7 added 2567 characters in body
source | link

This is from p. 592 in the full transcript. And from p. 92 for a bit more context:

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am trying very hard to understand the point of this hearing and this conflict because if we are through many studies come to the conclusion that there is such a thing is global warming, which is hard to deny on a day like today and yesterday, et cetera, although I am not the scientist, and that it at least in some part is caused by human activity, then why we are doing this really does escape me. I can understand why in academia you may have an interest in discrediting Mann and back and forth, but I am very concerned that this is being used in a way to discredit the whole notion that our country and the rest of the industrialized and developing ought to do anything about global warming, and that is why I asked you that question, Dr. Wegman, if this does not make you somewhat uncomfortable. Can you see in any way how this is being used and does it bother you?

DR. WEGMAN. Well, I can understand that it is your job to sort out the political ramifications of what I have said. In some sense it is not fair for you to say well, gee, you have reported on some fact and that is going to be used in a bad way. The other side of the coin is that, you have tried to get me to say that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are associated with the global warming.

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Which you can’t, right, because you are not a climate scientist.

DR. WEGMAN. I cannot say that, but what I can say is that from 1850 to the present time, the global temperature rise is about 1.2 degrees Centigrade according to the Mann chart. One point two degrees Centigrade translates to about two degrees Fahrenheit. I challenge anybody to go out and tell the difference between 72 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit. What I do say and what I have said repeatedly is that you need to focus on the basic science. You need to understand what the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, how that dynamic works, how the climate is going to change based on the physical mechanisms, a fundamental understanding of the physical mechanisms, not on some statistical estimation of those signals.

[SCHAKOWSKY time ran out after this.]

In other words, Wegman says he's not a climate scientist but he then tells the climate scientists what their "basic science" should be about (which should not include [statistically] estimating temperature, it seems, that probably should be left to statisticians??). Mmkay... now you can probably tell why North was "taken aback" Wegman's "tone".

This is from p. 592 in the full transcript.

This is from p. 592 in the full transcript. And from p. 92 for a bit more context:

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I am trying very hard to understand the point of this hearing and this conflict because if we are through many studies come to the conclusion that there is such a thing is global warming, which is hard to deny on a day like today and yesterday, et cetera, although I am not the scientist, and that it at least in some part is caused by human activity, then why we are doing this really does escape me. I can understand why in academia you may have an interest in discrediting Mann and back and forth, but I am very concerned that this is being used in a way to discredit the whole notion that our country and the rest of the industrialized and developing ought to do anything about global warming, and that is why I asked you that question, Dr. Wegman, if this does not make you somewhat uncomfortable. Can you see in any way how this is being used and does it bother you?

DR. WEGMAN. Well, I can understand that it is your job to sort out the political ramifications of what I have said. In some sense it is not fair for you to say well, gee, you have reported on some fact and that is going to be used in a bad way. The other side of the coin is that, you have tried to get me to say that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are associated with the global warming.

MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Which you can’t, right, because you are not a climate scientist.

DR. WEGMAN. I cannot say that, but what I can say is that from 1850 to the present time, the global temperature rise is about 1.2 degrees Centigrade according to the Mann chart. One point two degrees Centigrade translates to about two degrees Fahrenheit. I challenge anybody to go out and tell the difference between 72 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit. What I do say and what I have said repeatedly is that you need to focus on the basic science. You need to understand what the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, how that dynamic works, how the climate is going to change based on the physical mechanisms, a fundamental understanding of the physical mechanisms, not on some statistical estimation of those signals.

[SCHAKOWSKY time ran out after this.]

In other words, Wegman says he's not a climate scientist but he then tells the climate scientists what their "basic science" should be about (which should not include [statistically] estimating temperature, it seems, that probably should be left to statisticians??). Mmkay... now you can probably tell why North was "taken aback" Wegman's "tone".

6 added 2905 characters in body
source | link

And since Avery's answer uncritically quotes from the blog of McIntyre a snippet which gives the impression that North fully agrees with Wegman's report (I deliberately ignored the latter insofar), here's the full extent of North's opinion on that:

Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings. Our committee did not consider any social network analyses and we did not have access to Dr. Wegman’s report during our deliberations so we did not have an opportunity to discuss his conclusions. Personally, I was not impressed by the social network analysis in the Wegman report, nor did I agree with most of the report’s conclusions on this subject. As I stated in my testimony, one might erroneously conclude, based on a social network analysis analogous to the one performed on Dr. Mann, that a very active and charismatic scientist is somehow guilty of conspiring or being inside a closed community or ‘mutual admiration society’. I would expect that a social network analysis of Enrico Fermi or any of the other scientists involved with the development of modern physics would yield a similar pattern of connections, yet there is no reason to believe that theoretical physics has suffered from being a tight-knit community. Moreover, as far as I can tell the only data that went into Dr. Wegman’s analysis was a list of individuals that Dr. Mann has co-authored papers with. It is difficult to see how this data has any bearing on the peer-review process, the need to include statisticians on every team that engages in climate research (which in my view is a particularly unrealistic and unnecessary recommendation), or any of the other findings and recommendations in Dr. Wegman’s report. I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research. Finally, while our committee would agree with Dr. Wegman that access to research data could and should be improved, as discussed on page 23 of the prepublication version of our report, we also acknowledge the complicated nature of such mandates, especially in areas such as computer code where intellectual property rights need to be considered.

This is from p. 592 in the full transcript.


And since Avery's answer uncritically quotes from the blog of McIntyre a snippet which gives the impression that North fully agrees with Wegman's report (I deliberately ignored the latter insofar), here's the full extent of North's opinion on that:

Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings. Our committee did not consider any social network analyses and we did not have access to Dr. Wegman’s report during our deliberations so we did not have an opportunity to discuss his conclusions. Personally, I was not impressed by the social network analysis in the Wegman report, nor did I agree with most of the report’s conclusions on this subject. As I stated in my testimony, one might erroneously conclude, based on a social network analysis analogous to the one performed on Dr. Mann, that a very active and charismatic scientist is somehow guilty of conspiring or being inside a closed community or ‘mutual admiration society’. I would expect that a social network analysis of Enrico Fermi or any of the other scientists involved with the development of modern physics would yield a similar pattern of connections, yet there is no reason to believe that theoretical physics has suffered from being a tight-knit community. Moreover, as far as I can tell the only data that went into Dr. Wegman’s analysis was a list of individuals that Dr. Mann has co-authored papers with. It is difficult to see how this data has any bearing on the peer-review process, the need to include statisticians on every team that engages in climate research (which in my view is a particularly unrealistic and unnecessary recommendation), or any of the other findings and recommendations in Dr. Wegman’s report. I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research. Finally, while our committee would agree with Dr. Wegman that access to research data could and should be improved, as discussed on page 23 of the prepublication version of our report, we also acknowledge the complicated nature of such mandates, especially in areas such as computer code where intellectual property rights need to be considered.

This is from p. 592 in the full transcript.

5 added 420 characters in body
source | link

(MM05b was another broadside paper published in the same [obscure] venue as MM03, namely in Energy & Environment, which has an impact factor of 0.3. MM05a is their paper in Geophys. Res. Lett. (IF of 4 or so); its criticism is restricted to the principal component analysis method used by Mann et al.)

So it's fair to say that most of the criticism of MM turned out unfounded, while the criticism that was factual turned out rather inconsequential. Surely the opening claim from your 2nd quote that "The claim that our paper was “subsequently debunked” is an empty and worthless" doesn't hold water. So based on that I'd say the first description (MM papers [mostly] debunked) is 95% accurate, while the 2nd one is maybe 5% accurate, in that some of their criticism was substantive and acknowledged, but ultimately inconsequential.

So it's fair to say that most of the criticism of MM turned out unfounded, while the criticism that was factual turned out rather inconsequential. Surely the opening claim from your 2nd quote that "The claim that our paper was “subsequently debunked” is an empty and worthless" doesn't hold water. So based on that I'd say the first description (MM papers [mostly] debunked) is 95% accurate, while the 2nd one is maybe 5% accurate, in that some of their criticism was substantive and acknowledged, but ultimately inconsequential.

(MM05b was another broadside paper published in the same [obscure] venue as MM03, namely in Energy & Environment, which has an impact factor of 0.3. MM05a is their paper in Geophys. Res. Lett. (IF of 4 or so); its criticism is restricted to the principal component analysis method used by Mann et al.)

So it's fair to say that most of the criticism of MM turned out unfounded, while the criticism that was factual turned out rather inconsequential. Surely the opening claim from your 2nd quote that "The claim that our paper was “subsequently debunked” is an empty and worthless" doesn't hold water. So based on that I'd say the first description (MM papers [mostly] debunked) is 95% accurate, while the 2nd one is maybe 5% accurate, in that some of their criticism was substantive and acknowledged, but ultimately inconsequential.

4 added 549 characters in body
source | link
3 added 721 characters in body
source | link
2 added 3180 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link