Sunday, August 17, 2014

Examining denialist dodges, re Dr Mann #3

In for a nickel, in for a dollar, and I may as well share K's response to my previous post since he's getting a bit heated and demonstrating another typical ploy which affords me another opportunity to examine the anatomy of avoidance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

K Responds: 
August 17, 2014 at 19:19
@citizenschallenge: “Hmmm, my emotional parody blog?”
~ ~ ~
K : Yes, your emotional parody blog. Unable to confront the rational discourse of people who disagree with you, you’ve created a site dedicated to emotionally lashing out at them. Labeling your opponents “denialists”, you dehumanize them at the very start, unable to imagine anything but pure evil intent on their part.

{de·ni·al, noun:  a) the action of declaring something to be untrue.  b) a statement that something is not true.}

{No buddy, I'm using the term as a descriptive for your attitude of rejecting authoritative scientific information.  

As for "inability to conduct a rational discourse", what about your demonstrated reliance and complete faith in WUWT's storylines and Steve the hostile armchair statistician, {who's work and claims have been examined and rejected, with cause, by a number of actual experts in various fields.} ?

Why isn't any of that good enough for you K?  Instead you reject their informed and considered judgements ... how do you justify that? 

And why shouldn't I call that Climate Science Denial?  Please explain.}

For shame.
You don’t come to this conversation with good faith, rather, your cognitive dissonance has driven you to demonize anything that might break through the defensive emotional walls you’ve built up. You ask for others to open themselves up, yet your mind remains as closed as an egg :)

I mean hey, instead of admitting that Mann was fraudulent, and then making the argument that despite his fraud, other proxies (unspecified at this point) prove the general point*, you 'defend' Mann to the end! You point to his CV, and expect that to exonerate his fraud :) In doing so, you actually serve to demean any other point you’re trying to make with other unspecified proxies. ...

Notice what K does here, previously he claimed Dr. Mann was a nothing before the 98/99 papers.  When I produced Professor Mann's CV and the record clearly shows that K was mistaken, rather than admitting it and learning from it, he comes up with this "exonerating fraud" ploy.  It's just another dodge. 

Heck how can I exonerate fraud when there was no fraud.  
As for this defending Dr. Mann to the end, what is K talking about, I've been sharing publicly available information - 
This isn't about "defending," this is about getting the facts straight!  

But K sends out this vib that he KNOWs his facts and he knows that anyone telling him differently is a liar, period - learn K's storyline (though he's very vague about that storyline, except that climate scientists and environmentalists are not to be trusted), or be subjected to every insult and slander in the book.  That's the way of politics leaning towards totalitarianism, it is not the way of rational dialogue.
K ignores the fact that we are talking statistical techniques used in pioneering research - there has never been pioneering research without flaws.  Disagreements about best methods and statistical flaws along with arguing about competing approaches are part of growing understanding and developing the science.   Take a look at what objective review panels had to say:

In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick” 1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." 
In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community". 
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit". 
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt". 
In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets." 
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers". 
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails thatNOAA inappropriately manipulated data". 
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
Here's a little more information: 
Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicized by the George C. Marshall Institute {see herehere and here} and the Competitive Enterprise Institute {see herehere and here}. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11]  
In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. 
In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Oh boy, here the Republican witch hunt takes on ever more disturbing dimensions as we get into the shady games of Congressman Barton's committee hearing with its notorious Wegman Report, another example of the right-wing obsession with ruthless power-politic games rather than trying to learn about our real world situation and preparing for our future. 

But, that's another can of worms I should save for another post.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

K : " other proxies (unspecified at this point) prove the general point."

Actually I did offer links to sources of specific information that clearly discuss these other proxies, had K been interested in learning about it.
Apparently K is unaware that Paleoclimatologists gather proxy data not just from tree rings, but also ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean and lake sediments, corals and historical data to list the most important. Furthermore, all of these subsequent and varied proxy studies support the general accuracy of Mann's original pioneering work. For more regarding the study of ancient climate, check out these sites:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

krischel Says: 
August 18, 2014 at 01:27
@citizenschallenge: You are a natural climate change denier :)
“You dismiss the guy’s academic record”
K says:  Because Mann’s academic record doesn’t make up for his lies and fraud.
“Your McIntyre doesn’t understands the science”
K says:  On the contrary, he’s incredibly well educated, and shows his work. Mann hides it behind lawsuits :)
{How's being incredibly educated in mining, investment strategies and statistics qualify him to judge climate science?}

Thursday, July 18, 2013
Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding

Thursday, July 25, 2013
The's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files

Thursday, July 18, 2013
The's Hockey Stick Files

No comments: