There’s another puff piece on Raymond Bradley in the U Mass magazine entitled Never Mind The Weather. The article reports, among other things, that:
Bradley says he is sickened by the coordinated and well-financed campaign to discredit the data he and others like him are generating.
If Bradley were asked to name people who were involved in this "coordinated and well-financed campaign", I wonder who he’d name. Would I be on the list? If he thinks so, it’s despite explicit statements that I am not being financed by ExxonMobil or anyone else and I am not doing this to save the carbon economy. I’m doing this from my savings and I’m doing this because I find it interesting. I’m also doing this without any "coordination".
Bradley goes on to say that:
What he didn’t bargain for when he and his colleagues published those papers, but what he realizes in retrospect he should have anticipated, was the fury with which those having a vested interest in what he calls “the carbon economy” would attack not only his work but also him personally. The hockey stick “became the focal point of the venom and diatribe of the so-called climate skeptics,” said Bradley. “You publish a paper and you expect people to challenge it and ask questions, but you don’t expect to be personally attacked for what you are doing, your motives questioned and your competence questioned. That’s not the normal way of science.”
First of all, Bradley’s right about one thing: for a paper like MBH98, you do "expect people to challenge it and ask questions". And yet there seems to have been remarkably little challenging or questioning until I got interested in it. If Bradley expects people to "ask questions", then surely it’s legitimate for those people to expect answers. What is his justification for such secrecy and obfuscation about their data, methodology and source code? For example, after our first 2003 article, they said that they used 159 series (a figure nowhere mentioned in MBH98). I asked them to identify the 159 series – they refused. The 159 series have still never been listed (and is of course wrong anyway.)
As Bradley said, I didn’t "expect to be personally attacked for what you are doing, your motives questioned and your competence questioned. That’s not the normal way of science." But that’s sure what I received. Mann wrote to Natuurwetenschap & Techniek accusing me of being "dishonest" and disseminated to them a scurrilous pamphlet by the Environmental Defence Fund, accusing me of being supported by ExxonMobil. Mann reported similar accusations being made to New Scientist. I’ve been accused of all sorts of incompetence – look at the realclimate blogs about McIntyre and McKitrick. Or look at Trenberth’s comment about being "incredibly stupid" or Mahlman’s "lampoonable". (One of the benefits of this blog is that I hear a lot less about being incompetent, as even the most avid Hockey Team fan is unlikely to think that, for example, Benestad’s discussion relying on an assumption of independent identical errors is mathematically more sophisticated than the various discussions here of econometric approaches to autocorrelation.)
I’ve been as hard on the hockey stick as anyone else – probably harder. The Hockey Team thinks that I’m too hard on them. Where have I "personally attacked" Bradley or "questioned his motives"? I’ve tried to stick to criticism of the articles. Now some of the criticisms of the articles cut pretty close to the bone, e.g. it’s hard to make a statements that MBH98 failed to disclose the adverse cross-validation R2 statistic or adverse sensitivity results to the absence of bristlecone pines without implying some criticism of the authors. However, the direct criticism is of the articles.
I’ve written enough about these matters that I’ve undoubtedly strayed from time to time into slightly sharper commentary. Usually, I’ve ratcheted up in response to new slurs, such as those made in the ES&T article. But I can’t offhand think of any commentary of mine that "personally attacked" Bradley or "questioned his motives". (If someone draws any such to my attention, I’ll take a look at what I’ve got posted.) As I say, it’s possible, but I would certainly deny that it’s in any sense characteristic of my criticism of the hockey stick.
Bradley went on to say:
Bradley credits Mann with originating new mathematical approaches that were crucial to identifying strong trends
I wonder what Bradley would describe as being the "new mathematical approaches". There are only two possibilities: (1) Mann’s PC methodology; (2) Mann’s regression-inversion methodology. We’ve described the flaws in the PC methodology at some length in our GRL and EE articles. I’ve not described the problems in the regression-inversion methodology formally, but I’ve posted on these problems from time to time here. The usual Hockey Team approach to the identification of flaws in these methodologies is to argue that they can "get" a hockey stick another way e.g. old-fashioned cherry-picking. It’s interesting that Bradley takes the opposite view – that Mann’s flawed techniques are "crucial" to identifying "strong trends".