By now, Climate Blog Addicts (CBA’s), are aware that SteveM, a Canadian, was watching the Super Bowl on Sunday. Thus, this useless American sport distracted him from instantly reporting errors he had discovered in “Harry” to the appropriate authorities (i.e. BAS).
Lucky for the world, Gavin, resisted any such distraction and busied himself with more ethical pursuits: reporting the errors in “Harry” to the BAS.
We have not yet learned how Gavin became aware of these errors. Was he feverishly downloading Harry data and checking it? Did some researcher in a far off land send him an urgent communique discussing the trouble with Harry? The answers to these questions have yet to be revealed.
What we do know the process of discovery was “independent” of SteveM’s efforts at CA.
But let us not speculate how Gavin became aware of these errors!
Let us focus on this: Gavin’s this prompt and valiant action likely prevented thousands of climate scientists from downloading Harry data, feeding it into some sort of statistical package, writing up manuscripts discussing the implications of the Harry data, subjecting the manuscripts to internal peer review at some National Lab, and submitting the article to Nature during the wee hours between the Superbowl game and Monday.
Though we know and accept as absolute fact that errors in Harry have absolutely zero impact on the findings of a recently published Nature article, and we accept that failure to identify and report these errors in Harry while preparing peer reviewed journal articles in no way reflects negatively on any person or persons involved in the study of temperature trends in the Antarctic, and, we are convinced errors of this sort have little consequences in the grand scheme of climate science, I say:
Two snaps up for Gavin’s proactive nature which drove him to report this so quickly!
Needless to say Gavin’s personal modesty prevented him from telling us of his valiant deeds. But we now know and can give him all the applause, recognition and thanks he deserves.
Let us all reflect on OUR behavior during the Superbowl
These sorts of deeds always make me take stock in my behavior.
What I was doing on Sunday? Did I valiantly protect climate science from the perils of bad temperature data?
Sadly, no, I must confess I did not.
While Gavin was transmitting urgent reports about the Harry data to BAS, I sat on the couch, sipped red wine, ate pizza, veggies and veggy dip, watched commercials, downloaded some music to my iPod, and crocheted 10 “Moose Towels” using Red Heart Yarn I bought at Walmart. No, I didn’t even use any sort of “ethical” eco-friendly soy yarn.
(Yes, I can explain why I call them Moose Towels. No, neither the dictionary nor googling will not help you figure this out. No the name has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, hunting or the great white north.)
Still, I will credit myself with being more productive than SteveM who negligently sat on his duff watching the game. As he is Canadian, I suspect crullers may have been involved.
I wonder what Anthony was doing?
Ah, well, Gavin is an Englishman, so is immune to these strange North American distractions …
It looks like Gavin’s turning into quite the Climate Auditor!
Perhaps a Timmie’s and an apple fritter.
I know.. I know…. You use those to yarn-bomb moose antlers!
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1000721@N23/
Doug #9811
The image that comes to mind for me is a guy with a broom and shovel that follows the horses in the Circus Parade.
Doug–
Back in October, when GISS had bad data, Gavin’s feelings about the urgency bad data appearing for 24 hours was this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/langswitch_lang/tk#comment-102796
Still, lucky for the world, the report to BAS was not delayed until Monday morning!
Those are very nifty towels. I am wracking my poor brain trying to figure out why you call them “moose towels”
HankHenry,
You could wrack your brains forever and never figure it out. My two brothers-in-law gave them this name. The reason is this:
My father and mother in law belong to “The Loyal Order of The Moose”. They really, really like to go to fish fry at downers grove Moose Lodge. We often go to. A woman named Beverly makes and sells various crafty things; the proceeds are used to fund Mooseheart.
My mother in law bought Bev’s towel toppers for years, and years, and years. (I don’t know when she started, but it could easily be 50 years.) Eventually she gave some to Robert and David. Since no one in my inlaws family knew what they were called, they dubbed them “Moose Towels”.
Because I crochet, I know the official name in crochet pattern books is “towel toppers”. I would have bought some from Beverly but she has been ailing recently, and only had older ones. None were bright red to match my kitchen. So…. I broke down and made some. My husband loves these because I tend to grab a towel and transport it away from the sink. We end up with 6 towels draped over the backs of kitchen chairs and none by the sink.
Harry in for Gill
Gavin corrects our programs
But SteveM still scores
Ah ha, Moose towels as in, Moose-lodge-Beverly-to-benefit-Moosehart-towels. I think I could have gotten the Moosehart part but the Moose Lodge part would have stymied me forever.
That’s a nice drawing of a chef on the towel.
I grew up in Joliet, so when you start talking about Downers Grove it really takes me back. Thanks for explaining about the Moose Towels.
The whole “When Harry Met Gavin” thing is farcical, and I enjoyed your take on it. What really bugs me is that Gavin couldn’t even be neutral when reporting what he’d done (I’ve long since given up hope for cordiality). He HAD to work snide remarks about Steve into his posts. Is that a requirement over at RC? It only served to make him look childish, and coming on the heels of Santer’s response to Steve, it makes the whole crowd look juvenile. Just what I think.
Doug,
The most hilarious thing is when making snide remarks, he is complaining about the Steve’s tone.
Sometimes when I read Gavin’s inline comments, I laugh so hard I almost wet my pants.
Hank
When I say made, I only make the top part of the towel. I buy a towel, cut it in half turn over the edge. Then I sort of embroider at the top to created an edge so I can start the crochet, then I crochet the top part and add a button. These are a craft classic. Lots of people like them but for some reason the commercial equivalent is either not available or not easily found.
So, the chef towels themselves are available at. . . Walmart!
Lucia: I will send you some Depends for when you read Gavin’s comments.
jack
I think Gavin has
threatenedpromised a post on Harry. Another site was taken down from the BAS for bad data. The Depends could come in handy!Honestly, even if more bad data are found, the trend may survive. But it seems to me Gavin should wait at least 6 weeks to make sure that that new data revisions aren’t being perpetually discovered during the active comment period for his post on the unimportance of Harry.
Thought it might be rather nice to be ‘independently’ wealthy or have an ‘independent’ income. Now it seems I can live ‘independently’ off someone else. That makes it so much easier!!
Lucia,
Did you see over a Rodger’s site that Gavin is now complaining to Roger’s bosses over Rodger’s coverage ? I should use this material to start my own daytime TV show: “As the Climate Churns”
Artifex–
I didn’t read Roger’s blog until about an hour ago. I ate dinner and then commented.
I read the post that offended Gavin. Gavin’s inline comments seem to have been designed to suggest that “others” discovered the issue with Harry in a manner that was “independent” of SteveM’s discussion. Gavin accompanied that with some rather high handed suggestions of what would be “ethical” behavior.
Yet, it would seem based on Gavin’s later discussion that SteveM’s posts were the direct impetus for his examining the data and confirming there was, indeed a problem with Harry. Then he relayed that information to BAS. I guess you can parse that as independent if you don’t count how you got the idea to investigate something in the first place and only count the trivial final steps of downloading the data, looking at it and confirming that what SteveM had said was true!
It would be interesting to use a month dependent mean to compute the anomalies.
“fFreddy (Comment#9810) February 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Ah, well, Gavin is an Englishman, so is immune to these strange North American distractions …”
Is he in England? 6 PM in NY is midnight in London. Gavin was working late. How generous of him.
Scooter,
Gavin works for NASA GISS which is located in New York (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/). I’ve always thought it was hard to live in the US and neither host nor attend a superbowl party on Superbowl Sunday. Possibly I have been mistaken. That said, specific details of Gavin’s Superbowl Sunday schedule and whether or not it involved attending a superbowl party or consumption of pizza, veggie dip or wine have not yet been made available.
Lucia
Good grief of all the trivial happenings in the world is there are there any more trivial than this?
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
“Yet, it would seem based on Gavin’s later discussion that SteveM’s posts were the direct impetus for his examining the data and confirming there was, indeed a problem with Harry. Then he relayed that information to BAS. I guess you can parse that as independent if you don’t count how you got the idea to investigate something in the first place and only count the trivial final steps of downloading the data, looking at it and confirming that what SteveM had said was true!”
So what you are saying is you have to acknowledge everyone who gives you an idea?
The funniest thing is that SteveM is so desperate for attention that he wants acknowledgement for every idea people use that is his (maybe he needs to start trademarking them?). And Gavin wanted anonymity… Such is luck. Perhaps this whole event can be used as the definition of irony.
Nathan–
I think the funniest thing is Gavin’s tortured explanations of justifying his explicit claims that he discovered this “independently”. The independence claim was unbelievable before we knew gavin was the mystery man. It became hilarious once people knew the anonymous independent discoverer gavin alluded to was gavin himself.
Did gavin want anonymity? How do you know? If he did want anonymity, why did he want it?
I’m willing to believe that Gavin may have wished anonymity. But only reason I can imagine for wishing anonymity was that it facilitated his attempt to insist that the problem was discovered indepenedently of steveM. By being anonymous, he avoided questions about what he meant by “independent”. Once he was credited, people asked, and it became clear that Gavin learned of the issue from SteveM. So, he did not identify the problem “independently”.
Unless Gavin’s intention was to avoid admitting that he only discovered the problem through SteveM, why not just tell people that he learned of the issue by reading SteveM’s blog, looked into it, and then notified BAS? Or why not just email steve and ask?
Of cousre Gavin’s quirks are trivial. But they are funny.
Well obviously he wanted anonymity, or else he would have told everyone he did it. Not sure about the why bit myself.
I would speculate that perhaps he was attempting to deflate SteveM’s attempt to ridicule Steig. Perhaps get BAS to correct the data before SteveM could actually reveal what the error was.
“Unless Gavin’s intention was to avoid admitting that he only discovered the problem through SteveM, why not just tell people that he learned of the issue by reading SteveM’s blog, looked into it, and then notified BAS? Or why not just email steve and ask”
Well, this is all fun for speculation. Yes. But there is no reqirement for Gavin to acknowledge SteveM. Remember SteveM was holding onto his knowledge of the specifics of the error for theatrical purposes. You know the saying “You snooze, you lose”.
I don’t think Gavin succeeded in deflating SteveM’s theatrics, however, and the attempt certainly backfired when someone put his name on the BAS website. I do think that he succeeded in pointing out that SteveM’s theatrics weren’t meant in any positive form though.
If I remember things correctly, after the Harry problem was first discovered , the initial RC response was that it was not one of the 42 stations actually used in the trend calculation, and had no significant effect. The latest response seems to be that they found another station with an error, which happened to show an erronious cooling trend. When the corrections for the two are combined, there is said to be only a small effect on the overall calculated trend. So which was it, the Harry gaffe had a minimal effect, or a minimal effect only when compensated for by another corrected error? And how many, as yet uncorrected errors might there be?
I predict there are a few more shoes to drop as CA (and other) investigators are able to dig further into the data and its analysis. Since it is fun to predict, I expect the final outcome will be that there are no statistically significant results, other than that the Antarctic continent is possibly slightly warming or possibly not.
Nathan (Comment#9847)
February 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Nathan: sorry, but by the unreasonable and arcane rules we live by in academia Gavin Schmidt was indeed required to acknowledge the contribution of Steve McIntyre. It is encouraging that Dr. Schmidt is spending a lot of time on his profession when most of us are zoning out on bread and circuses, but our rules require “full disclosure”, even if you despise the source. Dr. Schmidt is in gross violation of the rules of ethics and compounds it with demands to people like Roger Pielke Jr. demanding apologies for statements of fact. Please, Dr. Schmidt, contact my university with demands for an apology and I’m sure my AAUP representative will be happy to reply.
rephelan
I don’t think he does. Certainly if Gavin was publishing something he would have to acknowledged him. Gavin wasn’t publishing anything.
What does your “full disclosure” rule actually say?
Nathan:
Thanks for asking. Gavin had a great deal to say on the Real Climate Blog while concealing his role in informing BAS. After someone at BAS outed his contribution he rather disingenuously insisted his analysis was “independent” while acknowledging it was prompted by Steve McIntyre’s work. He is still working damage control. Blog publishing is still “publishing” (check Michael Mann’s CV and note the number of his “publications” on RC, a blog for which he is a primary contributor). Whether in a formal, peer reviewed publication, dissertation, term paper or essay question on an exam, you cite your sources. By the rules in MY world, Dr. Schmidt’s behavior is unethical and unacceptable. In Academia, honesty and integrity are the only true values. You can disagree, call your antagonist an illiterate fool and even kick his cat, but don’t claim your work is independent when he gave you a clue. Just because we have two dueling blogs does not mean that the rules of intellectual integrity don’t apply. This is being played out before a much larger audience than the readers of the journals we subscribe and/or contribute to. (soapbox moment!) The nature of scientific discourse is changng. Blogs like Lucia’s, Real Climate, Climate Audit and others are exposing the inner workings (ugly underbelly?) of science to the world. This is a good thing. But it also requires those blogs and their contributors to demonstrate integrity. Dr. Schmidt failed this week. Dr. Schmidt is also a hard-working, dedicated scientist (sheesh, he was practicing his craft on Super-Bowl Sunday!) – his stature is enhanced when he can give the devil his due (and even better refute his works!). Violating the rules calls into question the body of his work. Period. If all those extra readers in the blogosphere decide that science is nothing more than spin and opinion, what happens then?
Rephelean so your rules don’t exist?
Lucia. Stay tuned. It gets funnier.
Nathan–
This at least partly overlaps my idea. He did it to cast SteveM in a negative light. I think they method Gavin tried to use was by suggesting SteveM’s site wasn’t the original source of the information about the error; you suggest the reason for his idea to cast SteveM in a negative light was because you think SteveM attempted to ridicule Steig. (Where, by the way, does anyone see SteveM ridiculing Steig? I see SteveM showing that Harry contained errors. It did. It’s a big surprising that these were not found. But finding them is not the same as ridiculing Steig.)
You’re not getting the point. Gavin didn’t simply fail to acknowledge SteveM. Gavin proactively claimed something false: The error was found by “someone” independently of Steve. The error was found by Gavin and he looked only because he read Steve’s article.
The fact that Gavin could have simply remained silent does not translate into Gavin may proactively tell people a falsehood.
Had Gavin not done the second, people wouldn’t be wetting their pants laughing at him.
You asked someone else:
Well… not specifically and proactively making the false claim that you found the error independently of SteveM when you only found it because you read SteveM’s blog post!
You are right about that!
I’d edit that to:
I do think that GAvind succeeded in proving he is every bit as theatric as SteveM, and his theatrics aren’t meant in any positive form.
On the theatrisism: Is SteveM theatric? Is Gavin theatric? Sure.
The problem for Gavin is: he’s got no talent for good theater. When he tries to use dramatics to teach a lesson, he ends up looking like the blog equivalent of Mo Howard.
Lucia
SteveM attmpts to ridicule any member of the team… It’s his M.O.
“The error was found by “someone†independently of Steve. The error was found by Gavin and he looked only because he read Steve’s article.”
See this isn’t exactly true, look at what Gavin says at RC. Remember Steve didn’t actually say what the error was, just that it lay with Harry.
“The fact that Gavin could have simply remained silent does not translate into Gavin may proactively tell people a falsehood.”
Also people were asking direct questions, so he really had to say something. Staying silent would have encouraged the conspiracy theorists. I think he was hoping it would go away.
The full disclosure comment was because Reph claimed Gavin had breached some rules. Which he hasn’t.
I don’t think Gavin is theatrical. This wasn’t “theatre” he was attempting, rather something more like subterfuge.
I don’t see Steve’s approach as particularly positive.
But you are right, Gavin is clumsy at theatre.
I note RC have already attempted to quantify the error, this is something Steve should have done first. If Steve was smart he would find an error, quantify the problem and then present it in its completed form.
BED time.
Nathan–
I know the disclosure comment was because Reph claimed Gavin breached some rules.
Gavin did break a rule accepted by scientific society. He breached a rule when he made the false claim he found the error independent of SteveM. The truth is : After reading SteveM’s post saying there was a data quality issue with Harry, Gavin looked at Harry and found there was a data quality issue with Harry. Gavin’s efforts were leaned on SteveM’s initial discover and announcement. That’s not independent.
Gavin’s claim is false.
Could you define ridicule and point to examples of?
It appears we agree on what Gavin says.
In my world, Gavin is trying to claim independence by behind the idea that not Steve not describing every single precise detail about the error, means Gavin can learn the error exists, can look at the data for the precise station named, look at the data, find an error in a situation where he knows one must exist, and then suddenly he has “independently” found the error. That’s nuts!
I graduate can learn similarity transformation and overhear a conversations where people discuss this can be applied to learn about boundary layers. He can then apply similarity transformations to the Navier Stokes equations and derive the Blassius boundary layer equation.
This does not make the derivation “independent” of Prandlts discovery of the boundary layer. The information required “independently derive” was overheard by the student. All that was left were the pesky details.
I think it’s great that RC is trying to quantify the error. But how is it even possible to do this first? What Steve did first was find the error. Quantifying the impact of an error can only come after finding the error.
I’m not surprised that RC would prefer that someone not mention the error after finding it. If they mean that,they should say so directly.
I’d be surprised if they were to say that. If they did, people would laugh outloud.
There is no rational reason why anyone should conceal the existence of the error simply because they have not yet determined how it affects the ultimate results.
While errors exist and is not quantified, there is doubt in the final result. Given the press attention for the article, there is no reason why the issues of doubt surrounding the results should not be in parallel with the triumphant decrees of having found novel method to find the correct answer.
It is certainly unfortunately for Steig & co-authors that they did not find the error. Having done so might have spared them the inconvenience of scurrying to quantify the effect so they can answer questions. But had the error not been aired, readers would not be able to even ask the question.
So, it is better for the errors to be aired rather than concealed until such time as someone can figure out whether they materially affect the final result.
If the errors are of no consequence, that will be found soon enough.
You don’t find SteveM’s approach positive. I don’t find Gavin’s approach positive. You don’t think Gavin’s mystery man attempts are theater; I think they are clumsy theater. That Gavin’s motive for the clumsy theatrical gesture was subtrafuge– sure. But who says this is either or?
Nathan:
I’m not entirely sure how you got “so your rules don’t exist” out of what I wrote, but perhaps I misunderstood your question. If you would like to see an official statement on academic integrity, try the web-site of any university and find their statement on the issue. You can also reference the website of the American Sociological Association at
http://www.asanet.org/
and review the ASA Code of Ethics. It would not surprise me if Dr. Schmidt’s professional associations had similar statements. Those are the rules that academics are supposed to follow in their professionaql lives.
People actually care about this stuff?
Boris–
Of course some people care about this stuff.
Why do you CA’s hit count is exploding during this incident? Why do you think Gavin reacted to Roger Pielke Jr’s criticism by writing a letter of complaint to a higher up?
People care about this sort of stuff for obvious reasons. Most people either don’t have the time nor the skills to follow the math or dig up the data. So, they will often make decisions on who to trust based on those things they can understand.
Many people can understand what Gavin did and make judgments about whether he shoots straight based on incidents like the current one. With people who will not or cannot dive into the details of the current Steig paper (or other papers) Gavin bizzare claims of having found the problems with Harry “independently” undercuts his own credibility in a way that no amount of fancy math, programming, or lecturing about the importance of peer review can fix.
rephelan, I read your attempted RC comment at CA yesterday. it captured my feelings exactly. It was a fair comment, and deserved to posted with a response. Contrast this with the ad hom statement by Ray Ladbury allowed by RC:
“I think the current discussion illustrates wonderfully why you don’t want a bunch of clueless ‘auditors’ mucking about in science. Science recognizes that errors are inevitable. It also recognizes that some errors are significant–that is, they alter the conclusions of the research. Others are trivial, having only insignificant effects. Knowing which is which is one of the reasons why it takes a decade of schooling and several years of post-doc experience to become a productive scientist. It is also one of the reasons why it is difficult to cross into a different field of research.
The significance of a study depends on whether or not it advances understanding of the subject. This study obviously does, and it’s pretty unlikely that a bunch of amateur “auditors†looking for misplaced commas or other minor errors would even know a significant error if they found one.”
I was also frustrated with how Gavin and Eric dealt with questions about code archiving. In comment #160 John Norris was the first to ask:
“Has Steig archived all code and data used in the Steig et al paper to a publicly available website? Or did he just provide a reference to various sites holding the data (that can get revised)?”
Gavin responded with a link to Steig’s archiving, but mentioned nothing about whether the code as used in the paper was actually archived. The link led to another link with the generic RegEm functions, nothing that was written by the authors for the paper.
Later, Eric states the following:
“ALL of the data that were used in the paper, and EXACTLY the code used in our paper have been available for a long time, indeed, long before we published our paper. This is totally transparent, and attempts to make it appear otherwise are disingenuous.”
Clearly, Eric knew what was meant by the suggestion that code was not available yet he speaks of people being disingenuous. The discussion evolved from there, after it was clear that the code used for the paper was not available, with bizzare assertions about how a “good auditor” would not want to trace through intermediate steps but would rather replicate from scratch.
If I am missing something Lucia or anyone else please feel free to point it out.
Lucia,
Most people either don’t have the time nor the skills to follow the math or dig up the data. So, they will often make decisions on who to trust based on those things they can understand.
True, though such decisions may not be wise ones. For example, someone might decide that person X is petulant, intolerant and even disingenuous over trivial matters when challenged (or perhaps when afraid of the consequences of a small fault being misunderstood to be a large one by ‘most people’). Is such a judgment of personal foibles a good guide to deciding whether or not to trust person X’s science? I rather suspect that there have been many scientists of great importance whose skills in diplomacy (or rather in what has become a political tussle) may have been lacking and, had they been exposed to the judgment of ‘most people’ in a context comparable to the blogosphere they may have been judged to be personally unreliable. Would/should their science have thus been rejected?
I have often not liked the attitudes of either person X or person Y. If one wanted to one could build a case over time to ‘mistrust’ on such a basis on either side. I don’t think this is very good for our view of the science.
LaymanLurker–
I’m less concerned about access to specific codes than other people mostly because I don’t plan to run them. For this reason, I haven’t looked into the status of the code.
I suspect Eric is wrong about what a real auditor does.
There are many different ways people check things. Gavin, Eric, Mann and some others don’t like the approach SteveM prefers– which is to first repeat and verify the exact steps the authors performed in rather agonizing detail before proceeding to see if other methods give the same result.
I only follow that approach in specific circumstances.
Simon–
Sure. Who said we should based our view of the science based on who we trust? If I did, then we would be required to explore the meaning of “shoudd”.
I said people who can’t based their view on their own understanding will and do make judgements based on trust. Different people use different metrics to decide who they trust. Some will count peer reviewed papers. Some will examine degrees or where a person is employed. Some will assess whether a source who claims to rely scientific findings in a balanced way appears biased based on other claims those people make. Most will draw from all of these things.
As a practical matter, whether or not people should do this, what can people do?
For what it’s worth, over at Prometheus I said this:
I think it’s a shame that Gavin undercuts himself this way. I think it would be wise if Gavin who has, after all, decided to blog sat down with some experts in communication and discussed their communication styles with those experts. When doing so, instead of listening to advice about using the coin flipping metaphor, they might want to focus on more fundamental behaviors. Gavin might want to discuss this incident specifically and learn from it.
Or not. . .
What really threw me into depression was Steig’s coment somewhere at RC that they didn’t have time to check out every station’s history and data quality. Nope, who would do that for a paper intended for Nature about the theme widely influencing politics and economy worldwide…
I’m working with fungal phylogenies based on DNa sequence data, deposited in public databases as GenBank. Each sequence should carry an identification of species it was derived from. But one learns very quickly, that many authors misidentify their source organisms. Sometimes it can go as far as finding a sequence allegedly from corn (Zea mays) which is identical to that of a common fungus living on grass leaves…
I learned soon to search for source publications and paper for every sequence I intend to use and I include in my comparisons only those from credible sources (authors working in culture collection labs, specialists for a given family etc.) And it is quite boring activity, checking author, data and origin of every sequence for a dataset of, say, fifty. Anyway, it is in the order of background data checking for Antarctic stations 😉
EW–
It turns out they didn’t check individual stations. Let’s stipulate that we all agree this can be ok sometimes. (It may be … or not.)
However, very soon after the paper was published, obvious problems were found in a station that was used for some portions of the analyses in the paper. The consequence seems to be that he and gavin may have spent some frantic hours doing some tedious grunt work to explain why it didn’t matter. In the meantime, gavin did and said things that has people rolling in the aisles laughing. It’s every researchers nightmare. (Though confirming the error doesn’t matter so much does mitigate.)
But, honestly, whose fault is this? Not SteveM’s!
Put up a post at CA with an analysis of how Harry might have affected the results. It seems to validate Steig’s claim that the Harry snafu is inconsequential to the results.
.
So Harry is an example of sloppiness (and they could have checked the data – there’s only 63 stations . . . not that hard), but I don’t think Harry makes any difference to their conclusions.
.
Their (Steig’s, Gavin’s) time would have been better spent actually showing this result rather than simply hand-waving it away. Hand-waving invites suspicion.
RyanO,
Glad you checked. Reading the post at RC, I thought the argument seems reasonable. That said, I always figure experimental results become more believable as time goes by and they are officially confirmed (or no flaws uncovered.)
Yep.
Moreover, excusing hand – waving or other bizarred antics and/or insisting people may not comment on the handwaving or bizarred antics also makes people lose credibility with those who are made suspicious by the handwaving.
Gavin (and some of his cheerleaders) may not like it, but the fact that there are people who will both say
a) Gavin is and does act like a weenie on the “independent” claim but
b) he looks right on this specific issue,
can ultimately win over skeptics who otherwise won’t believe the scientific finding.
In contrast, members of a fan club who insist on torturing the meaning of independence, forgetting time tables etc.so as to deny Gavin’s obvious weenie-ness on this will not be believed when they deny “a” but insist on “b”.
If you are looking into this in more detail, when you are finished, I’d be happy to let you guest post. (Or, if you set up your own blog, I’ll comment on what you do.)
Thanks. Personally, I had thought going into it that there would be a substantial difference. I was surprised when there was not. And now that I’ve had a chance to play with some RegEM results, I am not quite as suspicious of it outputs as I was before.
.
The most important thing for anyone to do is actually check. Whether you’re Gavin, Steig, or skeptic, unless you actually check, all you have are unfounded beliefs.
.
And when I get done with the rest of it, I’ll let you know what I find. That may be on hold for a while, though. I assuaged my curiousity about Harry for the moment. The thing that I actually downloaded R and started learning it for is something else entirely, and I may finish that first.
.
Oh . . . and I’ve followed RC for about a year, but never posted. Kind of don’t like the over-moderation there. But I may make an exception and throw out a post.
I note that Steve McIntyre has thrown some more light on the discussion with his comment on Post #329 on the Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread over at CA:
“Steve: If you wish to discuss Pielke’s views, then please do so with him over there. When I wrote the Mystery Man post, I had reason to believe that Gavin was his own Mystery Man. Nonetheless, before saying so, I provided him with an opportunity to voluntarily disclose his behavior. Gavin chose not to. I think that there are reasons to wonder why Gavin was so desperate to get the BAS data changed. He has no prior history of concern over urgency of correcting station data -quite the opposite – and took no steps to change the equally important GISS data set. That’s a question that peope should be wondering about.”
Yes RyanO–
The most important thing is to check. But, as I said above, most people can’t check everything. This can stem from lack of time, tools or education. So, if you do get things together, I’ll be glad to host it.
I think it’s fair to say no one will accuse me of defending Gavin or Steig because due to fan club membership.
I highlighted RyanO’s findings in this post.
Lucia,
I pretty much agree with your comments above in response to my previous post. I think I’m just feeling disheartened that ‘personal foibles’ over a matter that is probably of little scientific significance may distort the perception of the science. I look forward to further work on the Antarctic temperature history – findings are only as good as their replication, I guess.
Lucia
I think I will use an anology
Say you had an accountant go over your various accounts. He (or she) says that there is an error in your mortgage, then walks away. You look at your mortgage in detail, find an error relating to the wrong application of some bank fees.
Did you find the error or did he/she?
I would say, you both did. The accountant never said what the error was, so there’s no way of knowing if you found the same error the accountant did. In fact the accountant may have found something else wrong, that wasn’t even wrong, but because you looked you found an error.
It is such a trivial question, yet again. I admire that you are doing your best to back-up SteveM, but this kind of game-play – political game-play – will not win SteveM any new friends in the science community.
Nathan–
I agree with you. In the analogy, we both found it. So, I claimed I found it “independently” of the accountant, I would be lying. My finding it relied on information from the accountant.
Is the goal of everything to win new friends in the science community?
I think Gavin’s game playing will tend to create more skeptics. People not calling Gavin on this obvious game playing will also make those incline to skepticism doubt those who give Gavin a pass on this. I’m more concerned that Gavin’s behavior will cause people to doubt accurate messages that tell use AGW is true than whether or not SteveM makes new friends in the science community.
Simon,
If this post disheartened you, you may prefer the one where I show what RyanO did. 🙂
Lucia,
You possibly misunderstand me – it’s not your post that has bothered me (as I’ve said, I tend to agree with you) but rather what might be made out of this matter by others, and for how long, and at what cost in terms of possible obfuscation of things that matter in the broader scheme.
Ok, I’ll look up the RyanO thing!
Lucia
I disagree. The accountant may have pointed you in the right direction, but you still found the error. You are saying that your work was dependent on the accountant. Not so, your work was your own.
“My finding it relied on information from the accountant. ” Not so, you found the error on your own. The actual process was all your own work. YOu were the one who went to the account, looked at the numbers, found the particular discrepancy, went to the bank account terms and conditions, found which rule they had misapplied and then calculated what the balance should be.
Lucia
“I’m more concerned that Gavin’s behavior will cause people to doubt accurate messages that tell use AGW is true than whether or not SteveM makes new friends in the science community.”
Now this is your game, why would you link Gavin’s behaviour (on a personal level) with the ability of scientists in general to communicate accuracy about AGW? You play a political game with this statement. By making the connection, in writing, you actually promote that idea even when your statement contradicts it.
I’ll give an example
I don’t think that SteveM is a self-aggrandizing, paranoid indvidual. I am not qualified to make that assessment.
Nathan,
Then in the analogy, we still disagree. In that instance, I think my finding the error depended on the accountant pointing me in the right direction. Depending on the accountant meets my definition of “not independent of the accountant”.
The reason I said what I did is that I think Gavin’s behavior will cause an increase in skepticism regardless of what I do or say. I perceive a long history of people making the argument that one should not criticize behavior like gavin’s for the exact reasons you claim: The criticism itself will amplify the skepticism that Gavin’s behavior fosters. (i.e. provide positive feedback.)
And so, many have been quite when this behavior is witnessed. The result: The behavior continues and the skepticism grows.
Even if speaking of the consequences of the behavior has a slight positive feedback on the amount of skepticism, I think saying it is more likely to eventually cause Gavin or those who behave similarly to stop. That is: discussing the issue is essential to ensure that negative feedback prevents the runaway weenie behavior that creates skepticism.
When those indulging in the sort of behavior displayed by Gavin this week stop, I will no longer need to worry that their behavior fans the flames of skepticism. There will also no longer be any for the two of us to argue whether the criticism itself amplifies the ill-effects of the game playing we recently witnessed in Gavin.
Now, since the meme of repetition has been brought up elsewhere, would you like me to repeat your theory and have me repeat my explanation?
Or better yet, I can provide a doozie of a counter example to yours. I trained as a young atheist penning religious essays while forced to attend an all girl Catholic high school. That was a long time ago, but I’m sure the nun-twisting rhetorical skills can be resurrected.
lucia makes the exact right point. For most people, the arcana of autocorrelation, covariance structure and RegEM are meaningless; but there is the theatre of seeing the rather titanic struggle between the two sides.
when gavin pulls his stunt of using stuff on Steve’s site, claiming someone else did it, and then being forced into admitting that he did it, but that it is somehow “independent”, well; this is stuff that everyone can understand. And it doesn’t reflect well on gavin at all.
per
Lucia
You words will simply inflame. Especially the use of words like “indulge”.
It makes me wonder if you are simply concerned by their behavior, or wish to point it out.
AGW is far more important than commenting on an individuals behaviour. The truth about AGW is independent of any individuals behaviour. So to say that an individuals behaviour affects the perceived truth of AGW is indeed very sad. It leaves us outside of rational objective argument (or let’s say discussion), and puts us in a very mediocre political debate. Call me naive to want to pull politics out of AGW, but that’s what I want.
Nun-twisting rhetoric? No thanks!
Nathan,
It’s not either or. I wish to point out because I am concerned.
I agree. AGW it self is more important than commenting on individual behavior. However, it is also too important insist that we not comment when people like Gavin to behave in ways that make people doubt its truth.
I realize you may want to pull politics out of the debate. But how can this be goal achieved if people remain silent when people like gavin indulge in silly game playing and inflame skepticism?
I realize you may not like someone calling gavin out. But is the only alternative look away when he does this sort of thing? And at what expense?
His behavior spreads the seed of doubt. If inaction — in the form of silence — is mandated, what is to prevent the seeds his behavior sows from germinating and growing into full grown plants?
I thought you wouldn’t want me to do take your example on and show how a similar example would be done by a schoolgirl taunting the nuns (while still wanting to get an A). 🙂
I think that the fact, that Steig et al. didn’t check the stations data is no less disturbing than Gavin’s antics after the problems were hinted at.
Just take Mann08 and their scraping of dendro databases and all other possible data sources for their data grinder without taking into account the caveats issued by the original authors (that speleothem being explicitly declared to be a monsoon precipitation proxy, the Tiljander’s disturbed lake varves in 30’s…). And as it was shown in the Steig paper discussion, problems of the AWS stations are well known, so one would expect a closer look in such a politically laden important study, no?