Last month Judith Curry challenged folks to respond to Bishop Hill/Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science
So I am laying down the gauntlet, this really needs to discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders.
and
In the context of the hockey stick wars, Montford clearly describes the three main critiques that MM had of MBH98,99: i) inappropriate use of centering in the principal component analysis; ii) stripbark bristlecones are not reliable as a proxy; iii) the R2 statistic needs to be used in the assessment of significance
I said that I would look at it, and I will when my copy arrives but in the meantime Tamino has written a detailed review of the book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino's review were:
numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book
Brian Angliss has a useful summary of Monckton's attempt to intimidate John Abraham while Eli Rabett looks at Monckton's correspondence with University of St. Thomas. The best bit is where Monckton professes to be unaware of any "disparaging", "outrageous", or "defamatory" comments he has made about the University of St. Thomas and Father Dease on Alex Jones despite calling the university a "half-assed Catholic Bible college" and Dease a "creep" on that show.
But I want to look at Monckton's continuing claim to be member of the House of Lords. If you think that the House of Lords saying that he's not a member would be the end of it, but Monckton is now saying that the ouse of Lords is lying:
"The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to - but did not - remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise."
Which is perhaps the reason why Monckton, supported by Anthony Watts, is trying to suppress Abraham's presentation. Over at Watts Up with That? Monckton defames Abraham and asks for help in suppressing Abraham's speech:
Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him - even at this eleventh hour - to take down Abraham's talk altogether from the University's servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor's unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.
We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton's misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.
In his post Monckton claims that Abraham admitted "that his talk is libelous" by producing a revised version. This doesn't make any kind of sense -- people revise presentations all the time for many different reasons. In any case, the original version is still available.
I've just got back from the Guardian "ClimateGate" debate in London and here are some of the notes I made of the event.
On the panel chaired by George Monbiot was Fred Pearce, Prof Trevor Davies (Vice-chancellor at UAE and former Director of CRU), Steven McIntyre, Prof Bob Watson (UK Gov scientific advisor and former IPCC chair) and Doug Keenan.
In the audience were various luminaries: Benny Peiser, Piers Corbyn, Roger Harribin and......Jonathan Leake!!
Now Monckton has responded with 446 questions for Abraham. Just to be clear here, "446 questions" is not hyperbole for "lots of questions". There are 446 questions in an 86 page pdf. And what questions they are. Eli Rabbett is already enjoying himself here and here. I decided to pick out three questions to answer and question Monckton on, and let you guys have fun with the rest in the comments.
The Australian's coverage of the story of the emails stolen from CRU has been extensive -- my Factiva search found that there have published 85 articles so far that mention the matter, with repeated allegations that the emails showed that the scientists were corrupt, had acted dishonestly and that the science could not be trusted. In February they reported on the Independent Climate Change Email Review:
The university had already announced a wide-ranging probe into whether its researchers manipulated information about global warming. That review, headed by senior British civil servant Muir Russell, began work yesterday and called for submissions by March 1
And the irony doesn't end with the headline, because the story is about the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency examination of AR4 on regional climate change. PBL concluded:
Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with a greater magnitude of weight gain and an increased risk for development of type 2 diabetes in women, possibly by providing excessive calories and large amounts of rapidly absorbable sugars.
Todd Zywicki, who endorsed Milloy's piece as a "devastating critique" has mounted a defence of Milloy. Unfortunately it is clear that Zywicki has not read the article (subscription required) or even the abstract describing the study.
Zywicki dismisses concerns about Milloy's character raised by Davies and John Quiggin as not relevant to the question of whether the JAMA study is a good one or not. It isn't, but Zywicki hasn't read the JAMA study. Instead he is relying on Milloy to accurately describe it. Milloy's character suggests that his description of the study might be misleading; and in fact it is misleading and as we will see below, Zywicki has been mislead.
Zywicki writes:
Milloy says that the once the researchers "statistically adjusted their results for bodyweight (a risk factor for diabetes) and for caloric intake (a proxy measure of consumption of sweetened foods other than soda), the 83 percent increase [in type 2 diabetes prevalence] dropped to an even more statistically dubious (and soft-pedaled) 32 percent increase." Now it seems to me that Milloy is obviously correct here---bodyweight and non-soda caloric intake seem to me to obviously relevant to trying to isolate the marginal effect of the increased soda consumption. So the 83 percent figure is really an irrelevant number
Milloy has mislead Zywicki into thinking that the 83% increase in diabetes was partly caused by confounds---that the women who drank more sugary drinks also happened to be heavier and eat more and that these factors are what caused most of the increase. But right in the abstract they clearly state (my emphasis):
After adjustment for potential confounders, women consuming 1 or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day had a relative risk [RR] of type 2 diabetes of 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.36; P<.001 for trend) compared with those who consumed less than 1 of these beverages per month.
So what is the 32% figure that Milloy tried to pass off as the "real" increase? Well, they found that increased soda consumption was associated with weight gain and weight gain is known to be a risk factor for diabetes. The 32% increase is the extra risk factor for soda consumption on top of the increase from the weight gain from drinking more soda. It would only be the real risk if sugar-sweetened drinks did not cause weight gain, but they do.
This is not the only matter that Milloy has misled Zywicki about. Zywicki writes:
Milloy similarly notes that the study does not control for genetics or lifestyle issues
But the study did control for genetics and lifestyle issues (my emphasis):
We evaluated whether the association between sugar-sweetened soft drink consumption and risk of diabetes was modified by BMI, physical activity, and a family history of diabetes using analyses stratified by these variables and by modelling interaction terms.
Milloy even accuses the authors of "scientific misconduct" for not mentioning another study that Milloy alleges contradicts their results. But that other study was not about soft drink consumption but about overall sugar consumption. The new study suggests that consuming sugar in a drink where it is more rapidly absorbed may increase the risk of diabetes. This is hardly contradicted by results that suggest that sugar intake including that in solid food is not a risk factor. Zywicki endorses the serious charges that Milloy makes without checking whether they are accurate.
Update: The Washington Times has also published Milloy's misleading article and Reason's Nick Gillespie was also taken in. Matthew Yglesias reckons that libertarians should just argue that they have a right to unhealthy food instead of trying to debunk the science that shows them to be unhealthy.
Update 2: Nick Gillespie links here (thanks!) and to a Tech Central Station article by Jon Robison that criticizes the JAMA study. Robison, like Milloy, tries to pass of the 32% increase in diabetes, which is the extra risk after accounting for the effect of weight gain, as the total increase in risk. Robison also asserts that "Epidemiologists generally agree that relative risks less than 2 should be ignored or at least viewed with extreme skepticism". In fact, epidemiologists do not "generally agree" with this. I explain why in this post.
On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. ... we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. ... But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness
On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not
in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. ... On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence
of bias. ... We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. ... On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial
process we find no evidence to substantiate this ... On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld
Yes, it's another vindication. Steve McIntyre isn't admitting that he got it wrong, continuing to insist that Briffa broke IPCC rules while writing AR4. Oddly enough McIntyre fails to quote these IPCC rules that he alleges were broken. Where's the transparency?
The scientists revealed they have been told to "go gargle razor blades" and have been described as "Nazi climate murderers". Some emails have been sent to them without any attempt by the sender to disguise their identity. Even though the scientists have received advice from the FBI, the local police say they are not able to act due to the near-total tolerance of "freedom of speech" in the US.
Marc Morano regularly posts the email addresses of climate scientists to be targetted with such emails over at Climate Depot. (And please do not email him -- it will only encourage him.)
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
