Michael Mann at TAM... Really?

[egslim]

With embarassment I read the e-mail that announced the presence of Michael Mann at TAM 2013.

Regardless of your position in the scientific debate about climate change, Mann's behaviour with regard to the infamous "hockey stick" has not met skeptic standards.

To understand why what he did was unacceptable requires:
- A basic understanding of the proxy technique to construct temperature records
- A basic understanding of Principal Component Analysis
- A closer look at a set of 20 tree ring proxies, including 16 from Californian bristlecone pines.

In short, Mann used PCA in such a way that it emphasized dataseries with a hockey stick-like pattern. Then, he included the bristlecone pine proxies in his dataset, which show a hockey stick-like pattern that is unrelated to temperature.

After these flaws in his research were exposed in 2004 - 2005, his paper continued to be used in IPCC 2007. And his defense that the flaws did not materially affect the conclusion is a lie that becomes clear to everyone who actually compares the results.

Conclusion: Mann combined a sloppy use of statistics with a dogged defense of his results after they had been thoroughly debunked. Does the JREF want to be associated with such behaviour?

This paper explains the issues in more detail: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

Michael Mann conducted cutting edge research. It is apparently now unacceptable to do cutting edge research unless you come up with exactly the right answers. So much for the progress of science.

And what do you know, the temperature record and extraordinary climate changes such as the unpredicted melt of the Arctic Ice cap bear out his conclusions.

McKitrick is a good example of sloppy statistics and ignorance of science. I would avoid using him as a reference for your argument. He has signed up to the Bali statement of ignorance.

A critique on his paper that claims that it's all UHI. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ture-trends-affected-by-economic-activity-ii/

 

[DC]

there is nothing wrong with the Hockey stick. neither with the proxies he used, nor with the statistics. Wegman or whatever is name is, proposed a better statistical method, Mann used that and it made virtually no difference.

also every single global and hemispherical reconstruction since has confirmed the hockey stick.

and despite all the hysteria from the deniers about the hockey stick, were they not able to find anything wrong with it.

I think its cool to have him there at TAM. especially as he was the target of hordes of people lacking critical/sceptical thinking skills.

 

[Railer]

Goodbye JREF

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

 

[Wowbagger]

What you are basically complaining about is that he worked with the best proxies he had available at the time. And, when better ones were available, those were used instead.

Really: That's what you're complaining about!

Doesn't sound like such a big deal when you put it into the proper context, does it?



It would have been a scandal if he found some evidence that contradicted the hockey stick, and chose to hide it. But, that's NOT what he did.

As it turns out: Multiple lines of evidence have now lead to his conclusion. And, the hockey stick is not any less of a hockey stick after more accurate data was poured into it.

Hardly looks like a "flawed" piece of research, when the facts are in place, does it?

 

[Buckaroo]

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

Based on your only post in 7 years, good riddance.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Have we ever had a person who posted only once and that was to tell us goodbye? Don't you at least have to post a hello first?

~~ Paul

 

[DC]

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

it's your loss.

 

[DC]

its so sad to see how many alleged sceptics have fallen for the AGW denial machinery.

 

[sophia8]

I imagine that Mann will be at TAM to talk about how he was attacked, not about AGW itself.
BTW, did anybody ever find out who hacked the UEA emails? That question seems to have been quietly buried.

 

[egslim]

It is apparently now unacceptable to do cutting edge research unless you come up with exactly the right answers.

No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.

And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.

And what do you know, the temperature record and extraordinary climate changes such as the unpredicted melt of the Arctic Ice cap bear out his conclusions.

Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?

McKitrick is a good example of sloppy statistics and ignorance of science.

Argumentum ad hominem.

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?

 

[egslim]

What you are basically complaining about is that he worked with the best proxies he had available at the time.

Ehm, no.

Mann used a large number of proxies, and many of those were the best he had available at the time.

However, he also used a set of 20 proxies that showed a 20th century growth spurt, which we know from nearby thermometer data, was unrelated to temperature.

And in Mann's flawed analysis, that one bad set of proxies came to dominate the results. Mann knew it: On his own server was a folder labeled "CENSORED", which included the same analysis without the bad set of proxies, and without a hockey stick.

 

[Matthew Best]

"Miami Vice" was terrible. But "Heat" and "Collateral" were pretty good, so I say give him a chance.

 

[AdMan]

Michael Mann is the last straw in what was once a quality science magazine. What's next phrenology? The scientific consensus on Piltdown man?

I assume there will be a opposing viewpoint at the lectures? No that's because Mann won't show up if anyone dares question dogma.

I would argue the obvious errors in AGW here but what's the point your minds have long since closed.

I've removed myself from the mailing list, JREF you had a good run, goodbye.

LOL

You'll be missed.



ETA: Magazine?

 

[DC]

No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.

And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.


Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?


Argumentum ad hominem.

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?

the data was not fudged, that is what that congressional investigation found out......
and what peer reviewed papers are you talking about?
what experts?
and as all other global and hemispherical reconstructions since confirmed the hockey stick, have all others also fudged their data?

 

[a_unique_person]

No matter what the answers are, it is unacceptable to fudge your statistics.

He didn't fudge any statistics.

And to defend blatant statistical flaws after they have been exposed is unworthy of a skeptic.


Tell me honestly: Do you believe a scientist is allowed to fudge his data-analysis, as long as it produces the "correct" result?

No. Mann didn't 'fudge' anything. You swallowing the whole conspiracy theory nonsense hook, line and sinker. Mann did some ground breaking research, (which none of the skeptics every bother to do, that is, advance science), and any errors that may have been made have been attributed to malicious intent to deceive and commit fraud. Read some other research, it is a process of continual refinement, learning and revising. Only in Climate Science is that attributed to conspiracy and malign intent. Should we attack Eienstien because he wrote two versions of relativity, and couldn't get the first one right, that he found he could not accept the findings of much of quantum mechanics?

Argumentum ad hominem.

The funny thing is, the the whole topic is Argumentum ad hominem..

There are several peer-reviewed papers, a Congressional investigation and confirmation from independent statistical experts that Mann's statistics are bad. However, McKitrick's paper is more accessible.

Which McKitrick paper? He has produced several howlers that can only be published in such no impact journals as "Energy and Environment".


How much does congress know about PCA?

Speaking of ignorance, do you actually know anything about PCA?

I bet I know just as much about PCA as you do.

 

[Buckaroo]

BTW, I highly recommend Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines to those who are interested in what he's up against. It also contains a pretty good layman's explanation of PCA.

 

[stewgreenUK]

Civil NOT Pre-scripted discussion with no bullying I hope

Good, everyone is welcome at TAM as long as they stick to basic rooms of civilty and debate is open.
- So I state for the record that I find the word "denier" as offensive as the N-word & B-word and that nobody will be bullying others by using this word against them.
- Furthermore it is essential that Mann's appearance is not completely controlled & scripted and that questions can be asked freely without having to be submitted for clearance before hand. That people should be able to ask him about his past predictions and should be able to ask to make firm predictions for the near future that can be tested by time.

- I hope there will be respect for people's opinions in the past I have also seen "True Believer" Skeptics try to BULLY Randi .. "look at those idiots who don't believe" , but he states his principles clearly
see : randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

- TAM 2008 it was sad when Penn & Teller were BULLIED by Sharon Begley for saying "Man made global warming ? I don't know .. it's complicated" she replied "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc." & and then ripped into them in her blog.
- It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
- If you tell people to pick a side when they haven't analysed all the arguments & evidence themselves, then you are telling them to rely on the fallacy of AUTHORITY

- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2013 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW certainty of castatrophic manmade global warming , based on Argument from Authority.

- 1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
- 2. Given a choice between Simple : pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side
.. but I hope skeptic are above that !

- Can we confirm that in future events other SKEPTICAL SPEAKERS we suggest can come to give presentations
....without people saying "No, we can't give THOSE people a platform" ?

 

[stewgreenUK]

NOT all skeptics became GREEN "true-believers"

- I have been sad to see that when it comes to Global warming many top US Skeptics throw all their principles away and suddenly come over all "True Believer" just like the UFO hunter's anti-anti-vaccine people with "confirmation bias", "absolute certainty beyond evidence", emotion, SHOUTING & namecalling etc.

-I try to work out their thinking
: "the right wing is always wrong, so the other side must be CORRECT".. "EASY job done"
This pick a side (with all answering dogma) "feels nice", "no need to analyse all that complicated science & evidence"
.... but that is basically a fallacious ARGUMENT from AUTHORITY
- They then surround themselves with other cool people, hipppy girls who want to hear the greendream etc. and so it is reinforced.. so basically they don't get to hear alternative viewpoints (they don't know they exist) and if they come across them then rather than THINK HARD they can play the "it's funded by big oil card" and dismiss it

Just as the GREEN Movement walked away from Green .. (to magic dogma)
The SKEPTICAL Movement moved away from being SKEPTICAL

.. lets move back and NOT FAIL to capitalise on a whole new market of people who are starting to think critically

 

[Buckaroo]

One color is sufficient, thank you.