Re: right...global warming

Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:

Jefferson N Glapski wrote:

Jeff Davis wrote:


[deleted material]


Read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 where the McKitrick
study is eviscerated.


No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. And there are other places that respond more elaborately:

To wit:

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998)
reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two
individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining
industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were
first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a
non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and


Social science is non-scientific? I guess your next claim will be that Lucas or Merton can't do math either.

The critique was on statistics on a time series. Economists have more experience with that than anyone, except statisticians (and even that may not be clear, depending on what branch of stats you are in). Hell, PCA was developed by a social scientist.


later, in a separate "Communications Arising" comment that was
rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and
editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have
argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of
space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear:
"The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the
basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is
brought into question; of the length of time since the original
publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely
to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives
so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred
to the specialist literature." Since Nature chose to send the comment
out for review in the first place, the "time since the original
publication" was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is
logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the
deficiencies in the authors' arguments explicitly noted by the
reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the
internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other
non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science
journalist David Appell of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by
Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece).


Big deal. Ask what journal the Black Scholes paper was published in, and how many rejected their paper.


The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the
"Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of
the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which
certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal
Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false , as
detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected
Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998)
reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data
that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of
the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to
whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the
putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for
anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known
reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of
key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and
finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction,
the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails
statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically
meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific
literature.


So basically the argument so far comes down to an appeal to authority and misrepresentations.

What's humorous is you have never calculated an eigenvalue in your life.


The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited
in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in
the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by
Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an
independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus
cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004)
demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same
proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of
infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an
alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does
not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.


Interesting how a 2004 paper can discredit a 2005 paper.

Have you forgotten how to count?


I'll take peer reviewed research over a censored blog. Did you work
as an editor for Pravda in the 1970s?


The McKitrick article itself wasn't peer reviewed. And (as pointed out
above) neither McKitrick nor McIntyre are atmospheric scientists. Nor
are you.


Go to the university website and look under peer-reviewed research.


Nor, as you well know, is the Mann article the only study which
arrived at the famous "hockey stick".

If you've merely skimmed the quoted material and since you're so
hot-to-trot to demonstrate your statistical mojo, let us cut to the
heart of the matter:

"the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails
statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically
meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific
literature."


You simply don't understand the issue.


I understand someone who throws up obfuscation instead of argument.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: right...global warming
    ... False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al ... reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two ... whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, ... You've demonstrated that you know a primer's worth of statistics. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Deer Conservatives: The Science
    ... > networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components ... > demonstrating that the Mann et al reconstruction is robust ... > McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Deer Conservatives: The Science
    ... "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Deer Conservatives: The Science
    ... a hurricane expert who claimed that most hurricane experts think global warming is bunk. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: right...global warming
    ... False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)