Bishop Hill Lonely old Mann
Nov 26, 2012 Climate: Mann A group of prominent paleoclimatologists has written a paper rebutting one of Michael Mann's recent contributions to the scientific literature. The new paper was announced on the ITRBD Forum by Rob Wilson. The list of authors of the new paper is very long. Almost looks like they are ganging up on him. ;-)
In February of this year, Mike Mann and colleagues published a paper in Nature Geoscience entitled, "Underestimation of volcanic cooling in tree-ring based reconstructions of hemispheric temperatures". Their main conclusion was that a tree-ring based Northern Hemisphere (NH) reconstruction of D'Arrigo et al. (2006) failed to corroborate volcanically forced cold years that were simulated in modelling results (e.g. 1258, 1816 etc). Their main hypothesis was that there was a temporary cessation of tree growth (i.e. missing rings for all trees) at some sites near the temperature limit for growth. This implies Dendrochronology's inability to detect missing rings results in an underestimation of reconstructed cold years when different regional chronologies are averaged to derive a large scale NH composite.
We scrutinized this study and wrote a response to Nature Geoscience. We are pleased to announce that our comment, along with a reply by Mann et al., was finally published on Nov. 25, 2012 (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html) -- 8 months after submission. Our comment focuses on several factors that challenge the Mann et al. (2012) hypothesis of missing tree rings. We highlight problems in Mann et al.'s implementation of the tree ring model used, a lack of consideration for uncertainty in the amplitude and spatial pattern of volcanic forcing and associated climate responses, and a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies.
We look forward to a continued discussion on this subject.
Kevin J. Anchukaitis, Petra Breitenmoser, Keith R. Briffa, Agata Buchwal, Ulf Büntgen, Edward R. Cook, Rosanne D. D'Arrigo, Jan Esper, Michael N. Evans, David Frank, Håkan Grudd, Björn Gunnarson, Malcolm K. Hughes, Alexander V. Kirdyanov, Christian Körner, Paul J. Krusic, Brian Luckman, Thomas M. Melvin, Matthew W. Salzer, Alexander V. Shashkin, Claudia Timmreck, Eugene A. Vaganov, and Rob J.S. Wilson
Reader Comments (173)
Rob Wilson,
Thank you for commenting here, and for the response to Mann et al (2012). Although the specific issues vary perhaps there is a parallel between Mann's cavalier treatment of dendro methods/knowledge and Mann's cavalier treatment of statistics. You and 22 colleagues have now seen MM display disregard for paleo research and methods. That may give you all some sense of why Steve Mc and Jean S., UC, et al find it important to correct and improve his stats in other studies (key aspects of which he has still failed to document after many years).
Since climate sciences draw upon a variety of disciplines it would seem crucial to ensure that there are methodological exemplars in the field for how to perform various studies. Can Mann's articles be said to provide such exemplars? If not, when will other climate scientists correct the record?
Diogenes' eponymous ancestor was not renowned for his reading skills.
The auditing sciences main object of study is the apophasis.
Thanks Rob!
I think one really needs to personally experience it in order to fully understand the surreal feeling one has after reading Mann's non-answers to valid, clear criticism for which one does not need to be a "rocket scientist" to understand. I wish that after this experience you and your co-authors have a little more appreciation for Steve and others who have gone through this a few times. Unlike what you'll probably ever have, they had to also face the acceptance of Mann's non-answers as a valid response by the (climate science) "community". The only word I think that describes the feeling at those times is "Kafkaesque".
I hope our host permits a little somewhat OT personal comment. I was asked a while ago what I'm "most proud of" in my little involment in these hockey stick/climate issues. I had a ready answer that may surprise many.
Back in late 2008 we at ClimateAudit we deeply involved with Mann et al. (2008). Around those times Steve's work was often belittled because he did not "officially" publish most of it. So the idea was born to write an official reply to that paper. Steve invited Ross, me, UC, and Hu McCulloch to write that response. As I had decided a long ago that I won't publish anything on these matters on my real name (similar decision has been taken by UC) and Hu was for some reason unable to contribute in a tight scheduale, the final comment ended up been published on names of Steve and Ross only although me and UC were also contributing.
Anyhow, we started writing the reply. The real problem was that we had so much material, and the word count limit for PNAS reply was (is) horrible, so we didn't know what to include and what to leave out. After a few days and a few rounds, I didn't hear anything from Steve for a few days. The clock was ticking, and the deadline was (I think) something like two days ahead. So I wrote kindly to Steve asking what's the status of the reply. He answered quite fast something like that after re-thinking the issue he thought that there was no point of writing the reply. That only effect would be Mann's nonsensical non-answer, which would still be completely accepted by the "community". So he thought there was no point of wasting everyone's time. I took a deep breath, thought the issue for awhile, and then answered him along the lines that I thought he was right. There would be a nonsensical reply by Mann fully accepted by the "community". Steve's letter would be ignored, and would have no effect to the "success" of Mann et al (2008). But, I argued, I still thought he should publish the reply. Just for the history books if nothing else. Someday people would see through Mann's BS, and the reply would still be there for people to read and to see that these things were considered at the time by some people. In a few hours, Steve replied with another draft, and in the end the comment was submitted in time. And that e-mail I wrote is something I take most pride of in these matters.
Rob, I urged you, and your co-authors to revisit the M&M reply with an open mind. Then read Mann's reply to see if any of the criticism (which I still think is fully valid) is adressed in any meaningful way. You may also get a laught out of this scorecard (out of people's predictions what Mann's reply would include) I made after the letters were published.
Richard Drake
Your comment made me think of another unwieldly German expression which could have a peculiar unexpected resonance with recent climate science.
When discussing the esoteria of "hermeneutics" (interpretation) the late Hans-Georg Gadamer emphasized the role of "wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein" or the kind historical consciousness which changes us.
Although much that is written in philosophy and the humanities on this score is turgid and opaque, we do all need to learn from the past! Especially from the study of mistakes and wrong turns, as exemplified by Mann and his team.
It is good to see "self-correcting" science in action. However, the 23 scientists (and others) might well examine the influence of Mann on the field in a variety of issues over more than a decade. If I may repeat something I said at WUWT, when a commenter seemed too complacent about the evident "self-correcting" aspects of science:
_______, I think you have quite missed the point. It is Michael Mann and his team who have made it exceedingly difficult to have candid discussions of (putative) mistakes or corrections without turning everything into a bloodbath of accusations and hostility. It is now FOURTEEN years since MBH98/MBH99 began to shape discussions, and (so far as I am aware) there is still no full and adequate vindication of MBH methodology and error analysis. [There are also issues with several subsequent papers] Had Mann engaged in honest, candid, cooperative discussions at any time in the past 14 years much more could have been achieved, and enormous amounts of wasted time and energy (for many people) avoided.
This is a different era (obviously) from times when various sciences could be “self-correcting” over many generations — to the extent feasible we want the sciences (especially when they have public policy or medical etc. implications) to be self-correcting just as rapidly as feasible.
It is Michael Mann and his teammates who have thrown up far too many obstacles and raised the time/cost for correction.
Fourteen years is now (more than) long enough — perhaps this little “revolt of the dendros” can spark a general re-assessment of Mann’s articles and everything that has gone wrong over 14+ years.
Skiphil,
Your point is amply illustrated by the unfortunate fact that Mann's inglorious debut and followup in the world of statistical deceit, MBH 98 and 99, both have been cited by more than 1400 papers. His web of disinformation has thus snared, infected, misdirected and invalidated a proportion of a decade and a half's worth of scientific endeavour in an absurd number of fields and has wasted countless billions of research funds.
The opportunity cost of Mann to humanity and our environment is incalculable.
Rob Wilson,
I appreciate your comments here at BH's place.
Your presence at any of the more open blogs interested primarily in climate science would have been highly beneficial over the better part of the last decade to bring out a great dialog. May I ask this sincere question: Why weren't you around before at any of them?
John
John,
Rob's guest appearances at Steve's were more frequent in the beginning:
> The potential non-linear response that Steve mentions is potentially very worrying.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/10/upside-down-quadratic-proxy-response/#comment-38476
Somehow, Rob lost interest.
As auditors may say, wonder why?
as always, Willard exemplifies apophasis while trying unavilingly to decry it in others...
Mann2Mann 1.59
This is the crunch. This has ceased to be science for some years.
There must be big movers and big money behind the continuation of this 'meme'.
Maurizio to the rescue, or someone else with superb internet skills and tenacity. Please.
Dr. Wilson
"One final observation is I urge you to look at Figure 1 in Mann’s original article. The instrumental record (black line) in Figure 1a (upper panel) clearly does not show strong cool temperatures in 1884 related to Krakatoa as seen in the two models. Following Mann’s hypothesis, the instrumental data must be wrong."
Krakatoa had a much lower amount of sulfates than the other events.
Here is the data from Gao
http://berkeleyearth.org/xls/forcing-comparison.xlsx
so 11 Teragrams of sulfates for the 1884 event and 58 Tera Grams for the 1815 Event.
laki 1783 is around 100.
These are NH figures.
Nov 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM | Rob Wilson
Rob, can we quote you on this?! If so, I would like to petition His Grace to elevate your observations to Quote of the Week. .... with a link to the 2008 "scorecard" comment Jean S. had highlighted.
As a reasonably informed layperson, I don't profess to understand "the fundamental foundation of dendochronology" (and I count myself among the perpetually statistically-challenged); but I do know a repeated pattern when I see one. And it seems to me that Mann's is the most oft-repeated pattern of 'em all!
The view from here, so to speak, is that this is also a pattern that has been too often emulated - most recently, perhaps, by key actors in the so-called "Inquiries" pursuant to Climategate, as Andrew has so cogently documented in Hiding the Decline.
I wonder if your critique (and that which you hint you will be making at the AGU Fall Meeting next week) will spur Mann to write a sequel to his most recent opus - which, from all the criticisms I've read, would suggest that it should have been entitled, Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A Novel.
It's funny that 'willard' mentioned "silence of the lambs" because this discussion reminds me of a statement by Steve McIntyre more than four years ago (see http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/)...
"If Peter Brown, Mike Pisaric, Rob Wilson and other dendros were outraged at my calculating the average of 14 Alberta PCGL chronologies, then how can they stand idly by while Mann et al 2008 essentially scavenges the ITRDB like a garbage picker?"
That was the point, Dave Salt. Since you find it funny, here's how Rob Wilson circumscribes his message in that post underlined by Steve in your quote:
> All I wanted to communicate with my response, is that there was no useful information in what Steve M had posted.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/19/up-to-date-black-spruce-ring-widths/#comment-82524
But then, what's useful to Steve might not be much to Rob. I suppose it depends upon what "useful information" means. "Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things."
Auditors should also note the dates of the two posts.
"Somehow, Rob lost interest."
hmm. I don't read it that way. One can still be interested and decide that other priorities come first.
He showed enough interest over the years to actually be "on site" when FOIA made his first appearance.
There are definite patterns that emerge when scientists decide to come onto blogs and interact with the public. There are means of optimizing this interchange for the benefit of all. A barrage of 50 questions you've always wanted to ask is NOT an optimal approach. Complaining that your questions don't get answered, is also not helpful. Over the years I would rank Rob up there at the top of the stack when it comes to answering questions. It's not his job to, after all.
Nov 27, 2012 at 4:55 AM | steven mosher
But Mosh, (and I'm not suggesting that this rests on Rob's shoulders), if it's 'not their job' to answer questions whose "job" is it? If I were a scientist in this day and age, I certainly would not trust the MSM as an intermediary (so to speak) to direct the question traffic, would you?!
On the one hand, we are seeing a lot of wailing, moaning and wringing of hands about "failure to communicate". But on the other hand, you claim that it's "not their job" to answer questions. Seems to me that a good part of effective communication is listening to the questions, and providing the answers ... without intermediaries.
IMHO, communication is not a one-way street. "Trust us, we're [the experts, climate scientists, whatever, take your pick]" doesn't work for those of the "think for ourselves" persuasion.
> One can still be interested and decide that other priorities come first.
As auditors say in other contexts, "lots of theories".
There are a definite pattenrs where we hear that there are "lots of theories".
***
Let us note how Rob Wilson's comment we just quoted ends:
> Unfortunately for Steve M, he has not made too many friends in the palaeo-community over the last few years and so it is not really surprising that researchers are not willing to help or work with him.
Rob's ten cents. Lots of theories.
***
Dr. Wilson still made some interesting observations at Steve's over the years. For instance, we have from the main comment thread:
> I do not want to be drawn into a debate about Mike Mann’s NH reconstruction. If you do not like it, fine – forget it. There are other NH records now available.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/19/up-to-date-black-spruce-ring-widths/#comment-82539
The two comments underlined might me related with one another.
But then, that's just a theory. Another one is the silence of the lambs.
Lots of theories.
If Dr.Mann's article passed peer review, and if, as Dr. Wilson asserts, this manly paper exhibits serious quite obvious flaws.........who reviewed this and was not one of the 23 not asked?
"But Mosh, (and I'm not suggesting that this rests on Rob's shoulders), if it's 'not their job' to answer questions whose "job" is it? If I were a scientist in this day and age, I certainly would not trust the MSM as an intermediary (so to speak) to direct the question traffic, would you?!"
It's no one's job. We don't really have a model for how conversations should happen in this medium.
For some people, If I come to comment, they feel that gives them a right to demand answers from me.
some see a question, and feel like they owe answers. Do they? dont answer that. wait I insist you answer it. If you teach a class, do you have to answer all the students questions? I had some kids who asked questions just to hear themselves talk. Hard to judge that. In court there are rules for questions. In life, not so much. On blogs, dear sweet jesus.
I guess for me my attitude developed as I spent more time ( like on skeptic blogs ) trying to answer every question. N versus 1. somebody will always walk away and say, Mosher didnt answer x.
So, you might allocate a certain amount of time. pick the questions you can answer, pick the questions you like.. not really like parliment or a court room or school or a traffic stop. Questions? power? responsibilties.. not clear cut at all
One time on climate audit david parker agreed to take our top 10 questions in writing. That was kinda cool, so we basically had to argue what we thought the most important questions were. A lot of the questions people ask Rob are snotty. That's understandable, but not productive. Crap I think I was snotty to Rob, Judith and Peter webster and Ryan Muae. Go figure.
Anyway, what was your question?
willard,
As auditors say in other contexts, "lots of theories".
There are a definite pattenrs where we hear that there are "lots of theories"
################
there are always lots of theories, infinite numbers of them. Has nothing to do with auditing has to do with the structure of thought. On one theory.
***
Let us note how Rob Wilson's comment we just quoted ends:
> Unfortunately for Steve M, he has not made too many friends in the palaeo-community over the last few years and so it is not really surprising that researchers are not willing to help or work with him.
Rob's ten cents. Lots of theories.
############################
Yes, on Rob's theory some scientists appear to take things far too seriously and let their feelings of distaste for steve overwhelm their scientific ethics. That's a pretty strong indictment. I wouldn't suggest that unless I was trying to trash people. Of course, one can remove this concern entirely by archiving data.
Dr. Wilson still made some interesting observations at Steve's over the years. For instance, we have from the main comment thread:
> I do not want to be drawn into a debate about Mike Mann’s NH reconstruction. If you do not like it, fine – forget it. There are other NH records now available.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/19/up-to-date-black-spruce-ring-widths/#comment-82539
The two comments underlined might me related with one another.
But then, that's just a theory. Another one is the silence of the lambs.
##################
you dont really have two theories there. You have one fact. Rob doesnt want to get drawn into a debate over Mann. There are many theories why he wouldnt. Frankly, none of them matter.
On a vaguely related note...
Ha, I wonder if we could charge skeptics money to "Ask Rob" or "Ask Mann"
Steven Mosher: 'Ha, I wonder if we could charge skeptics money to "Ask Rob" or "Ask Mann" '
I'd be interested enough in Rob's reaction to Jim Bouldin's recent posts on dendroclimatology. On the other hand, I can't imagine any question to which Mann's answer would be interesting. Low entropy, as you might say.
I would echo Jean S's point about McIntyre/McKitrick vs. Mann, and also add that I have witnessed similar non-answers from Mann in the debates between von Storch+Zorita vs. Mann as well as Smerdon vs. Mann.
And having read the paper from Mann that most closely crosses into my field (his article on filtering), it reads like it was written by an undergraduate with little or no deep understanding of the subject.
Mann's understanding of science has always been low, and that was always evident from reading his articles and the poor arguments he makes. This is nothing new. The biggest problem is why it has taken so long for the scientific community to react to this - why Mann received such strong support and his critics typically left out in the cold. Such an approach is ultimately harmful to the reputation of science (although I am confiden that science is self-correcting in the long run, it is clear on occasions that the long run is drawn out far more than need be at times).
Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of support for bad science with the "right" political agenda.
Thanks again, Rob Wilson, for posting here. A very welcome development. Some of us have long suspected that everything Mann has written since 1998 on climate is junk science. It's nice that some of his former colleagues are at long last noticing this. How much longer can Mann survive at Real Climate?
Morning,
Gonna keep this short as I am supposed to be marking. I “lurk” on a few blogs (RC, CA, BH etc) and only usually chip in if I feel I have a relevant point to make. Personally, I have a lot of respect for Steve’s statistical skill, but have less respect for his dredging through old e-mails. Steve often now spends more time on the back story of a variety of different issues over the last ~10 years and I am frankly not that interested – mainly as I have better and more important things to do with my time. In my mind, Steve has had one major influence on palaeoclimate science in that most groups now regularly provide access to relevant data. The situation is still not perfect, but is much better than 15 years ago.
As for the “paleo”-industry’s response to Mann et al. (1999), well, there are two approaches to this: replicated the work and see if it is a valid approach or simply do your own analysis. Many of us took the latter approach (Esper et al. 2002; Moberg et al. 2005; D’Arrigo et al. 2006 etc etc).
Back to the day job
Rob
Willard, my point was rather obvious: if Dr Wilson's scientific 'principles' were sufficiently disturbed by Steve McIntyre's work, why were they not similarly disturbed by Dr Mann's?
Maybe Dr Wilson knew nothing of Dr Mann's work or maybe, because Dr Mann was a 'scientist', he trusted his integrity so much that he did not want to question it. Of course, it may also be that Dr Wilson has no issues with Dr Mann's previous work and it's only his recent publications that are a problem. However, this is a rather a moot point that only Dr Wilson can answer.
Either way, I still find it funny that people can read such a statement and twist it around so much... sort of reminds me of a magician trying to 'misdirect' the audience, but in a rather crude and obvious way.
Rob - Many thanks for putting up a copy of the paper, and for your further comments here.
Hilary - ("can we quote you on this?"). I was going to tweet "He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology" but I see that Jonathan Jones has already done so.
Dave - remember that Rob has been quite supportive of Steve. See CG2 email 1527.txt:
"There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann's sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations." and 4241.txt where he illustrated the screening fallacy.
Spence,
you wonder "why it has taken so long for the scientific community to react to this - why Mann received such strong support and his critics typically left out in the cold"
It seems to me that there is a quite simple explanation, which has very little to do with Mann's scientific brilliance or otherwise. From his - how can I put this? - "style of writing" outside of cited publications, he comes across as an effective bully and demagogue. Those two charateristics have helped him to carry a hitherto timid academic community.
Demagogues and bullies tend, eventually, to reach a sticky end, however. It's well past time for Mann to be metaphorically confined to the Curia and pelted with roof tiles, a la Saturninus.
Well, well, well ... Mann on his FB page (my bold):
Does that sound like he is going to tell that there were some serious problems in his earlier work? Or does it sound like he's going to pile up new stuff basicly ignoring the previous criticism? Like I said earlier my prediction is that this exchange was just a begining of a waste of time for many people (Rob & his co-authors). Luckily for me, I'm completely in the audience side. I have my popcorn and beer ready.
Dave - in addition what Paul already said I would add that I know for sure that Steve has lots of respect for Rob. To my knowledge, they have had quite a lot of correspondence over the years. Steve has occationally commented that to me mainly in a very positive manner.
Jean S, thanks for the input here.
Please be in no doubt that I applaud Dr Wilson's contribution to this thread and was not, in any way, trying to be sarcastic about his past or present behavior... my apologies to Dr Wilson if it appears otherwise. Moreover, I note that Dr Wilson seems to have answered the question about what he thought of Dr Mann's earlier work (Cf. post at Nov 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM), though having not read the referenced papers I can only assume that they tended to support 'Mann et al. (1999)'.
Here are some brief aids from the author of the first blog "There are some authors whose work I choose not to read again, not as a game, but as the normal act of a normally intelligent mind."
The author in mind in this setting was not Briffa, it was Mann - though that does not exclude Briffa.
I see no further benefit in reading his work because its quality is too poor (and I have read a lot).
There are also serious unresolved problems with the derivation of proxy temperatures from trees. Until the problems are resolved, I'm not bothering to spend time. The main problem is the lack of confidence that one can put in the assumption that properties of tree rings can be reliable indicators of past temperatures.
This is the same problem that exists with CAGW generally. Once the decision was made to demonise CO2 in advance and call it settled, science suffered a blow, a severe one because of the widespread encouragement that it is henceforth OK to depart from the essentials of the 'scientific method'.
I have read less of the work of Rob Wilson, who complains. Why did you not speak up, Rob, when you knew of the troubles?
My statement was not an emotional knee jerk. For much of my career in science I assessed proposals to expend on scientific projects. Together with a few colleagues doing likewise, the success of the whole corporation (indeed the present wealth of my country, to a degree) depended on us getting it right much more often than wrong.
In the cold, hard world of large scale, competitive commerce, one learns to assess submissions and hypotheses without any need for emotion.
There are some authors whose submissions I will no longer read, because these authors have displayed little past merit and lack signs of contrition for past damage to good scientific conduct.
Nov 27, 2012 at 5:45 AM | Hilary Ostrov
Nov 27, 2012 at 6:29 AM | steven mosher
You're both right. Scientists should take responsibility for explaining their own work, as leaving it to the MSM does mean that they will say what they think you said (or fit part of what you said with their view of what the "story" is). However, there's also limits on what any one person does - if you spend all your time communicating your science, you don't do any more science.
Glad to see Rob commenting here - and good to see the palaeo community having this debate out in the literature too.
Rob Wilson is one of the good guys for coming back. Although some people will do any displacement activity to put of that marking!
It isn't really fair or productive to ask him to denounce others' behaviour at the detriment of his own position or to respond to questions about other ares of science like the temp records or the models.
Dendro, on the other hand, is fair game. So, Rob, how are you doing with the density vs thickness thing? Is it really a better indicator? How much better? How do you separate temp effects from general wellbeing due to other factors?
Rob Wilson:
"Mann’s major flaw was to see something in his model which did not agree with “nature” and assumed that there must be something wrong with nature."
I've seen modelers make this fundamentelal mistake in other fields as well. They spend so much time on their model they "fall in love" with it. Their first reaction when a feature of their model is not observed in the real world is that the observation is not complete, not correct, etc. In a sense, they get confused about what's real, and what's artifact.
Ed Fix
Geoff Sherrington
"This is the same problem that exists with CAGW generally. Once the decision was made to demonise CO2 in advance and call it settled, science suffered a blow, a severe one because of the widespread encouragement that it is henceforth OK to depart from the essentials of the 'scientific method'."
I completely agree with your comments, especially the paragraph above.
It amazes me how Climate Science has descended as far down as it has - well science in general. The latest of the Bish's pamphlets underlines the "un-scientific" behaviours of some. These people don't seem to realise that they ceased doing science a while ago, becoming activists with a religious zeal.
I was always impressed by these words from Richard Feynman.
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or
another."
The full text of this address made at Caltech in 1974 - delivered in his usual quirky way can be found here.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
Climate Science fails utterly in this regard because AGW proponents will often not even disclose the data that led to their conclusion, never mind that which doesn't.
I managed an environmental modelling team for several years and with new members of staff it was always necessary to instill into them that when the real world data disagreed with the model this was not a problem but an opportunity to extend our understanding of the real world by figuring out why. Although it is not a truism to say that the where the model disagrees with the data the data must be right (there can be problems with data as well) it is a good working hypothesis.
I also recognize the issue raised by Ed Fix that modellers can sometimes become too attached to their creations to accept any criticism, a problem which appears to b endemic in some parts of the Climtae Science Community.
> You have one fact.
I believe more than one are already on the table. Nevermind pussyfooting on accounting and let's provide more by reading the blog, for bender's sake! Another interesting bit:
> OK – last time. But this really will be it because it will generate many more replies and I cannot keep coming back. I have to stop at some point. [...] My BSc was in Geology (1992) and I worked as a geologist for a building company from 1994-1997. I hated the job as the work was controlled by speed and money (i.e. cost-cutting). There was also absolutely NO data exchange between different building companies. I do not think the Geology world is as perfect as Steve would have us believe. [...] On the whole, I have also generally not had a problem with acquiring data from colleagues. But that might simply reflect my strategy in life of being nice to others (even Steve). I’d rather have critical friends than critical enemies. Buy hey – I am probably being naive.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/22/wilson-pisaric-and-gaspe/#comment-82814
Rob then had to sign off, with distant sounds of laughter from Jan Esper.
Reading is an important skill to master to those who rejoice in righteous hindsight.
Looks like a case of, "Mann overboard!". But whether it's a collective show of "cojones" that will last the course of a fight with the maestro or PCA is something we'll have to wait and see. Anyway, welcome back Rob, when you've finished your marking it would be nice if you could tell us how your geology students reacted to coming face to face with theaged curmudgeons who haunt this blog.
Welcome too to Richard, you've been missed.One thing about this continuous navel searching about "communicating the science". The impression I get is that what the scientists really mean by communicating that the public should believe everything they say without questioning it. That they don't means they, the scientists, must be communicating the message incorrectly.
Might Mark Steyn and his legal team be lurking here?
People have asked why the dendro/paleo community have not openly disputed Mann before. The reason is simple, he has had enormous power, enough power to destroy a scientist's career. It only takes rumor or a phone call or two to cut off funding in some fields or to deny tenure (which cames very late in life these days). Mann was tied up centrally with IPCC and has had powerful friends. What was different this time? Mann disputed the reliability of cross-dating and the ability of field people AND the biology by asserting that huge regions would all have missing rings--a nonsensical statement to anyone who knows how trees grow. Why so many authors? I speculate that it had to do with safety in numbers. He can't sue all of them.
Arthur Dent
You see the problem every day in the TV weather forecast presentation. The presenter has as his/her background the model output and just describes it, and as it will be virtually untouched by human hand - if it is raining in the model at current time, then it is raining or if the model has no cloud, it's sunny. So you get things like -
"This rain over East Anglia will move away east clearing by late afternoon". When there isn't any rain over East Anglia
"There will be good sunny periods". When actually it's cloudy.
It is about 15 years since I first heard mention of virtual actuals. "We don't have observations there but we can tell you what it was like from the model !!!!!!! Talk about circular thinking. This is bad enough if you can check roughly against some ground truth, but frequently a model will have low cloud, for example, when there isn't any - and vice versa.
And this is for today - how well does 75 years work?? OK that's climate and not weather (and weather is not climate unless a warmist says it is) but you get my drift.
willard,
when I wrote you have "one fact" I was refering to your statement about two comments and the exact quote you used: " I do not want to be drawn into .."
So, before we go on, can you show some integrity, honor, and use the principle of charity when reading what I write.
Rob offers an anecdote. yes I did read it. Perhaps you might give me the benefit of the doubt. And
I think i understand it.
The problem is: Rob's explanation for why scientists dont share data with Steve is a theory that
1. Has no supporting documentary evidence.
2. Makes scientist look like petty little children.
3. Takes no account of the scientists who did share data with steve prior to his first publication in 2003
In 2007, you basically have a bunch of speculation about why people wont share data with Steve.
Rob, gets to have his theory. Scientists are petty, they want to hear pretty please, the community gossiped about mean steve, and so screw our obligations, dont share the data.
Nut jobs get to have their theories: :'its a green conspiracy". Think up more theories. The want to hide something. They dont share data with non scientists, blah blah
Then, 2009 comes along and we finally have some documentary evidence. We have email from Mann confirming rob theory! That's right we find out that manns biggest complaint against steve was that he was not polite. Oh wait, thats a willard reading of mann. Fact is willard our only documentary evidence of why scientists like mann and jones and briffa refused to share data with steve had nothing whatsoever to do with politeness or saying pretty please. When we reason to the best evidence we see something completely different.
Another blast from the past:
> Steve, having not read the paper, you have missed the point of it. I will send you a copy soon. [...] anyway – enough – please – CA is a huge distraction and the mountains call[.]
http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/17/new-scientist-juckes-and-rob-wilson/#comment-88419
Seems that Craig Loehle can contribute to our lot of theories [1], while yet again personalizing a commonsensical trait. Might this kind of narrative an institutional bias of contrarian blogs?
[1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1640585432
Craig,
I imagine the reasons why people in his profession fail to openly refute or rebuke mann, are pretty varied and I don't think we have any evidence that points exclusively to his "power" as an explanation. Simple tribalism will do. Laziness will do. fear of retaliation. 'its not my job' . They agree with him. They secretly want to sleep with him. Too busy to get involved. Dont care. Dont like confrontation. They hate steve for being impolite.
I'd also like to push back on this notion that folks have some sort of obligation to 'take a stand' on mann.
Let's see how that plays out and I am going to be nasty with you here ( just an object lesson ok cause we are buds )
I believe you wrote a paper with Scaffeta. On many occasions I have asked him to share his data and code. he has refused. I've asked for the data and code for the paper yu wrote with him. Denial.
Will you now, denounce scaffetta!
See how ugly that is. Sorry to have to do that. But I have been asked by people to denounce anthony watts ( who actually helped save my life, literally) asked to denounce hansen, denounce willard ( just kidding) I don't think demands to denounce are very helpful. I dont think looking the other way when you see errors is great either. Popping up in a conversation to point out squirrels, is least helpful.
( kinda like wacka mole )
Moshpit,
The "I do not want to be drawn into .." has nothing to do with "Rob's explanation for why scientists dont share data with Steve", but with Dave Salt's feeling of funniness. i.e. why Rob won't speak out against Mann. This kind of misreading makes for poor tackles. Perhaps you just don't have Rob's shoulders.
But if you do insist, we could talk about your "political hit job", as your co-author would say.
For now, here's another bit of history:
> Most of you have missed the point[:] the high variance in my RCS chronology was an artefact of ineffectual detrending of the data. I am sure I said that over processing of data was a bad thing.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/02/22/wilson-on-yamal-substitution/#comment-44182
Distinguishing the facticity of a comment on a blog and an email makes for interesting epistemological quandary.
willard
"Might this kind of narrative an institutional bias of contrarian blogs? "
look a quizzical squirrel. Personalization, as Rob illustrates, is not confined to contrarian blogs. If you had a little integrity and honor you would find the behaviors, traits, you so dislike on all sides of the debate and most of all in yourself.
Getting back to the issue at hand. I think the skeptosphere is making far too much of this criticism of mann. You've read the papers, willard, what do you think? Can you and I have a civil discussion about the actual topic, the papers.
Dear Moshpit,
What evidence do you have that the "actual topic" is "the papers"?
Here's a fact that runs contrary to this theory:
> The list of authors of the new paper is very long. Almost looks like they are ganging up on him. ;-)
How does your theory explain this editorial comment?
***
Beware how you interpret integrity and honor, for I could quote the multifarious ways the Auditor himself justifies the focus of his auditing practices.
Nov 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM | Rob Wilson
- - - - - -
Rob Wilson,
Thank you for the description of your blogging participation at some of the more open blogs focused on climate science.
I hope you participate much more in the future in the more open venues like BH's place.
Regarding the back story of the situations centered around subjects like data screening fallacies in Hockey Stick papers, I am just as interested in the not so pretty sausage making part of science as I am the pleasant PR image part of science. I would value a balanced knowledge of both.
Take care.
John
Steven Mosher,
You are right that there are many many reasons why people might not choose to get involved in pointing out that Mann's work is nonsense. However Craig Loehle is probably right about this current paper. You don't need 23 authors from 16 different institutes to point out obvious flaws in a paper unless something else is going on.
This looks to me like the dendro community saying loud and clear "we are right and you are wrong and don't try any funny business with us because everyone in this field who matters is on our side". We can debate about why they are doing that: it might be nothing more than forcing the paper through an anticipated hostile review process by force majeure. But it's clear to me that that is what they are doing.
Steven Mosher
The one thing you've missed out in your comprehensive "why they didn't call out Mann" list is one of the commonest traits of any group:
They hate Steve because he was right.
The worst thing you can do to any incestuous little group — whether it be climate scientists (or any other sort of scientists) or academics of any discipline or social workers or (for all I know) bus drivers — is to be an outsider who challenges one of their number and is proved right.
You've smeared egg on all their faces because
1. they should have spotted it themselves;
2. "there but for the grace of God ..."
It's why they hate Watts; it's why they hate Curry even more because she's supposed to be "one of us".
None of which, of course, explains why some of them are getting it so consistently and repeatedly wrong in the first place!