WSJ: Yet more Jolly Hockey Sticks, and Barton, et al.

There is a WSJ article "Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire" (love the title...).

Anyway, the initial point is that it contains some quotes from various parties:

One study, from researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance" when applied to some computer-generated models of climate history, according to a statement released by lead author Hans von Storch.

The other study, by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution fellow Peter Huybers, argued the Canadians had overstated the effect of the problem. "The truth is somewhere in between, but closer to Dr. Mann," Dr. Huybers said. Both Dr. Huybers and Eduardo Zorita, a collaborator of Dr. von Storch, agreed they had yet to address all of the Canadians' criticisms.

The complex debate, which turns on statistical technicalities, isn't likely to end soon. In replies published in the same issue of the journal, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick defended their conclusions. "We are not withdrawing an inch," Mr. McIntyre said in an interview.

The dispute was the subject of a page-one story in this newspaper in February.

Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than scientific significance. That's because, they say, other studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said.

However the WSJ, as is traditional, makes the usual mistakes: The new findings are the latest round in a politically charged dispute over the "hockey stick," a widely publicized graphic showing that temperatures during the late 20th century were likely higher than at any time in the past 1,000 years.. *All* the reconstructions show this, not just the MBH versions.

But also interesting is a statement from Bartons committee:

Mr. Neal said the committee staff hasn't yet begun a detailed analysis of the information it collected from scientists.

Hasn't yet begun? What are these people up to? They demand all this stuff and then do nothing with it? Well, OK, so the answer is obvious: having been slapped down by various people, including and number of scientists and by Boelert (sp?), Barton issued an aggressive statement some while back... and then ran away. However, if anyone has sightings of Barton actually doing anything on the GW/MBH front, do post a comment.


Anonymous said...

This was probably the plan from the start. Ask a bunch of questions to show the scientists who is boss, then ignore the answers. Do you really think Barton is interested in climate science?

Anonymous said...

I was at a meeting with Bradley (B of MBH) a couple of weeks ago and they had received additional requests for information. The National Science Foundation was taking a narrow interpretation of what they have to provide. As a result, Barton was attempting to get additional information from NSF using a Freedom of Information Act request.

William M. Connolley said...

Harlod - interesting. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

1. Am I allowed to post here? What are rules on trolling and such--I can be bad when I drink? How about debate on the hockey stick?

2. Seems like the WSJ is saying that both additional commenters agreed that there are flaws in hockey stick, but that Steve overstated them. Do MBH concede the flaws? Are they interested in thinking about the concepts? Seems strange that they are not engaged. That they look at it as more of a tussle for power than wanting to know and admit truths even if slight flaws.

William M. Connolley said...

TCO - yes you can post here (you can post to RC if you want...). Trolling will get your posts deleted, though.

As for the WSJ... I quoted them, because they had some quotes from the scientists involved, in addition to the papers. But since the papers are all available, its best to look at those for the details.

As you say, it looks like M&M overstated their results. Do they admit that?

As for MBH... are they interested in thinking about the concepts... as far as I can see, this is all about an old paper. Things have moved on, for everyone except M&M and Barton. There are now a whole pile of "hockey stick" type records (e.g. here which all fit the IPCC TAR text.

All that is left is a statistical argument. Who is right in the statistical argument is not at all clear. von S says it doesn't much matter. Huybers says, both are wrong. Remember, not to focus on PC1 alone (as Huybers and M&M do).

Anonymous said...

So no, they're not interested in the old paper? That seems bizzarre to me. the best scientists and best teachers that I remembered in uni were the ones who would care. And wierd for Mann who is essentially a mathemetician not to care and be interested in issues of methodology.

And I completely want Steve held to account if any of his claims are overstated. His stance so far is to engage on the argument.

BTW, I don't like the word I need to type in the box thingie.

P.s. RC won't allow my posts. Steve also tried to put up a post (completely science, short, no link to his site, etc.) and on the topic that they were talking about (the comments on his paper) and they wouldn't post it. BTW, they've told me that he could post. But they're not allowing the posts. I mean, look. here you and I and Lumo and such are having a conversation. But try finding any of that on RC. I would love to see a debate on the science. But they won't allow it.