Pharyngula

You might also want to tell them that the name of your blog is "Pharyngula," not "Paryngula."

Posted by: Sastra | November 2, 2007 11:18 AM

By the way, PZ, do I even need to point out how little respect you should have for an award that can't even spell the name of your blog correctly?

Posted by: CC | November 2, 2007 11:50 AM

While you're answering Freddy's question, PZ, do you also adopt the position that the sky is blue?
If so, why ?

Posted by: Dustin | November 2, 2007 12:14 PM

The link for "In the Pipeline" points back to yourself. Pls delete this comment when fixed.

Posted by: Neil Schipper | November 2, 2007 12:23 PM

Well, given that ClimateAudit's author has been debunked by the RealClimate crew for years, yet continues to ignore those debunkings is an indication of where ClimateAudit leans. I actually sat there and read through a lot of their posts, and while they attempt to sound incredibly scientific, they rarely will EVER put up a concrete conclusion of their findings, instead just casting doubt like so many conservative monkeys cast poo.

In essence, they may as well just have two posts:
Bristlecone Pine data could be faulty, but we're not sure.
and
Hockey sticks are for playing hockey, not climate science!

Actually, that is probably just one long post for them. Close the ClimateAudit blog, we've got it all done!

Posted by: Jay | November 2, 2007 1:08 PM

Here's a proper link for Derek Lowe's In The Pipeline.

I really should get back to reading that. His is one of the first blogs I read. But until I get over the depression from failing to finish my Ph.D. I can't handle reading about chemistry. Annoying really.

Posted by: Sili | November 2, 2007 2:11 PM

Surprised at the mischaracterisation of ClimateAudit by PZ and others here. Steve McIntyre is a thoughtful, objective scientist; his posts are always specific to scientific areas he is interested in, and he is quite willing to criticise papers of poor quality whichever side of the fence their conclusions fall.

And yes, there is a lot of coverage (amongst other things) on the Bristlecone Pines; but given that the vast majority of the recent temperature chronologies depend heavily on them (and their closely related cousins, the Foxtails), I think it is quite a good idea that someone actually checks that they are meaningful temperature proxies. There is relatively little to support the manner in which they are being used in the temperature reconstructions (and a fair amount that calls it into question).

Steve has done what any scientist would: gone out and collected out-of-sample data (by updating the chronologies to the present day). If they are valid temperature proxies, they should be setting new highs in the last thirty years or so (since they were last updated). If they aren't, it raises some serious questions about the vast majority of paleo temperature reconstructions. The data are currently being processed, and will be published - even if the data show they are valid proxies. Which is how science should work, no?

There is no question that the wider issue of climate science has become highly politicised - on both sides of the debate. But to then assume someone holds a political position because of their views on climate science is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent/hasty generalisation). Seems a shame I would have to point that out on a scientific blog.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 3:06 PM

I've submitted a few of your stories to netscape (propeller). They tend to do quite well. Here is an example...

http://religion.propeller.com/story/2007/07/18/religion-makes-you-nuts/

Keep up the good work PZ.

Posted by: Scholar | November 2, 2007 3:34 PM

Jared,

Try arguing the science, the evidence, the reasoning, not the person. And wikipedia, whilst useful, is not a panacea.

Steve McIntyre has successfully published controversial views in peer-reviewed climatology journals; either he got lucky, or he has some insight which has eluded climate scientists up to now.

If you have a technical disagreement with his points, send him a note. A good technical counterpoint to his work usually gets put up as a head post.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 3:48 PM

I hear rumors that PM Zyers guy over at Paryngula is a shrill angry hellbound freethinker. Much as I like Bad Astronomy I may still have to vote for him every day.

Posted by: melior | November 2, 2007 4:11 PM

So Climate Audit has been "debunked" by Real Climate? That requires something scientific called evidence

One of the hallmarks of junk science is the refusal to adequately address criticisms by pretending they've never been made. We see this all the time in the "Intelligent Design" field. We see it with climate change deniers (as opposed to legitimate, scientifically-based skeptics):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/index.php?p=121

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/index.php?p=199

There are those posts and multiples papers and discussions linked/discussed at RealClimate, regarding the "hockey stick" issue including the flaws of the MM098 paper. There are further discussions regarding McIntyre's continual disenguous claims.

Please reference any scientific papers proving that Climate Audit or Steve McIntyre has been debunked. Any at all. The NAS Panel report (for all of its doublespeak) lays not a glove on Steve McIntyre, repeating every single criticism made of the Mann Hockey Stick and calling for proper archiving of data, transparency of methodology, the proper use of statistical metrics to detect spurious correlations and strongly recommending against the use of stripbark trees such as the bristlecone pines used in nearly every study.

You seem to be the kind that would refuse to listen to any debunking of your claims. However, not everyone is willing to accept assertions. Especially assertions that appear to be propagandist in nature:

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,[27] supporting Mann's more general assertion regarding the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but showing less confidence in his assertions regarding individual decades or years, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." [28]

One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.[19] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available [20]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [21] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[22] Congress was especially concerned about Mann's reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements. [23] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. [27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph." [28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

So, basically, McIntyre claims victory when all he really did was force a small adjustment to something that was essentially correct: The Hockey Stick Graph.

Yet, McIntyre still seems to claim that global warming is bullshit and the Hockey Stick Graph is wrong and that he won, even though he didn't. The only thing that won was a small correction to the model, and for that we're grateful.

If MyIntyre was a scientist, he'd probably be happy about getting credit for the small correction. Improvements to any model, even if small, are important and worthwhile. Yet... A whole blog devoted to denial, recriminations and whining.

I'm also startled to find out that Climate Audit is a right-wing blog. Since when is it "right-wing" to replicate well-known climatological papers? Or apply the scientific method to critically examine statistical issues? Do some self-proclaimed "progressives" not believe in such things, or is it just the knee-jerk reaction to cast aspersions without evidence?

This is pretty tortured and lame. However, continuous politicalization of the scientific process this isn't science by McIntyre. McIntyre, a retired mineral and oil man, has been in the lead in fueling global warming deniers with false information. We can see this by his actions as he continues to politicize the issue, beating his one-note drum, yet fails to address the multiple papers that have minimized his erroneous claims.

The irony is that he has made some minor contributions to solidifying the Global Warming Paradigm by catching a few errors and firming up Mann's model and cleaning up some NASA data. So, for all his decade of denial, he's gone nowhere and only made things more accurate (better) in the model. So, at least he's a USEFUL crank.

Since Steve McIntyre has previously described himself in American terms as a (Bill) Clinton Democrat, exactly what is the definition used here? Anything to the Right of Trotsky perhaps? There's nothing on the blog that rightwingers can claim as theirs, since Steve keeps political discussion to a minimum.

Oh yes, and the sky is blue. I know this because Exxon Mobil paid me to say so.

Actions speak louder than words:

... While I have been unable to locate any documents confirming this, there is a record on the Ontario Government website of Steve's 1991 testimony to a legislative committee re. Bill C 70, "An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program". In his presentation, Steve complains about liabilities for mine directors, bitches about civil service wages, trash talks unions a bit, and whines about environmental regulations.

So, while none of this information is earth-shattering, it does help slot Mr. McIntyre rather neatly on the ideological spectrum as a small business Conservative with interests in the petroleum industry.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-heck-is-steve-mcintyre-portait-of.html

Summation of McIntyre: Mathmatician with life-long ties to oil & gas industry and conservative politics. Currently has no know means of support beyond oil & gas industry consulting. Has forced a minor correction to the so-called "Hockey Stick" and is associated with many Global Warming Denialists operating in the public sphere (primarily US Government).

Is considered, in the court of scientific opinion, a "Global Warming Denialist" and purveyor of crank/junk science.

Posted by: Moses | November 2, 2007 4:22 PM

He could be correct but I am usually hesitant to trust mathematicians (or economists or philosophers or political scientists or mining executives) when they write outside their own field.

Hell, I'm reluctanct to trust economists, philosophers, political scientists, or mining executives even when they are writing within their own fields.

But that's only because I've met so many of them.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 2, 2007 4:27 PM

To my knowledge McIntyre hasn't stated any exact views on climate science or asserted that "the IPCC are wrong".

I noted upthread that "I am reminded, when reading [Climate Audit], of certain evasive tactics used by squid." His tactic seems to be to spew ink rather than come out with what the hell he's saying. A favorite tactic of denialists of all stripes.

He has audited data with support from dozens of others,

Such as?

and considerable contributions have been made to the science.

Such as?

Posted by: Ray C. | November 2, 2007 4:30 PM

Dear Paryngula,

I want you to know that I am getting about 30 times more referrals from your blog then from the actual 2007 Weblog Awards posting :-).

*hugs*

Posted by: Jenn | November 2, 2007 4:39 PM

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html#links

Here's somemore on McIntyre's failings to erase Global Warming.

Posted by: Moses | November 2, 2007 4:43 PM

Real Climate debunking anything? I don't get it are you trying for satire? I love how people hold up Real Climate as some sort of paragon of accuracy.

If you are bothered by being catagorized with Climate Audit and Junk science.com than you certainly should not be involved. How dare they discuss actual data!

Posted by: Wondering Aloud | November 2, 2007 5:00 PM

The abstract from the Wahl and Ammann paper cited above (can be found here; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf)

"The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to "center" the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent "corrections" to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (~ +0.05°), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400-1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work."

Emphasis added WRT reference to McIntyre.

FYI

Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 2, 2007 5:25 PM

You do realize I bluntly acknowledged that I know nothing about Steve McIntyre and ClimateAudit?
Yes you did, but you still felt you knew enough to vocally dismiss his work (in particular, by the fallacy of guilt by association to ID theorists) based on the person he is.

Since I'm not a climatologist and know very little about climate science, my point was that I have to trust someone and his background would make me very hesitant to trust him over climatologists.
Aside from the appeal to authority (which, in certain conditions, can be valid), it is possible as a scientist to pick apart certain arguments from another field - particularly where the arguments are statistical issues (the centre of the issues around the temperature reconstructions).

In order to wind the temperature of this debate down a bit (I don't want to start a blog war!) I'll give an example I hope we can both agree on. I'm always interested in scientific scandal and error (in part so I can minimise the risk of falling into the same trap!). Aside: I would recommend the book "False Prophets", by Alexander Kohn, as an excellent read on the topic.

For my neutral example: I thought the infamous "Torah Codes" was a fascinating example. For those that don't know, this was a scientific study into whether "stop codes" from biblical texts had predicted events that the original text predates. You can imagine the furore caused by this.

The idea was that stop codes (taking every nth character from a text) of certain words describing events were unusually close in the original bible text - far closer than would be expected by chance. Careful analysis was required, with skills from various areas, including linguistics, statistics, history etc.

Despite great care in the statistics calculation (a very careful and complete sampling criteria were defined that allowed replication and validation), a number of very subtle errors were found in the methodology that inflated the significance of the findings. Predictably, some of these were discovered by an outsider who took an interest (a mathematician, funnily enough). Particularly when problems relate to statistical analyses, it is often possible - perhaps even easier - for people outside the science to spot problems, because statistics is (comparatively) universal.

I would say, if you are unwilling to investigate the issues, then I can understand your viewpoint and appeal to authority of the climate scientists. But as someone who has looked in great detail at the problem at hand (including writing my own code to replicate parts of the processes and independently test some claims), I can say that the issues McIntyre raises are valid and relevant. I can only suggest that if you have a genuine interest in the topic that you do similar yourself.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 5:27 PM

(I don't want to start a blog war!)

riiiigggghhhhtttt....

that's why you're here, eh Spence?

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 2, 2007 5:35 PM

Spence wrote;

"I would say, if you are unwilling to investigate the issues, then I can understand your viewpoint and appeal to authority of the climate scientists. But as someone who has looked in great detail at the problem at hand (including writing my own code to replicate parts of the processes and independently test some claims), I can say that the issues McIntyre raises are valid and relevant. I can only suggest that if you have a genuine interest in the topic that you do similar yourself."

I do not follow this field very much and I am largely unfamiliar with the body of work. But I was wondering, WRT to your admonition above, what you think of the work of other professionals in the field who also have "looked in great detail at the problem at hand" and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being "valid and relevant", they instead have found them to be "without statistical and climatological merit"?

I am not, EN-OH-TEE, not flaming you here Spence. I am asking a sincere question from a standpoint of (mostly) ignorance.

Posted by: shiftlessbum | November 2, 2007 5:39 PM

How dare they discuss actual data!

junk science spends just as much time spinning actual data as they do trying to fake it.

you should try spending some time looking at the history of the "Intelligent Design" folks to see the parallels.

oh, wait, global warming deniers are just as likely as IDiots to project, so they are also just as likely to fail to see themselves doing so.

IOW, it's entirely hopeless for me to ask you to self-examine by looking at parallels.

oh, well, maybe someone who has a chance might bother to take a gander and see the parallels for themselves.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 2, 2007 5:42 PM

Re #39

Thanks for the cordial reply. I will try and reign in some of the rhetoric. I hope to answer this as best I can.

As Steve has noted, the paleoclimate reconstructions have little or no bearing on the consequences of (say) doubling CO2 concentrations. That is an entirely separate issue that should not be conflated with the issue of historical temperature reconstruction. They are linked, but only very indirectly in terms of the scientific issues.

My personal take on the significance issue is that there are two serious issues with the current crop of reconstructions. The first is the sampling criteria, which is rarely explicitly defined. In the Torah Code example, the methodology for selecting which words to test for were laid out in excruciating detail. In temperature reconstructions, it is rare for the selected samples to be properly identified, let alone the criteria for selection.

This is partly wrapped up with the limited amount of data available; good temperature proxies going back 1000 years+ don't grow on trees (sorry bad pun). OK some might grow on trees but they are hard to come by. But without a clearly defined sampling strategy, it is impossible to replicate the work as out-of-sample data becomes available. This allows experimenter/researcher bias to enter the problem, the problems this causes are well documented with Blondlot's N-rays.

The second issue is that of confidence intervals. The primary claim is that the modern period (late 20th c.) is warmer than any other period in recent history (last 1000 years). Yet if confidence intervals are indeterminate in that period, how can you make a valid comparison?

On this basis, I would argue it is impossible to claim with any statistical significance that the modern warm period was warmer than any other recent warm period. If this is the claim (which, for example, MBH98 and others have made), then there is a statistical significance to the issue; but it is more that prior claims lack significance.

Hopefully, with further work and analysis, confidence intervals can be computed and significance (one way or the other) can be determined, but we are not there yet (in my humble opinion).

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 5:55 PM

Re #44

Wow, that is impressively quick! You are quite correct to highlight this paper. Wahl and Ammann raised around three or four points. They only made one point of merit which had already been covered by Huybers (as you link) and Steve's published response to Huybers:

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.huybersreply.pdf

Steve's reply recognises the error that Huybers correctly identifies - but Huybers also made a separate error (a repetition of an error made by Mann). Only Steve's final reply includes the calculations with all errors on all sides resolved (that I am aware of).

In short, Huybers was a valuable correction and contribution to the topic, Wahl and Ammann was really a step backwards - and was rejected on this basis.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 6:17 PM

Postscript to #44 - sorry about this

I am assuming that is why it was rejected. Of course, I am not privy to the referee's or editors comments, so I could be quite wrong in the details.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 6:21 PM

you still felt you knew enough to vocally dismiss his work (in particular, by the fallacy of guilt by association to ID theorists) based on the person he is.

I actually did not dismiss his work since I admitted that he could be right. I referenced IDists to explain why I have developed a bias against scientists who write outside their field (e.g., mathematicians and engineers tackling biology).

Aside from the appeal to authority (which, in certain conditions, can be valid), it is possible as a scientist to pick apart certain arguments from another field

Of course, it's possible for a random scientist in another field to find errors but not as likely as a scientist in that field. Also, as you note, an appeal to authority is valid in certain conditions but appealing to experts is usually valid so even mentioning the fallacy seems a little strange.

Posted by: Jared | November 2, 2007 6:32 PM

"You earlier stated that te IPCC had dismissed Mann et al. I provided a reference that proved that statement wrong"

No, you read/understood me wrong. Or I explained myself inaccurately (English is not my native tongue). I said they had dumped Mann from their presentation, unlike in 2001. It's still in the full report, buried deep down, but it's not in the summary for policy makers (and the public) that 99,99% people will read. Mann himself contested this furiously, and called it a smack to his face. Check the review process.

Posted by: Buddenbrook | November 2, 2007 6:46 PM

Jared,

You used an appeal to authority. That's why I mentioned it. Appeal to authority can be valid, but should be treated with caution. It is therefore noteworthy.

I am used to most people dismissing sound AGW/sceptic arguments with association by fallacy smears, or through appeals to authority. I have a bit of a trigger finger on those. Kudos to you for accepting that Steve might be right. Shame on you for invoking the fallacies beforehand though. Now do the right thing and read some of Steve's posts on ClimateAudit :) Don't get too wound up by the commentators though, as with any blog you get all sorts. Me included.

Posted by: Spence | November 2, 2007 6:56 PM

Buddenbrook said

"It's still in the full report, buried deep down, but it's not in the summary for policy makers (and the public) that 99,99% people will read. Mann himself contested this furiously, and called it a smack to his face. Check the review process."

Could you please provide a ref it is my understanding that the review process of the SPM is not publically available, but I could be wrong.

I would note, however, that the SPM involves considerable Govt input and way the results were presented in the SPM was strongly influenced by the US, PRC and Saudi Govts (while still reflecting hte state of the science it may not reflect somne of the more concerning uncertainities). That is why I have spent the last 3 months reading WG1 WG2 and WG3.

Another point it was most probably a good thing that the Proxy reconstructions were not included. They are just part of a much larger body of evidence telling a very consistent story. Putting it up front would have just brought the CA AEI etc. crowd out frothing at the mouth. As one small comment here demonstrates.

Finally whenever I have gone to Realclimate, Open Mind, or Deltoid and asked a lay person's question I have always found the response from them clear, polite, informative, fair and convincing. Perhaps you should try again and pay close attention to the answers they give?

Posted by: Doug Clover | November 2, 2007 7:13 PM

"If you assert that Mann et al are right, even if they have convincingly been proven wrong, and that they are right because their work, when it was approved, before it was shown to be full of errors, was peer reviewed, and that the refutation does not count, because it was not "peer reviewed" and is just "internet junk science" then yes, you are arguing from authority and not asserting the scientific issues."

No I am arguing for quality. Any scientist's work that is not published cannot be tested by the scientitic process. McIntyre demands it of others he should do the same. I look forward to when he publishs his dendro work and just as importantly I looked forward to the response it receives in the peer reviewed journals.

Sorry but not publishing does diminish the value of his work as science.

PS I don't think that Mann is right or wrong (certainly not proven convincingly wrong). He made some claims in MBH 98 and 99 that are most probably overstated certainly the IPCC think so.

He has added some useful insights and that work is being built on. Further work may over turn some of all or his earlier conclusions. However, the results are generaly consistent with what other studies have found. I would find it very surprising if he (and Moberg and Biffra et al) were found wrong at a general (trend) level.

Posted by: Doug Clover | November 2, 2007 7:27 PM

I'm not much for campaigning, but as long as you're headed to the Weblog Awards' site, consider voting for Lindsay as "best individual blogger". Let's keep the scumbag Reynolds and the psychotic Anchoress from winning.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 2, 2007 8:29 PM