The Court Case Continues:
May the Court please, the Hon Counsel for the Defense has offered the “Chewbacca Defense”
, a technique so advanced nobody understands it, as proof of innocence.
Under normal circumstances ignoratio elenchi
arguments entail many laborious hours to disentangle, but in this case, I fear it will be more so – for it is no less, the “climatescience” variant!
But to it.Note Bene
: This argument is contra the exposition of the Hon Counsel for the defense, and should be read in conjunction with that said exposition, as posted here:http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthrea...s_a#Post1103732
For the record:
I will agree that the below graph, cited at primum
accurately represents that what was in MEA (op cit Exhibit A)
I will however not agree
that; the below graph cited at secundum
and referred to as “McIntyres altered graph” by the Hon Councel for the Defense, is some nefarious and scurrilous manipulation of the MEA data.
I further refer to the Hon Counsel for the Defense’s attack on a fellow poster
who attempted to point out the fact that a rotation does not alter the meaning of the data – it is simply a matter of presentation.
So ROM, did you see how McIntyre deliberately manipulated the Tiljander graph to make it look like Mann had his upside down? Very naughty don't you think!
That's the only misleading and dishonest behaviour on display here. Libellous claims of scientists lying are easy to say but the proof is sorely lacking.
So let’s prove that.
For the record – this is not Steve McIntyre’s graph, it is mine. And I can therefore attest that it was not mann
ipulated in any way and I can attest that it is indeed a true excerpt of what was in MEA (op cit Exhibit A), simply rotated through 90°.
M’lud, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here is a demonstration of how that graph’s orientation was attained – using a graph where the warm (red) and cold (blue) periods are coloured.
I do believe that this demonstration will satisfy the most severe critics – however, should the Hon Counsel for the Defense require additional demonstration, I will be happy to oblige. [Mayhaps looking at the graph sideways?]
On the other hand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when the Hon Counsel for the Defense says:
Here's how McIntyre should have manipulated the Tiljander graph
See how the grey values now read from the bottom to the top - the same as Mann's graph
Is perhaps the Hon Counsel for the defense (ahem) suggesting that McIntyre “flip” his graph to match the mann
ipulated Mann orientation?
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury – please note that after this mann
ipulation, very conveniently, the previously warm medieval period is now cold, and the glacial corrupted
modern period is now in a hot orientation. This is what “flipping” does.
As to the numeric skills subsequently demonstrated by the Hon Counsel for the Defense, I can honestly claim that this portion of the Chewbacca Defense is astounding and this new learning amazes me [you must explain to me how we know from this that the world is banana shaped].
If it now please the court, I will bring in an expert witness at this point. May I please introduce Michael Mann:
Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds.
As cited in Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick (Exhibit C)
That one of the foremost experts on “climatescience” testifies on behalf of the prosecution should indicate the stratospherically high level of agreement that surrounds this point.
For when the Hon Counsel for the Defense suggests that ALL the experts agree that when the “mannomatic” algore-rhythm mines for hockey sticks, it is irrelevant what is the orientation of the data ... the prosecution agrees
. (i.e. whether positively or negatively correlated to temperature the “mannomatic will flip the data so that the hockey blade is positively correlated to instrumental temperature).
And that Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury is the critical point which the prosecution needs to stress:
The “mannomatic” assumes the corrupted
modern period is warm, it “flips” the graph into the incorrect orientation, and thus makes the rest of the data (which is of course the key item of interest in any paleotemperature reconstruction) “flipped” as well – and as I mentioned, conveniently making the Medieval Period cold, and the Little Ice age warm.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the inclusion of the Tiljander proxy in any multi-proxy reconstruction will have the effect of lowering the Medieval temperatures and increasing the Little Ice age temperatures – both necessary to ensure the hockey stick is straight. And hence, why when Mann et all are constantly asked “is the modern period calibratable in Tiljander?”, there is evasion, and when asked to create a multi-proxy graph that does not rely on dendrochronological proxies (i.e. the Yamal one tree to rule them all proxy with almost identical problems as Tiljander) and does not rely in Tiljander none are proffered.
[I do however note that Gavin Schmidt does point to the blow graph as being that… however [If I may use the defense’s usual line of argument] “It has yet to be put into peer reviewed literature and Mann et al 2008 does not contain them”. [Hee Hee]
And as to the Hon Counsel for the Defense claiming that for example the discussion at this site somehow exonerate, or at least confirm the Defenses position.http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/tiljander/
May I please point out to the court that there is little support for the Defense position therein - Ari Jokimäki [the site owner ] states:
There’s nothing special done on TEA [Tiljander] data at this point either compared to other proxies, so the data seems to stay the same way throughout the reconstruction. So, the Tiljander data clearly is not flipped upside-down there. That doesn’t mean the Tiljander data is handled correctly there. Tiljander data is actually handled upside-down there. It is because the data is given in TEA so that higher values of relative X-ray density correspond to lower temperature values, so MEA [Mann et al] should have turned the data upside-down before using it in their analysis.
Seeing the real situation with this issue, it seems that MEA did an honest mistake, which of course should be corrected.
As to the claim that the way M&M described this problem is bizarre – may please suggest that it is because the “peer reviewers” insisted that the comment on the Mann et al paper include detail on other non-related criticisms of the Mann et al 2008 and other papers, and that the comment had to be kept to strict length, necessitated a certain amount of brevity:
Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g., Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (M. Tiljander, personal communication),
See Exhibit D
And I if I may at this late stage point out one more [laughable] aspersion on the most august persona of Mr McIntyre:
McIntrye has made several errors. One of silliest of them is confusing grey value x-ray density for temperature!
May the court note that it was in fact the defendant Dr Mann that chose to use what was at best a proxy for inflow into lake Korttajarvi – Mr McIntyre is simply pointing out an error?
In summary, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the evidence presented is INCONTROVERTIBLE and can lead to only one conclusion… The use of the Tiljander proxy is not as the authors intended and it reverses (flips if you like) cold for hot in the calibration period, and consequently, reverses cold for hot in the paleo-record.
And this is still not acknowledged and the misuse retracted – as would be customary by normal scientists (see this post passim linky
And thus to accuse Mr McIntyre of misleading and dishonest behaviour and deliberately manipulating data is libelous in the most prejudiced fashion.
The Prosecution demands redress!
Here the Prosecution rests its case – I will however give the scurrilous Defendant a chance to mann up, apologise and retract, or to try to convince the Jury otherwise.
Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust. PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6 E11http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mann.2009.pnas_reply.pdf
Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions. PNAS February 10, 2009 vol. 106 no. 6http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre_mckitrick.2009.pnas.pdf