It always makes me think of Donnie Darko: “Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?”
I’ve long said that Jerry Sandusky would have a better legal case for defamation, or at least a reason to be more outraged by the comparison. He is almost certainly is better with statistics, and if they had swapped jobs the Medieval Warm Period would’ve remained intact (maybe marked with X’s and O’s), while Mann would be in the locker room at half time pointing to a graph that showed zero points scored in their first nine games, but also predicting scoring 214 points in the second half, simply on the basis of having finally made a field goal in the last 17 seconds of the first half.
I, too, was going to suggest an apology to Jerry Sandusky. That would probably give your lawyers conniption fits. Mark Steyn, however, is free of such a constraint, and would probably have verbal fun with an apology to Sandusky. Can’t see him (or you) genuinely giving a tinker’s dam about Jerry Sandusky.
Mann claims that he was “exonerated” for “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented”
McIntyre thinks he refutes the exoneration of these claims, all of them amounting to claims of deliberate acts of illegal, unethical and/or dishonest behavior by Mann. So what evidence does McIntyre offer?
“Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.”
“Very disparaging” sounds like the exaggeration here, I would have thought “mildly critical” would be a better description, but the important point is that the comment by Hand could not be described by any reasonable person as an accusation of unethical and/or dishonest behavior by Mann as the deceitful McIntyre would have people believe.
I am a reasonable person. I would describe what Mann did with his statistics as unethical, incompetent, or dishonest. In his later work, the entire MWP appeared or disappeared based on adding or ignoring a single tree, one he quite carefully selected based on its affects on his quasi-statistical output (aka crap).
Given the reticence of anyone in the scientific community to confront Mann’s obvious incompetence, ego, and fraud, along with British scientific gentlemanly behavior, what was said against man was devastating and in polite company would be beyond the pale. He was basically called a liar, a cheat, and a low-class card-shark in very gentlemanly language, and quite accurately so.
Blessedly, the discovery phase of the trial, if continued, will dump all his e-mails and his dialogs with the other team members, and science can stand back in horror sooner rather than later, just like college sports would’ve preferred to have happened with Jerry Sandusky.
Then take a look at the full Russian data set that Briffa and Mann’s Yamal hockey stick was based on. They cited this very paper in your realClimate link. About half way down you’ll see their temperature reconstruction from 2002, which doesn’t remotely resemble a hockey stick. In fact, it shows a big booming Roman Warm Period, a huge Medieval Warm Period, and cool 20th century temperatures. Keep in mind that if the large Russian data set had shown a hockey stick, we’d be talking about the two Russians and not Mann or Briffa, because Mann and Briffa wouldn’t have had anything to add. That’s not what happened, though. They took a perfectly ordinary and accepted data set and turned it into something completely different – and frightening – and which they were purposefully looking to create for political and personal gain.
Try to reconcile the two wildly different shapes, which resemble each other about as much as a circle and a triangle. That’s why sites like realClimate pound out an inordinate number of posts making strained, ire-laden excuses without actually ever showing you the original data they claim to have used.
It’s like you’re in a cult where you will believe anything and everything the leaders tell you, no matter how laughably false their claims appear to everyone else. It’s like you’re putting your faith in a financial planner even after hearing that 60 Minutes, Nightline, CNN, and the SEC have investigated him half a dozen times for fraud and manipulation, and not getting a clue that maybe he’s not on the up and up because by gosh, he does such a good job of demonizing his detractors and threading together excuse #217 that his investors still have faith. How many times is the average scientist face a high-profile investigation for misconduct, fraud, and data manipulation? Zero. How many times is Mann up to now, six, seven?
About half way down you’ll see their temperature reconstruction from 2002, which doesn’t remotely resemble a hockey stick.
Are you referring to figure 8?
Oh, why not look at all the figures in the Russian paper? Look at the way they plot constant swings covering a range of about 4C, and that the end of the series isn’t higher than the average. Now ask yourself how a 0.5C rise in the late 20th century could swamp all those 4C past swings. Did Mann divide the old data by 20 (to reduce the swings to 0.2C) and then graft on the thermometer record, or what? How did he turn any of the shapes in the Russian paper into a hockey stick without gross manipulation, virtually multiplying through by zero and starting over?
And just as importantly, ask yourself why the only copy of the Russian paper that isn’t hidden behind a pay wall, if it’s so crucial to supporting Mann’s work, is found at Steve McIntyre’s site.
I still can’t find that graph with the “big booming Roman Warm Period, a huge Medieval Warm Period, and cool 20th century temperatures”, figure 8 just shows a flat temperature for the last 4000 years with the year on year variations you’d expect from a small geographical location.
All this points to you being misled about the importance of the Yamal data in the NH temperature reconstruction, a point made by the RealClimate link.
Now ask yourself how a 0.5C rise in the late 20th century could swamp all those 4C past swings. Did Mann divide the old data by 20 (to reduce the swings to 0.2C) and then graft on the thermometer record, or what? How did he turn any of the shapes in the Russian paper into a hockey stick without gross manipulation, virtually multiplying through by zero and starting over?
Who I’d ask is the NAS report, which didn’t find the problems you think exist, again this points to you being wrong about the importance of Yamal.
Sounds like you went through the post cherry-picking for quotes, and determined not to be convinced. McIntyre’s presentation was clear and convincing, though, and Mann comes off as the deceitful one, trying to pretend that _all_ the inquiries said there was _no truth at all to the accusations_, and that that was what was reported in the press (the reader probably doesn’t remember one way or another).
And, as usual, McIntyre gives you all the information you need to judge. All the full quotes, all the context, all the links.
And this is just the first post, about one inquiry. I presume there will be more on the some of the others. Mann always comes off as a politician instead of a scientist, trying to spin stuff, always presenting only his side, always polishing it, always pretending there’s nothing else, always saying what sounds best right now.
Two Pinocchios on this one.
If McIntyre testifies at the trial (if it goes to trial), I would think that he could go on for hours describing a decade of dealing with Mann’s duplicity, showing at every stage Climategate emails showing what Mann and his crew were actually doing. Rand and Steyn didn’t do any real harm to Mann’s reputation, but this trial sure would.
Well I’ve read it again to find whatever it was you think I’ve missed or ignored, I didn’t find any evidence, or even suggestions, that Mann was guilty of “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” or that his work wasn’t “properly conducted and fairly presented”(the latter I interpret as meaning that his work wasn’t done honestly).
Well, since I can’t find all these quotes in there that you think I’ve ignored, can you point them out to me?
“For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possible methods.”
Meaning that the original comments implied that the research group was intentionally misleading and/or exaggerated their findings. The new statement says that the research group was misleading and exaggerated their findings but that it wasn’t intentional. Mann spun this to mean that nothing was misleading or exaggerated.
Meaning that the original comments implied that the research group was intentionally misleading and/or exaggerated their findings.
I interpret that clarification as intended to quash claims (which is what Mann was worried about) that some with an agenda might try to argue that “intent” as the meaning of the original. Given McIntyre’s attempt in his blog post to spin Hand’s comment as meaning Mann was dishonest in his work, I’d say Mann was absolutely right to be worried.
The new statement says that the research group was misleading and exaggerated their findings but that it wasn’t intentional.
The chosen statistical methodology lead to “misleading and exaggerated” statistical conclusions, there’s been no suggestion that MBH were aware of the flaws before publication.
Certainly Mann should have been more open to the claims about possible flaws in the methodology.
My understanding is that Mann accepted the NAS report and recognized the faults in MBH’99 it pointed out.
Mann spun this to mean that nothing was misleading or exaggerated.
I don’t see evidence for that, only that any errors were not intentional and shouldn’t be claimed as intentional, which is what a claim of “fraud” etc is.
Does Mann admit that there were flaws in the methodology that led to the hockey stick? I thought Mann and his disciples were still holding the hockey stick up as valid and beyond question.
The linked blog makes it appear as if Mann was concerned about quashing any debate about methodology errors intentional or otherwise. And that by saying that any errors were unintentional there were no errors.
It doesn’t make much sense but Mann does things like this. Like when he said that lowering the floor for temperature predictions to be more in line with observations actually strengthened the predictive value of the models. Utter nonsense and rather dishonest.
Not really following what’s bothering you. You seem to be reading that whole list as having to do with dishonesty. McIntyre made it clear that he isn’t reading it that way; he is attacking the ones that have to do with having done a competent job with the statistics.
That is certainly the impression I got from Mann’s words: he was claiming that many inquiries found that _that all criticisms of his work were unfounded_.
I’m not sure what this means: “McIntyre made it clear that he isn’t reading it that way; he is attacking the ones that have to do with having done a competent job with the statistics.”
Mann is only claiming that he was exonerated of (to repeat the list again): “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data”
Correct, and unlike your reading, some of those have to do with gross abuse of statistics. Not once, but for years, long after competent statisticians had pointed out the error. After Tamino changed his mind, I don’t know of a real statistician who said that these methods were acceptable – do you? At some point, Mann stopped using those methods but to this day I don’t think he has ever once admitted that McIntyre was right all along.
You don’t think that that is enough reason for someone to think him a “fraud”? A fool who publicly claims great expertise, heaps scorn on his opponents, never admits error, and really is way out of his league and always was? He wrote a _whole book_ doing this, preaching to the choir who never heard the other side and never will.
I really don’t feel that “fraud” has to refer to a snake-oil salesman who knows all along that his product is worthless and doesn’t care.
Regardless, I don’t quite see the point of your complaints. McIntyre (and I) have a certain impression of what Mann was claiming. You have a different impression of what his words mean. But McIntyre says what he’s claiming, brings references to what both sides said, and you can make up your own mind whether that contradicts Mann’s claim. Nothing here is deceptive.
By the way, anyone can post on climateaudit, he hardly ever censors, and I think your question is reasonable. “Which part of Mann’s claim exactly do you think you’ve refuted? Does your story show that Mann was still accused of ____(add your list) or just that he used a poor method?” Don’t be shy!
” I would have thought “mildly critical” would be a better description”
That could be but look at how Mann responded to the mild criticism. He pressured Hand to make a retraction. Why bother if it is just mild criticism? According to the account linked, Mann certainly didn’t think it was mild criticism. And when Hand did amend his prior comments, he still maintained that the methodology was flawed but that it wasn’t intentional. Mann twisted that to say he was exonerated but the criticism remains that his methods were flawed. Mann does not acknowledge this, which is dishonest.
Heck, Mann claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner in the initial filing. That’s not quite honest either. If anything his own hockey stick graph has brought more discredit to the IPCC than any other single thing, aside perhaps from all the other BS in the IPCC claims, like the one about the melting Himalayan glaciers.
And yet the arctic is still melting
“And yet the arctic is still melting”
Ya every summer…
AGW Alarmists predicted there would be no ice in 2012 and yet there still is. Failed predictions should throw up some red flags.
Arctic ice has been stable for the past ten years while antarctic ice is at a 35 year high.
Meh – I never understood this particular point. I think the downward trend line on Arctic ice is pretty obvious. One year of upward variation doesn’t change that.
“He’s making a Mann suit—out of real Menn!”
Sorry.
It always makes me think of Donnie Darko: “Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?”
I’ve long said that Jerry Sandusky would have a better legal case for defamation, or at least a reason to be more outraged by the comparison. He is almost certainly is better with statistics, and if they had swapped jobs the Medieval Warm Period would’ve remained intact (maybe marked with X’s and O’s), while Mann would be in the locker room at half time pointing to a graph that showed zero points scored in their first nine games, but also predicting scoring 214 points in the second half, simply on the basis of having finally made a field goal in the last 17 seconds of the first half.
I, too, was going to suggest an apology to Jerry Sandusky. That would probably give your lawyers conniption fits. Mark Steyn, however, is free of such a constraint, and would probably have verbal fun with an apology to Sandusky. Can’t see him (or you) genuinely giving a tinker’s dam about Jerry Sandusky.
Mann claims that he was “exonerated” for “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented”
McIntyre thinks he refutes the exoneration of these claims, all of them amounting to claims of deliberate acts of illegal, unethical and/or dishonest behavior by Mann. So what evidence does McIntyre offer?
“Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.”
“Very disparaging” sounds like the exaggeration here, I would have thought “mildly critical” would be a better description, but the important point is that the comment by Hand could not be described by any reasonable person as an accusation of unethical and/or dishonest behavior by Mann as the deceitful McIntyre would have people believe.
I am a reasonable person. I would describe what Mann did with his statistics as unethical, incompetent, or dishonest. In his later work, the entire MWP appeared or disappeared based on adding or ignoring a single tree, one he quite carefully selected based on its affects on his quasi-statistical output (aka crap).
Given the reticence of anyone in the scientific community to confront Mann’s obvious incompetence, ego, and fraud, along with British scientific gentlemanly behavior, what was said against man was devastating and in polite company would be beyond the pale. He was basically called a liar, a cheat, and a low-class card-shark in very gentlemanly language, and quite accurately so.
Blessedly, the discovery phase of the trial, if continued, will dump all his e-mails and his dialogs with the other team members, and science can stand back in horror sooner rather than later, just like college sports would’ve preferred to have happened with Jerry Sandusky.
I am a reasonable person.
Just how certain are you of that?
In his later work, the entire MWP appeared or disappeared based on adding or ignoring a single tree,
Nonsense.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
Then take a look at the full Russian data set that Briffa and Mann’s Yamal hockey stick was based on. They cited this very paper in your realClimate link. About half way down you’ll see their temperature reconstruction from 2002, which doesn’t remotely resemble a hockey stick. In fact, it shows a big booming Roman Warm Period, a huge Medieval Warm Period, and cool 20th century temperatures. Keep in mind that if the large Russian data set had shown a hockey stick, we’d be talking about the two Russians and not Mann or Briffa, because Mann and Briffa wouldn’t have had anything to add. That’s not what happened, though. They took a perfectly ordinary and accepted data set and turned it into something completely different – and frightening – and which they were purposefully looking to create for political and personal gain.
Try to reconcile the two wildly different shapes, which resemble each other about as much as a circle and a triangle. That’s why sites like realClimate pound out an inordinate number of posts making strained, ire-laden excuses without actually ever showing you the original data they claim to have used.
It’s like you’re in a cult where you will believe anything and everything the leaders tell you, no matter how laughably false their claims appear to everyone else. It’s like you’re putting your faith in a financial planner even after hearing that 60 Minutes, Nightline, CNN, and the SEC have investigated him half a dozen times for fraud and manipulation, and not getting a clue that maybe he’s not on the up and up because by gosh, he does such a good job of demonizing his detractors and threading together excuse #217 that his investors still have faith. How many times is the average scientist face a high-profile investigation for misconduct, fraud, and data manipulation? Zero. How many times is Mann up to now, six, seven?
About half way down you’ll see their temperature reconstruction from 2002, which doesn’t remotely resemble a hockey stick.
Are you referring to figure 8?
Oh, why not look at all the figures in the Russian paper? Look at the way they plot constant swings covering a range of about 4C, and that the end of the series isn’t higher than the average. Now ask yourself how a 0.5C rise in the late 20th century could swamp all those 4C past swings. Did Mann divide the old data by 20 (to reduce the swings to 0.2C) and then graft on the thermometer record, or what? How did he turn any of the shapes in the Russian paper into a hockey stick without gross manipulation, virtually multiplying through by zero and starting over?
And just as importantly, ask yourself why the only copy of the Russian paper that isn’t hidden behind a pay wall, if it’s so crucial to supporting Mann’s work, is found at Steve McIntyre’s site.
I still can’t find that graph with the “big booming Roman Warm Period, a huge Medieval Warm Period, and cool 20th century temperatures”, figure 8 just shows a flat temperature for the last 4000 years with the year on year variations you’d expect from a small geographical location.
All this points to you being misled about the importance of the Yamal data in the NH temperature reconstruction, a point made by the RealClimate link.
Now ask yourself how a 0.5C rise in the late 20th century could swamp all those 4C past swings. Did Mann divide the old data by 20 (to reduce the swings to 0.2C) and then graft on the thermometer record, or what? How did he turn any of the shapes in the Russian paper into a hockey stick without gross manipulation, virtually multiplying through by zero and starting over?
Who I’d ask is the NAS report, which didn’t find the problems you think exist, again this points to you being wrong about the importance of Yamal.
Sounds like you went through the post cherry-picking for quotes, and determined not to be convinced. McIntyre’s presentation was clear and convincing, though, and Mann comes off as the deceitful one, trying to pretend that _all_ the inquiries said there was _no truth at all to the accusations_, and that that was what was reported in the press (the reader probably doesn’t remember one way or another).
And, as usual, McIntyre gives you all the information you need to judge. All the full quotes, all the context, all the links.
And this is just the first post, about one inquiry. I presume there will be more on the some of the others. Mann always comes off as a politician instead of a scientist, trying to spin stuff, always presenting only his side, always polishing it, always pretending there’s nothing else, always saying what sounds best right now.
Two Pinocchios on this one.
If McIntyre testifies at the trial (if it goes to trial), I would think that he could go on for hours describing a decade of dealing with Mann’s duplicity, showing at every stage Climategate emails showing what Mann and his crew were actually doing. Rand and Steyn didn’t do any real harm to Mann’s reputation, but this trial sure would.
Well I’ve read it again to find whatever it was you think I’ve missed or ignored, I didn’t find any evidence, or even suggestions, that Mann was guilty of “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” or that his work wasn’t “properly conducted and fairly presented”(the latter I interpret as meaning that his work wasn’t done honestly).
Well, since I can’t find all these quotes in there that you think I’ve ignored, can you point them out to me?
“For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possible methods.”
Meaning that the original comments implied that the research group was intentionally misleading and/or exaggerated their findings. The new statement says that the research group was misleading and exaggerated their findings but that it wasn’t intentional. Mann spun this to mean that nothing was misleading or exaggerated.
Meaning that the original comments implied that the research group was intentionally misleading and/or exaggerated their findings.
I interpret that clarification as intended to quash claims (which is what Mann was worried about) that some with an agenda might try to argue that “intent” as the meaning of the original. Given McIntyre’s attempt in his blog post to spin Hand’s comment as meaning Mann was dishonest in his work, I’d say Mann was absolutely right to be worried.
The new statement says that the research group was misleading and exaggerated their findings but that it wasn’t intentional.
The chosen statistical methodology lead to “misleading and exaggerated” statistical conclusions, there’s been no suggestion that MBH were aware of the flaws before publication.
Certainly Mann should have been more open to the claims about possible flaws in the methodology.
My understanding is that Mann accepted the NAS report and recognized the faults in MBH’99 it pointed out.
Mann spun this to mean that nothing was misleading or exaggerated.
I don’t see evidence for that, only that any errors were not intentional and shouldn’t be claimed as intentional, which is what a claim of “fraud” etc is.
Does Mann admit that there were flaws in the methodology that led to the hockey stick? I thought Mann and his disciples were still holding the hockey stick up as valid and beyond question.
The linked blog makes it appear as if Mann was concerned about quashing any debate about methodology errors intentional or otherwise. And that by saying that any errors were unintentional there were no errors.
It doesn’t make much sense but Mann does things like this. Like when he said that lowering the floor for temperature predictions to be more in line with observations actually strengthened the predictive value of the models. Utter nonsense and rather dishonest.
Not really following what’s bothering you. You seem to be reading that whole list as having to do with dishonesty. McIntyre made it clear that he isn’t reading it that way; he is attacking the ones that have to do with having done a competent job with the statistics.
That is certainly the impression I got from Mann’s words: he was claiming that many inquiries found that _that all criticisms of his work were unfounded_.
I’m not sure what this means: “McIntyre made it clear that he isn’t reading it that way; he is attacking the ones that have to do with having done a competent job with the statistics.”
Mann is only claiming that he was exonerated of (to repeat the list again): “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data”
Correct, and unlike your reading, some of those have to do with gross abuse of statistics. Not once, but for years, long after competent statisticians had pointed out the error. After Tamino changed his mind, I don’t know of a real statistician who said that these methods were acceptable – do you? At some point, Mann stopped using those methods but to this day I don’t think he has ever once admitted that McIntyre was right all along.
You don’t think that that is enough reason for someone to think him a “fraud”? A fool who publicly claims great expertise, heaps scorn on his opponents, never admits error, and really is way out of his league and always was? He wrote a _whole book_ doing this, preaching to the choir who never heard the other side and never will.
I really don’t feel that “fraud” has to refer to a snake-oil salesman who knows all along that his product is worthless and doesn’t care.
Regardless, I don’t quite see the point of your complaints. McIntyre (and I) have a certain impression of what Mann was claiming. You have a different impression of what his words mean. But McIntyre says what he’s claiming, brings references to what both sides said, and you can make up your own mind whether that contradicts Mann’s claim. Nothing here is deceptive.
By the way, anyone can post on climateaudit, he hardly ever censors, and I think your question is reasonable. “Which part of Mann’s claim exactly do you think you’ve refuted? Does your story show that Mann was still accused of ____(add your list) or just that he used a poor method?” Don’t be shy!
” I would have thought “mildly critical” would be a better description”
That could be but look at how Mann responded to the mild criticism. He pressured Hand to make a retraction. Why bother if it is just mild criticism? According to the account linked, Mann certainly didn’t think it was mild criticism. And when Hand did amend his prior comments, he still maintained that the methodology was flawed but that it wasn’t intentional. Mann twisted that to say he was exonerated but the criticism remains that his methods were flawed. Mann does not acknowledge this, which is dishonest.
Heck, Mann claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner in the initial filing. That’s not quite honest either. If anything his own hockey stick graph has brought more discredit to the IPCC than any other single thing, aside perhaps from all the other BS in the IPCC claims, like the one about the melting Himalayan glaciers.
And yet the arctic is still melting
“And yet the arctic is still melting”
Ya every summer…
AGW Alarmists predicted there would be no ice in 2012 and yet there still is. Failed predictions should throw up some red flags.
Arctic ice has been stable for the past ten years while antarctic ice is at a 35 year high.
Meh – I never understood this particular point. I think the downward trend line on Arctic ice is pretty obvious. One year of upward variation doesn’t change that.