Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Search

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

Richard Littlemore

8 September 06

Wegman Wiggles Out of Hockey Stick Accountability

Tags: General

Here's a great RealClimate.org post on the hateful hockey stick. On one hand, I hesitate even to raise the subject because deniers have used the famous Mann hockey stick graph so effectively to distract attention from the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, it now seems that one of the most recent and most-quoted hockey stick critics. Dr. Edward J. Wegman, is dodging his responsibility to back up his numbers.
Also, if you read down on the RealClimate post to comment #6, you'll find an interesting bit of criticism of the graphs that Wegman uses to make his critical argument. And if you click through to Wegman's voluminous report, and go to figure 4.1 on page 30, you'll find the graphs in question originated not from Wegman, but from McIntyre and McKitrick, the economist and the statistician who first criticized Mann's original work.
Which leads back to the good question: if they were truly interested in launching a fair critique of the Mann graph, why wouldn't they keep the y-axis the same in comparing Mann's work with theirs?
It summons to mind the old aphorism about lies, damn lies and statisticians.

» Richard Littlemore's blog Login or register to post comments

What's next?

| Subscribe:

| Comment:

Not really

Submitted by Brooks on Fri, 2006-12-01 15:57.

I think you are missing something here. What Wegman wanted to show was that by using the Mann et al method, you could get the same result that Mann et al got by feeding in not data, but noise. In other words, the Mann et al method data mined for the hockey stick shape.

Although Mann et al could have done their work using noise (it would have produced the same graph), it would hardly have produced a paper with the same impact as MBH98.

» Login or register to post comments

In other words, the Mann et

Submitted by caerbannog (not verified) on Thu, 2007-05-24 21:19.

In other words, the Mann et al method data mined for the hockey stick shape. (This reply is months late -- I just stumbled on this while perusing desmogblog.com -- but I'm posting this reply to make sure this information gets on the record here) There is a huge difference between Mann's hockey stick and McIntyre's "noise-only" hockey stick. How do you know that they are so different? You look at the eigenvalues. The eigenvalue associated with Mann's "hockey-stick" leading PC is much greater than the eigenvalues associated with the "hockey-stick" leading PC's that McIntyre generated from random noise. When you perform a PC decomposition on a data set, the first thing you need to do, before you do anything else, is to look at the eigenvalue magnitudes. A quick look at the eigenvalues would immediately show that McIntyre's "hockey-sticks" were insignificant (representing a tiny portion of the data), while Mann's "hockey stick" truly was a dominant feature of the data. The fact that McIntyre didn't bother to look at eigenvalue magnitudes means that he is either (1) incompetent, or (2) dishonest. If you don't know what an eigenvalue is, you have no business participating in this discussion.

» Login or register to post comments

(this reply is months late

Submitted by Michael Jankowski (not verified) on Sun, 2007-05-27 15:13.

(this reply is months late - just stumbled on this myself - but appropriately and ironically only a few days after Caerbannog) Caerbannog, McIntyre would probably get your Monty Python reference and get a kick out of it. As far as your issue with eigenvalues go, take it up over at Climate Audit. There's a search function for the site that will pull up any number of threads discussing eigenvalues and eigenvectors. You can also have it up with McIntyre himself - he's quite good with linear algebra (as are some of the regular posters).

» Login or register to post comments

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependant upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!