|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
********* In the accompanying thread "(OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism" http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...dda0f151cc4d7d Bill Asher claims that the NAS Panel under Gerald North supported Michael Mann's Hockey Stick. The NAS Panel was set up specifically to counter the Wegman Panel, which had been commissioned by the US Senate to investigate Michael Mann's statistical credibility, and had found it to be zero as related in "(OT) What Global Warming has in common with Marxism". The NAS Panel expressed itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel but in every essential agreed with it, finding that, *** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved was flawed ***RE tests are insufficient for statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning) ***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known to be unreliable ***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result.) Certainly, to support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman. North and his panel were then also called before the Senate subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings, and this interesting dialogue ensued: CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report? DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman. WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent. In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann: 'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a “hockey stick” shape.' Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient". The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total, contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.' And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to every word of that and more. North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer. Remember, his Panel had been constituted specifically to support Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger. And the best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nontheless "plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy ****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible. In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about proof. Edward Wegman said so: Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science. That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly, to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science. Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann. But Asher claims that the NAS Panel "supports" Mann's Hockey Stick! Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science Think on it, Asher. By the way, Asher, Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in America, probably in the world, is a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, the very institution that Mann (and you, little Bill Asher!) cites as supporting Mann's work! Well, actually no, Michael. Wegman consigned your incompetence to the devil, and North's solidarity was about as grudging as you can get without asking you to resign from the NAS. You screwed up, Dr Mann, and you got caught out. And your supporters and followers are operating on faith alone. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these historical phenomena out of existence. Andre Jute Reformed petrol head Car-free since 1992 Greener than thou! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Man's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by big pharma
Maybe you should get some. Then you would be annoying the ladies
(men? - your fastidiousness is obvious) rather than us. You know what I'm talking about. :-D D'ohBoy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
George W. Bush Andre, You are in a select group, thankfully a minority that doesn't include climatology experts or those capable of rational thought. JP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:14:55 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel ********* Good to know! Especially useful to those of us interested in bicycle technology. -- jeverett3ATsbcglobalDOTnet (John V. Everett) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by NAS Panel
RonSonic wrote:
There are other factors that have been ignored lately. The 90s were somewhat quiet causing us to forget this one, but all it'll take is another busy year and we freeze again. 90s weren't so quiet when hundreds died in Chicago heat wave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Chicago_heat_wave. Very little media attention because Clinton was...well, let's go with playing golf. (And his name wasn't Bush.) http://tinyurl.com/lxwlud And also 'cause these are really cool photo's. Stunning, actually. BS (not) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." | Hoodini | Racing | 0 | April 23rd 07 12:38 AM |
Third Dresdner unicycleday--"dritter Dresdener Einradtag"at 30.9.2006 race and hockey | Peter | Unicycling | 0 | August 31st 06 09:42 AM |
why teams supported by "fans" don't work | [email protected] | Racing | 9 | February 12th 06 04:23 PM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
Hockey stick help | yoopers | Unicycling | 6 | November 3rd 03 04:05 PM |