User talk:GregJackP: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Your account: stay off my page
Line 43: Line 43:


Sorry to bring this up again, GregJackP, but after reviewing the old SPI and taking a closer look at both of your accounts, I had trouble finding overlapping edits indicating that you both just happened to be online at the same time. What I found instead, could be described as "meatpuppetry" if one assumes you are two different people, and "sockpuppetry" if one assumes you are same, such that one logs off and on using two different connections. I realize that the SPI was closed due to lack of evidence, and I also realize that for all intents and purposes you appear to be two different people with two separate accounts. However, I am concerned about the lack of overlapping edits, which I personally find strange considering you have both worked on the same articles at the same general time, yet you never manage to be online at exactly the same time or making edits close together subsequent to those edits. For example, today, you both made edits several minutes apart on NYB's talk page, but I noticed a pattern emerge in the contrib history, namely that whenever closely timed edits were made, one account would log off and another would continue editing such that two accounts would rarely be online at the same time ''after'' two closely edits were made. Would you say I'm crazy, or could there be another explanation? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, GregJackP, but after reviewing the old SPI and taking a closer look at both of your accounts, I had trouble finding overlapping edits indicating that you both just happened to be online at the same time. What I found instead, could be described as "meatpuppetry" if one assumes you are two different people, and "sockpuppetry" if one assumes you are same, such that one logs off and on using two different connections. I realize that the SPI was closed due to lack of evidence, and I also realize that for all intents and purposes you appear to be two different people with two separate accounts. However, I am concerned about the lack of overlapping edits, which I personally find strange considering you have both worked on the same articles at the same general time, yet you never manage to be online at exactly the same time or making edits close together subsequent to those edits. For example, today, you both made edits several minutes apart on NYB's talk page, but I noticed a pattern emerge in the contrib history, namely that whenever closely timed edits were made, one account would log off and another would continue editing such that two accounts would rarely be online at the same time ''after'' two closely edits were made. Would you say I'm crazy, or could there be another explanation? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:You need to re-read the SPI, it was not closed for "lack of evidence," it was closed because we were cleared. You may also want to re-read the definition of meatpuppetry AND the discussion on the SPI. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up at SPI or ANI. I'm tired of Global Warming alarmists trying to run off anyone that disagrees with them, and if you continue this course, I will seek sanctions based on personal attacks and harassment, especially since you have not read thoroughly the SPI (which addressed all of the points that you attempt to make). If you want to play your silly little AGW alarmist harassment games, do it with someone else - I won't tolerate it - nor will ArbCom. If you don't believe me, test the theory. Otherwise, stay off my talkpage. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span> 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


== Hide the decline ==
== Hide the decline ==

Revision as of 05:08, 5 September 2010


Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove completely all your Support or Oppose comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to go ahead and do this as others have started to add them. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Ping ....Minor4th 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account

Hi. Could you explain why the logs show that you created this account at 02:29, 22 November 2006, yet didn't make your first edit until 14:36, 27 January 2010? I assume you were using another account during that time, correct? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was a lurker. Is there a reason for the question? I've already been through an SPI and cleared by checkuser, but based on the history in the CC area, I'm a little suspicious of your question. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a reason for my question, as I'm analyzing every account that is participating in the arbcom case. I don't understand why you would create an account in 2006 that you wouldn't use until 2010. Could you explain that to me? The simplest explanation is that you wanted to reserve the account name and were too busy to edit at the time. As for lurking, I can understand that, and for me, that's an adequate explanation. As for your friend Minor4th, his account has been quite active on climate change articles, while yours has been less so. Would that be an accurate observation? Sorry to bother you. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was scared to edit initially, afraid I would screw something up, so I lurked off an on for several years. As for Minor4th, you would have to ask him, but I do know that neither of us knew or cared about AGW/CC until we mentioned WMC in regards to administrator abuse in an ill-advised article I wrote. At that point the cabal turned on us, and due to the intensity and severity of the attacks, both of us became interested. Neither of us understood the underhanded methods that a number in the AGW alarmist camp would go to, and the complete mockery that they made of the WP rules. I have a natural affinity towards the oppressed, and Minor4th has a strong sense of justice, so he is interested in seeing AGW skeptics treated fairly. It's a tough row to hoe, but we feel that someone needs to stand up for what is fair and right. You're welcome to join us. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^^What he said. Minor4th 03:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistent with something that I have long thought, which is that many Wikipedia editors view global warming contrarians as the scrappy underdogs fighting against the big bad scientific establishment. This is consistent with the oft-made observation that Wikipedia appeals to those of a libertarian, "objectivist" viewpoint. I don't mean this in any pejorative way; it's just that I like to try and understand where others are coming from. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I usually pull for the underdog. I generally have no beef with the big bad scientific establishment, but there is what I perceive to be an imbalance and a pretty pervasive unfairness to those who are trying to edit anything other than the mainstream consensus view. Minor4th 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I and, I think, ATren have said something similar as to why we became involved in the topic also. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring this up again, GregJackP, but after reviewing the old SPI and taking a closer look at both of your accounts, I had trouble finding overlapping edits indicating that you both just happened to be online at the same time. What I found instead, could be described as "meatpuppetry" if one assumes you are two different people, and "sockpuppetry" if one assumes you are same, such that one logs off and on using two different connections. I realize that the SPI was closed due to lack of evidence, and I also realize that for all intents and purposes you appear to be two different people with two separate accounts. However, I am concerned about the lack of overlapping edits, which I personally find strange considering you have both worked on the same articles at the same general time, yet you never manage to be online at exactly the same time or making edits close together subsequent to those edits. For example, today, you both made edits several minutes apart on NYB's talk page, but I noticed a pattern emerge in the contrib history, namely that whenever closely timed edits were made, one account would log off and another would continue editing such that two accounts would rarely be online at the same time after two closely edits were made. Would you say I'm crazy, or could there be another explanation? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-read the SPI, it was not closed for "lack of evidence," it was closed because we were cleared. You may also want to re-read the definition of meatpuppetry AND the discussion on the SPI. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up at SPI or ANI. I'm tired of Global Warming alarmists trying to run off anyone that disagrees with them, and if you continue this course, I will seek sanctions based on personal attacks and harassment, especially since you have not read thoroughly the SPI (which addressed all of the points that you attempt to make). If you want to play your silly little AGW alarmist harassment games, do it with someone else - I won't tolerate it - nor will ArbCom. If you don't believe me, test the theory. Otherwise, stay off my talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hide the decline

  • @Boris, I think that the "Hide the Decline" video spells it out about the scientists... I think that many of them are not very honorable people, and I don't trust them. I also have a bad taste left in my mouth over the way that I was treated by the activists. Don't trust 'em either. GregJackP Boomer! 04:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think activists are a pain in the ass, to put it bluntly, and that they get in the way of public understanding of science. Unfortunately in some circles "activist" has become a term of art for those who simply do the best they can to analyze data and build explanations in an objective way. I don't care for extremists, no matter which side they're on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by "analyze"... The satire on youtube sums it up fairly well... (from the sequel version so I don't get sued...lol)
Making up data the old hard way,
Fudging the numbers day by day,
Ignoring the snow and the cold and the downward line.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
I just completed Mike's nature trick
And now my chart looks like a hockey stick
By deleting the treering's data downward line.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate,
I think you have sealed your fate.
It isn't about truth at all,
It's about sounding plausible.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
The treering data was very thin,
You should of chopped more trees
Instead of hugging them.
Ignoring the snow and the cold and the downward line.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Oh Climategate,
Those hacked emails are really great.
Midevil warming now is gone
And the Maunder Minimum.
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
What else needs to be said? GregJackP Boomer! 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I think you should remove this; it's not appropriate or helpful to quote a parody song here, especially when it mentions someone by name (even if it's just the first name, it's obvious who it is). ATren (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I know you're just joking around, but I watched those You Tube videos and they don't really explain what was really going on with that "hide the decline" incident. As, I'm sure you know, it's a lot more complex than the videos let on. Also, from what I understand, taking tree ring measurements does not entail chopping the tree down. It can be done without seriously damaging the tree. That Fox news clip in which they discussed the You Tube video was ridiculously partisan. They didn't have anyone on there to defend Mann's and the CRU's side. I know I sound like a stick in the mud, but when it comes to discussing these issues in Wikipedia, we should try to keep the debate real. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what the "hide the decline" email meant and "Mike's nature trick" -- at some point I had read some of the emails. Are we allowed to source any of those emails in articles yet? Minor4th 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NVM -- I think I get it -- "Hide the decline" is talking about the divergence between the proxies and the actual temperature data, where the proxies failed to show the temperature increases in the last half century. "Hide the decline" it seems is the method of hiding the divergence in the proxy data by substituting the real temperature data for the uptick in the last half century. Or something like that ....which begs the question -- if the proxy data is unreliable compared to real temperature data, why is it thought to be reliable for the last 1,000 years for the period in which there is no real temperature data to compare it to? Head scratcher ....but I'm no scientist. ;) Minor4th 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(...resisting urge to comment on your final clause....) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cla68, no, it really isn't more complex than the video shows. Data was manipulated to show what they wanted it to show on the hockey stick graph. There have been a number of scientific reviews that have discredited the graph, including by the National Academy of Science and a new one coming out in a peer-reviewed journal sometime this year. It shows no respect for the scientific method, just that they are pushing an agenda. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← You're welcome to believe what you like about climate change, but I take issue with your presentation of fact. Your statement that the National Academies of Science "discredited" Mann's work is flatly incorrect. The NAS panel which reviewed the "hockey stick" found:

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 both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward. 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 Academy expressed less confidence than Mann et al. in the temperature record prior to 1600 AD, but that is not equivalent to "discrediting" his research. Of course, the Academy also noted that large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming, and that the Earth will continue to warm over the next century.

If you haven't actually read the National Academies of Science report, I would highly recommend it (here is an entry point). It's harder to digest than a song parody, but the payoff is correspondingly greater as well. MastCell Talk 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP: If you're interested in creating an article about the "Hide the Decline" parody video, I collected a list of sources which are available in my talk page archives.[1] A previous attempt to create such an article was made by Marknutley but was deleted for lack of notability. Since it's deletion, 3 new reliable sources have been identified.[2][3][4] A saved copy of his article is available here.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MastCell: I have read the entire report. There is a significant difference between Mann's claim that it is valid for the last 1,000 years and the NAS' statement that it is good for the last 400 years. The Little Ice Age hit its lowest temperature during the Maunder Minimum, which just happened to be about 400 years ago. The highest temps were during the Medieval Warm Period, about 1225 or so, and which was higher than the current temps. Other studies also support this. See Loehle, Craig; McCulloch, J. Hudson (2008). "Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies". Energy and Environment. 19 (1). Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.: 93–100. ISSN 0958-305X. (peer-reviewed); and Holland, David (2008). "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and its Implications". Energy and Environment. 18 (7/8). Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.: 951–983. ISSN 0958-305X. (peer reviewed). Holland in particular notes "A full reading of the comprehensive report of the NRC panel, rather than the 4-page summary and press reports, leaves no room for any doubt that the Mann et al. “hockey stick” studies are invalid." (Holland, p.960). I stand by my statement, and if you would like, I can provide other references to support that position. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the NAS report "discredited" Mann's research, you are either reading a different report, or our comprehensions of written language are so different as to make finding common ground extremely unlikely. What you're actually contending is that a couple of pieces from Energy & Environment claim that the NAS report discredited Mann. I think you'll find the amount of credence attached to claims in Energy & Environment to be substantially less than that attached to the National Academies of Science, so it's best to be clear. MastCell Talk 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which were peer reviewed. The NAS/NRC report is also clear - Mann's research failed to follow sound procedures - one doesn't cherry-pick data unless one is pushing an agenda. The report was clear. GregJackP Boomer! 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the NAS declined to endorse Mann's certainty about the temperature record prior to 1600 AD. However, the report was also clear that Mann's findings were plausible, that they have been backed and replicated by numerous other groups, and that in any case the "hockey stick" is rather secondary as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions were not buried in the report, but are part of the abstract. It seems like cherry-picking to ignore these conclusions, to mine only the most negative material about Mann, and to give it the most negative possible spin. And as you said about cherry-picking... MastCell Talk 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, what the NAS basically said was that Mann's methodology was wrong but it doesn't matter because his results were right. Remember, when the NAS panel chair, Dr. North was asked in the committee hearing whether he disagreed with Wegman's findings North said, "No, I don't." One of the real controversies with the "hide the decline" is, of course, that it makes it fairly clear that there are some issues with using tree rings as proxies for temperatures. One question that McIntyre has asked, and I think it's a valid point, is why haven't the paleoclimatologists made more effort to strengthen their tree ring data sets by taking more samples of more trees, or at least tried to update more of the tree ring data series which ended around 1980? To show that it wouldn't be that hard, McIntyre and a friend went out and updated one of the Colorado tree data sets themselves and it only took them about two days to do it. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where the NAS panel said that Mann's methodology was "wrong"? It's not a trick question; I'm not intimately familiar with the report and I may not be looking at the section you have in mind. I'm less interested in off-the-cuff remarks from individual panel members than in the written report, which was presumably written to a higher standard of diligence. MastCell Talk 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have all my books in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to give a complete answer later. If we're going get into a deep discussion on the North report, we'll need to some good sourcing to help us out, because, IMO, the North report used very indirect and vague language to criticize Mann's research, in contrast to Wegman's report, which was much more direct and clear in its conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time - I'll look through the report as well. As to "indirect and vague language", that was sort of my point with GregJackP. The National Academy was mildly critical of some of Mann's assumptions, or rather his degree of certainty about them, while affirming the plausibility and reproducibility of his findings. That's a far cry from "discrediting" his research. MastCell Talk 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wegman report had the advantage that substantial parts of its text had been, erm, "very closely paraphrased" from other sources (including a Wikipedia article, of all things). It's easier to fine-tune than to write something original. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but was Wegman wrong, however? I've seen similar criticisms to yours elsewhere but I haven't seen anything which directly challenges his findings, except maybe on RealClimate, and that's to be expected. Remember, North as the NAS rep declined to repudiate, or even criticize, Wegman's report during the congressional hearings. We can get into North's report here, but Greg should expect the resulting dicussion to get rather long. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, I don't have a problem with it being discussed here. MastCell, here are some of the statements of the NAS/NRC report about the Hockey Stick Graph stating that Mann's methodology was wrong:

  • "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'" (NRC, pp.4, 21)
  • "For instance, a focus on variations of decadal or longer timescales with the 45 years of validation data used by Mann et al. (1998) would give statistics with just (2 × 45 ÷ 10) = 9 degrees of freedom, too few to adequately quantify skill. This discussion also motivates the choice of a validation period that exhibits the same kind of variability as the calibration period. Simply using the earliest part of the instrumental series may not be the best choice for validation." (NRC p. 95)
  • "As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions." (NRC, p. 113)
  • " The RE validation metric used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) is a minimum requirement, but the committee questions whether any single statistic can provide a definitive indication of the uncertainty inherent in the reconstruction." (NRC, p. 116)

Fairly clear cut. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what they're saying is fairly clear-cut, but not that they're calling Mann's methodology "wrong". If you take the 4 lead articles from this week's New England Journal of Medicine and hand them over to the National Academies for intensive scrutiny, then no doubt you'd generate a lot of questions about the choices made by the study authors. There is no "perfect" study, and the design of any scientific experiment involves trade-offs, simplifications, and assumptions. These should be evident upfront, as they were in Mann's paper, so that other scientists can appraise the work critically and fully, and take into account the assumptions made by the study authors.

There are always "flaws" in a study, and alternate approaches which might have yielded different results. Questioning aspects of a paper's methodology, or spitballing ways in which the study could have been conducted differently, are basic parts of the scientific process. People familiar with science understand that. However, when scientific work enters the political sphere, then suddenly any critical thought or analysis of a study's trade-offs becomes evidence that the study is "discredited", "flawed", or "wrong".

That's a function of the difference between a scientific and a political mindset. Scientifically, it makes sense to tear down the paper in order to see what we can take away from it, with what degree of certainty, and to think of ways to build on it. Politically, it makes sense to tear down the paper for the sake of tearing it down, because its implications are unpalatable. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself clearly, but I think these sorts of perspectives might be at the root of the differing interpretations of the NAS report. MastCell Talk 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NRC report confirms what other reviews of Mann's Hockey Stick chart have shown.
  • McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out in their study that Mann's research "systematically underestimated" data errors or uncertainties, a point which was also agreed to by the NRC (p. 107). M/M pointed out that there is no statistical significance to Mann's data, and that it was no better than a table of random number, also accepted by the NRC (p. 91), that strip-bark data was invalid and if removed, reversed the conclusion that the current warm period is unprecedented (NRC, p. 106-107).
  • Wegman pointed out in his testimony and report that: "Method wrong + Answer correct = Bad science". Although Mann and other climate scientists rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not interact with the statistical community. "[Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics". "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."
  • See Loehle and Holland, above.
  • North stated in Congressional testimony that he believed that the NRC report and the Wegman report were compatible and said basically the same thing.
  • Later this year, a peer-reviewed journal will publish a report by two statisticians that outline problems with the Hocky-Stick chart.
There are also plenty of other references stating that the Mann chart has been discredited. This isn't a matter of politics, it is a matter of science, and following proper scientific procedures. Mann did not according to numerous other scientists. GregJackP Boomer! 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not really interested in arguing about the Wegman report, or stuff from Energy & Environment. I was speaking specifically about the report from the National Academies, and it would seem that discussion has run its course.

Speaking of Wegman, I do enjoy the dogmatism which seems somewhat characteristic of statisticians. His equation ("Method wrong + answer correct = bad science") would, of course, condemn many underpinnings of modern knowledge to the realm of "bad science", because they would never stand up to the scrutiny of a critical statistician. I'm reminded of R. A. Fisher, another famous statistician, who campaigned at length to persuade people that Gregor Mendel's data were statistically impossible and likely the result of fraud or incompetence. Fisher likewise argued strenuously against the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. In both cases, he identified what he considered serious statistical red flags and argued that these invalidated the results entirely.

Of course, smoking does cause lung cancer, and Mendel's laws of heredity are rather fundamental to the understanding of genetics. Even though their methodology didn't meet the statistical standards set by Fisher, their work was of profound scientific value. And the ultimate test was not forensic statistical analysis, but reproducibility and explanatory power. But I digress. MastCell Talk 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, if you have North's report in front of you, what did they say about the use of the bristlecone pine data set? The source I read stated that the North report basically repudiated the use of that data set as a reliable temperature proxy. Since Mann's paper placed major emphasis on the use of the bristlecone data, the North report was thus indirectly saying that Mann's conclusions in that regard also, have major issues. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) See what I mean about this conversation becoming long and convoluted?[reply]
Cla, see above. Bristlecone/strip-bark are the same, and removing it from the study reversed the conclusion that the current warm period is unprecedented (pp. 106-107). GregJackP Boomer! 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. MastCell, because the NAS report is written with such vague and indirect conclusions, it may not be apparent at first just how scathing a criticim it is of MBH's methodology. But, when you consider the implications of what the NAS/North committee concluded, it's unmistakable. Now, here's the rub, many, if not most of the temperature reconstructions used to produce this chart also used the problematic bristlecone pine datasets. This is part of the larger problem, according to McIntyre and a few others, in that paleoclimatogists are using far too few temperature proxy data sets to come to their conclusions and aren't trying hard enough to ensure that the few data sets the are using are sufficiently robust. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. As far as I know, McIntyre and the others who agree him are not asserting that, because there are problems with the hockey stick research, that it means that the theory of human-caused warming is wrong. They are not saying that. What they're saying is that this particular research is not reliable enough to be used as evidence to support that theory, and, as an extension, there is something clearly wrong with the IPCC's review process which resulted in the hockey stick conclusions being given such prominent placement in previous IPCC reports. The recent review of the IPCC's processes (completed yesterday) appears to support, at least in part, this conclusion about the IPCC. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm really not interested in discussing McIntyre or the IPCC. I'm interested in the NAS report, and I'm a bit confused. Greg referred me to p. 106-107 for material "discrediting" Mann, but I'm not finding it there (p. 106, p. 107). Greg also indicated that on p. 91, the NAS report calls Mann's data "no better than a table of random numbers". Again, I'm not finding what he's referring to (p. 91 contains a discussion of the sort of trade-offs I mentioned above). So that brings me back to my earlier question: are we looking at the same report? MastCell Talk 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Bristlecone pines are really interesting trees

Have you seen many pictures of them? Here is a nice gallery. They certainly twist and warp in all manner of ways - a very chaotic growth pattern. Beautiful trees; I can't imagine there being much use for such inconsistent wood though (other than firewood for those who need to keep things warm). Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable for some uses than others, no doubt. Minor4th 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the fist

Thought you'd find those interesting. Minor4th 05:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi GregJackP,

Please take a look at my response over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw. There is nothing wrong with having two accounts, especially when one of them is identified with my real-life name; and aside from one lapse in May 2009 I've been an upstanding contributor and I hope to continue to be.

Regards,

Andrew Gradman editing as JD Caselaw (talk) (due to Wikibreak enforcer). 09:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]