I’m trying to use "hissy fit" purely descriptively and not in an ad hominem sense. I can’t think of any other way to describe today’s postings at Daily Kos – scroll down. A reader posted up a pretty sensible and mundane question about RegEM – the new magic bullet from the nomadic Hockey Team.
I understand that MBH98 is out of date. Assuming now that RegEM is still up to date, it is, like MBH98, a parameter-intensive scheme with no defined error model (cf. Schneider 2001). Why should it be immune from the data processing and extrapolation issues raised by BàÆà⻲ger and Cubasch?
Which proxy study proves that RegEM is superior to EOF based approaches? Certainly not Schneider 2001 himself: “Hence, any claim that the regularized EM algorithm or any other technique for the imputation of missing values in climate data is “optimal” in some general sense would be unjustified. The performance of the regularized EM algorithm must be assessed in practice.” – I am unaware of such an assessment.
What is the agenda behind BàÆà⻲ger and Cubasch? [referring back to allegations from S&M that critics have “Agendas”]
Look at the outburst from Mann and Schmidt.
This is the first thing that they say to this reasonable question:
The Shills Have Arrived!
Where to start? A common tactic of shills (a good example is the stunt pulled by shill for hire Steve Milloy) is to truncate a quote so as to completely distort its original meaning
They go on to say:
The commenter is also either extremely misinformed (i.e., didn’t actually read Schneider 2001) or just plain dishonest when he/she claims that the Schneider (2001) “RegEM” algorithm provides “no defined error model”….
The Schneider (2001) paper (and algorithm) are publically available anyway. Or didn’t the commenter know that? Readers (warning, some background in statistics required) ought to take a look themselves, and decide who is giving them the straight story, and who might simply be lying to them….
But the agenda of the commenter–to disinform the readers of this thread–seems quite obvious.
Given prior observations in the thread about Mann’s ad hominems, the commenter raised his eyebrows slightly at this reply, but proceeded to ask some further technical and sensible questions. More hissy fit as follows:
the last time we’re going to discredit your claims
This is getting tiring, and we won’t encourage you on any further than this.
You now ask for a study that compares the MBH98 and RegEM approaches. Why don’t you take another look at the Mann et al (2005)paper provided above, and actually read it. What does figure 2 show? Ah yes, a comparison of applications of RegEM and MBH98 approach to the same precise data set, showing the two methods give very nearly the same result, well within the mutual uncertainties.
Now, we could pick apart everything else you just said, just as we did in the first round(especially your comment about the multiple contributions to the estimated error term which is a strength, not a weakness as you seem to imply, of RegEM). But this is now just getting semantic and boring.
We’d rather spend our time helping to educate the thousands of visitors a day that visit RealClimate who are often genuinely interested in learning about the science.
Your cherry-picking and deceptive quotation are probably not welcome by the DailyKos readers, and we’re not going to encourage you by responding further.
It is quite a spectacle.