The Wall Street Journal editorial: Hockey Stick Hokum

[BeltwayBandit]

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1990.htm

 

The Wall Street Journal editorial:

Hockey Stick Hokum

July 14, 2006; Page A12

 

It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear -- almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up -- that the 1990s were the "warmest decade in a millennium" and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000.

 

This assertion has become so accepted that it is often recited without qualification, and even without giving a source for the "fact." But a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by three independent statisticians underlines yet again just how shaky this "consensus" view is, and how recent its vintage.

 

The claim originates from a 1999 paper by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann. Prior to Mr. Mann's work, the accepted view, as embodied in the U.N.'s 1990 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was that the world had undergone a warming period in the Middle Ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period -- the current one. That consensus, as shown in the first of the two IPCC-provided graphs nearby, held that the Medieval warm period was considerably warmer than the present day.

Mr. Mann's 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It's a man-made global-warming evangelist's dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.

 

 

The trouble is that there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann's paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.

 

The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

 

Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it's all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.

 

In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.

 

Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

 

In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the center of that network.

 

Mr. Wegman's report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman's paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make "consensus" look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate-research establishment to the McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.

 

 

[Guest Larry-T]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is one of those "money uber science" groups that fronts for the energy companies in this manner. This is a purely political article slanted at the behest of Exxon and their corporate kin.

It's noteworthy that the three critics are not scientists, but statisticians. Remember what Mark Twain said:

 

There are are three kinds of lies: Lies, darn Lies, and Statistics.

[emissary]

So who's statistics to believe? Me, I'll be happy believing nothing and behaving responsibly.

[BeltwayBandit]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is one of those "money uber science" groups that fronts for the energy companies in this manner. This is a purely political article slanted at the behest of Exxon and their corporate kin.

It's noteworthy that the three critics are not scientists, but statisticians. Remember what Mark Twain said:

 

There are are three kinds of lies: Lies, darn Lies, and Statistics.

 

 

Yet the lead author of this report happens to be the chair of the NAS (National Academies of Science) panel on Applied Statistics. Hardly an Exxon stooge. It would help if you actually considered criticism before applying a blanket dismissal of a scientific assessment that happens to gore your pet ox.

[Gatortailale]

I posted this article bandit provided on a thread on RC - one about ocean PH droping - big debate on global warming. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthre...5&pagenumber=13

 

 

Here is my favorite response about this article bandit provided:

 

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743186#post7743186 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary

Yes, it is an editorial, but is the information in the editorial factual? That is the question. Has the graph been examined by statisticans David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University or not? Were their findings accurate or not? Were their finding reported correctly in the editorial or not?

 

Mike

 

 

It's Friday - time to [but I'm still at work ]

[BeltwayBandit]

For those that want the report behind the story:

 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/0...gman_Report.pdf

[Guest Larry-T]

Yet the lead author of this report happens to be the chair of the NAS (National Academies of Science) panel on Applied Statistics. Hardly an Exxon stooge. It would help if you actually considered criticism before applying a blanket dismissal of a scientific assessment that happens to gore your pet ox.

 

If it was a real scientific assessment, it would be published in a PEER REVIEWED scientific journal and then probably trumpeted in the pages of the WSJ. Instead, they published it as an editorial because it couldn't stand up to an honest review.

 

This is not a particular pet ox, but a respect for scientific process and accuracy. Your pet ox seem to be finding global warming denial published in non-scientific sources and pretending that they are the equivalent of scientific research.

[Guest Larry-T]

For those that want the report behind the story:

 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/0...gman_Report.pdf

 

I hope everyone actually reads it. You will see this "ad hoc" committee (which includes no climate scientists) asking real scientists for personal information which they (the committee members) were not willing to supply concerning themselves. They will also notice the use of "loaded terminology" when attempting to smear the scientists and to cast doubt on their work. This is so typical of the curent administration that it could serve as a case study for the imposition of political doctrine for the purpose of corupting scientific discourse.

[BeltwayBandit]

I hope everyone actually reads it. You will see this "ad hoc" committee (which includes no climate scientists) asking real scientists for personal information which they (the committee members) were not willing to supply concerning themselves. They will also notice the use of "loaded terminology" when attempting to smear the scientists and to cast doubt on their work. This is so typical of the curent administration that it could serve as a case study for the imposition of political doctrine for the purpose of corupting scientific discourse.

FYI here is the Statement of Task for the NAS committee that Dr. Wegman chairs. (Emphasis mine)

 

The National Research Council established the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics (CATS) in 1978 to provide a locus of activity and concern for the statistical sciences, statistical education, use of statistics, and issues affecting the field. CATS occupies a pivotal position in the statistical community, providing expertise in methodology and policy formation.

 

And you fail to notice that it was statisticians reviwing the statistical methods of the climatologists. So now you are saying that the National Academies of Science are administration flunkies? How is engaging in ad hominem attacks against the authors of this scientific assessment advancing the discussion. If you care to discuss the methodological problems that they identified in the PCA analysis used in the creation of the Hockey Stick then I'll gladly discuss it with you. If you are just going to engage in a smear campaign, well there are other forums where you can engage in that type of discussion.

 

PS In the for what its worth category. Wegman is either author or co author of hundreds of peer reviewed articles. So he does have some idea what he is talking about. Not to mention he is presenting a similar topic at the American Statistical Association. http://www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/2006/on...stractid=307662

 

Here is Dr. Wegman's resume with published works:

 

http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.resume2.htm

 

Are you sure you want to call this esteemed statistician a flunky for the current administration?

[Guest Larry-T]

No matter how you parse it, the fact is that this was a policy document ordered by the administration and prepared by a committee which did not include a single qualified climatologist. It was just an attempt to play statistical games in order to confuse the public, which would result in no action being taken.

 

I stand by my statement that if it was a valid scientific document, instead of a political fig leaf, it would be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal instead of prepared as a report for the commerce committee.

 

Ask a statistician what the numbers prove and he'll answer "whatever you want."

 

The entire purpose of this document is to prevent us from doing anything that would hurt the oil and gas industry.

[BeltwayBandit]

"This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report."

 

I guess you didn't read that part. Its nice to see that you don't let those silly little facts get in the way of your opinions. As far as the statisticians not being climatologists, they weren't reviewing that aspect of the literature. They were looking at the application of statistical methods, so in that matter I will trust the chairman of the NAS committee for Applied Statistics over a climatologist who has repeatedly stated "I am not a statistician". Read the report it is very easy to follow. Have a nice day.

 

"It would be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal instead of prepared as a report for the commerce committee."

 

Which journals did you check?

[Guest Larry-T]

"This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report."

 

Yeah, they didn't receive anything for THIS report (wink, wink). Let's put it simply. I don't trust anything produced on any environmental topic under the auspicies of this administration. I have no trust in conclusions based on statisticians who have a very good idea concerning what their sponsors expect. Given lots of data and a clear set of expectations, the results will be whatever they were pre-ordained to be.

 

As far as a peer-reviewed journal, I would look first at Nature (UK) and then at Science (US). Why this is important isnoted in the following article published at:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html

 

This site also links to a number of peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One of the basic foundations of modern science, whether it be medicine, physics or climatology, is "peer review." Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same area or scientific field.

The peer-review process commonly takes place as a prerequisite to the publication of a scientific paper.? When scientists wish to publish papers on their scientific discoveries, the journal to which the paper is submitted usually will ask two or more other scientists in the same or a similar field (i.e., scientific peers) to review the paper.? These reviewers will rigorously evaluate the work to make sure that the results are well supported by the data. If the paper passes the review and is accepted for publication, we can assume that the science is well-founded and valid. Sometimes the paper does not pass the review and is not published, but more often, the reviewers ask questions that the authors of the manuscript have to address satisfactorily before their paper is published.

 

Not all published scientific work is peer-reviewed.? When a scientist or informed non-scientist wishes to evaluate new or controversial scientific papers, one of the first things they usually ask is if the paper was published in a journal that requires critical peer-reviews. Journals such as "Science" and "Nature" are among the most highly regarded journals in terms of the peer-review process. Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers. Moreover, some "scientific" books and journals do not involve rigorous peer-reviews, readers must be careful not to put much scientific faith in what is presented in these books or journals.

 

The peer-review process sets a scientific standard; we know that peer-reviewed scientific work has been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts in the appropriate field and has been judged valid.? All of the scientific journal results reported in this www site, "A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming," have undergone this level of scientific peer-review.

[BeltwayBandit]

Well, I guess it is easier for you just to dismiss contradictory information via ad hominem attacks than to actually consider it on its merits.

 

From your little snip: "Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers."

 

I guess your way of treating the opinion of the Chair of the NAS panel for Applied Statistics with caution is to just give him a blanket dismissal as an administration stooge. Somehow I don't think that a person could be elected by their peers to chair a National Academies of Science technical panel and be quite the willing stooge that you are attempting to portray Dr. Wegman as.

[Guest Larry-T]

Well, I guess it is easier for you just to dismiss contradictory information via ad hominem attacks than to actually consider it on its merits.

 

From your little snip: "Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers."

 

I guess your way of treating the opinion of the Chair of the NAS panel for Applied Statistics with caution is to just give him a blanket dismissal as an administration stooge. Somehow I don't think that a person could be elected by their peers to chair a National Academies of Science technical panel and be quite the willing stooge that you are attempting to portray Dr. Wegman as.

 

Two things:

 

1. My "little snip" was actually the entire article posted on the NOAA site. I don't take individual statements out of context. I leave that for others.

 

2. Instead of responding to what I have said, you make your own ad hominem attacks.

 

I posted the NOAA address so that people would have a good, scientifically based, site from which to start their own research.

 

I'm not going to look at this thread any more, since it's become repetitive. I urge those with an interest in the topic to look at scientific papers in authoritative journals and derive their own conclusions.

[BeltwayBandit]

 

I'm not going to look at this thread any more, since it's become repetitive. I urge those with an interest in the topic to look at scientific papers in authoritative journals and derive their own conclusions.

 

 

Thats a shame. I wish I could have just ignored results that didn't agree with my hypothesis when I was in Science class, I guess I need a PhD for that.

[Sharkb8]

ahem . .. wow . . ! whew, I'm gonna duck the Ph.D. comment for now . .

 

My analysis (and I'm not a statistician, but I am/was a scientist):

 

1. Where the heck is the Y axis? It appears to be missing in the top graph . . without this, nobody can make any conclusions on this.

 

2. Statisticians, IMHO, work in a box. You need to add real-life science knowhow of the field of research before drawing conclusions about the use of statistics. In my experience in the lab, stastical tools are just that, tools. And like most lab rats, you learn how to adapt tools to fit your need. So while the paper's statistical approach may not have been "by the book" as the way statisticians see it, so what? I don't think that matters. As the first poster said, "lies, dirty lies, and statistics."

 

3. What matters is why the author of the paper used the statistical tools he/she used and/or changed and then used. Yes, the warming period was left out - but WHY. I didn't see anywhere in that editorial the reason WHY that period was left out. Without this info - I have no way to judge the author's methods. They may have had a perfectly good reason for leaving it out.

 

4. I'm also law-school trained. And I know how to write very persuasive papers. This editorial is slick. It is slippery. It uses all the right tricks. It is an editorial, and a good one at that (obviously, look at where its published - WSJ). Persuasive writing - de-emphasize anything negative to your point, over-emphasize stuff in your favor. I see exaggerated points all over this editorial. It sticks to the right points and does not go into murky areas like why the author of the paper used the methods they used, etc. It doesn't go into overly complicated details of science concepts and statistics. It keeps it simple - - - glossy . . .

 

(Edit: oh, and by the way, by posting the full article here I'm guessing you've just violated Title 17 of the US Code, the US copyright laws. But I won't tell and I'm guessing/hoping the WSJ will not think you are worthing coming after.)

 

5. Being a scientist - I am biased. I will believe the scientist over the statistician. Just my feeling on the matter. Peer-reviewed journals are the only reputable forum in which to challenge other's peer-reviewed work. Others are free to say everything they please wherever they like. But I will always give significantly more weight to peer-reviewed scientific articles. And this does happen, frequently, in science. Just when you think you've got something figured out and you publish a paper with a little discussion section a little bit reaching, your closest competitor in another lab will be sure to let you know in their next paper. Happens all the time.

 

6. The comment about reading the scientific literature and deciding for ourselves based on that is well taken. However, science is largely out of reach for the large majority of people. Either because they don't have the time to ponder through the thickness of it, can't afford the hundreds of dollars in subscription fees to these journals, or don't live nearby an academic facility having subscriptions. This little squabble, for me anyway, highlights the ineffectiveness of today's scientists at getting the information to the public in a coherent manner. The science community has tried over the last couple decades to improve, but the info still seems tightly locked in the ivory towers to the "every day man." Thus, we rely on these types of slick, polished editorials to lead us. A sad state indeed.

[BeltwayBandit]

I'm not going to get back into this discussion again. But, one note about posting the article. I provided a full citation to the article and the article was taken from a US Government website. Therefore it is in the public domain and reproduction with citation is not a violation of copyright.

 

As far as the science and warming goes. The alarmists overstate the issue. I noticed that you also noticed that the MWP was conveniently left out of the 'hockey stick' reconstruction. This was one of the misapplications of statistics used by Mann. Basically the data was massaged so that the MWP and LIA virtually disappear with statistical manipulation of temperature proxies, then the last 30 years is the instrument record spliced onto the end. The whole paper is an abomination. The NAS discredited all of the proxy analysis beyond 400 years ago and Dr. Wegman basically said that the statistical methodology applied in the paper is worthless. So, basically, the centerpiece of the claims that the 20th century warming was 'unprecedented' has been discredited. What we are left with is the previous studies that show a MWP that was about 2 degrees C warmer than the present.

[Sharkb8]

Cool, I kinda figured that was the case. My father has a subscription to WSJ on-line and sends me articles once in a while, so I wasn't sure if it was from subscription or public access, etc.

 

If what you say about the data manipulation is indeed true - it would be better to cite to such criticisms made in a peer reviewed journal, rather than WSJ. There must be peer-reviewed critiques of the report somewhere. But, I don't have access to that kind of literature . . . just pubmed, etc. Please do let us know if you find more articles on this. Although it appears that some of the discussion above was not so constructive, the dissemination of this type of information is definitely useful. I'd definitely be interested in other links, sources, etc. It is good taking time to debate these issues (well, better than "wasting" time debating the fantasy football draft process anyway )

[ErikS]

There are are three kinds of lies: Lies, darn Lies, and Statistics.

That about covers it. Only a complete tool would believe you could pump so much energy into a relatively closed system w/o having an impact.

 

Read up on global dimming & then get back to me on warming.