Thursday
Aug042011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mashive attack
Aug 4, 2011 Climate: other John Mashey and friend have been given space in the Chronicle of Higher Education to respond to Peter Wood's articles about Mashey's antics.
Reader Comments (300)
Brevity: Quotationmarks -> Plagiarism -> Misconduct - Academic Fraud!
Amouts to: --
Michael clarity: Boohooo! Foul Foul!
Why? He doesn't even know!
funniest thing I have read in days...
"MBH(98) is vindicated because it's been independently verified many times."
where independent = Mann's employer/employee/boyfriend/grant- dependent
All using the same bristlecones or contaminated lake sediments
Jonas,
congratulations, you've finally got brevity sorted out, now have a go at the other .
diogenes,
see that NSF report?
Hmmmm......sucks to be in denial, huh?
Michael,
'The other' is summarized under pts 2) and 4) above.
You have no argument, and you have no clue. That was obvious from the beginning.
I'm pretty certain that you couldn't summarize and spell out what your many commets should amout to, what you'd put after the implied 'Ergo .........' following all your efforts here. Even if you'd tried!
Ergo .... What!?
Oh well Jonas, keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
And Mann vindicated...yet again.
And Wegman.....still a plagiarist.
Ouch.
Well, Michael, your perceptions is neither the quickest nor the sharpest.
Others have long ago pointed out that your 'argument' tries to establish that 'Mann is vindicated' mostly based on 'plagiaraism'
That is the intellectual height you've climed up to here.
Well, sorry to disappoint you. But Mann is in no way vindicated, his is still only a crappy paper that got published, without any relevance for what reality is or was historically.
And the logical connection between your false ascertion and the alleged 'plagiarism' is still zip.
So I ask you again: What is the conclusion you want allt this to mount up to?
Do you know at all? Do you knopw why you've been spamming the comments here !?
Anmd as I replied to that comment Jonas, please show where I've argued that "'Mann is vindicated' mostly based on 'plagiaraism' ".
I explicity said quite the opposite. Let me repeat it for you;
"MBH(98) is vindicated because it's been independently verified many times.
Wegman is a plagiarist, because the peer reviewed journal that published his paper said so, and retracted it.
The truth of each statement is independent of the other."
Not only has the NSF vindicate dMann, yet again, there are at least another 4 papers in the last year or so that have verified his results.
The 'hockey stick' - verified fact. Repeatedly. Independently. Scientifically.
Wegman - still a plagiarist.
Mashey- attacked for exposing the plagiarist.
You keep repeating that nonsensical and false ascertation, Michael ...
And I (we) understand that this is what you sincerely wish for, hoping it would be true, somehow ...
But since the very beginning in this thread you have 'argued' something else, essentially incessant repetition of your labelling-attempt ..
I wonder what all that is/was supposed to amount to. Was it ony the repetition?
(You are quite correct in that your labelling is independent from Mann's crappy paper. So what then is the beef here ... What conclusion is there supposed to follow from the stupid whining about som quotationmarks?)
Jonas,
Which is false?..... or even an assertion??
Wegman has been found guilty of plagiarism by the journal that published his paper - Fact.
The results of MBH (98) have been re-confirmed repeatedly. As a I said, a least another 4 in just the last year or so - Fact.
NSF find the charges against Mann to be without merit - Fact.
Which of these are you having trouble understanding?
Michael
You have severe difficulties even with the simplest things, like definition of words, how they are used, elementary logic. And of course reading comments longer than a few short sentences, or engaging in a discussion with others who don't see things from only your narrow (and often erroneous) perspective.
MBH has no-frikking-where been confirmed or re-confirmed or only afirmed. Every recent published study is better, and different than MBH98. None of the original MBH claims are upheld. And they still cannot create knowledge from lack of information or data.
You are just not in contact with reality (or, but more likely and do not know the meaning of the words you use)
Reality is what you compare to and measure quality by. Not word-constructs on some paper, or committee-reports with political agendas.
And the latest whitewash by NSF also avoided every detail which is controversial. Another attempt to reshape reality by putting words on a paper, and excluding reality. It just doesn't work this way! (Except in politics)
But you never answered my question:
All your ramblings about (missing) quotation marks, and Mann ...
What is it you are trying to accomplish with that?
Can you please try to formulate some position, your stance, on anything beyond your personal beliefs and strong emotional wishes?
We are aware that you (and Mashey) complain a lot about those quotation marks. (And are not very impressed with any of that). And a paper has been retracted, allegedly because it cited (but not quoted) Wegmans congressional report. OK.
But does this amount to anything else that has but the least relevance for any reality, be it climate science in general, or only historical temperatures. Or anyhing that can be substantiated, or only has a meaning of some substance in the real reality.
If so, what is it, Michael!? Don't you know?
John Mashey has added this thread to his conspiratorial butterfly collection.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php
Michael and Mashey are probably happy that their noise-making attracted so much attention (which is what all this is about anyway).
Michael
The NSF report completely excluded any assessment of the statistical competence of Mann. Which is surely the only thing that matters to the quality of his work on treemometers and hockeysticks.
Jonas,
I see brevity and you have parted company........clarity remains a stranger.
You assert that Mann's results have not been verified.
I'll give you the link to some recent papers that have confirmed Mann's findings. Would you like that?
The short version of those papers- recent warimg is unprecendented in the last 1000-1600 years.
And I'm not sure what your repeated rambling on "quotation marks" is about??
diogenes,
Maybe they were being too subtle for you.
I'll spell it out a bit more clearly - having a different opinion about the best stats technique for a complex and (then) new purpose is not academic misconduct, it's just the normal process of science.
What all the sheep here want to do is desperately ignore this reality - make Wegman the MBH (98) statistician and you get the same result - a hockey stick.
Oh, and Wegman is guilty of academic misconduct. Mashey helped expose him - boo hiss to Mashey!
Michaels ..
You blindly trying to pick what is proper or even best statistics is not so very relevant.
Clarity is nothing you can judge, nor can you judge if any 'unprecedented' is established in new papers. Point is: Using that word, does not establish anything. Using it carelessly is poor science (at best!).
Wegman has not been 'found guilty' (a paper has been retracted). Mashey has a hissy fit about missing quotation marks. We are all aware of him.
Question still is:
What does all this amount to in the real world?
Why are some people (obviously unfit to judge real relevance) obsessing about this?
Is it as simple as it appears:
That you hope(d) to resurrect the stick, to rid IPCC/Mann of the embarrassment, to once again holler 'unprecedented' hoping it means something in the real world?
Is that the desperate purpose, Michael? The one you are avoiding to adress?
"Wegman has not been 'found guilty' (a paper has been retracted)."
Oh boy, resorting to sophistry. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess.
Let's see - journal informed that a certain author has committed plagiarism. Journal looks at published arcticle and goes- oh, so he has, we're retracting that = GUILTY.
"Resurrect"? - you poor deluded fool. It's only dead in the fevered imaginations of a nosiy rabble of anti-science ignoramuses.
In the real world where real science is published in the peer-reviewed journals, the MBH(98) result has been confirmed again, and again, and again and again and again and again.......
I did offer to post a few links to just a few of the most recent ones, but it seems you aren't interested.
Guess that's what happens when your 'science' diet is restricted to only the garbage churned out by a few blogs.
Sophistry!?
Isn't that all what all your efforts amount to?
Science (real science) makes claims about reality and its quality is measured by how well it performs. Publishing in journals is part of the process, not what establishes its value. You need to keep your eyes on the ball! Meaning reality.
If you honestly believe that anybody today thinks that Mann's stick is how histpric temperatures played out, you most certainly are the 'deluded fool' in the room.
But you still haven't answerd my question: What does all this amount to, what is it supposed to mean in the real world?
(Judging from your edgy 'reply' or snapback, my hunch was pretty close)
None of the "confirmed again, and again, and again and again and again and again......." papers exhibit Mann's whishful stick. As I said, they are better, and more honest, and they cannot make statements about say the MWP with any certainty. Mostly they don't pretend to either. Alhough they phrase their results not to give that way that bluntly.
Again, Michael, you have to read the fine print of those long papers, and you need to know the background, and you have to understand the meaning of the words. And you need to keep in mind what actually is presented (and what is not). And of course some understanding of statistics would be helpful too!
Let's see on how many of those requirements you'd have a chance to pass!?
And the answer is: ..... !
Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. :-)
Someone trying to defend Mann and Mashe, complains about brevity and clarity! Just hilarious!
So well, Michael, i ask again: Do you know what it all amounts to in a real world?
Michael
I said nothing about academic misconduct. You brought that up. So I will not comment.
You have claimed often that you know little and need to be guided in technical areas by experts. Therefore, surely you must accept the findings of a technical expert, Wegman, on the areas of Mann's work that he is qualified to assess - the use of statistical techniques to make data render meaning and significance.
The missing quaotation marks that you and Mashey are so obsessed by - for such is what plagiarism amounts to - are irrelevant in this purely technical arena.
oh and Michael...do you get the hockey stick if you omit both the lake sediments and the bristlecones? clue...the answer is "No".
The tests done by RC and that odd guy at skeptical (sic) science tets the stick by omitting the bristlecones...then by including the bristlecones and removing the sediments. They know the results are dubious but do not want to be objective about it, for some reason.
Noted one more funny detail: Michael claims that new statistical methods were needed for the (then) new 'scientific field' of so called 'dendroclimatology' ...
That too for sure is one more thing he has 'learnt' from those 'experts'
Which of these are you having trouble understanding?
Climate science is indeed so new and something so different that it requires:
1) A new kind of statistics to treat its delicate data and possible signals hidden therein
2) A new definition for the 'Null hypothesis' when evaluating its proposition
3) Abandonment of the scientific method
4) Abondonment of making falsifiable claims: All observations (incl. status quo) confirm hypothesis
5) Redefintion of what is meant by 'Peer reviewd literature' when assessing its reports
6) Redefinition of what 'peer review' is
7) Activist pamphlets and shoe maintainance are also research
8) Neither presenting data nor methods. Repleaced by: 'Trust me, I'm a (climate) scientist'
9) Discarding adverse data, and hiding this practice
10) Unseen dead polar bears confirming the calamity
11) Replacing experiments and real world observations by computer model simulations
12) Validating them by running many models many times
13) Mutual non-conformity among the models define the 'uncertainties' still left in climate science
14) Establishing confidence intervals by bureaucrats negotiating (behind closed doors)
..
And Ii could go on and on. But I'll add another one here, also observed in bizarro-world:
¹) The absolutely most important thing to discuss now are some (possibly) missing quotation marks
"If you honestly believe that anybody today thinks that Mann's stick is how histpric temperatures played out, you most certainly are the 'deluded fool' in the room."
If by "anybody", you mean the sheep here, then you are correct.
If on the other hand, we were to talk about the scientist who study the issue, then the fact of paper after paper continuing to confirm the result would suggest that almost everybody thinks so.
And whose opinoin do I value more highly, those of highly qualified scientists, or some random bloggers who regularly demostrate their scientific incompetence? Hmmmmmm.........oh wait, I know the answer to that!
Oh, and Jonas gives us a list of things he doesn't understand!
No wonder it's long.
"Wegman has been found guilty accused of plagiarism by and the journal that published his paper has withdrawn that paper - Fact.
The results of MBH (98) have been re-confirmed repeatedly. As a I said, a least another 4 in just the last year or so only by close colleagues using the original data and methods - Fact." - Mike
Another refugee from reality.
You clearly haven't read any of the papers - standard practice for blog 'skeptics'.
They use completely different data, different techniques, and all get 'hockey sticks'.
The gullible fools who've been sold a bridge on this continue to hide from this reality, and keep banging on about some old paper they don't really understand.
Michael
By 'anybody' I mean exactly what that word means in the real world. Including Michael Mann actually. Even his later versions are better, he of course still wants present temperatures to be 'unprecedented' but refrains from making stupid statements about how certain one can be about them 1000 years ago.
And you sound downright desperate where you try to define what other people know and do not know. You were the one blindly picking the experts. And that's the only method you ever had. And it shows in all your comments.
And you still haven't answered my question:
What is it all supposed to amount to in the real world?
Is it that simple: Resurrections of the stick, from its splinters?
Was Wegman, and the plagiarism-hissy-fit all about that? Well,in that case, you certainly have your 'methods' all screwed up!
"By 'anybody' I mean exactly what that word means in the real world. Including Michael Mann actually. Even his later versions are better, he of course still wants present temperatures to be 'unprecedented' but refrains from making stupid statements about how certain one can be about them 1000 years ago."
Jonas,
Your extreme ignorance is showing.
Those papers I've been trying to tell you about, the latest ones confirming Mann's results...... some of them go back 1600 years.
Mann is a bit passe.
But please, continue waving your tiny fists and shouting at the sky.
Michael, and you are still unaware of what can be said with any certainties about previous temperatures ... you seem to believe that because there is a curve somwhere within those errorbars, this curve also must represent the actual history (without the errorbars). And that's just plain wrong.
You point at a piece of paper:'There, you can see the graph ... it's printed, can't you see? Thus it must be the truth!'
It is quite obvious that you don't have the slightest clue about statistics ...As if you had no clue about what an errorbar is. Maybe you even are in denial of such ...
That's funny since you here pretended to know things about statistics.
Hmmmm......an "errorbar"??
Thankyou for edjukating me.
Must find out what these "errorbar" thing is.
Did like "Aero bars". Very tasty. Maybe errorbars taste good too!
Looks like you didn't do quite enough googling to pull off a pretense of knowledge.
Better luck next time.
PS.
MBH (98) - confirmed multiple times. Hockey stick is in the data.
Wegman - still a plagiarist.
That's more like your level, Michael, and has been the whole time ...
is this the end of the tiresome Michael...however, he does make Mashey seem intelligent
diopgenes,
You must have them trembling in the sandpit with such penetrating retorts.
Face it Jonas, you're struggling with the science because you have little interest in science.
Like most climate 'skeptics', you probably have a political/ideological issue with the implications of AGW, and so you attack the science ,which requires a veneer of 'scienceness' to have any effect.
As so often when you (have no other method than) resort to guessing, Michael, you neither have any clue to how close or off your guesses are ..
I've read your 'arguments' and know what they amount to. You don't! You need to guess about that too.
Michael said
"Like most climate 'skeptics', you probably have a political/ideological issue with the implications of AGW ..."
Do you have a source for that claim or are you making it up?
Niklas,
The evidence is pretty compelling - all the nonsense that is written here.
Jonas,
It's no guess...I've just had a read of your contributions over at another website - Deltoid.
Oh dear.
Michael,
I suppose that you present the best arguments you have. In the previous comment you stated that there was compelling evidence for your: "Like most climate 'skeptics', you probably have a political/ideological issue with the implications of AGW "
And as I said before: "As so often when you (have no other method than) resort to guessing, Michael, you neither have any clue to how close or off your guesses are .. "
You probably don't realize that, but you once more confirmed my suspicion. And you have no other method to affirm that than just taking my word for it. Sorry!
By the way Michael
Are you claiming that you've read the posts at Deltoid? They are pretty long. And mostly on a way higher level than those I've written to you here. Which already were far to long and complicated for you, you said ...
Probably you've been guessing again what they say. With your usual accuracy, that is ..
Why don't you 'shake your little fists' at those long comments (almost the length of one paragraph in a scientific paper) albeit often in much simpler language ... and reaffirm to yourself that closing your eyes and guessing who the experts are saves you so much time, trouble and thinking effort ..
Oh, to be in denial!
Keep googling Jonas. Despite yourself, you'll eventually absorb some science instead of all this blog-based nonsense you've been ingesting.
Back to the topic;
Woods is pissed at Mashey for exposing Wegmans plagiarism.
All the sheep baa - 'yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full sir!"
Michael, you still have no clue, and how could you? And you are in denial .. and you hang around blogs with sheep ... maybe even read some of thier (shorter) comments.
:-)
Hey Michael
I know this might be taxing your perception and cognitive skills a bit (It contains many paragraphs, sentences, words, some of which are difficult and abstract mathematics). But it presents one more 'confirmation' of the almost absolute straight handle of Mann's original hockey stick. Look at this research paper (by Caspar Ammann and others) and marvel at what stastics can do to scanty treering- and other proxy data:
Look especially at Figure 4, p6 (596 in the journal)
Wo, just wow! ;-)
Admirable tunnel vision there Jonas.
Yes, please ignore the many many studies, using different datasets, different statistical methods that all report esentailly the same finding as MBH (98), and only focus on a very narrow technical discussion of one 13 yr old paper, and while focussing on that, continue to ignore the caveats "might", "could" of that narrow technical discussion.
When will Jonas learn to understand what he reads?
Yes, indeed. Wow, just wow. Oh, to be in denial!
In summary:
Mann confirmed.
Wegman confirmed....plagiarist.
Closing your eyes, guessing, and repeating the guesses ... is not a viable method. For anything!
Certainly isn't working well for you.
Maybe you should consider trying science and give these vanity-blogs of bunk and nonsense a miss.
Michael, from the outset you've had no clue what you were talking about, only rehashing blog-drivel. And even doing that poorly. You talk about 'science' but have not made any substantial statment worth responding to. When people point out (the simpler) things for you, you react like many of the Deltoid kids: Jumping up and down, raising the voice, repeating that their beliefs 'just must be true', 'because they just know'. Essentially grabbing at every straw to reinforce that they mustn't learn somthing.
From typos, to projectens about essentially anything they can imagine (which, as you know, is quite a lot).
But still, closing one's eyes, and imagining does still not work! Only a fool tries the same method over and over again, expecting that 'Darn, but next time, it will turn out completely different'
Tragic, but quite common in among dreamers ...
"You talk about 'science' but have not made any substantial statment worth responding to..."
And yet you respond, repeatedly. Hmmm.
I like your excuse about typos. Keep googling as you go, Jonas!
Michael .. have you "tried science" now ? .. Is that what you call your stupid drivel at Deltoid? I thought you said to give " these vanity-blogs of bunk and nonsense a miss" and yet there you are yapping nonsense like little puppy ... getting absolutely nowhere, only exposing how clueless you are, not knowing what to hold on to now. Poor thing.