« Cuppa Joe To Go | Main | Shorter David Brooks »
July 20, 2005
Responding to Texas Congressman Joe Barton
Update: Steve Verdon has a rather snarky and completely unprofessional post up in response. It's really quite adolescent and typical of the critisism of Mann and Global Warming in particular. Just remember that Steve actually considers himself educated (Economics, but still). From his response, he's little more than a hack spreading propaganda. Go Steve! You're pretty much showing what a complete and total jerk you are.
The three scientist who were called out on the floor by Congressman Joe Barton from Texas have provided their responses. When last we looked, the theoretically intelligent amongst the right were slavering over the possibility that these uppity scientists were about to get a well deserved governmental smack down.
One of the long running problems with looking into the Hockey Stick has been getting data and code out of the authors (Mann, Bradley and Huges). As I have noted previously there seems to be a pattern with regards to climate scientists and their willingness to share data (and contrary to claims in the comments to that post, not all the data and source code has been shared).Pretty strong accusations. Pretty strong indeed. And, naturally, there is nothing that Steve Verndon provides to back up these accusations - just his word and his word, alone.
As Mann has pointed out in his response to Barton
The most serious contention in your letter — namely, that my work has not been subject to replication because I have failed to make available the underlying research data — is incorrect. Your letter notes that the National Research Council’s “gold standard” for scientific research is the ability of other scientists to replicate first-generation research, and I fully agree. My colleagues and I follow the National Research Council’s guidance with regards to the disclosure of research data, and all of our data and methodologies have been fully disclosed and are available to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. As a result of our willingness to share our research with others, an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability of our findings. See Wahl, E.R., Ammann, C.M., Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence, Climate Change (2005) (forthcoming) and associated website: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html.Now, I know Steve doesn't give a jack whit about this web site, but still. One would really like to see what evidence Steve Verndon has that Michael Mann is lying. Steve - and all the other "skeptics" - have made some serious charges - they've called him a liar. I'd like to see what evidence Steve has which contradicts Mann's assertion - other than a Wall Street Journal editorial.
Really Steve. I'd like to hear your detailed response here. You've called the man a liar. His cards are on the table. Put your cards on the table - or apologize.
Posted by Azael at July 20, 2005 9:26 AM
Comments
Hey, can you at least spell my name right dufus?
As for the strong allegation, yes it is actually true. McIntyre has been trying to get data and code from other researchers and if they reply at all it is typically to say they lost it, don't have time, etc.
Try actually responding to the claims vs. just making crap up.
As for Wahl and Ammann their research also confirms McIntyre and McKitrick's work as well. When using W&A's code McIntyre replicates his results out to 5 decimal places. This indicates that the McIntyre and McKitrick's code is accurate.
As for all the replications, how many of them have Mann, Bradley, or Hughes as authors? Having one or more of the main authors as co-authors on follow up studies really aren't indepenent now are they.
As for an apology: GFY.
Posted by: Steve Verdon at July 21, 2005 8:13 AM
Wow, sorry for the misspelling. Fixed. I'd hate to have people confused as to who's being intellectually dishonest.
As to your other allegations, I can't believe you even think this is an argument. All the data is freely available for download here. And if McIntyre can't get ahold of it, it's because he's unable to use a web browser.
As for McIntyre's idiocy itself, apparently you're still under the impression that he knows anything. It's pretty simple to prove he's a joker and just plain wrong. Anyone who confuses radians and degrees is simply an idiot. But hey, that doesn't fit your world view, does it?
Posted by: Azael at July 21, 2005 8:31 AM
That business about radians and degrees is inaccuate, that was Mckitrick, and it's wrong to imply that he doesn't know the difference between radians and degrees.
And as for the code, even now aug 2, it does not work without files that are apparently unavailable. What's more McIntyre's home computer is blocked from one of Mann's sites.
Posted by: Doug L at August 2, 2005 1:46 PM
Right, I should have noted that this was the other "M". Still, they're peas in a pod. As for the code, who cares? As has been pointed out numerous times, THE CODE DOESN'T MATTER. And apparently all you critics simply can't follow links. So here's an independent implementation of the code in "R". And you might want to actually read the whole thing because it is an example of what real science is, and a fine object lesson in why this idiocy concerning the "code" is a red herring of the highest order.
My lord.
Posted by: Azael at August 2, 2005 2:45 PM
Azeal,
that links refers to the Amman study, According to McIntyre it was rejected most likely because it showed nothing new.
Posted by: Doug L at August 3, 2005 7:28 AM
Um, "showing nothing new" is precisely the point, isn't it? I mean, the entire point of this whole circus is to reproduce Mann's work. This has been done using a completely different code base in an entirely different language than the original model. Thus showing that the model is the important piece and not the implementation of the model. So, argue all you want about the model, but the whole point of this post and the whole point of this comment chain is the silly implication that because the source code isn't available or something is missing (such as the numeric subroutine libraries upon which the code depends) that this means that something is fishy (by gum!) and therefore Mann is a lying sack of shit.
Which should now be shown to be obviously a red herring of massive proportions. And anyone who was pushing the line was ignoring real science and trying to discredit the work by poisoning the well. Which is precisely what Steve Verdon was/is trying to do.
Again, argue all you want with Mann about the model. But any claptrap about the source code is an evasion of the issue at hand and a deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific process.
Posted by: Azael at August 3, 2005 11:43 AM
