Washington Post on Hwang

Some interesting comments in today’s Washington Post. Thanks to Roger Pielke for the reference. Roger pointed to the following:

Rather, we need to recognize just how arduous and painstaking good science usually is and remind ourselves that data do not become dogma when published, but only when independently validated.

Quite so. The article also pointed to a "market situation" in current stem cell research, leading to rapid and uncritical promotion of "hot" studies:

As the demand for results far outstripped the ability of researchers to supply them, a seller’s market emerged in which goods were overvalued and even low-quality merchandise was snatched up by eager buyers. This is the context in which Hwang’s studies appeared.

While most in the field of stem cell research were shocked by the reports of fraud, the shock was only one of degree; it is common knowledge that the bar for publication in this field often has appeared remarkably low, with even well-respected research journals seeming to fall over one another for the privilege of publishing the next hot paper. The result of this frenzy has been an entire body of literature that is viewed with extreme skepticism by most serious stem cell investigators.

The idea of buyer’s and seller’s markets is obviously familiar to me from stock market experience. I’ve often used stock market analogies to try to explain fads. I would extend the analogy to Hockey Team multiproxy studies. The author of the article says (and I hope that this applies to millennial climate studies as well):

More likely this controversy — and the ensuing scrutiny and self-reflection — will provide exactly what our discipline needs most: the opportunity to modulate the extravagant expectations for this research while we reaffirm our underlying commitment to it…

Temporary Holding Post

While I fix the database after the upgrade, this post will hold the comments to posts I have to delete/recreate.

Ammann at AGU: the Answer

Continued from Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

OK, back to Ammann at AGU, his answer to the cross-validation R2 and my offer to him after our lunch.

I think that asking for the cross-validation R2 was a good one-bite question at several different levels. First, it’s objective and any prevarications are noticeable to the audience. Second, you can get to the point a lot faster than with bristlecones or principal components methodology. Thirdly, it cuts across both MBH and Ammann & Wahl – in the sense that the failed cross-validation R2 was one of our most prominent criticisms of MBH and Ammann had declared that our criticisms of MBH were “unfounded” – a claim which, as we have seen, has been repeated to Congress not only by Mann, but by Sir John Houghton. Their assertions that our claims were “unfounded” fly in the face of the fact that their own code yields a cross-validation R2 of ~0.02 for the 15th century MBH98 step, just as ours did – hardly evidence that our claim was “unfounded”. Continue reading

11 Ammann Mentions in Mann's Barton Letter

As I was writing up my note on Ammann at AGU, I re-read Mann’s reply to Barton, which mentions "ammann" no fewer than 11 times, usually as an "independent"
scientist confirming his results. I’ve collected the mentions here, which make for some merry reading. Then I’ll discuss exactly how "independent" Caspar Michael Ammann (should we call him C. Michael Ammann?) is of his realclimate associates – his former mentor Bradley and his frequent coauthor and collaborator, Mann. Continue reading

Houghton on M&M at the Senate

I promise that I’ll get to Ammann’s answer. I’ve gotten sidetracked a little in documenting how Ammann’s unpublished work has been applied in the U.S. Congress. I’ll get to Mann’s letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a minute. Meantime here is an interesting comment by Sir John Houghton to the testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 21, 2005 archived at creationcare.org here. I won’t comment much here on what Houghton said. Most of you will already know my position as Houghton’s position seems to be the Hockey Team party line. One new point here is Houghton saying that Ammann and Wahl deal with the bristlecone pine issue. I sure haven’t seen anything like that in their articles. The Hockey Team can barely bring themselves to use the word “bristlecone” much less try to explain Mann’s handling of bristlecones. Rest assured that Ammann and Wahl have not explained the bristlecones.

I’ve pointed out before that Ammann and Wahl’s submission to GRL was rejected and was only taken out of the garbage can after they got the editor replaced. (Compare the silence on this to the hysteria about Soon and Baliunas at Climate Research.) It is disquieting in the extreme that a corporation, like the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, should issue a press release announcing the submission of an article and then not announce the rejection. That would be a breach of securities laws requiring ongoing full disclosure for Canadian mining promotions, but seemingly not in climate research. It’s amazing the number of references that were immediately made to the UCAR press release to the U.S. Congress. I formally complained to Richard Anthes, President of UCAR about their handling of the Ammann press release and got a very unsatisfactory reply, but that’s another story.

Here’s Houghton’s testimony. Continue reading

Mann versus Rasmus and Gavin

Remember the argument of Gavin and Rasmus that you shouldn’t use empirical temperature data to calibrate ARIMA models to provide null distributions, which they used against Cohn and Lins. I’m not sure that the argument is valid, but if it is, then they should not have selectively used it against Cohn and Lins, since Mann does exactly the same thing in MBH98. Continue reading

MBH98 and Correlation

Continued from Part 1, Part 2

One more bit of review before we get to Ammann’s answer. As an excuse for not answering the request of the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the R2 statistic, Mann told them that his “colleagues and [himself] did not rely on this statistic” in the following terms:

The Committee inquires about the calculation of the R2 statistic for temperature reconstruction, especially for the 15th Century proxy calculations. In order to answer this question it is important to clarify that I assume that what is meant by the “R2” statistic is the squared Pearson dot-moment correlation, or r2 (i.e., the square of the simple linear correlation coefficient between two time series) over the 1856-1901 “verification” interval for our reconstruction. My colleagues and I did not rely on this statistic in our assessments of “skill” (i.e., the reliability of a statistical model, based on the ability of a statistical model to match data not used in constructing the model) because, in our view, and in the view of other reputable scientists in the field, it is not an adequate measure of “skill.” The statistic used by Mann et al. 1998, the reduction of error, or “RE” statistic, is generally favored by scientists in the field.

This sounds plausible, but it’s usually worthwhile checking what the Hockey Team says. MBH98 itself describes how they went about “not relying on” the r2 statistic as follows:

ß [RE] is a quite rigorous measure of the similarity between two variables, measuring their correspondence not only in terms of the relative departures from mean values (as does the correlation coefficient r) but also in terms of the means and absolute variance of the two series. For comparison, correlation (r) and squared-correlation (r2) statistics are also determined. Significance levels were determined for r2 from standard one-sided tables, accounting for decreased degrees of freedom owing to serial correlation

They made their lack of reliance on the verification r2 statistic very clear through the following illustration, showing the verification r2 statistics for each gridcell in the AD1820 step (which had 112 “proxies” including 12 actual temperature series as so-called “proxies” for temperature:

Original Caption: Figure 3 Spatial patterns of reconstruction statistics. … bottom, verification r2 (also based on 1854–1901 data). … For the r2 statistic, statistically insignificant values (or any gridpoints with unphysical values of correlation r < 0) are indicated in grey. The colour scale indicates values significant at the 90% (yellow), 99% (light red) and 99.9% (dark red) levels (these significance levels are slightly higher for the calibration statistics which are based on a longer period of time). A description of significance level estimation is provided in the Methods section. Continue reading

Ammann at AGU #2

Continued from Ammann at AGU (#1).

I’m going to give a fairly brief account of previous attempts to get the residual series and/or cross-validation R2 from Mann, including inquiries to Mann, N.S.F., through Nature, by Climatic Change, by Natuurwetenschap & Techniek and by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As you will see, no one has been able to get Mann to disclose the information – even with a very direct question by the House Committee.

Do residuals and cross-validation statistics “matter” and should Mann have to disclose them? Well, they are vital to consideration of any statistical model. They should be every bit as important to a climate scientist as DNA fingerprints and stem cell colony photos are to stem cell researchers. Imagine if the SI to the Hwang article had not contained this information? Without the detailed SI, Hwang would still be in business. But there are many reasons short of fraud to examine the residuals; concern about fraud is probably the last reason. But none of these other reasons have so far prevailed. Preparing this review has reminded me just how determined Mann has been in avoiding disclosure of this information and the dangerous line that he is treading with respect to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Continue reading

Spaghetti Graph Data

Some of you are looking for digital versions of the multiproxy results. For convenience, here is a digital collation of major reconstructions used in spaghetti graphs. The collation text is here, and URLs to source data can be extracted from line items. It’s not been made user-friendly.

Ammann at AGU: If You Had One Question..

Ammann made a presentation at the same AGU session as me, spending a considerable amount of time criticizing us — though with nothing new to say that we haven’t already rebutted here and in print. There was time for one question (AGU is fanatical about schedules) and I was recognized. So here’s my question to you: if you had one question to ask Mann or Ammann on such an occasion, what would you ask? Think about it before reading my choice. (Interestingly. Ross, under different circumstances, independently made the same suggestion). Continue reading