Climate Science’s Dirtiest Secret

Nerdy palsBy Doug L. Hoffman

With the climate science party-line case for global warming rapidly unwinding there is growing interest by researchers from outside the climate change community in applying advanced statistical techniques to climate data. It has long been recognized that statistical acumen has been lacking among mainstream climate scientists. This dirty little secret was first publicly disclosed during Congressional hearings regarding the 2006 Wegman Report. Even newer analyses have revealed that many of the predictions made by the IPCC reports and other global warming boosters are wrong, often because inappropriate statistical techniques were applied.

The Wegman Report was the result of an ad hoc committee of independent statisticians who were asked by a congressional committee to assess the statistical information presented in the Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” papers. Dr. Edward Wegman, a prominent statistics professor at George Mason University and chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, headed the panel of experts who examined the use of statistics in climate science. They found the climate science community was far too insular and did not consult with experts in statistics outside of their own field.

This self imposed isolation led, in the opinion of the committee, to misuse of statistics and a peer review process that only included the close-knit circle of researchers at the center of the global warming controversy. Wegman stated in testimony before the energy and commerce committee: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” More on the Wegman Report can be found in Chapter 13 of The Resilient Earth.

Read the rest at Forest, Wildlife and Climate News.

26 Responses to Climate Science’s Dirtiest Secret

  1. Hal Groar April 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    This one gets a bit heavy on the statistical jargon, but if you work your way through it the pay-off is worth it. Great post Dan! I had never thought about the math they used, just thought it didn’t add up.

  2. Cubanshamoo April 6, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    Where we can find this Wegman Report Dan?
    Thanks in advance

  3. Cubanshamoo April 6, 2010 at 4:32 am #

    It’s find, I found it in PDF format, I also find a leftist blog which said it is just politics. I wonder what not these days.

  4. Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 5:58 am #

    I am with Hal on this one. Although not being very strong at all in the math arena I had a very hard time following this one. But my take is that there is a lot of people who are a heck of a lot smarter than I am looking into the things that should have been looked into from the git-go, and finding that my non-scientific feelings about AGW theory were right. It is a vindication for me, and really that is all I need to understand from this. To be honest I got lost at Emperical Mode Decomposition!!!!

    • Hal Groar April 6, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

      I don’t know how much louder the American people could yell, after the revolt on health-care. I thought the outpouring of ANTI-OBAMA CARE voices would slow them down. It did for a while, but they still plowed it through. What do you think it would take to sway Pelosi and Reid? I don’t think it can be done. What I hope happens is they get mired up in explaining the monstrosity that they don’t have time to push anything else through and we find ourselves at election time, BAM!!! They are gone!

      • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 6, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

        It could be, but I’m not holding my breath.

  5. Hal Groar April 6, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    Yeah Neil, that EMD stuff was a first for me. I will take vindication for $100 Alex!

  6. Kate April 6, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    I just watched this ad today

    It is sponsored by One of their congressmen is Tim Walz.

    They support climate change legislation to control carbon.

    I contacted them to tell them about the EPA report that refutes global warming. Here is a link to the EPA report that was quashed. Tim Walz ignored the report.

    • Neil F. AGWD/BSD April 11, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

      God bless those guys. I mean really. They think they are doing the right thing, but unfortunately they are being useful idiots. I hate to say that because as a vet myself I really respect what they have gone through over there, and I agree about Iran and their interferance. I do disagree on the solution though because I know that the “green” energy of which they speak is not a viable alternative to oil. The solution is “drill baby drill”. We need to utilize our own resources that the govt. won’t let anyone touch. Poor guys.

  7. paul wenum April 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Kate, They ignore all reports as you can see from voting records as well as the public they represent. That said, the majority isn’t always right, however, in this case they are.

  8. Rob N. Hood April 13, 2010 at 6:13 am #

    Useful idiots… yes indeed. Where would the power elite be without them, eh?

  9. paul wenum April 13, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Ask the Elitist Gore. He should have the answer if he ever talks.

  10. Rob N. Hood April 15, 2010 at 7:24 am #

    So there are no elitist Rightys?

  11. Dan April 15, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    There’s a social conservative element that can be nanny-like, but it’s a small contingent. Conservatives believe in liberty and personal responsibility – in other words, live and let live. It’s hard to be an elitist with that attitude. Libs believe in class and race distinctions, which natutally means some think they are above all others (some animals are “more equal”). Conservatives, however believe that everyone should be treated exactly the same under the law.

  12. Rob N. Hood April 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    I said “elitist.” Not nanny-like. And your last sentence is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!! Now if you had said Libertarians I owuld have given you a pass on that, even though I think that is only really true for a samll contingent of THEM.

    You guys truly are the Infantry for the Right. As in INFANTry.

  13. paul wenum April 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    I never have trusted a man or woman that will never give a direct answer. Look at ol’ Albert Gore. Talk about an “Elitist.” He takes the cake, or the way he looks, did he eat it?

  14. Rob N. Hood April 16, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    This, coming from the master of obfuscation.

    And you’re FULL of direct answers Paul…… yeah……..right.

  15. paul wenum April 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    I speak as I see it. Literally.

  16. paul wenum April 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    “Obfuscation.” Nice word. You must like that word I assume or are you covering up something?

  17. Rob N. Hood April 20, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Nope. It just fits you that’s all. I don’t hink you’re even aware you do it. You have mentioned Alinksy a LOT, and you utilize those tactics VERY often. But again, I don’t think you’re aware of it. Those tactics come naturally to some people, it’s not like he INVENTED anything new. He just capialized, so to speak, on it as an effective method for the purposes of debate, etc.

  18. paul wenum April 20, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    I’m Scot. We fought the Brits. Must be in my genes. “Wrangler” that is. Learned over the years to be like my Grandfather who always said, “Never trust a man that cannot look you in the eyes.” “Trust is earned, not spoken.” Live by that.

  19. Rob N. Hood April 21, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    I do as a matter of fact. But thanks anyway.

  20. paul wenum April 21, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    I’m glad to hear. Excellent.

  21. Rob N. Hood April 24, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Ok, Mr. Burns.

  22. paul wenum April 24, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Where’s Allen?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.