Thursday, May 19, 2011

What's up with that Watts?

Since Anthony Watts felt the need to delete my post from his forum and thus my ability to defend myself and present the other side of this debate, I'll post it here {with an additional sentence or two}.

{Sorry, I got no interest in linking his blog.
WUWT: "Wegman paper retraction by Journal" ~ May 19th}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

AK says:
May 19, 2011 at 3:11 am
etc., etc.
~ ~ ~
AK, It is interesting how the personal insult and copious ad hominem predominate these discussions.

Regarding Ben Santer, why is it OK for the “skeptic” to manipulate information with abandon?
For details please see:
{#11b} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination

{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination

Regarding lies being embraced here’s an interesting one:
{#9} SPPI & Monckton’s claim regarding Greenland's Cryosphere being OK - examined
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pt says:
May 18, 2011 at 9:31 pm
etc., etc.
~ ~ ~
Pt, now that is how to impress me with integrity ~ wave Lord Monckton’s home planet SPPI at me. As for Bishop Hill aka. Andrew Montford... considering his record why should a real skeptic take this guy’s word for anything? Where’s some real proof?

It is truly amazing the folks you folks embrace.

And throughout all this politically driven obfuscation campaign no one seems interested in what is actually happening upon our physical planet ~ and how that is playing out every climatologists worst fears. If you think the weather has been crazy this past year or decade, just stick around we ain’t seen nothing yet. Crisis What Crisis?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Rob says:
May 19, 2011 at 2:02 am

“A ‘corrigendum’ is what you see above. A correction of minor omissions and typos (in this case only in the Supplementary Material) which explicitly do not affect the published results.
Please provide evidence where “Michael Mann was forced to issue a retraction”.
 Being skeptical is good, but ignorance and unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing are NOT a sign of skepticism.”
~ ~ ~
Inconvenient facts
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Anthony Watts: “It’s full of conspiracy theory. I don’t cover that sort of thing here.”
~ ~ ~
That’s precious Anthony,
One Way Skepticism equals Denial

The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.

1 comment:

Peter said...

Wegman paper retraction by Journal
Posted on May 16, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Joel S says:
May 30, 2011 at 2:21 pm:
"Smokey says:
Finally, since Mann’s MBH98 code is supposedly out there for anyone to see, why don’t you just post it for us?☺"
~ ~ ~

"You can find all sorts of data and code related to that paper here:

"In particular, here is the algorithm description and actual FORTRAN code: Have fun!"
~ ~ ~

"Now, as Rob has requested, I assume you will return the favor by providing links for Wegman’s code and data?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Smokey says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:11 am:
"Joel S,
Saying we can ‘find all sorts’ of code isn’t the same thing as saying that all the code is publicly archived. Until Mann produces all of the information necessary to replicate his work, I stand by my opinion that he is a conniving, self-serving scientific charlatan.
"And why are you asking me for Prof Wegman’s information? I don’t have it. Go ask Wegman yourself. Great example of misdirection, BTW. The issue is MBH98/99. Thirteen years of stonewalling and counting. Mann wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit him on the butt."

"Contrast that with the disreputable Michael Mann and his clique, hiding out from FOIA requests and refusing to cooperate with other scientists trying to replicate his work. That’s some hero you worship."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Joel S says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm:
What information are you missing that you need to replicate Mann’s work?
Other scientists have

in fact replicated Mann’s work, so I am not sure what is holding you back exactly.

By contrast, Emeritus Professor David Ritson apparently asked Wegman for information in order

to replicate Wegman’s work, and over 4 years later Wegman still has not given him the requested information:

"Your concern about the release of information to allow replication seems very selective.

"I assume since Wegman is, by the standards you have outlined above, “a conniving, self-serving scientific charlatan”, you will no longer make reference to his report?

"(Unfortunately, I have also assumed that you would stop making charges about Mann that you can’t support like those involving the “censored” directory and the Tiljander proxies, but it appears that you continue to make them even though you cannot substantiate them when shown direct evidence that they are falsehoods.)"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge says:
June 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm:
"Excuse me for piping in here, but it is a point worth repeating.

~ ~ ~ 
Smokey says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:11 am

“Saying we can ‘find all sorts’ of code isn’t the same thing as saying that all the code is publicly archived. Until Mann produces all of the information necessary to replicate his work, I stand by my opinion that he is a conniving, self-serving scientific charlatan.”

~ ~ ~
"So what is missing?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~