Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report - Get a Free Blog

Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report V1.0 09/26/10
[BAR2006a, p.38]:
―MR. STUPAK. Okay. Let me ask you this question. Have you reviewed
any of Mr. Mann's later refinements of his 1999 report?
DR. WEGMAN. I have reviewed some level of detail, not in intense level
of detail, the continuing papers, the continuing papers, most of which
are referenced--in fact, the ones that are referenced--
MR. STUPAK. Did he refine his data and his methodology?
DR. WEGMAN. My take on the situation is that rather than accept the
criticism that was leveled, he rallied the wagons around and tried to
defend this incorrect methodology.‖
[BAR2006a, p.41]:
―MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, let me ask you this. Dr. Mann has published
dozens of study since the original hockey stick study and as I said earlier,
beginning in 2003 he reformulated the statistical methods. Do you take into
account these later studies in your report?
DR. WEGMAN. I have read his later studies. I was not asked about his
later studies.‖
None of this is consistent, but avoids answering an inconvenient question,
Meme-h❶. If Wegman had not been asked about later studies, why are
they referenced, Summarized and discussed in the Literature Review? The
WP was not asked to become expert in Bristlecone pines, nitrogen
fertilization or SNA, but Wegman opined on them, too.
Even ignoring the plagiarism, the poor quality of work is clear in W.11.8.
Mann, et al (2005) was the latest-available Mann-led paper, making it
important. One need only scan that quickly to know Wegman is wrong.
One can read the WR Summary of that paper, see that Mann, et al had
moved from PCA to RegEM and had evaluated various methods. The
same is in the Literature Review, p.24. He was clearly wrong about a
simple fact of an Important Paper, how much time did he spend elsewhere?
Who actually wrote or edited the 17 Summaries? I cannot know for sure,
but Said certainly seems the likely choice, although help from Reeves,
Rigsby or even MM+TT cannot be ruled out. In any case, the task of
actually understanding the relevant literature seems to have been left to
junior person (s) with no relevant experience, but obvious incompetence.
The key PR messages of the WR mostly ignore its own Summaries,
Bibliography and Literature Review. They just look like scholarship.
26
Once again, the two key missions #1 and #2 were:
WR, p.7:
―To this end, Committee staff asked for advice as to the validity of the
complaints of McIntyre and McKitrick [MM] and related implications. …
We have sought to reproduce the results of MM in order to determine
whether their criticisms are valid and have merit. We will also comment on
whether issues raised by those criticisms discussed in McIntyre and McKitrick
(2005a, 2005b) raise broader questions concerning the assessment of Mann
et al. (1998, 1999) in peer review and the IPCC and whether such science
assessments involving work of a statistical nature require some type of
strengthening to provide reliable guidance for policy makers.‖
Is it plausible that the Committee staff ―asked for advice‖ or did they
really want someone to ratify and amplify the MM+TT ideas implied
above? Did they want someone to find MBH and paleoclimate both guilty?
Was the attack on peer review expected from the start, Meme-b❶?
People urged Wegman not to include that, A.11.2, slide 19.
Suppose they actually wanted expert, unbiased answers. An NRC panel
was the right way. It might have been barely plausible to formally ask the
ASA for statisticians to evaluate the MBH statistics, #1, assuming
availability of some with at least minimal climate knowledge. But
Wegman obviously did not seem to understand (or accept) the Greenhouse
Effect and Said showed no obvious expertise. At least Wegman or Scott
likely might have done the right math, but Scott was barely involved.
But consider claimed mission #2, to evaluate paleoclimate peer review and
the IPCC. That requires a serious multidisciplinary group of senior people,
like the NRC panel, but plausibly adding social scientists who actually
study such issues. At the least, one would want a distinguished panel, as
done in ―Climategate‖ investigations run by Ron Oxburgh or Muir Russell.
Would one pick a statistician, senior, but quite unfamiliar with the entire
field, with help from a new PhD and some students? I doubt it.
Is it plausible that Barton and Whitfield would have gone forward with
this effort unless they were absolutely sure the WR would produce the
“right” answers? They certainly were happy with the final report.
But behind the façade is much more.