Perhaps the most remarkable part of this whole exchange, though, is how little self-awareness you seem to have. On your way toward the exit, just before quoting Julius Caesar (in Latin!), you give this heartfelt speech describing your scientific purity: "But this has done much to solidify my belief that facts and data are the best rebuttal, not childish name calling, emotional characterizing, or personal attacks." Love it. You come on here parroting the words of a mining industry consultant whom you present as a scientist--and when rebuffed, you play the noble academic.
But it doesn`t surprise me that you`re struggling with basic science concepts since you`re also having a hard time distinguishing what a scientist is.
"The theories I `spammed`" as you put it, come from certified scientists like McIntyre," you write. And: "So if I post work from scientists like McIntyre...."
Here`s a clue for you: Stephen McIntyre is NOT a scientist. He`s a mining industry consultant.
Clearly, the things this mining industry consultant has to say, however, have enormous appeal to you since you`ve been parroting his sentences from his website, often without attribution, to an extent that verges on plagiarism. Adopting McIntyre`s persona, you get yourself remarkably worked up about Matlab errors--software I seriously doubt you`ve ever used, much less understand.
No, friend, *doing science* and discussing or evaluating it are manifestly NOT the same thing (unless, of course, we're talking about peer review, which we aren`t). It`s disappointing that you still don`t get this, despite my best attempts. Seriously now: You think that you and I have been *doing science* in this thread? You really believe that people who are *discussing* the merits of scientific claims commit a logical fallacy if they observe that one study was, say, financed by ExxonMobil and published on a partisan blog (like your favorite website "C3 Headlines") while another was published in the peer-reviewed pages of a scientific journal? Here`s a tip: You know you`ve entered the realm of the sophomoric when your claims fall apart under the light of common sense.
Friday, April 26, 2013 12:29:14 PM
(con't) it is possible that Mann and McIntyre are reacting to the same data as Matlab is used to compute RegEM data, and double use of a FOR loop would inflate data. As well both make reference to missing data in Rutherford`s model. But out of the two I felt that Mann would be more accepted by you guys then McIntyre although both are scientists and mathematicians.
Here is the Mann response (you`ll see how similar it is with the mistaken link):
note 8. C) "Because the infilling ... Strongly auto correlated series inflate RE and its level of significance, especially a trend over the entire period."
He is talking about Rutherford 2005`s uncertain verification measure in this and the use of it in their study and how the mbh98 graph is not responsible for this.
he goes on "Rutherford et al., 2005 go one step into the right direction by swapping calibration and validation sets (but then it is unclear how the special calibration period 1856-1928 is motivated). To rigorously implement the above condition the selection process must be fully randomized." Reacting to the papers configuration paragraph and how it used data and cited Rutherford "who argue that the GCV regularization estimate is too crude in the presence of too many unknowns."