• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analysis?

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
14,443
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

How much technical statistical expertise should we really credit to climate scientists?
A helluva lot more than the oil companies and their junk science paid shills.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,543
Reaction score
3,979
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

A helluva lot more than the oil companies and their junk science paid shills.
Do you have any examples of this 'junk science' from their allegedly 'paid shills' ?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
14,443
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

Do you have any examples of this 'junk science' from their allegedly 'paid shills' ?
Of course.....



"..A dispute erupted earlier this year when oil and minerals consultant Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, both Canadians, published a scientific study detailing possible mathematical errors in the hockey-stick result....<snip>

Now, two independent research reports say the Canadians' critique may have limited significance. The studies, appearing this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, find that while there is a statistical snafu in the hockey-stick math, it may not strongly affect the graph's accuracy.

One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance" when applied to some computer-generated models of climate history, according to a statement released by lead author Hans von Storch.

The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution fellow Peter Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated the effect of the problem. "The truth is somewhere in between, but closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von Storch, agreed they had yet to address all of the Canadians' criticisms....<snip>

Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than scientific significance. That's because, they say, other studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said....read

Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire - WSJ.com,



"....McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [6] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc....."

Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch




"...One would think that some things go without saying, but apparently people still get a key issue wrong so let us be extremely clear. Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional.

But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.

If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have"......read

Citizen's Challenge: Integrity of Stephen McIntyre examined... a review by Real Climate
 

gslack

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

Of course.....



"..A dispute erupted earlier this year when oil and minerals consultant Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, both Canadians, published a scientific study detailing possible mathematical errors in the hockey-stick result....<snip>

Now, two independent research reports say the Canadians' critique may have limited significance. The studies, appearing this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, find that while there is a statistical snafu in the hockey-stick math, it may not strongly affect the graph's accuracy.

One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance" when applied to some computer-generated models of climate history, according to a statement released by lead author Hans von Storch.

The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution fellow Peter Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated the effect of the problem. "The truth is somewhere in between, but closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von Storch, agreed they had yet to address all of the Canadians' criticisms....<snip>

Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than scientific significance. That's because, they say, other studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said....read

Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire - WSJ.com,



"....McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [6] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc....."

Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch




"...One would think that some things go without saying, but apparently people still get a key issue wrong so let us be extremely clear. Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional.

But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.

If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have"......read

Citizen's Challenge: Integrity of Stephen McIntyre examined... a review by Real Climate
3 links and two of them from pro AGW blogs, all 3 of which are about the same paper and same authors. And here's a shock the lefty source-watch and the AGW blog are the only ones attacking them.. The Wall street journal doesn't make a claim against them either way..

So then you only have issue with the one paper or is that all you can find?

News flash, the hockey stick has been dismissed now. Mann and company keep coimg back with slight alterations but it's still not taken seriously by anybody outside of warmer blogs..

The problem is he uses tree ring and ice core data totry and reconstruct temperatures. The idea being trapped bubbles of air within the ice cores,measure the CO2 content and give an estimate on the temperature based on that.. LOL, assuming of course that the entire globe had the same CO2 content at that time, which is suspect... Oh and assuming that the claims of current predictions CO2 induced warming are accurate, which they haven't been yet... And tree rings? The size of a tree ring has more to do with rainfall than temperature, and making any claims regarding past temperatures using them are as dubious as it gets..

The hockey stick failed because they didn't bother to double check their math, because they beleived no one would doubt it anyway. At the time it had the "global warming" sticker on it, and no one was questioning the Goreacle yet... The hockey stick was a case of lazy science, using half-baked ideas that were at best intended to give an idea of what might have happened in the past, and by no means be used to try and make accurate temperature reconstructions.

They took very loose data and fed it into a modeling program. The same type of modeling program that hasn't been even close with a single prediction regarding climate even the the last decade..
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

Of course.....



"..A dispute erupted earlier this year when oil and minerals consultant Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, both Canadians, published a scientific study detailing possible mathematical errors in the hockey-stick result....<snip>

Now, two independent research reports say the Canadians' critique may have limited significance. The studies, appearing this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, find that while there is a statistical snafu in the hockey-stick math, it may not strongly affect the graph's accuracy.

One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance" when applied to some computer-generated models of climate history, according to a statement released by lead author Hans von Storch.

The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution fellow Peter Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated the effect of the problem. "The truth is somewhere in between, but closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von Storch, agreed they had yet to address all of the Canadians' criticisms....<snip>

Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than scientific significance. That's because, they say, other studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said....read

Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire - WSJ.com,



"....McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [6] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc....."

Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch




"...One would think that some things go without saying, but apparently people still get a key issue wrong so let us be extremely clear. Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional.

But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.

If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have"......read

Citizen's Challenge: Integrity of Stephen McIntyre examined... a review by Real Climate
A fine summary of orthodox warmist denial and character assassination.:peace
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

Of course.....
Yup, those bastions of oil company and industry influence, Northwestern University and the University of Pennsylvania.

[h=3]McShane , Wyner : A statistical analysis of multiple temperature ...[/h]projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1300715170‎
by BB McShane - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 32 - ‎Related articles
The Annals of Applied Statistics ... Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner ... This repository archives all data and code used for “A statistical analysis of ...
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
26,405
Reaction score
13,256
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

A fine summary of orthodox warmist denial and character assassination.:peace

The funniest part is that the major politically motivated hit pieces that Moot is posting as proof don't actually deny the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick in that paper, these screed try to claim that the paper has limited effect on the climate record.

But then that is how science is done. Find errors and fix them. They add up.

Blasting statisticians for finding flaws in your statistics is about as unscientific as one can get.

But then, I think even Moot realizes that the AGW side is defending a narrative rather than a theory.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,543
Reaction score
3,979
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Are climate scientists technically competent to handle complex statistical analys

Is that really all you've got ? Smearing someone using rabidly activist blogs is no rebuttal of their findings and is no proof of anything other than an affirmation of your own biases

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about SourceWatch

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about RealClimate.org
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom