Catoni wrote:
On Apr 25, 3:13 pm, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"Eric wrote in message

...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results have
been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...the-reconstruc...

Peer Review ... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

From: Phil
To: "Michael E.
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

"...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is !"
Cheers
Phil


that is because you could never qualify for peer review. pick a subject
ANY subject. math, physics, chemistry, astronomy, each and everyone of
them has a list of general practitioners that have the experience and
knowledge to examine your assertion in detail. they will laugh so hard
they will fall down. you dont have any assertions all you have are LIES
and opinions. EVERYBODY SMART LIES. that is your claim and the fact
is only denier lie, who are street people and never finished high school
much less college. if you studied some subject like astronomy, or
specialized in celestial mechanics. you would be laughed out of the room.

josephus

--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

Green Turtle wrote:
"Cwatters" wrote in
message o.uk...

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results
have been peer reviewed.


You mean a different science experiment with different methodology and
different data, and you're producing a graph?
Sorry, that's not what we're talking about all here.

At the end of the day until the science community comes clean and
corrects that hockey stick, and states that the data and methodology is
used was extremely poor, incorrect, and there as was no reason to hide
the decline as they did then the science community is clearly NOT
interested in correcting scientific work and the truth at all.

To come here and whitewash this and say that you have a different
science experiment you have different data, and a different methodology
to produce some graph that's a different graph is a DIFFERENT issue.
That's not all remotely close to the issue of integrity and scientific
honesty that we're talking about here at all.

When we speak of hockey stick graph we are specifically speaking about
how that ring green data was used, how at a certain point in time they
DID NOT like how the data went so they went and used some other
instrument of data and thus the famous "hide the decline trick".

Simply put it's dishonest and it's absolutely 100% intellectual honesty
here for you to come along and try and do a bait and switch with some
different experiment and different data. That graph was used by
governments around the world, and it was incorrect and based on
extremely dubious scientific procedures.

Fraudulent and dishonest methodology needs to be corrected by the
scientific community ever we are EVER going to have any respect and
return to honesty in this whole process.

Why's that people like the Christian Lord Monckton had to correct the
30+ errors in Al Gore's movie? I don't see anybody in the scientific
community speaking out and correcting the issues in Al Gore's movie. Why
is that? You mean the science community is so terrible and so poor and
their education is so rotten that they're unwilling to correct a bunch
of errors in Al Gore's movie? If the scientific community is that
terrible at their science, then I'm not very interested in a them.

If the scientific community is not going to speak out against all the
many errors in Al Gore's movie, or the horrible science in that hockey
stick, then it's clear they're not interested in science at all.

If the scientific community is not going to engage in correcting
anything they say in the past, then why should I believe anything they
say in the future then?

Are you really standing here and telling me that they have no desire for
honesty and ZERO desire to correct any of their mistakes? Then why
should I listen to them because they are publicly demonstrating they
don't care about the truth anymore.

Climate gate, glacier date, Himalaya gate, the list of crap goes on and
on and on. There's simply buckets of dishonesty and buckets of errors,
but was even worse is a scientific community that is not banding
together to correct these errors.

The fact that you're coming here and telling you that you have some
DIFFERENT experiment and DIFFERENT data and some DIFFERENT methodology
that none of us have looked at yet is not the issue. Bait and switch and
switching the Mats on the floor of a used car like the salesman Al Gore
is not what we're looking for here.

The issue here is that hockey stick graph was fraudulent and was
extremely poor science. Until the scientific community and people like
you say so, then you clearly don't give a damn about the truth and
integrity that is required for good science.

Super Turtle

it breaks the denier heart that IPCC was exhonerated by 3 unfriendly
groups. so the LIE is that it was a whitewash. the fact that deniers
could not press a suit with their emails. and the programs and proxies
donot support the denier claims. There is no funny business in the
programs, the denier webpage woodfortrees shows that the proxy is
out of phase with the temperature data. that means it is not applicable.

josephus

--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

This one is interesting because this is not a climate blog, and for the comments.
Alarmist Nathen Myers claims Montford is simply lying (like most alt.g-w trolls).
Note how the skeptics refute this and are the only believable commenters.

http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2010...tick-illusion/ [this article]
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2010...phen-mcintyre/ [related]

The Hockey Stick Illusion
Recently a WSJ columnist told this story:

I was chatting with a friend who, over the years, has helped her kids slog through the obligatory
science-fair projects.

"The experiments never turned out the way they were supposed to, and so we were always having to
fudge the results so that the projects wouldn't be screwy. I always felt guilty about that
dishonesty," she said, "but now I feel like we were doing real science."

Yes, science with a human touch. The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford (sent to me by the
publisher) is a great book because it tells a great story. That story has a hero (Stephen
McIntryre) and a villain (Michael Mann) and illustrates a basic truth about the world: A consensus
of the "best people" can be wrong. This point was first made, as far as I know, by The Emperor's
New Clothes. It was later made by the Asch experiment (about line-length judgments). It's not
obvious; Elizabeth Kolbert and her editors at The New Yorker, not to mention Bill McKibben, have
yet to understand it. ("No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists
at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax,"
Kolbert recently wrote, with the permission of her editors.) It's a sad comment on our education
system that I first learned it via self-experimentation. My results showed that an acne medicine
that my dermatologist prescribed didn't work - a possibility for which my dermatologist (in
consensus with other dermatologists) hadn't allowed. As truths go, this one is scary: It means you
have to think for yourself. But it is also the most liberating truth I know.

The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's hockey-stick result (a sharp
increase in global temperature to unprecedented levels during the 20th century), tried to get the
data and computer code that Mann used. Mann put him off. He still hasn't released the computer code
he used. Mann found a hockey stick where none existed because (a) he used principal-components
analysis to summarize a lot of temperature series (bad idea), (b) he used that method in an unusual
way, making a bad idea worse, and (c) one of his time series had a serious problem. After McIntyre
noticed this problem and pointed it out, the story really begins: How did everyone react? Much as a
reader of The Emperor's New Clothes would expect. Nature denied it. The Washington Post denied it.
Most climate scientists denied it (and continue to). Montford started writing the book before
Climategate, whose overall message was the same - that climate scientists have been distorting the
truth, that the case for man-made global warming is far weaker than they say, that a consensus of
experts can be wrong. As Montford puts it,

None of the corruption and bias and flouting of rules we have seen in this story [and in the
Climategate emails] would have been necessary if there is, as we are led to believe, a watertight
case that mankind is having a potentially catastrophic effect on the climate.

Climategate and the story within The Hockey Stick Illusion are bad news for some very powerful
people, such as Al Gore and those who gave him a Nobel Prize, but are helpful to the rest of us.
When Big Shot X says "This is incredibly clear, everyone knows this" . . . maybe they're wrong.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results have
been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...struction.html

On Apr 25, 3:13*pm, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message

...
* The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results have
been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...the-reconstruc...

Peer Review ... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

"...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is !"
Cheers
Phil

On Apr 25, 3:13*pm, "Cwatters"
wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message

...
* The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results have
been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...the-reconstruc...

Peer Review:

"Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, peer reviewing
is rarely an entirely disinterested process. All too often the system
of peer review is infused with vested interests. As many of my
colleagues in academia know, peer reviewing is frequently carried out
through a kind of mates’ club, between friends and acquaintances, and
all too often the question of who gets published and who gets rejected
is determined by who you know and where you stand in a particular
academic debate."
"The experience of the past few months indicates that there are at
least three different ways that the system of peer review can be
undermined.

First, there is the genuine mistake. One example of this was the
failure of the Lancet’s refereeing process to spot the flaws in the
study associating the MMR vaccine with autism and bowel disease. Now
that the Lancet has retracted this flawed study, questions need to be
asked as to whether in this instance the desire to gain publicity for
the Lancet influenced the decision to rush into print.

Second, there is the damaging influence of nepotism and professional
jealousy. Academics and researchers are all too conscious of how their
prestige and career opportunities can be enhanced by getting their
work published in a major journal. Sometimes, reviewers regard the
research they are refereeing as the work of a competitor and adopt the
tactic of either delaying or preventing its publication. This is the
accusation made by 14 stem cell researchers in a letter to several
major journals in their field. The researchers claim that the peer-
review process was corrupted by reviewers who deliberately stalled,
and even prevented, the publication of new results so that they or
their associates could publish the breakthrough first. They also
accused the journals of not doing enough to prevent this stalling from
taking place.

The third, and in recent years the most disturbing, threat to the
integrity of the peer-review system has been the growing influence of
advocacy science. In numerous areas, most notably in climate science,
research has become a cause and is increasingly both politicised and
moralised. Consequently, in climate research, peer review is sometimes
looked upon as a moral project, where decisions are influenced not
simply by science but by a higher cause. The scandal surrounding
‘Climategate’ is as much about the abuse of the system of peer review
as it is about the rights and wrongs of the various claims made by
advocacy researchers in and around the IPCC and the UEA."

Tuesday 23 February 2010
Frank Furedi
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/8227/

"Cwatters" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results
have been peer reviewed.


You mean a different science experiment with different methodology and
different data, and you're producing a graph?
Sorry, that's not what we're talking about all here.

At the end of the day until the science community comes clean and corrects
that hockey stick, and states that the data and methodology is used was
extremely poor, incorrect, and there as was no reason to hide the decline as
they did then the science community is clearly NOT interested in correcting
scientific work and the truth at all.

To come here and whitewash this and say that you have a different science
experiment you have different data, and a different methodology to produce
some graph that's a different graph is a DIFFERENT issue. That's not all
remotely close to the issue of integrity and scientific honesty that we're
talking about here at all.

When we speak of hockey stick graph we are specifically speaking about how
that ring green data was used, how at a certain point in time they DID NOT
like how the data went so they went and used some other instrument of data
and thus the famous "hide the decline trick".

Simply put it's dishonest and it's absolutely 100% intellectual honesty here
for you to come along and try and do a bait and switch with some different
experiment and different data. That graph was used by governments around
the world, and it was incorrect and based on extremely dubious scientific
procedures.

Fraudulent and dishonest methodology needs to be corrected by the scientific
community ever we are EVER going to have any respect and return to honesty
in this whole process.

Why's that people like the Christian Lord Monckton had to correct the 30+
errors in Al Gore's movie? I don't see anybody in the scientific community
speaking out and correcting the issues in Al Gore's movie. Why is that? You
mean the science community is so terrible and so poor and their education is
so rotten that they're unwilling to correct a bunch of errors in Al Gore's
movie? If the scientific community is that terrible at their science, then
I'm not very interested in a them.

If the scientific community is not going to speak out against all the many
errors in Al Gore's movie, or the horrible science in that hockey stick,
then it's clear they're not interested in science at all.

If the scientific community is not going to engage in correcting anything
they say in the past, then why should I believe anything they say in the
future then?

Are you really standing here and telling me that they have no desire for
honesty and ZERO desire to correct any of their mistakes? Then why should I
listen to them because they are publicly demonstrating they don't care about
the truth anymore.

Climate gate, glacier date, Himalaya gate, the list of crap goes on and on
and on. There's simply buckets of dishonesty and buckets of errors, but was
even worse is a scientific community that is not banding together to correct
these errors.

The fact that you're coming here and telling you that you have some
DIFFERENT experiment and DIFFERENT data and some DIFFERENT methodology that
none of us have looked at yet is not the issue. Bait and switch and
switching the Mats on the floor of a used car like the salesman Al Gore is
not what we're looking for here.

The issue here is that hockey stick graph was fraudulent and was extremely
poor science. Until the scientific community and people like you say so,
then you clearly don't give a damn about the truth and integrity that is
required for good science.

Super Turtle

On 26 Apr, 02:02, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Cwatters" wrote in message

o.uk...



"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results
have been peer reviewed.

You mean a different science experiment with different methodology and
different data, and you're producing a graph?
Sorry, that's not what we're talking about all here.

At the end of the day until the science community comes clean and corrects
that hockey stick, and states that the data and methodology is used was
extremely poor, incorrect, and there as was no reason to hide the decline as
they did then the science community is clearly NOT interested in correcting
scientific work and the truth at all.

To come here and whitewash this and say that you have a different science
experiment you have different data, and a different methodology to produce
some graph that's a different graph is a DIFFERENT issue. That's not all
remotely close to the issue of integrity and scientific honesty that we're
talking about here at all.

When we speak of hockey stick graph we are specifically speaking about how
that ring green data was used, how at a certain point in time they DID NOT
like how the data went so they went and used some other instrument of data
and thus the famous "hide the decline trick".

Simply put it's dishonest and it's absolutely 100% intellectual honesty here
for you to come along and try and do a bait and switch with some different
experiment and different data. *That graph was used by governments around
the world, and it was incorrect and based on extremely dubious scientific
procedures.

Fraudulent and dishonest methodology needs to be corrected by the scientific
community ever we are EVER going to have any respect and return to honesty
in this whole process.

Why's that people like the Christian Lord Monckton had to correct the 30+
errors in Al Gore's movie? I don't see anybody in the scientific community
speaking out and correcting the issues in Al Gore's movie. Why is that? *You
mean the science community is so terrible and so poor and their education is
so rotten that they're unwilling to correct a bunch of errors in Al Gore's
movie? *If the scientific community is that terrible at their science, then
I'm not very interested in a them.

If the scientific community is not going to speak out against all the many
errors in *Al Gore's movie, or the horrible science in that hockey stick,
then it's clear they're not interested in science at all.

If the scientific community is not going to engage in correcting anything
they say in the past, then why should I believe anything they say in the
future then?

Are you really standing here and telling me that they have no desire for
honesty and ZERO desire to correct any of their mistakes? Then why should I
listen to them because they are publicly demonstrating they don't care about
the truth anymore.

Climate gate, glacier date, Himalaya gate, the list of crap goes on and on
and on. *There's simply buckets of dishonesty and buckets of errors, but was
even worse is a scientific community that is not banding together to correct
these errors.

The fact that you're coming here and telling you that you have some
DIFFERENT experiment and DIFFERENT data and some DIFFERENT methodology that
none of us have looked at yet is not the issue. *Bait and switch and
switching the Mats on the floor of a used car like the salesman Al Gore is
not what we're looking for here.

The issue here is that hockey stick graph was fraudulent and was extremely
poor science. Until the scientific community and people like you say so,
then you clearly don't give a damn about the truth and integrity that is
required for good science.

Super Turtle

Well said.

Cwatters wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results have
been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...struction.html



It's refreshing to see a piece of skeptical science here in this NG that
is actually based on a logical analysis of the statistical methodology
rather than polemic.
However, the message from IowaHawk's analysis seems to be that the
reconstruction of the MWP and LIA temperatures from proxy data lacks
robustness. The robust data that we have is the actual instrumental
temperature data.
In other words, IowaHawk's analysis questions the validity of the MWP
and LIA temperature derivations. The temperature rise since the mid 19th
century remains undisputed.

T.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:19:37 +0200, Tom P wrote:

Cwatters wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
The Hockey Stick Illusion tells how McIntyre, skeptical of Mann's
hockey-stick result

Boring. Many others have redone the hockey stick graph and the results
have been peer reviewed.

You can even make your own hockey stick graph. Instructions here..

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...fables-of-the-
reconstruction.html



It's refreshing to see a piece of skeptical science here in this NG that
is actually based on a logical analysis of the statistical methodology
rather than polemic.
However, the message from IowaHawk's analysis seems to be that the
reconstruction of the MWP and LIA temperatures from proxy data lacks
robustness. The robust data that we have is the actual instrumental
temperature data.
In other words, IowaHawk's analysis questions the validity of the MWP
and LIA temperature derivations. The temperature rise since the mid 19th
century remains undisputed.

The issue is whether CO2 caused any temperature increase, not how much
the instrumental data was corrupted.

And the hockey stick is trashed. The author linked to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis

"PCA involves the calculation of the eigenvalue decomposition of a data
covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of a data matrix,
usually after mean centering the data for each attribute."

That agrees with Wegman's observation. Not subtracting the mean is
basically rotating the coordinate system around the wrong point. Your
wheel may be round, but if you put the axle off-center, you'll get a
bumpy ride.

But the link is a welcome change of tactics. Now if you could only find
a link that explained AGW so clearly...

Thanks for the link. Does this represent a change of tactics, I hope?