Furthermore, the post that contains the statistical analysis you want is not the one you link to (which is a criticism of you, Mosher, McIntyre, et al), but rather this one (http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/06/03/context-climategate-emails/), a point I’ve made to you at least twice in the last few days. However, it also fails to mention Montford in either the post or the comments (except for a pingback) and there are no mentions of HSI either, again verifiable with a “find text” in your browser of choice.
—

I decided to put a copy of my comment here in case it doesn’t show up at WUWT for some reason.

What looks like bad behavior isn’t so bad if you’re the one doing it.

Let me go through the points you made above.

First, on you claim of a weak analogy, I concede your point. I was specifically intending to discuss property damage rather than murder, but I admit that even that difference wouldn’t strengthen the analogy. Here’s a better analogy. I have my Calc101 book sitting on my desk at work, and contained within it are examples of how to convert sine and cosine into both series notation and into e^ix notation. However, the calculus book doesn’t describe when one notation is most convenient for my particular application as an electrical engineer. All three notations are correct, and while theoretically all three will give the same answer, one notation will usually be preferred over another because it’s the simplest and is thus least prone to error. Therefore, I could use any of the three and be both correct and right in doing so. However, the e^ix notation is the most common in my work as an EE, and so it would be odd if I chose to use either series or sin notation. If I concluded that the series notation was the simplest for my application, I would almost certainly be challenged over my choice during a review and I would rightly face more scrutiny.

While all three notations are correct, the choice of which is best is defined by the class of problems I face as an engineer and involves a judgment call based on my education and experience. Only if I intentionally chose a worse method in order to fake my way through something would that qualify as an ethical breach.

In the case of statistics, statistics textbooks will describe how to correctly pad a data series for windowing/filtering, but the textbook will not describe how to best pad a particular data series for use in the field of dendroclimatology just as a calculus textbook won’t describe which sin notation is best used in the field of electrical engineering. And just as the choice of which method is best for my field involves a judgment call, so too will the best choice of data padding method involve a judgment call for the field of dendroclimatology.

The mathematical definition of how pad data is defined in the statistics textbook, but the rightness/wrongness of any particular padding method is a matter for expert opinion and ethics rather than an issue of mathematics.

You said

I am not claiming that the statistical methods are correctly applied; I am saying they are incorrectly applied. I further contend that this incorrect method will not be found in any statistical text.

My analogy directly above addresses this point as well. I have demonstrated why you won’t find discussion of the statistical method in a textbook (it’s too particular to a field to be addressed in a general statistics textbook). I have also provided an example of a situation where the choice between correct methods is a judgment call based on expertise rather than mathematics. As such, you have not proven that your appeal to textbooks as an authority is correct, nor have you demonstrated that the methods described in the textbooks were incorrectly applied.

You said

The problem is: you need a statistician to say that “the data was being influenced by some non-temperature effect that was new to the tree ring record.”

I agree in part, but I’d replace the word “statistician” with “statistical test.” You ultimately do need a statistical test to verify this, but you don’t need a statistician to do the test. You need to know statistics well enough to run the test yourself and to not be led astray by the results of that test. However, many technical experts in one field or another don’t necessarily run statistical tests on every datum they take, instead they trust to their own experience. Granted this means that their experience provides an unconscious bias their decisions, but a demonstration of error due to unconscious bias is not an ethical breach. Mann has himself admitted that he now uses an “optimal” technique for padding instead of the original, questionable technique from MBH98/99. This shows that Mann has acknowledged that his initial technique was less-than-optimal and has placed his recent work on a firmer statistical grounding. This shows evidence of being willing to accept critical review and change his mind when presented with new evidence. Thus his original work may have been flawed or erroroneous, but it was not unethical. And it has been shown to be largely correct by multiple proxy reconstructions since those early papers by people unrelated to Mann, so the errors are not so large as to justify claims of unethical behavior.

I’m not aware of whether or not a statistical test was run and published in the literature either, and I agree that this would be the preferred way to handle this as opposed to an intuitive judgment of “Huh, that doesn’t look right….” But it’s not supportable to claim that the lack of publication of a statistical test means that the graphs in the IPCC or WMO were fraudulent. Erroneous or unconsciously biased, perhaps, but not necessarily fraudulent. Even the “hide the decline” email doesn’t provide proof of fraud. Proof requires inquiry, and thus far four of five inquiries have found no fraud. We’ll know the outcome of the fifth inquiry tomorrow morning, depending on the release schedule and what time zone you’re in.

No. Read up on cascading conspiracy theories, which, when combined with the illogical mutterings over at CA, I have absolutely no desire to step into, thanks. I find it annoying that you suggest we don’t discuss anything here, out of respect for Michael Mann, yet suggest a different biased venue “if we must”.

Mann has been cleared twice this year, by disinterested academics who lose everything if found to have been prejudicial. Can you match those consequences?

“there were no specific allegations against Mann brought from outside. “

Tom, there were plenty of allegations. The list PSU came up with was based on the many and were most relevant to their policies.

“But the allegations the Committee investigated were not the charges that Climate Audit would have made.”

Would have? If McIntyre has a charge to make he should have made it, don’t you think?

“Mann was not a threat to the University and would not be a toxic asset.”

Sorry, Tom, but that’s a veiled “whitewash”. The panel investigated some incredibly serious charges. In fact, you couldn’t really get more serious in academia, as Mann’s entire career would have been flushed down the toilet and all of his prior work thrown into legitimate doubt if not the bin. The funding for Mann’s work comprised only 0.06% of PSU’s income. They could have easily thrown him to the wolves and it wouldn’t have even made a dent. This was a formal inquiry into the conduct and research of a leading academic of his field, and he came out squeaky clean. If you have no faith in the academic disciplinary process, then I suggest you look further into that subject, but it’s not taken lightly from what I read.

Their investigation of the first three allegations I consider rushed and incomplete. I have no professional opinion on the 4th, as I am not a scientist. I don’t want to minimize Mann’s victory, and I do hope it is a relief to him.

But the allegations the Committee investigated were not the charges that Climate Audit would have made. In essence, the Committee found that Mann was not a threat to the University and would not be a toxic asset. And as you will no doubt see, this will not put the issue to bed, as the questions raised by McIntyre (and to a lesser extent myself) were not addressed.

But that’s for another day. Let’s give the guy a break.

“Allegation is defined as any oral or written statement of possible research misconduct made to an institutional official. “

http://guru.psu.edu/POLICIES/Ra10.html

I think the numerous communications received by the university certainly fit the critetia.

“On and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E, Mann of having engaged in acts, beginning in approximately 1998, that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming, These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the emails stolen from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain as widely reported, Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and the variety of sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Pel1l1 State, Dr. Eva J. Pell, then Senior Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, was asked to examine the matter. The reason for having Dr. Pell examine the matter was that the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy,Under The Pennsylvania State University’s policy, Research Administration Policy No, 10, (hereafter referred to as RA-I 0), Research Misconduct is defined as:
(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities;
(2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure the protection of researchers, human participants, or the public; or for ensuring the welfare oflaboratory animals;
(3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest;
(4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities.

RA-IO further provides that “research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate.”

On November 24, 2009, two days after receipt of the allegations, Dr. Pell initiated the process articulated in RA-1O by scheduling a meeting with the Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling), the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research of the College of Em1h and Mineral Sciences (Dr. Alan Scaroni), the Director of the Office for Research Protections (Ms. Candice Yekel), and the Head of the Department of Meteorology (Dr. William Brune).

At this meeting, all were informed of the situation and of the decision to initiate an inquiry under RA-I O. Dr. Pell then discussed the responsibilities that each individua
would have according to the policy. Dean Easterling recused himself from the inquiry due to a conflict of interest. As the next administrator in the line of management for the college, Dr. Scm’oni was asked to take on Dean Easterling’s function in the ensuing inquiry.”

http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

Of course it won’t stop the accusations of whitewash. But it has to be admitted that such accusations, within context of the other inquiries so far on both Mann and CRU, are starting to come across as something from a conspiracy mentality, don’t you think?

However, you’re right, J Bowers in the sense that this almost certainly is not an end to this particular story.

Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations
http://www.desmogblog.com/penn-state-completely-exonerates-climate-scientist-michael-mann-bogus-climategate-accusations

Go on someone, we know the “W” word’s coming. Get it over with if you must, but do try to provide proof and not remote viewing.

The value of Wahl & Amman is that they show that reconstructions with and without all tree ring series are not significantly different.

You quote Briffa as to the following:

“In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.”

In one’s ignorance one might believe this assumption is nothing more than wishful thinking. However, there is a substantial amount of empirical evidence in support of this assumption. Divergent boreal series are not ubiquitous. That is, not all tree ring series show divergence. Comparison of those that do with those that don’t, do not show any divergence going back thousands of years, implying that whatever the explanations for the twentieth century declines are, they were not in effect during the medieval climate anomaly. Otherwise past divergence between the two would be obvious. Furthermore, tree ring series, compared with other proxies including lake bed sediments and ice cores all tell much the same story. More corroborating evidence that twentieth century decline is uniquely associated with anthropogenic causes such as acid rain, global dimming, or fingerprint characteristics of AGW like extended spring and autumns effecting summer and late growth moisture availability in some cases or early ice break-up in marsh environments creating early season inoxia stresses on root systems in others, etc.; whether they can be fully substantiated or not. Not to mention the possibility that much divergence could very well be an artifact of end-point biases as a result of standardization methodologies.

Now scientists, being conservative by nature (Keith Briffa in particular), are prone to be more skeptical of data for which they cannot provide substantial physical explanations. This has led to a tendency to use boreal tree ring series in recent reconstructions that do not show the divergence phenomenon and eschew those that do. Guess what? No statistically significant difference in pre-twentieth century reconstructions from earlier reconstructions that do use divergent series.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp