Bishop Hill Krugman homeopath
Aug 11, 2014 Climate: Mann Paul Krugman is considering Michael Mann this morning. Amazingly, the great man is trying to resurrect the Hockey Stick.
Mann, as some of you may know, is a hard-working scientist who used indirect evidence from tree rings and ice cores in an attempt to create a long-run climate record. His result was the famous “hockey stick” of sharply rising temperatures in the age of industrialization and fossil fuel consumption. His reward for that hard work was not simply assertions that he was wrong — which he wasn’t — but a concerted effort to destroy his life and career with accusations of professional malpractice, involving the usual suspects on the right but also public officials, like the former Attorney General of Virginia.
He wasn't wrong? Like our friend Anders, Mr Krugman could really do with getting himself a copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion. Like Anders, I don't suppose he will.
Mr Krugman, you really do need to centre your data if you are going to do principal components analysis. Really you do. There is not a reputable statistician who has ever looked at this question and concluded that Mann got it right. I wonder if Mr Krugman is a fan of the Mann view that not centring your data properly is "modern" (and therefore OK) or whether he favours the Gerald North view that you can use a biased method and inappropriate data and still arrive at the right answer.
Homeopathy has nothing on climate science.
Reader Comments (126)
Creating false experimental data to prove that the accepted knowledge base, gathered over a long period of time, is incorrect is something that Homeopaths and those that use it successfully have had to endure, so it does have something in common with Climate Science, but there appears to be little detail directly related to Homeopathy in this article, so why refer it it?
Maybe I should be flattered that I get mentioned in a blog post along with Michael Mann and Paul Krugmen. I'm assuming that wasn't the intent, though :-)
Okay, just to be completely honest, I certainly don't plan to read the Hockey Stick Illusion. It may be my loss, but it's certainly my right. However, here's an illustration of why I don't plan to bother
This is not about whether Mann got it right or wrong. This is about whether or not it's acceptable for a journalist (and others) to make accusations of malpractice and fraud. Getting something wrong in a paper is not a sign of scientific misconduct. Getting something wrong on purpose so as to get the result you want, would be a sign of scientific misconduct. Proving that it was on purpose, however, is what needs to be done, not simply asserting it.
Here's another reason why I won't bother reading it. It's because I don't really care. This is work done 15/16 years ago. Progress in science doesn't occur by every step along the way having no mistakes. Even papers with mistakes have value. People work out that there's a mistake, fix it, and see what happens. That's why I don't even have a huge issue with McIntyre & McKitrick's work. I think it gets heavily over-interpreted, but that doesn't mean that people haven't learned from what they published. I have and, in all honesty, think better of it now than I did before. However, if I want to get a sense of our current understanding of temperatures over the last millenium, I'm not going to go and look at papers published 15/16 years ago. I'm going to look at papers published in the last few years.
If you think that every paper with an identifiable mistake should be retracted then I don't think you understand how scientific progress operates (another reason I won't bother reading the Hockey Stick Illusion).
Robert,
You have answered your own question better than anyone else ever could.
Mailman
Anders,
IF sceptics followed your advice and sued for every time their reputations were maligned by scientists like Mann and so called journalists of the likes operating at the BBC and NYT, for example, I guarantee you that there would be no reporting on Mann Made Global Warming (tm) because it would be just far too dangerous and costly.
The fact that Mann seems to be the only so called scientist to sue to protect what he considers is a reputation tells you volumes about the kind of person he is and the lack of interest he actually has in conducting good, solid and sound science.
All you need to do is look at his track record, libel action against Dr Ball and Stein and NEITHER actions have progresed anywhere NOT because Mann's case is being resisted but because Mann has deliberately dragged them out. The punishment is not the verdict but the process itself.
Mailman
And Then There's Physics:
I'm sorry, but when you run an analysis that shows that your results are dependent on one method and then do not include that in your article as submitted, but tuck it away in a confidential file - call me sceptical!
Mailman,
I don't think I gave any advice. I wasn't arguing that Mann should be suing people. I was simply pointing out that the issue is not whether or not his paper is right or wrong, but whether or not he has committed scientific misconduct. I have no issue with anyone defending themselves against claims of fraud or misconduct, whoever they may be. Additionally, Mann's conduct in public has no definitive implications with regards to his scientific research. You as an individual may choose not to trust his work because of how he conducts himself in public, but you'd be hard pressed to show that how he behaves in public proves that his scientific research is fraudulent. In fact, I would say that that would be virtually impossible.
Aynsley,
You're quite entitled to be skeptical. To be honest, I have no interest in defending Mann and his work. My point is very simply that you need to do more than show something has an error to show that someone committed research misconduct. Being wrong is part of the scientific process.
Mailman on Aug 11, 2014 at 10:03 AM
I wouldn't call disproving outcome by believing in a theory to be very sound.
ATTP, we know you don’t care and that’s a big part of the problem. The issue is not so much about the Hockey Stick being wrong, it is about what it was used for and how subsequent warnings about its flaws were dealt with. It was a tool to beat people into submission, despite being a new (and apparently wrong) approach. In truth it should never have become the poster boy for CAGW but the moment alarm bells were sounded it should have been quarantined and finally allowed to die. Instead, endless attempts have been made to revive it.
By refusing to publicly admit it was wrong then you are condoning the use to which it was put, the lack of auditing of bad papers and the zombie resurrections the Hockey Stick sees. You can be seen to promote advancement of your cause at any cost. Yes, mistakes are made but until you accept that they were mistakes, how can others know that you’ve learned from them? How do we know that you support the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, instead of just the truth that serves your plans?
Anders,
You said "This is not about whether Mann got it right or wrong. This is about whether or not it's acceptable for a journalist (and others) to make accusations of malpractice and fraud."
It is this I was directly referring to. Being a pedant does nothing to support your love of the Mann God who can do no wrong.
Mailman
Anders(?):
To fail to mention the method dependent result in the submission to a journal could be considered a 'mistake' - but it is a mistake to do with research ethics.
TinyCO2,
Just to be clear, of course I care about scientific integrity. I just happen not to care about a fight over a paper published in 1990s.
I thought I had publicly acknowledged that it had an error, or do you mean something else?
If you mean me, I guess you never can know this for sure. All I can do is be honest. You get to choose how to judge me. Also, if you do mean me, I'm not sure why it's relevant. I'm not going to simply behave in a particular way just so that people might trust me more. I'm going to behave in a way that I think is honest. If that means some people choose not to trust me, that's fine.
My point would be that a few individuals don't determine our understanding of a complex science. Maybe your perception of what has happened publicly has tainted your view of a scientific field. However, that doesn't mean that your view is correct. Additionally, I've seen behaviour by people who you would probably regard as being on "your side" that in my view is atrocious. We could probably spend endless hours arguing over who can be trusted and who's behaviour is suitable and who's isn't. I, personally, don't really see the point.
Ah, the Plankton Defense in full swing :)
Congratulations on making this a thread about you Anders.
Mailman
Mailman,
Actually, I'm more than happy to call it quits.
First sign of a troll is when every comment is dragged to be about himself.
Going back to Krugie, he's another example of pseudos commentators nobody listens to, just like Friedman and Stiglitz. Just a name for the pseudo international conference to drag pseudo cognoscenti to fashionable gatherings. History is happening elsewhere, so it's a good thing his hysterics cover Mannianism now.
"Mann, as some of you may know, is a hard-working scientist "
He seems to try hard at insulting people on Twitter, he tries hard to avoid any kind of real interview (i.e. where a friend does not interview him), he tries hard to hide his many mistakes, etc.
His academic work - well we can see his inability to do high school statistics and his dodgy Matlab programming. He doesn't seem to understand the scientic approach of reproducibility.
What is there not to admire in the Mann!
Anders
"Being wrong is part of the scientific process."
But it only works if the mistake is admitted!
Professor Paul Krugman is leaving Princeton. Is he leaving in disgrace?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/
Yes.
Do any of you see parallels between Krugman's acceptance of Mann's informed conclusions (regarding the impending catastrophe of AGW), and therefore the parroted imperative to do big things now to avert it...
...And his "concern trolling" over US debt / entitlement spending issues. Despite the economic 'science' being obvious regarding those categories of expenditure outpacing inflation / GDP.
Regarding the economic 'science', he certainly accepts much of it, but at the same time vocally questions the need to 'act quickly', 'act now', or even whether the actual danger is that great in the future. He certainly says that the policy changes in the present incur costs of their own which merit consternation.
My question to y'all out there (ATTP, etc.) ... Is why is there intellectual space permitted for people like Krugman to accept the basic science behind the debt/entitlement balance sheet, and yet question various policy AND projections positions, all the while not being labeled a 'denier' nor being labeled an actor of "bad faith" ... And yet scores of scientists and policy wonks out there accept the basic science of Anthroprogenic Climate Change, but differ on either policy positions and/or projections -- and are labeled BOTH "deniers" and "bad faith" actors?
Seems to me to be an unbalanced framing.
Salamano,
I know I said I'd leave, but I'll try to answer a question since it was asked
I don't particularly like labels, but I also don't particularly care. If someone feels their views are justified, then they shouldn't really care how others labelled them. If they do care, maybe they should consider that their views aren't justified.
However, here's what I sometimes see : people who claim to accept the basic science of AGW but then follow that with something like "but climate sensitivity will be low", or "I believe climate sensitivity will be low", or "I believe climate change will be beneficial". You don't get - in science - to pick which bit you like. Stating that you accept the science and then selecting a particular result means that you don't really accept that science. So, there are some who justify their policy position by selecting an aspect of the science that isn't actually representative of our best understanding. Whether or not that warrants being labelled in some way is not for me to decide, but - in my view - it doesn't mean (whatever they may say publicly) that they actually accept the science.
And then there's also this recent quote from Krugman's blog:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/on-reaganolatry/
The quote's context refers to a book written by Rick Perlstein, but he backs up the framing to a wide and general enough parameter (in my opinion) so as to wonder why the "anyone who raises questions" can't include contrarians on the side of catastrophic Global Warming ... Or why the "contortion" to "support the party line" and the corresponding impact on "open-mindedness" can't apply to a few folks within the IPCC consensus..?
Hmm....
The hockey stick shaft was a big mistake. It created the illusion that climate was stable before man introduced CO2. We will see the results of belief in that illusion.
==================
Kudos for Anders for being willing to post here - particularly in light of the fact that he doesn't receive the warmest of receptions. (And HSI is definitely worth a read!)
ATTP hardly reads anything. His trademark is "I haven't read the paper, and I don't know anything about the subject, but I saw this article in the Guardian and I think I agree with it".
See his latest post, about how he agrees with Pielke's critics though he hasn't read the relevant paper.
Paul,
Yes, I know I acknowledge my failings too much for your liking (I haven't written about anything in the Guardian that I can remember and your interpretation of my post isn't quite right, but - hey - at least you appear to be reading it). Anyway, this isn't mean to be about me.
I thought you said you were giving up?
Yet another lie from catastrophiliacs.
Mailman
Mailman,
I actually said that I'd be more than happy to, rather than actually promising to. Your comment, however, is a fine illustration of why I probably should have.
Belief in an illusion is a mistake, Anders.
=============================
ATTP...
Thank you for your response. Since you are leaving, I will also leave this particular conversation with this:
It is clear to me, in economics and in climate science, that there are not stoned-in conclusions about some aspects of the discipline. This gets particularly true when it comes to taking present data and making declarations about future expectations. Now, this does not therefore mandate, require, or justify rejecting a specific policy preference or future projection-- but, it does require the permission for intellectual space for the disagreement.
In my specific example regarding debt/entitlement balance sheets and future projections, Krugman himself is specifically arguing uncertainty with various multipliers (and therefore future impacts) with regards to the levers with which entitlement spending will impact our future economy given the debt, inflation, and GDP growth. Ergo, in my opinion, though he certainly accepts the basic science, he does not accept all nuance conclusions. Within his field, he is permitted intellectual space for his arguments, and they have a seat at the table when it comes to future policy.
When it comes to climate science and corresponding policy, it is my opinion that you would be remiss to include specific climate tenants as 'basic' to the science. For example, that the specific climate sensitivity to carbon is not set in stone, and is a matter of debate. The IPCC report (and changes from previous version) is evidence to which I would point. Now, this would not, by itself, justify rejecting out-of-hand specific numbers within the range, but it should permit intellectual space and a seat at the policy table for those who have scientifically arrived at other numbers within the range using acceptable methodologies. [as a side note, it probably doesn't matter anyway, because we're still probably well more than doubling CO2 in the atmosphere anyway by 2100, so anything within the range is a big deal if fully meted out in terms of surface temperature]. The same can be said on what, specifically, the trends will be on hurricanes and tornadoes in our globally warming climate. Though the IPCC (SREX) has appropriately become more demure on these points, there are many vocal, highly-placed, climate scientists who are not-- and who denigrate folks who hold more moderate assessments on these topics (using those labels you don't like). To continue in this regard is to have them on record inescapably as un-able to retreat should they be declared 'wrong' (militantly so given their behavior) if the real uncertainty doesn't swing their way when the observations come in.
This kind of thing may already happen now when it comes to scientists militantly suppressing others' views that projected temperature trends will not be as severe as projected, yet now acting like they all along have been open to asking questions and developing a better understanding/explanation as to why they haven't.
Anyway, my summation is that given your own statements, in my opinion that Krugman is accepting the basic science of economics, and debating the margins of current understanding when it comes to debt/entitlements, specific modifiers and multipliers, etc. -- and being given intellectual space within his field for this diversity and a seat at the policy table for his views. ... It raises questions in my mind as to why various climate scientists are not given the same treatment, and furthermore why Krugman blindly has no problem piling on those same folks. Perhaps it's only natural for us to presume that the science leading to our preferred policy outcomes is much more rigid and full, and alternative policy options are shakier.
Unfortunately, it appears fervor for certain specific action seems to justify biting off more than can be chewed scientifically... because the risks are too great, there's no time to waste, etc. etc. Here's to hoping that one day 'cold water' on fervent policy positions will be at least permissible (not automatically accepted nor always correct) in Climate Science as they are in Economics.
Paul Krugman, honestly taking his advice and guidance in his chosen field is akin to soliciting economic advice from Ed Balls, asking Krugman for his considered opinion on matters related to Climate science, is like seeking instruction on advanced mathematics from the household cat.
Stop teasing Anders! It's terribly unfair on us normal people!!! :)
Regards
Mailman
Mailman, I apologise. It is terribly unfair to suggest that an experienced scientist at a top university should read a paper before commenting on it.
I managed to wait to log in in order to post on this thread. Slightly off-topic but .
I notice that several commenters appreciate AndPhysics' willingness to comment here. I appreciate it too. It must be pointed out it is less likely others can earn such similar appreciation at his blog.
The (New York) Times is, of course, actively censoring comments on Krugman's propaganda piece.
Thus, my recommendation of "The Hockey Stick Illusion" has been removed.
Paul,
Do you actually know it to be true that he's an experienced scientist at a top university? I've always assumed that to be some kind of mickey take.
It always amuses me when people use the term 'hard-working'. Usually indicates mediocrity (at best) on the part of both the writer and his subject. See http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/08/environmentalism-mediocrity.html for further enlightenment.
It's actually pretty amazing. Look back at the thingumbydoodle noodle thread and see what Anders fails to understand. Yet here he stands, still failing to understand and trying to justify why he refuses to understand.
Sorry, that's masochism.
=================
If Anders is an experienced scientist at a top university it only confirms what we suspected all along - climate science is studiously avoided by the brightest and best minds of the era.
ATTP “I thought I had publicly acknowledged that it had an error, or do you mean something else?”
Yes, one person acknowledging an error on the internet isn’t exactly admitting it was wrong. I already wrote that it wasn’t the mistake that was the true issue, it was how it was handled, up to and beyond Climategate investigations and Hide the Decline. The Hockey Stick is not dead it has merely been replaced (and even then it keeps resurfacing in the old format). I know that the scientific process so far has involved issuing new papers and letting the old ones sink into obscurity but for something as important as climate change that’s not good enough. The public need to know what is true today and not have to work out if what was supposed to be true yesterday has been quietly retired.
As for trustworthiness, the sceptics are telling the public “Wait for more data. Spending loads of money on ineffective equipment and hardship may not be necessary.” The warmists are saying “We can’t afford to wait, just give us your money and consider yourself lucky, peasant.” Which side needs to be trusted to persuade the undecided?
ATTP:
Some of the problems with the Hockey Stick could have been honest mistakes, like the "short centering" issue (taking the variance of a set about the mean of a subset). Although I should note that this error was pointed out over a decade ago, and he has yet to admit it was a mistake.
But with other problems, it is virtually impossible to come to the conclusion that these were honest mistakes. In the original paper, he cites a reasonably high "verification R2"" for one period of the reconstruction. But for the older periods where the reconstruction supposedly broke new ground, he did not report them. It turns out that the verification R2 for these periods is for all intents and purposes equal to 0, a complete verification failure. When asked about this by an NAS committee, he denied calculating this statistic, even though he cites it in the paper, and his (grudgingly released) code shows that it was calculated.
In some fields, like Wall Street offerings and pharmaceutical testing, this type of shenanigans would be go-to-jail malfeasance. At any rate, it has led people to wonder what else is hiding in his code and data. Hence the requests for this information (which was paid for by the taxpayers).
There's something a little odd about someone coming on a blog and stating that he won't read one of the host's pertinent works.
I can't see anything beyond a higher level of trollery.
I wouldn't waste my time reading Mann's book on his trials at the ramparts, but neither would I bother with his blog, if he has one.
So what was ATTP doing here?
Jferguson - I'd expect new levels of dishonesty to be reached soon.
If there you are looking for an analogy to homeopathy , consider the disproportionate focus of the critique of climate science Bishop Hill and Climate Audit articulate.
To fixate on one paper in two decades ,at the expense of the tens of thousands of others pubished by literally hundreds of journals touching on climate science brings the praxis of the contrarian enterprise into the same regime of intellectual dilution in which homeopaths practice their art, for many of their nostrums would prove fatal if administered at concentrations as high as 400ppm.
jferguson,
I thought I was engaging in a discussion about the topic of this post with some people. Wasn't that obvious? Actually, if I ever mention someone in a post I write, I always allow them to comment. I assumed that was a reasonable expectation. Of course, I don't think it should be mandatory. This is the blogosphere and so if I'm not welcome somewhere, that's absolutely fine. I can always comment elsewhere, or write my own post if I wish.
Omnologos,
If you're honest you might be willing to acknowledge that what you really mean is "I expect to have judged someone to have reached a new level of dishonesty". It's not quite the same as you said, but I knew what you meant.
Regarding how of date the MBH papers are…I'd have to say whether the papers are current irrelevant.
MBH98 and MBH99 are in the published peer-reviewed literature, the evidence provided by these papers has been considered a centerpiece of the evidence for "recent unprecedented warming" and they haven't been withdrawn. As such, these papers are as valid a target as any others, and because of their prominence (Google Scholar lists MBH98 as having 1705 citations for example), substantially more than most.
I agree we wouldn't expect to learn much from from MBH papers in terms of conclusions about historical climate, but examination of the methods used is relevant, even if only as a cautionary note for things to avoid: for example uncentered PCA, incorrect validation methodology, etc..
It's curious that Anders goes out of his way to say he doesn't intend to become informed enough to have a meaningful opinion, all the way seeming to want to share his opinion of MBH's critics with the world.
Wotts up with that? :-P
The irrelevant paper of eons ago still inspires your monday evening commenting activity, the almost as old response to it is still a matter of great concern to your good self, and an understanding of the current level of hs related knowledge doesn't interest you. Destination 50S 179E.
Carrick,
A good indication of a discussion that is unlikely to be constructive is when people start putting words in other people's mouths.
Krugman is ideally qualified to comment on climate science. He's an economist which is another branch of the science of making stuff up and claiming mathematical models provide 'evidence'.
Anders, you said:
Since you do comment when the critics speak, you obviously do care enough to criticize the critics, but you don't care enough to understand what their arguments are.
What are we left to infer from this?
Carrick,
That's not the only source of information. What do I infer from your apparent assumption that my goal in choosing not to read that was to be uninformed?
Look, it's getting late. I've probably over-stayed my welcome here anyway (and this is becoming about me again). I have no great desire to trade insults or play "but you said". If you want to make negative judgements about what I say, that's fine with me. I doubt much I can say would change your mind. I'm not particularly interested in such discussions, though.