>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
> I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to > take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed > journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately > sets out what is in the GRL paper !
Do you have the slightest idea about how many papers are published each year? How many of them do you have time to read? Just a small fraction. So the issue here is if the paper by M&M should be one of that fraction. Given how M&M has screwed up before I'm not surprised if people who aren't exactly in the field of making these reconstructions give it a pass.
> I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes > several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.
> An interesting choice of words >>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't >>matter* because things have advanced since then.
> I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science. > You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence > '99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is > that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get > a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is > correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. I don't think even M&M claim that their reconstruction is correct, only that they have shown that MBH is wrong. Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that different.
> You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important. > yours
In article <1107432933.356529.109...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
>I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to >take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed >journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately >sets out what is in the GRL paper !
LOL! You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore them.
>I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes >several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
And your qualifications to make this judgment are?
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.
>An interesting choice of words >>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't >>matter* because things have advanced since then.
>I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science. >You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence >'99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is >that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
>You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important. >yours >per
peroxisome <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read: >I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to >take the word of...
Err, I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'm one of them. So I disagree with your characterisation.
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98. >MM's specific charge is >that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
No.
-W.
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
>Do you have the slightest idea about how many papers are published each >year? How many of them do you have time to read? Just a small fraction. So >the issue here is if the paper by M&M should be one of that
fraction.
I have not said that wmc should be obliged to read MM'05; far from it. Wmc volunteered that MM'05 is unimportant- a statement of fact. Most normal people could only make such a statement if they knew what was in MM'05. By wmc's own admission, he doesn't. He is content to go by the word of a non-peer-reviewed, ranting, blog from someone with considerable vested interest in this issue- Mann. I believe that using the non-peer-reviewed literature has been soundly criticised on this forum before.
>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right.
Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said:
>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, >Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong >we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that
different.
I believe other authors of papers in the literature might humbly disagree with you about the scale of the difference, which can hit 0.5 celsius. And if you think that you can just "forget" MBH, you have to be joking. yours per
>You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato >Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore >them.
Hi Lloyd I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that hypocrisy is okay if you believe in MBH'98 ? That two wrongs make a right ? Or are you saying it is pretty poor to make an abusive statement about a paper when you have not even read that paper ?
>You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato >Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore >them.
Hi Lloyd I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that hypocrisy is okay if you believe in MBH'98 ? That two wrongs make a right ? Or are you saying it is pretty poor to make an abusive statement about a paper when you have not even read that paper ?
>>I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes >>several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect. >And your qualifications to make this judgment are?
My qualifications for this are that I can read, and understand logic. That's all it takes. For example, when Mann says: "All of their original claims have now been fully discredited " this is a straightforward untruth. Mann himself published in 2004, acknowledging that M&M had drawn his attention to a number of errors in MBH'98. Therefore, Mann himself has acknowledged that some of the claims of M&M are true.
Given that Mann made this latter statement in 2005, and he himself has made a contradictory and mutually exclusive statement in 2004, it is very difficult for me to understand how this is not a deliberate falsehood.
>Err, I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'm one of them. So I disagree >with your characterisation.
Dear w yes I had noticed. But you are still not on the author list with mann and schmidt, and you are still claiming you haven't read the paper, and you are still prepared to bad-mouth MM'05 as "unimportant" anyway.
There has been so much abuse in this group about material that isn't properly peer-reviewed. You wouldn't have thrown any of that abuse yourself, would you, W ? Not when you are prepared to talk up a blog, where the lead author has an undisclosed, vested interest in the subject matter ? Surely not...
>>MM's specific charge is >>that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >>a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >>correct, and still it *doesn't matter*. >No.
It is obviously a fairly trivial matter, but you previously posted that it *doesn't matter* even if MM are correct. I am just pointing out that your new conclusion directly contradicts what you wrote yesterday. yours per
>>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right.
> Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said: >>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct,
Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not that MM got their climate reconstruction right since they don't even believe that themselves.
>>Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong >>we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that > different.
> I believe other authors of papers in the literature might humbly > disagree with you about the scale of the difference, which can hit 0.5 > celsius. And if you think that you can just "forget" MBH, you have to > be joking.
Sure, I still encounter creationists who bring up the Piltdown man as evidence that evolution is a fraud. Should MBH be wrong I'm sure there will be people who bring it up for decades as example of how the entire field of climate science is worthless, which is why the debate gets so emotional.
> There has been so much abuse in this group about material that isn't > properly peer-reviewed. You wouldn't have thrown any of that abuse > yourself, would you, W ? Not when you are prepared to talk up a blog, > where the lead author has an undisclosed, vested interest in the > subject matter ? Surely not...
Undisclosed???? Surely anyone can realize that if Mann writes about an article by Mann he has a vested interest. This isn't something you should have to spell out. Now, if he had written under an assumed name or an alias, or it had been a friend of Mann who had written without mentioning he was a friend of Mann then you might have had a point.
>>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. > Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said: >>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, >Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not that >MM got their climate reconstruction right
Fascinating. You appear to be arguing that "MM being correct" means that "MM are wrong and right".
I am starting to feel a little bit like Alice; things are a bit topsy-turvy around here. cheers per
>Undisclosed???? Surely anyone can realize that if Mann writes about an >article by Mann he has a vested interest.
Mann was writing about an article by M&M. Maybe not everyone realises that the point of M&M is that it criticises some of the work which Mann has published. Mann has an extremely strong interest in M&M being wrong. He doesn't disclose that. yours per
>>>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is > right. >> Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc > said: >>>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct,
>>Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not > that >>MM got their climate reconstruction right
> Fascinating. You appear to be arguing that "MM being correct" means > that "MM are wrong and right".
All M&M set out to do was to prove that the MBH paper was wrong. To do this they tried to replicate the steps taken by MBH and got a different result (whichever group made the error). This is not the same as endorsing that they think the method used by MBH was initially sound. This is something they as far as I know have never done and are unlikely to do. (which IMHO is sensible of them. Neither is a climate scientist and they are on thin enough ice by trying to validate the result by MBH).
"In our E&E article we showed that the MBH98 reconstruction has high early 15th century values, as shown in the Figure below, after applying two changes: (1) using the archived version of the Gaspé tree ring series rather than the version with ad hoc editing by Mann et al.; (2) using exactly the same number of series as MBH98, but with standard centered PC calculations rather than the data mining method of MBH98. However, neither reconstruction has any statistical significance."
Note the final senctence.
> I am starting to feel a little bit like Alice; things are a bit > topsy-turvy around here.
>>Undisclosed???? Surely anyone can realize that if Mann writes about > an >>article by Mann he has a vested interest. > Mann was writing about an article by M&M. Maybe not everyone realises > that the point of M&M is that it criticises some of the work which Mann > has published. Mann has an extremely strong interest in M&M being > wrong. He doesn't disclose that.
He was writing about an article by M&M which had as its only purpose to prove MBH wrong. RealClimate is a blog by professionals for people with at least a passing knowledge about the subject, and it can be assumed that anyone reading that story would know the background. Even those who didn't understand who the 'M' in MBH is would be alerted by "The follow-up to MBH98 by Mann et al (1999)". This insinuation towards Mann falls flat on its face.
>RealClimate is a blog by professionals for people with at >least a passing knowledge about the subject, and it can be assumed that >anyone reading that story would know the background >From realclimate, on the front page:
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. "
Given that it is explicitly for the general public and journalists, and that these groups will not necessarily know the background, would you like to retract ? And at the worst, I have to retract all the way from : Mann has an undisclosed and vested self-interest to: Mann has a vested self-interest
>However, neither >reconstruction has any statistical significance."
Let me accept immediately that you are correct in one sense. I cannot sustain a view that a "correct" MBH'98 would show a warm 15th century.
But equally, if MM say that the dataset does not support statistical significance, that doesn't mean that it is a wrong result. wmc's initial premise was "if MM are correct".
It would still be awfully embarrassing if MBH'98 was discredited.
>>RealClimate is a blog by professionals for people with at >>least a passing knowledge about the subject, and it can be assumed > that >>anyone reading that story would know the background
>>From realclimate, on the front page: > "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate > scientists for the interested public and journalists. "
> Given that it is explicitly for the general public and journalists, and > that these groups will not necessarily know the background, would you > like to retract ?
No, of course I wouldn't. It says "the *interested* public", and if you read their articles you will find that many of them require at least a passing knowldege about climate science. Any journalist writing about climate science likewise should know something about the subject, or at least have the skill to check multiple sources.
> And at the worst, I have to retract all the way from : > Mann has an undisclosed and vested self-interest > to: > Mann has a vested self-interest
Yes, I think it would be a good idea for you to make that retreat. Your nitpicking is getting annoying.
peroxisome wrote: >>Do you understand what the shaded bit means?
> The estimated two-standard error uncertainties in the Mann et al. > (1999) and Mann and Jones (2003) reconstructions.
> Do you understand the question I am asking ?
No, I don't think I do. You'll have to explain bit better. The estimates agree within the stated uncertainties (only some actually have uncertainties marked on the graph, but still...)
>> Isn't it interesting that you're still trying to poke holes in >> a paper that is now 7 years-old, but has been substantiated by a >> number of independent works. It's laughable that you're trying to do >> it with a paper by a couple of guys, one of whom can't seem to get > his >> units straight.
> Saaaay, maybe per is sci.env's version of Andura Smetacek or Mary Rosh. > Gosh, that's kinda neato, that sci.env has its own celebrity.
> I like David's comment: where's M&M's...er...per's postings to RC?
>>people with at >>least a passing knowledge about the subject
I am quite happy to point out - as a matter of fact- that Mann did not disclose his vested interest in his article when he attacked M&M, and that he therefore writes with an undisclosed, vested interest. I am quite clear that many journals do have a code of ethical practice as regards disclosure of competing interests. You obviously think this standard of behaviour is acceptable, and I am content to leave you with that view.
>> Do you understand the question I am asking ? >No, I don't think I do.
Hi James perhaps you could respond to my allied question of Feb 3, 10:48 am ? It seems clear.
And the same question again seems very clear: look at e.g. Mann vs Esper at 800-1000. You are seriously telling me that those are two good methods of measuring the same thing ?
peroxisome wrote: > >> Do you understand the question I am asking ? > >No, I don't think I do.
> Hi James > perhaps you could respond to my allied question of Feb 3, 10:48 am ? > It seems clear.
If you will state it, rather than expecting me to trawl through your nonsense.
> And the same question again seems very clear: > look at e.g. Mann vs Esper at 800-1000. You are seriously telling me > that those are two good methods of measuring the same thing ?
I'm still not sure what your point is. There are uncertainties on the measurements/reconstructions. How close an agreement do you expect, and why?
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:30:06 -0800, Dano wrote: > Saaaay, maybe per is sci.env's version of Andura Smetacek or Mary Rosh. > Gosh, that's kinda neato, that sci.env has its own celebrity.
> I like David's comment: where's M&M's...er...per's postings to RC?
Now now. Per isn't McKitrick, and isn't McIntyre. But he is somebody else you've heard of. Since you're so big on disclosure of interests, Per, don't you think it would be ethical to disclose your real name?
Tim; as I recall, you are very good at ad hominem attacks, and kind of short on backing it up. You will make ad hominem attacks as you see fit. yours per
I'm still not sure what your point is. There are uncertainties on the measurements/reconstructions. How close an agreement do you expect, and
why?
I am not sure that the 2 sigma error range is necessarily the basis for attempting to determine whether two reconstructions are statistically significantly different.
I am not sure that the process of "normalisation" hasn't already completely skewed the comparison.
In other words, when the claim is made that 10-15 other reconstructions substantiate MBH'98, it is not clear to me what the basis for saying this is. Even if there are other reconstructions; how close do they have to be to substantiate MBH ?
|
