Re: Friam Digest, Vol 67, Issue 28 Mann's hockey stick
Locked
Re: Friam Digest, Vol 67, Issue 28 Mann's hockey stick
 
|
Here are some hockey references from friend of mine who is a warming skeptic. I guess I m worse then these guys as a remain skeptical of the skeptics. Chip Garner This one is not peer reviewed but is a very good explanation, sort of a must read prep for the peer reviewed ones that follow: · http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf (this ones a little old and does not include many new findings. Still, it's very good, and is well referenced) · http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html (this one a pretty good history of the HS controversy, even though it's a blog) Peer reviewed. Be aware that most of these only address a narrow aspect of the hockey stick, or it’s implications, so you have to read these and more to get the whole picture: · http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm (this is an abstract of the peer reviewed paper which I don't have access to. See the note at the bottom for the actual reference) I’m these are peer reviewed or are summaries of peer reviewed articles, but I’m not certain: · http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php# (another that abstracts a peer reviewed article) · http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875 (another "abstract". Reference is in the text-body.) · http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm (another "abstract". Reference is at the bottom.) Jan 24, 2009, at 10:00 AM, [hidden email] wrote: Send Friam mailing list submissions to ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Friam Digest, Vol 67, Issue 28 Mann's hockey stick
|
|
If the interest is in the back-and-forth over the Hockey Stick, I don't think you can go too wrong with the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy It discusses the issue, and links to the various reports from the National Research Council, the Wegman report, the American Stat. Assoc. session, the 2008 Mann study, etc... -Ian
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Chip Garner <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- ___________________________________ Ian P. Cook m: 412.759.8973 jabber: [hidden email] Y!/MSN: ian_palmer_cook AIM: ianpalmercook ___________________________________ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Ian P. Cook circa 26/01/09 08:50 AM:
> If the interest is in the back-and-forth over the Hockey Stick, I don't > think you can go too wrong with the Wikipedia entry: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy > > It discusses the issue, and links to the various reports from the National > Research Council, the Wegman report, the American Stat. Assoc. session, the > 2008 Mann study, etc... Thanks. I'm not concerned about the controversy so much. I am more concerned about the accusation that peer-review is (can be) a tool to suppress ideas that run counter to the consensus. I recently finished Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" and I hearken back to a story by Sydney Brenner regarding his c. elegans project; these stories argue (to a small extent) how dominant consensus can toss extraordinarily high hurdles in front of hypotheses that go against that consensus. And, being an ABMer, I've personally experienced what I've thought of as psychological/methodological inertia amongst traditional biological modelers. (Though every _constructive_ criticism they send my way turns out to be entirely valid and helps improve my rhetoric.) So, I have some sympathy with my friend's complaints about a premature consensus with regard to global climate change. But, overall, I tend to think that the people whining about suppression are just lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to convince others or specifically and concretely lay out their positions. Or, perhaps over time, they build up a persecution complex (e.g. Robert Rosen) and become comfortable as a "victim". .... Anyway, what I'm interested in is the extent to which the global climate change arguments (on both sides) have representation in high impact journals with strong peer review. I'm sure there are sociologists examining such processes. If I knew what to ask for, I'd be asking for that research instead. [grin] Chip: Thanks for the specific paper links. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Ah, I stand corrected then. Sounds like both a fascinating question and a difficult problem.
At the risk of pointing in yet another bad direction, it seems to me that a cognate to this problem could be the Rosenthal's "file drawer" issue in research; i.e. the work that goes unsubmitted out of a (correct or incorrect) assumption that it won't get a fair hearing because it runs counter to other, published literature. Though the idea is from '79, it's still of great concern. I once had a long discussion with an official from NIH who was seeking funding for research into the publication bias issue (see also the area worked on by Ioannidas -- http://xrl.in/1h2j, which I offer here not as endorsement or condemnation, but simply as an example). And, as remote from my real knowledge as anything could be, as a mildly interested observer it seems that there might be something of this question of inertia in dominant ideas that appears in theoretical physics hiring. Again, I warn that this is from a simplistic reading of Lee Smolin's discussion of the issue, and absolutely no personal experience. Simply things that occured to me in reading your note. Best, -Ian On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: Thus spake Ian P. Cook circa 26/01/09 08:50 AM: -- ___________________________________ Ian P. Cook m: 412.759.8973 jabber: [hidden email] Y!/MSN: ian_palmer_cook AIM: ianpalmercook ___________________________________ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Ian P. Cook circa 27/01/09 06:59 AM:
> At the risk of pointing in yet another bad direction, it seems to me that a > cognate to this problem could be the Rosenthal's "file drawer" issue in > research; i.e. the work that goes unsubmitted out of a (correct or > incorrect) assumption that it won't get a fair hearing because it runs > counter to other, published literature. Though the idea is from '79, it's > still of great concern. Yes, that would be relevant. In fact, if I could learn more about that, then it would help me argue my point because it would help separate out personal, psychological bias (which might keep an individual or small group from even trying to publish) from collective, objective bias (that may not be recognizable or perceivable by any one individual in the collective). My guess is that my friend and many of the anthropogenic global climate change skeptics perceive a bias where none exists. Likewise, I guess that the global climate change believers have jumped to a premature conclusion. So, personal, psychological bias would play a huge role in the irrationality of both positions, regardless of any objective bias that may exist. [Disclosure: I'm a believer; but my premature conclusion is definitely based on intuition, not fact. I'm not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, however, only climate change.] > I once had a long discussion with an official from > NIH who was seeking funding for research into the publication bias issue > (see also the area worked on by Ioannidas -- http://xrl.in/1h2j, which I > offer here not as endorsement or condemnation, but simply as an example). That link resulted in an error page; but a search on PLoS using "Ioannidis" returns results. Thanks! > And, as remote from my real knowledge as anything could be, as a mildly > interested observer it seems that there might be something of this question > of inertia in dominant ideas that appears in theoretical physics hiring. > Again, I warn that this is from a simplistic reading of Lee Smolin's > discussion of the issue, and absolutely no personal experience. Simply > things that occured to me in reading your note. Yep. I'm sure it appears everywhere. But it's most important in science, where it's our stated purpose to arrive at conclusions based on repeatable falsification (and, to some extent, the shape and color of justification) rather than intuition. Note that I'm not disparaging intuition for the formation of [hypo]theses or of ways to test them, only the conclusions surrounding them. In fact, I'd probably argue that bias (both personal and collective) in hiring is a good thing. It's probably good in all human activity, perhaps even science. But it's in science where we most often claim to be rational. In any case, I'd like to be able to discuss these topics in the concrete context of the anthropogenic global climate change hypothesis, especially before we falsify it, if we ever do. [grin] -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |