Here's the first article. Couldn't manage to find a direct link, so this is cut and pasted from a pdf document. Apologies for any formatting problems. Lemme know if anyone wants to see the other articles in the series.
Statistics needed
The Deniers -- Part I
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes
that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that
urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other
believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about
global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and
caution before intervening massively in the economy.
The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent
scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming
skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and
what are their motives?
The series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy --
that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or
that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are
increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to
convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken.
Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public
that the global-warming debate is over.
In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman.
Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George
Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on
Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical
Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear
nearby).
Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and
commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess
one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical
Print Story - canada.com network
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22003a0d-37cc-439
...
2 of 3 06/03/2007 2:42 PM
validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's
study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature
increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of
any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest
decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard
of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures
over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a
sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.
Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the
public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel
for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat
global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians,
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their
own.
Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed
to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by
assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono.
Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American
Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated
the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.
"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was
the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a
millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of
data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially
unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey
stick disappeared.
Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by
someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence
that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had
significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of
climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the
academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.
Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change
and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their
studies. "f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be
funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the
best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are
a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding
climate dynamics."
In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been
done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been
peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he
believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the
climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.
One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a
committee on probability and statistics. "I believe it is amazing for a committee
whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are
also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical
association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an
assistant-professor appointment in a medical school." As an example of the
statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American
Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the
Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the
Print Story - canada.com network
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22003a0d-37cc-439
...
3 of 3 06/03/2007 2:42 PM
American Statistical Association.
While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics
-- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it.
Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but
they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake
their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce
committee in later testimony: "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." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they
nevertheless obtained the right answer.
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
.
- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a
division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.
THE CV OF A DENIER
Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the
University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he
headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic
research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed
a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and
methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern
computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics.
Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in
Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative
Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of
numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight
books.