The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: neolib who wrote (19866)	1/29/2008 2:08:31 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) of 36917

It will be interesting to see if anyone with a good knowledge of statistical methods can demonstrate any errors in the paper. Until that happens I'll believe that the paper has merit. You claim that "One of the authors is a well known AGW basher, who has published some nutty claims before" such as noise produces hockey stick graphs. That probably is in reference to the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick which demonstrated the flaws in Mann's iconic "hockey stick". In fact, their work was endorsed by Edward Wegman, the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. Wegman confirmed that Mann's methodology does in fact produce a "hockey stick" from stationary trendless red noise. Apparently Mann did not fully understand the method of principal component analysis. Your statement that M&M's hockeystick analysis had a fork stuck in it by scientists is silly. It is natural that scientists become hostile when flaws in their work are uncovered by 'amateurs'. However no one has shown that Wegman's review of M&M was flawed. A copy of Wegman's report can be found here: uoguelph.ca Perhaps you would like to show us where Wegman may have erred?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next