Josh Mar 7, 2012 Books Climate: Mann Josh Josh
H/t Hilary Ostrov How could I possibly miss that?
It's ok, all matters will have been "dealt with" in a suitable corrigendum (eventually, when there is nowhere to hide)
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=5278
mrsean2k
Mar 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k
January 31st, 2012 at 11:37 am
The Hockey Stick and the Climate WarsWe are happy to announce that The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines by Michael E. Mann is now available as a book and an e-book. Please note that two corrections will be made to the upcoming second printing of the book. The 1995 IPCC report referenced in the epigraph on page 1 and on page 108 is the Second Assessment Report, not the Third Assessment Report.
A further correction will be made to the next printing of the book. On page 18, the following figures will be corrected: “another 2C (3.5F) warming…” should be “another 1.5C (2.5F) warming,” “(for a total of 3C or 5F warming)…” should be “(for a total of 2C or 3.5F warming)…,” and “another 2C of warming…” should be “a total of 2C of warming…”
January 31st! So both Brandon and Frank could have read that and spared us some eye bleeding.
Still, well done to O'Dwyer for managing to spot no error there himself whilst rebutting Shollenberger's point. ;) Shows how useful that analysis is. Not.
The Leopard In The Basement
snotrocket
First, my apologies for not replying to your post earlier. I'm afraid that having various important items (including one's passport) stolen tends to concentrate the mind in other directions!
When I wrote about in irrelevant spat I was referring to Shollenberger v O'Dwyer and I pointed out that leaping on a piece of Mannian spin as if it were some great revelation is hardly earth-shattering.
I would like the opinion of m'learned friends but I very much doubt that a libel action based on a selective bit of quoting — when reference and a link to the rest of the quotation is made available by the author, regardless of how difficult it might be to access it — has a cat in hell's chance of succeeding.
Sorry if you think differently.
Mann may be a nasty piece of work and his (written) work may be crawling with "interpretations" which reflect the truth only as he sees it but let's keep an eye on the big picture. I'm not even prepared to go down the route of calling him a liar — misguided, blinkered, self-opinonated, arrogant, possibly all of these things — but "liar"? Dangerous territory.
Mike Jackson
So you are worried that Wegman, after being dragged through the mud for over two years by Michael Mann's henchmen, for the crime of allegedly using a glossary definition of a scientific term from wikipedia (which, by the way, makes wikipedia officially the most useless online "free" encyclopedia in existence. You can't use it without being sued. lol), that maybe Ed might hold a sort of grudge against Mann.
And seeing as how Mann is unquestionably libeling Wegman in his new book, you are worried there might be some retribution coming.
Very touching, your concern for your friend's potential legal troubles. No really, let me wipe away the tear. Nobody ever worries like that for me, if I get a parking ticket or some such.
Cheer up there Jackson. Libel is a civil matter, so your boy won't be doing any prison time, unless of course he tries to run that "I linked it in the glossary" dodge and the Judge finds him in contempt.
You should probably warn him not to do that.
papertiger
The Leopard In The Basement
January 31st! So both Brandon and Frank could have read that and spared us some eye bleeding.Still, well done to O'Dwyer for managing to spot no error there himself whilst rebutting Shollenberger's point. ;) Shows how useful that analysis is. Not.
Out of curiosity, where did you find that? Regardless, it's good to see Mann is aware an error I pointed out. I still think it's incredible the error slipped through the editing stage, but at least it has been acknowledged and will be fixed.
Of course, it puts o'Dwyers in a rather bad spot...
Brandon Shollenberger
Mar 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger
It's in the link in the comment above mine
Mar 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commentermrsean2k
Dont want to paste it in case spam filter eats this
The Leopard In The Basement
Could someone explain Mann's error to me? Is he actually saying that the correct goal is to stop one more degree C of warming? Isn't the industry standard two more degrees?
MikeR
@Mar 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeR
My tuppeny worth view:
Mann had originally:
"another 2°C of warming would require stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at no higher than about 450 parts per million"
Which the correction says will now change to:
"a total of 2°C of warming would require stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at no higher than about 450 parts per million"
"another 2°C" implied being added onto the 1°C since preindustrial hence the implied total was 3°C about the same as mid-range doubling sensitivity estimates from IPCC. Combine that with "no higher than" 450 ppm and you can take from that he was implying that 450 is a doubling, or that he had got his figures wrong - turns out the latter. O'Dwyer made hay with just saying Mann was wanting to "avoid" 3 degress so we have to guess what figure below that O'Dwyer had in his head ;)
The Leopard In The Basement
Seems Frank has changed his page and awarded Brandon a draw on point one! But it is still 4 0 :(
Despite the error on the target, there is simply no reasonable reading of any of that or the original text that gives you ‘This means Mann said there would be a total increase of 3°C with CO2 levels having only gone up by 60%’, as Shollenberger claimed. When I look at it again in hindsight, I see that one thing you could have queried in the original context is why the phrase ‘no higher than’ was present–after all there are levels above 450ppm that would also (probably) avoid a total warming of 3C, so why stop 1C short rather than, say, at 2.5C? Caution? You could also have pointed to the EU target...
Yada yada yada yada...
I couldn't carry on, I had to stop to prevent further eye hemorrhage
The Leopard In The Basement
Thanks for pointing that out The Leopard In The Basement. I don't think I'd have looked at that page again, so I may never have noticed it.
I guess this shows how vapid his "rebuttal" really is. Michael Mann acknowledges my point, and despite seeing this, o'Dwyer still tries to argue I'm wrong.
Brandon Shollenberger
papertiger
I fear you are well named.
My previous comment to you still applies — in spades.
I shan't repeat it because our host was not best pleased but before you mouth off at me again would you care to go looking at some of my previous postings or possibly even my own blog.
After that you can perhaps try an apology.
Mike Jackson
Brandon, yes, that is a valid point, but now you have 20 other pieces of evidence pointing to the accused. So it wouldn't matter if the DNA said yes or no.
Also, my analogy breaks down, in that DNA tells you for sure someone else was there. Medieval Warm period only suggests natural warming.
ODwyer's defense regarding Wegman makes no sense. If he wishes to parse that much, then we must note that Mann accused Wegman of substantial UNDISCLOSED collaboration. The Congressman didn't ask him about undisclosed collaboration, so he could not have denied it. Anything Wegman said to the question would automatically become disclosed collaboration. Mann is again wrong for saying Wegman denied it.
MikeN
So now it's Mann 4 Brandon 0? And Brandon 1, Frank 0? Or is it 1-4?
He said he would get to the other 14 points. Since he has not done say, let's just say it's 15-4?
MikeN
MikeN:
Brandon, yes, that is a valid point, but now you have 20 other pieces of evidence pointing to the accused. So it wouldn't matter if the DNA said yes or no.
That may be a valid point, and if Mann wants to go with that, that's fine. He just can't say "it wouldn't matter if the XX said yes or no" then claim it matters if XX says yes/no. Either it matters, or it doesn't.
So now it's Mann 4 Brandon 0? And Brandon 1, Frank 0? Or is it 1-4?
He said he would get to the other 14 points. Since he has not done say, let's just say it's 15-4?
I would love to see his response to the rest of my points. It'd be fascinating.
By the way, while I'm not one for keeping score, Mann doesn't deserve four points.
Brandon Shollenberger
Yea, but Mann said it doesn't matter if XX said no and it matters if XX said yes.
MikeN
Frank o'Dwyers has posted a follow-up piece. I think it speaks for itself.
Brandon Shollenberger
At the end of the day one must consider the types of reader out there who will read Mann's book. There are the believer types who will literally forgive everything, even if it is pointed out to them, as we have seen here with Frank (the Mann later correction above is a sterling example). And there are the antagonistic people who won’t trust the time of day from Mann without triple checking (that includes me). Sometimes this latter person can make too much of the kind of typo errors in point one I think. I.e. it should have been raised as a point against Mann for muddled-ness maybe but it isn't a central plank of awfulness - think of the "big picture" as someone said above ;)
When reading this book we should consider the third type of reader. This reader is the more common person that is fairly unpartisan. So when I take the example of the Wegman cuteness from Mann this annoys me most on that score. The reason why is because I am sure the kind of people who follow links and scan through pages only fall into two categories, the - "I don't trust Mann for the time of day" category, and the uninitiated, rarer, people who are already predisposed to work a bit to follow up any extra info offered.
That is why Mann's kind of sins of omission are kind of insidious. It is a system almost designed (by natural selection ;)) to pick up the more gullible end of the spectrum. The majority of the innocent readers will go away from the book thinking the worst of Mann's antagonists in an almost honest Bayesian "that's all they know so far" way from the information laid out. If they are more critical minded and dig and find the distortions then they will almost certainly become more wary and may become sceptical of any further information from Mann. But there is the rub, I think sceptics at that level are indeed rarer and Mann has more opportunities to gain lightweight approval and a new following, against risking creating a smaller number of more newly hardened wary/sceptic.
The type that O'Dwyer fall into are the former. They fall in love with the ad-hom rhetoric and when later having the technical cuteness pointed out to them, they can weakly conjure up and use a modicum of rationality to play games dancing around the issue but the cognitive bind is in, it’s too late, they won’t change and they chunder on to the point of weariness in only confusing themselves.
Bless ;)
The Leopard In The Basement
- in spades?
Mike, do you mean to tell me you're a digger, as in a mole?
If you say so, buddy.
Having a blog doesn't impress me much. Joe Romm has one too.
papertiger
papertiger
I didn't ask you to be impressed. I thought perhaps you'd like to stop making a fool of yourself by tarring me as a warmist, an idea which just about everyone on this site will probably think is the best joke this year.
Now if you have a useful contribution to make instead of ranting ...
Mike Jackson
Well I'm happy to amuse you. So now we are getting somewhere. You are not a warmist, just a guy who wants to give MM a "fair shake".
Please, Prof Mann has been coasting by on the good will of dupes like you for fifteen or more years, without ever giving you, me, or anyone else on God's Green Earth, even a smidgen of the same consideration.
For my part, mistaking your organic twitchiness for intention to muddy clear waters, or alternatively being due to drink clouding your faculties, my humble apologies.
papertiger
You say so, boy!
My sceptical credentials are not in any doubt — as you would find out if you cared to spend a couple of minutes with eye and brain connected — but I'm not sure where you're coming from.
And if that's your idea of an apology then we'll all have another good laugh.
Mike Jackson
Mann did something similar with his reply to McIntyre in PNAS. He gave some vague answers that left others thinking the completely wrong thought, without saying so directly. In that case it was that it was impossible to use data upside-down, when in fact it was possible and he did do it.
MikeN
There's just no pleasing some folk.
Hey Jacko, where are all of your mates jumping up to defend your skeptical bonifides ?
I must have missed them reading through this thread.
papertiger
With Spearman and Burt, the arcane tool of PCA had been misapplied to putative metrics of human intelligence to support theories of a racial basis for intelligence. With McIntyre (and colleague McKitrick), it was —as we shall now see- misapplied to sets of tree ring records to support a critique of climate change research. If there is a lesson in this curious confluence, it is that scientific findings that rest on such technical complexities are prone to abuse by those with a potential ax to grind.
Inappropriate decisions made in the statistical analysis can have profound consequences for the results. Given the complexities, it’s easy enough to make mistakes. For those with an agenda, it is even easier to overlook them or, worse, exploit them intentionally.
And reading through Manns reference to Gould and The Mismeasure of Man (now there is a really well written book I recommend) and then seeing his spin off from Gould's explanation of his PCA critique of Spearman and Burt I can only conclude that the guy Mann has no shame in spin and dissembling. This is just jaw droppingly and nauseating in its unctuous spin - I'm almost opened mouthed in admiration at it. Nice equivocation with early 20th century DWM racial theorists you right-on dude! Mann is making a wholly bollox analogy of McKitrick and McIntyre to Spearman and Burt as if M&M have themselves come up with some novel PCA technique and not Mann himself! He is weird, really weird.
Surely McIntyre is lining up a response? It looks like an open goal for heavy kicking to me! I admit I have been stuck at this stage in the book referencing Gould and back trying to make sense of Manns seeming toy "example", being only a layman, but luckily Gould explains PCA better than Mann has so far - thanks for that reference Mike at least ;)
The Leopard In The Basement
The Leopard in the Basement, I'd be careful about praising Gould's book. From what I've seen, it appears he messed some things up. Most importantly, it seems he misrepresented the point behind the work he criticized (presumably because others had misunderstood it before, and he followed their view).
As for McIntyre, I don't think he's planning on publishing a response to Mann's book. There's basically nothing new in the book, so all he'd be doing is repeating the same points he's made in the past. I can't blame him if he feels tired of saying the same things over and over since he's mostly ignored each time.
Brandon Shollenberger
Brandon Shollenberger
Yeah reading beyond the spin I think you are right, as I go on further I see the way Mann operates here is less an interest in a technical work but more marshalling a list of authority figures who can be quoted as backing him. I think there is not much that demands a response at that level.
As for Gould I did see him as a type of scientist who seemed too much informed by politics, as a lot of the AGW believer community fit too, I remember being a partisan fan of Dawkins when he went against Gould preferring Dawkins less emotive style. But for all that Gould certainly could write and I do think his PC analysis introduction is pretty good if not the best I've seen at that layman level. The Bish didn't go into it as much depth I seem to remember and I'm still scratching my head about what the hell Mann's toy eample is supposed to mean! I think he forgot to short centre his PC2 in his second example but that could be my confusion ;)
The Leopard In The Basement
I actually prefer Gould to Dawkins, but that's probably because Dawkins is a crazy anti-religion nut. It makes it hard to take anything he says seriously. As for Gould, I've always been impressed by his arguments, and I can't say I've paid much attention to his style (I've only read his writing, and it's less of an issue there). He always struck me as an intellectually honest person (Dawkins doesn't strike me that way) so I suspect if he were still alive he'd probably reevaluate that book and admit he messed some things up.
As for the PCA issue, I can't say I paid much attention to either's description of it. It's boring to read a description of a methodology you already understand. However, I'll try to look at Mann's description to see if you're right about him messing it up.
Brandon Shollenberger
Dawkins can go a bit crazy about religion IMO too (I'm an atheist) but its the exception that contrast with his otherwise brilliant straight science work. I guess a religious person may find it easier to pick up intellectual dishonsty in his religious work, but I don't see it when Dawkins talks about science.
As to Manns' explanation of the ground work of the science I wouldn't take anything for granted even if you know the subject well ! ;)
Considering how he operates in subjects that I can judge him in i.e. his spin on peoples status and character it is obvious to me that his unwillingness to deal with them in a direct way is hiding something. If he had slam dunk ways to deal with them without this spin technique then it could have been impressive and persuasive to me, but Mann always goes for the cheap lazy assumption and argument from authority (ironic when he himself enlists the spectre of Lysenko as an example of power suffocating reason). I'm sure Mann knows his PCA but even from my basic understanding there is something very awkward about his explanatory style there - I noticed the obvious tainting of his critics with the Gould example, but I wonder if there is something else in there that he has revealed about his underlying assumptions of the technicalities that is revealed from his attempt to "simplify" them for a new audience. I am willing to be told it is a perfectly reasonable example and I am being a bit dense here though ! :)
The Leopard In The Basement
Wars are lost by loosing battles. Not a good thing to bring a hockey stick to a war.
In my pages I have posted an article based on the paper Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts. Updated, August 27, 2010.
Thanks Bishop! Good article!
Andres Valencia
Firstly, apologies for the delay in response and my drive-by commenting. Brandon, I've given some thought to my "Meh" gut reaction and, taking Steve McIntyre's advice, I've read your comments and in-line discussion at Lucia's.
I agree with your analysis as presented at Lucia's. It reads well there, in the comments thread. But I think that it's specifically because it's in comments, and not a paper. It's an issue of context for me.
I agree with Carrick, who says:
Brandon, I take it as a general principle to not try and impugn the motives of another person. Unless you have definitive proof of his state of mind at the time he wrote it…for example if he admits he’s lying in the book, that pretty well settles it.
I understand that principle, but I don’t agree with it. [..]
In a blog comment thread, "fisking" is the norm. It's a discussion. There is room for bold assertions because it is presumed that others may engage and query them in-line to establish clarity and whittle down to the "meat and bones" of your point. The playing field is essentially level, the discussion is there in one place, is easy to consume, and (save biased RC-style moderation) is generally decided on validity.
A paper/PDF is perceived differently. It is received as a "last word", and it is expected to be definitive. All the potential responses, the criticisms and questioning of your words must be covered within your own text. You need to think of any/every possible come-back and pre-emptively counter it either by offering their counterpoints and give your reasons to dismiss (or even concede points where appropriate) or, alternatively, by whittling down your own text to leave no room for challenges. Any places where you don't do so are wriggle-room for the likes of FODwyer, and they will be exploited. This exploitation forces a degenerative back-forth, where the last person to post on the subject is regarded as the victor, rightly or wrongly, and the dispute is not decided on brains but instead on brawn and sheer bloody-mindedness.
If Frank had only had the comments thread at Lucia's to engage in, I'm certain he wouldn't have. I am absolutely sure that the reason he has garnered the confidence to respond at all is because he is bloody-minded, and because he rightly recognised the the opportunity that was presented to him, where in-line refutation/challenges to his meticulous disinformation were impossible. Frank links to a self-hosted copy of your PDF that he has taken, and frozen, so that even if you revised your document to fully address Frank's disinformation, Frank will always retain control over whether that information is shared with his sheep. Frank is an opportunist and does not concern himself with what is true, only with what make-believe he can make people believe.
I hope and trust that you'll take my points in the spirit they're intended. My criticism is not at all, in any way, with the substance of your analyses. It is merely the delivery platform, and only then because of the opportunities it presents those who, like Frank, seek to exploit any opportunity to divert from the truth.
Simon Hopkinson
At Lucia's blog, on Feb 15th, Branden Shollenberger commented:
"I just received my copy of Michael Mann’s book. The first sentence of it is (emphasis mine):
Two pages later, there are these two sentences:
That’s as far as I’ve gotten, but it shows a disturbing trend. Ideas which are possible, but by no means known to be true, are stated as fact. If this is remotely representative of the book’s accuracy, there is no way the people giving it glowing reviews read it with an open mind."
Over the next few days Brandon finds more errors as he reads the book. It is quite fun to follow the unfolding story but you can download the whole review as a pdf here.
And there's more! This weekend Brandon hopes to share a second document covering other issues and which we will add as an update to this post.
Frank O'Dwyer has his own opinions on Brandon's review which you can read here - he doesn't like it.
Posted by Josh