go again denigrating viewpoints that don't agree with by labeling them conspiracies. I have explained many times that a 'conspiracy' is not required to explain the behaviors that I have observed. All that is required is arrogance and bad case of group-think. Of course, you are probably thinking that there is no need to bother to respond to a rational argument when you can just label it a 'conspiracy' and give yourself permission to ignore it.

The fact is there are many rational people who look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion that I do. Skeptics are not going away. You can insult and denigrate them and pretend they are deluded or you can get off your high horse and figure out why so many rational people completely disagree with you.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

IOW - blind faith - blind faith which makes no sense given the specific criticisms of climate science that I have outlined.

It's not blind faith if you have an open process that has historically produced correct results.

There you go again denigrating viewpoints that don't agree with by labeling them conspiracies. I have explained many times that a 'conspiracy' is not required to explain the behaviors that I have observed. All that is required is arrogance and bad case of group-think. Of course, you are probably thinking that there is no need to bother to respond to a rational argument when you can just label it a 'conspiracy' and give yourself permission to ignore it.

Actually, in this case it does require a conspiracy. Personal bias wouldn't allow for egregious results to come out of this process. Either you think bias is stronger than it really is, or you're wrong about the science.

The fact is there are many rational people who look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion that I do. Skeptics are not going away. You can insult and denigrate them and pretend they are deluded or you can get off your high horse and figure out why so many rational people completely disagree with you.

Skeptics don't need to make Mann into a bad person to say he's wrong. Your take on this is just cracked IMO.

[TimG]

It's not blind faith if you have an open process that has historically produced correct results.

And that process is producing incorrect results today and is not correcting those results. Therefore your appeal to history is no longer relevant. Now if the establishment would demonstrate a willingness to at least acknowledge these errors then one could have confidence in them. But they refuse. Therefore they cannot be trusted.

Actually, in this case it does require a conspiracy. Personal bias wouldn't allow for egregious results to come out of this process. Either you think bias is stronger than it really is, or you're wrong about the science.

I am not wrong. Mann has produced junk over and over again. There is absolutely no doubt. The main reason that the climate establishment defends the guy is because he is a scientist and he is being criticized by non-scientists. i.e. bros look after bros.

BTW: you still have not responded to this comment by Judith Curry:

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

She said young scientists cannot go against the consensus without putting their careers at risk. What basis do you to have to say that she is wrong?

Given that comment can you seriously argue that my belief that the field is biased is far fetched?

Skeptics don't need to make Mann into a bad person to say he's wrong. Your take on this is just cracked IMO.

Mann is an a** hole but that is not my argument. What I say about Mann is that it is possible to show that his claims are not supported by his data and the problem is the scientific establishment ignores the criticisms which taints the scientific establishment.

You are once again trying to denigrate my argument by missing the forest for the trees.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And that process is producing incorrect results today and is not correcting those results. Therefore your appeal to history is no longer relevant.

Because a mistake was made ? Or what you said is a mistake, or whatever you're calling it ? No. That bar is too low.

She said young scientists cannot go against the consensus without putting their careers at risk. What basis do you to have to say that she is wrong?

Consensus on what ? If a scientist came to me to say that warming isn't happening, evolution isn't happening I think I'd probably have some prejudice against that, yes.

Given that comment can you seriously argue that my belief that the field is biased is far fetched?

I don't know who she is, so yes I can.

You are once again trying to denigrate my argument by missing the forest for the trees.

This is a qualitative argument. You say Climate Science stinks because they produced an incorrect prediction, I guess. And all scientists are potentially biased therefore it's all pointless. Or something.

Anyway, having exhausted myself by delving into the science of ice sediment proxies, or whatever, I have now rightfully done my time. I'm sorry my conclusions don't agree with yours but I doubt that most on your side of the argument understand it either.

If you're so dead against "defending bros" then you should do more to deflate the lame climate denial arguments that pop up around here, IMO.

[TimG]

I don't know who she is, so yes I can.

She is a hurricane researcher that, unlike most of her peers, actually looked at the skeptical arguments. She tried initially to argue against them but eventually came to the realization that some of them have merit and that her colleagues were wrong to dismiss them. So unlike you, her opinion of what the culture of climate science is like comes from working in the field. That means you cannot reasonably ignore it if you wish to assert that I am wrong.

This is a qualitative argument. You say Climate Science stinks because they produced an incorrect prediction, I guess. And all scientists are potentially biased therefore it's all pointless. Or something.

What I say is the field is riddled with alarmist fanatics who put their crusade ahead of the need for good science. They are not likely a majority but they are well placed enough that they have created an environment that is toxic for any scientist that does not follow the consensus.

Now this does not mean that they are wrong on the basic science because when stuff can be independently verified with physical experiments it is near impossible for bias to distort the results. What is does mean is whenever results depend entirely on subjective decisions then those results are completely unreliable. This applies to almost all outputs of climate models because they are very depended on the numerous assumptions required to get them to run.

Now go pat yourself on the back for trying to understand a single paper. All I can say your experience with statistics did not teach you much about dealing with real data with real physics. If it had you would have immediately understood why the paper was clearly bogus. I guess I expected too much.

Edited February 25, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Now go pat yourself on the back for trying to understand a single paper.

I spent many hours looking into that, so I'll thank you for not ignoring that effort on my part. I'm truly sorry I didn't agree with you but I'm not obliged to look at everything you bring on here.

All I can say your experience with statistics did not teach you much about dealing with real data with real physics. If it had you would have immediately understood why the paper was clearly bogus. I guess I expected too much.

Why don't you talk about your experience then ? Do you think physical science trumps knowledge of theoretical stats ?

[TimG]

Why don't you talk about your experience then ? Do you think physical science trumps knowledge of theoretical stats ?

I am an engineer. I studied how to use stats to solve real problems. That means stats are not some mathematical exercise - they have to be connected back to the real world. If you look at a data and see that the noise has completely swamped the signal you have to throw the data away. There is no "making a note of the issue and then use it anyways" because if an engineer does that they end up, at best, wasting money or at worst causing a major accident. If an engineer used a bogus statistical process to come up with a result that happened to be right they would called a stupid engineer who happened to be lucky. A climate scientist that does that is lauded. It is a disgusting perversion of science. Edited February 25, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am an engineer. I studied how to use stats to solve real problems.

Ok, well I studied mathematics itself, including analyses related to physical sciences, social sciences and other applications. The theory of statistics says that you can take subsets of data from the same set and come up with different correlations for different reasons. I don't want to open the issue again, but...

This disagreement is at the root of your 'disgusting perversion', which is to me an unbelievable exaggeration of the scale of the disagreement here.

[Michael Hardner]

To add: I don't have any disrespect for your level of knowledge of statistics, or your different experience with it as an applied science. I do happen to think that studying and developing the process of regression analysis itself as you do in a 3rd year stats course for math specialists, gives you a basis to understand the theory of how it is used.

In the end, I agree that there is bias and that these are people however I don't think the scale of the point at all means that there is a 'disgusting perversion' at hand.

It's a qualitative disagreement here.

[TimG]

In the end, I agree that there is bias and that these are people however I don't think the scale of the point at all means that there is a 'disgusting perversion' at hand.

You need to separate my comments about specific incidents from my general comments about science. The perversion refers to the defense that Mann and others use when cornered that they got the 'right' answer so their mistakes are not an issue. That specific tactic is a perversion of science.

Second, reality trumps the mathematical model. If the data is so noisy that you can no longer see the signal then no statistical calculation can make it useful. Your only hope in these cases is when the noise itself follows a predictable pattern and you have a way to measure the magnitude of the noise portion independently of your dataset. This is not the case in these proxy studies.

[Michael Hardner]

If the data is so noisy that you can no longer see the signal then no statistical calculation can make it useful. Your only hope in these cases is when the noise itself follows a predictable pattern and you have a way to measure the magnitude of the noise portion independently of your dataset. This is not the case in these proxy studies.

This is what I'm talking about. You make no reference to statistical significance here, but it sounds like you expect that the statistician looks at the data plot and decides whether there's too much noise or not.

Anyway, I guess they just teach these things differently in engineering than in mathematics. In math, they teach us the process from the ground up, and with engineering they tend to teach you how to use processes. Seeing the design of the tool gives you a deeper understanding, IMO.

[TimG]

This is what I'm talking about. You make no reference to statistical significance here, but it sounds like you expect that the statistician looks at the data plot and decides whether there's too much noise or not.

You need to use your brain before applying statistics. If you look at the data and it is clear that the signal to noise is so high that the apparent correlation reverses then you can't use the data. If you ignore this eyeball assessment then the output of any statistical analysis is garbage. If you want a more mathematical approach you could create theoretical signal based on the knowledge of the physics and calculate the correlation between the theoretical model and the actual data. If the theoretical model does not correlate with the actual data then the data is likely unusable.

In math, they teach us the process from the ground up, and with engineering they tend to teach you how to use processes.

In engineering they teach you how to avoid fooling yourself with theoretical models that do not apply to the real world. Understanding the math is useless if you cannot understand how it relates to the real world. Edited February 25, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

She is a hurricane researcher that, unlike most of her peers, actually looked at the skeptical arguments. She tried initially to argue against them but eventually came to the realization that some of them have merit and that her colleagues were wrong to dismiss them.

I have no problem with skeptics, whatever that term even means anymore. But how do you know that most scientists involved in climate science haven't looked at skeptical arguments? Just because scientists have different conclusions than others (ie: "skeptics") that doesn't mean these scientists didn't look at the "skeptical" arguments or considered the same things in their studies as they did.

Anyways, it's a horrible shame that climate science has become so political. I wouldn't be surprised if what this Curry person said was true. Among every side of the debate there has been a lot of non-science happening which taints the science and of course public/political opinion. Everyone is battling each other to control the mainstream perception of what is true.

[TimG]

But how do you know that most scientists involved in climate science haven't looked at skeptical arguments?

Because of the way they talk about them. If they actually read and understand the argument they would address the argument. They don't. Instead they construct strawmen that have nothing to do with the arguments presented and attack them. That means they either never bothered to look at the arguments or are simply dishonest. I assume they did not bother to look at the arguments.

I wouldn't be surprised if what this Curry person said was true.

I was reading her arguments when she still was trying to carry the "consensus" banner. She was criticized by her colleagues for even trying to talk to skeptics at that time. I am sure things got a lot worse when she started to agree with some skeptical arguments.

[Michael Hardner]

In engineering they teach you how to avoid fooling yourself with theoretical models that do not apply to the real world. Understanding the math is useless if you cannot understand how it relates to the real world.

And the reason you're doing a regressive analysis in the first place is because you don't fully understand the real world. Making the theory fit what you expect to happen makes no more sense than changing the results.

[TimG]

And the reason you're doing a regressive analysis in the first place is because you don't fully understand the real world. Making the theory fit what you expect to happen makes no more sense than changing the results.

I am looking at this statement and I am mystified because only someone who has no appreciation of the real world phenomena being discussed would make it. To me it is like you just asserted 2+2=5 and I am not sure how to even start explaining why it makes no sense. Edited February 25, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

To me it is like you just asserted 2+2=5 and I am not sure how to even start explaining why it makes no sense.

This is a general hazard of reg analysis - that you can get into such situations. The theory course covers that, you see. Anyway, you're right though - I can't speak to the physical science.

But... at the risk of bringing up too many details... did Mann not use subsets of the data from Tiljander ? And also - doesn't leaving Tiljander out make little difference to the result ?

[TimG]

And also - doesn't leaving Tiljander out make little difference to the result ?

I was going to just let this go but it really pisses me off. I explained many times how removing Tiljander means the claim that he produced a reconstruction without tree rings is false and that a correction to the paper is warranted. The fact that you don't remember that shows that learning is not your objective here. You just want validate your own preconceived notions no matter how wrong they may be. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG