* ]]>

PS. Can’t help but chuckle at Wahl and Amman’s use of five decimal places for the 1700-1729 r-squared. Because 0.00003 is just sooo much more convincing than 0.000, isn’t it?

I get much higher r2, 0.0014đź™‚

( http://signals.auditblogs.com/files/2008/03/ad1700.png )

And r2 for my versus Mann’s reconstruction (1700-1729) is 0.99996.

]]>The same kind of comment would apply in equal measure to the GCM’s; i.e. layers of assumptions built upon layers of assumptions built upon more layers of assumptions.

*“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.”
~ Pierre Gallois*

Bill Mecorney, 108 …. but I have to say that for any group of people to assume so much precise information from such gross observations is ludicrous, even to an old Lumberjack.

The same kind of comment would apply in equal measure to the GCM’s; i.e. layers of assumptions built upon layers of assumptions built upon more layers of assumptions.

Likewise, if you are a funded AGW climate scientist pursuing MBH-like climate reconstructions from tree-ring proxies, it is easy to justify doing this kind of thing — generating precise information from a very limited sampling space while employing gross observation techniques and while making questionable assumptions about the physical processes and linkages.

You want to keep your job and your funding. Your customers — other climate scientists — want to discount the Medieval Warm Period. So you construct an edifice consisting of various analysis building blocks that in their sum total, support the customer’s larger need to discount the possibility that recent warming trends are within the boundaries of natural climate variation.

If you are a customer for these proxy edifices, and a Big Bad Analysis Wolf appears at the door driving a D9 Caterpillar bulldozer with the obvious intention of evaluating the structural integrity of your analysis building blocks — the ones you have just purchased at some expense with great confidence they will do the job — then the natural inclination is to shore them up as best you can, using whatever can be **scraped together** to keep those analysis building blocks **stuck together**.

This is what is happening now with Tamino and his ilk. (OK, maybe I’m a bit too harsh. Let me modify the term “ilk” by adding an “e” and rearranging the letters. “This is what is happening now with Tamino and his like.” )

]]>The calibration period R^2, on the other hand, is easily transformed into a “regression F-test” of the hypothesis that all the regression coefficients are 0: With n calibration observations and k regressors (including the intercept), (R^2*(n-k))/((1-R^2)*(k-1)) is distributed F(k-1, n-k) if all the slopes are 0, so that a sufficiently big R^2 (as adjusted for sample size and number of regressors) indicates that at least some are non-zero.

Is there a similar theory for the verification RE and CE stats as defined by MBH98? If so, have MBH et al ever used this theory?

]]>ma in va: I propose that we refer to MBH as the â€śvoodoo theoryâ€ť – because as many times as Steve drives a stake through its heart it keeps coming back from the dead.

It has been thirty-two years since I was first exposed to the kind of analytical work ethic typified by many yuppie MBA-types who were hired to generate volumes of data and analysis so as to justify business decisions that **had already been made**.

MBH has all the look and feel of these kinds of analytical products — ones built to some predetermined outcome — except that the subject is climate reconstruction as opposed to business marketing analysis or business profitability analysis.

When all the layers of MBH are fully unwrapped and exposed, it has all the look and feel of an analysis product which has been constructed to a predetermined customer specification, in this case the requirement to discount the existence of the Medieval Warm Period.

It is my opinion that none of the climate scientists who produced MBH ever believed their work would be subjected to any kind of rigorous independent examination, one which could operate quite effectively outside of the peer review process they themselves tightly controlled.

Will the work Steve and Ross have performed, in revealing MBH for what it is, be of any practical near-term use in the realm of public policy debate?

Not yet… As far as the media is concerned, the science of AGW is settled. As much as I hate to say it, we will not see any serious notice taken of what Steve and Ross have accomplished until anti-carbon measures begin having a truly serious impact on people’s everyday way of life.

]]>Many readers here are familiar with this sort of problem, but it seems unfamiliar to climate scientists, who seem completely baffled by this sort of argument.

They simply don’t understand the concept of proving assumptions, nor do they realize they’ve created a circular argument.

Mark

]]>“Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”

Regards,

Chris