Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Sub Prime Subsidies - Josh 155 | Main | Chronic wind »

Brandon Shollenberger's review of 'The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars' by Michael Mann

At Lucia's blog, on Feb 15th, Branden Shollenberger commented:

"I just received my copy of Michael Mann’s book. The first sentence of it is (emphasis mine):

On the morning of November 17, 2009, I awoke to learn that my e-mail correspondence with fellow scientists had been hacked from a climate research center at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and selectively posted on the Internet for all to see.

Two pages later, there are these two sentences:

Instrumental records from around the globe indicate that Earth has warmed by almost 1 degree Celsius (about 1.5°F) over the past century. That may seem a small amount, but it is already noticeable in glacier retreat, rising sea level, more frequent heat waves, and more intense hurricanes, among many other phenomena.

That’s as far as I’ve gotten, but it shows a disturbing trend. Ideas which are possible, but by no means known to be true, are stated as fact. If this is remotely representative of the book’s accuracy, there is no way the people giving it glowing reviews read it with an open mind."

Over the next few days Brandon finds more errors as he reads the book. It is quite fun to follow the unfolding story but you can download the whole review as a pdf here.

And there's more! This weekend Brandon hopes to share a second document covering other issues and which we will add as an update to this post.

Frank O'Dwyer has his own opinions on Brandon's review which you can read here - he doesn't like it.

Posted by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (80)

Frank O'Dwyer ... doesn't like it.

And who said the climate debate was predictable?

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Brandon emailed me some days ago to draw my attention to his review. I was somewhat overwhelmed with other things at the time, and failed to reply. Apologies to Brandon for the oversight.

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

O'Dwyer is posting a hatchet job.

He's quibbling over the word "attack" in a dispute between Santer and Singer. The word is inappropriate in that context now that Santer is shown to be threatening physical violence.

Likewise, he is overlooking the fact that Mann cut Wegman's testimony quote to completely remove significant explanation.

On the basis of his review, nothing O'Dwyer writes can be trusted. When he's right, it will be like the proverbial stopped clock: purely by accident.

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterDead Dog Bounce

Here's my review of Mann's book: Utter bollocks. (Although I haven't read it yet. Still, if
it was good enough for Gleick...)

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh


Likewise, he is overlooking the fact that Mann cut Wegman's testimony quote to completely remove significant explanation.
We are really into the realms of nitpicking. What you say is right but, having read Shollenberger's fisk, I'm inclined to agree with Dwyer — at least on this one.
Mann does provide a link which directs to the rest of what Wegman said and though his selective quote may have been intended to create an impression he was at least honest enough to provide immediate access to the rest of it.
Shollenberger's reaction reads like someone out to pick holes.

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:39 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

@Mike Jackson,

Wegman states 3 types of contact between his team and McIntyre in that paragraph. Mann cuts the quote at a cold "Actually, no".

My view is that he provided the link as cover for an unethical attack. It's a bit like the claim that the spliced tree ring/temperature wasn't misleading because it was never used in a paper. It's a sign of a higher level of planning to have your alibi prepared. That actually is makes the situation worse, not better.

But you may well view it differently, and be correct to do so.

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterDead Dog Bounce

Mike Jackson: "Mann does provide a link which directs to the rest of what Wegman said..."

But Mike, if you have the book in hardback, and the link, which is really a footnote to a ref page at the back, would you be able to go on-line and check the link? Would you really bother? Thing is, most folk would assume that Mann is a man of his word and take him at it for what he 'quotes' in the pages of his book. Brandon has been able to show us that he is otherwise. At worst, Mann was misleading; at best he was disingenuous.

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

I read that Peter Gleick is mentioned nowhere in Mann's book. A humiliation indeed.

Someone suggested that this slight on his status might be one of the things that tipped him over the brink.

The forged memo, perhaps to redress this slight, says "... they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays ..."

Mar 7, 2012 at 12:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Mann does provide a link which directs to the rest of what Wegman said and though his selective quote may have been intended to ...

The word you are looking for is "deceive", not "create an impression".

The lie is quoted "Not only had their apparently been substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre, as hinted at earlier–something Wegman had denied in his testimony under oath in Congress…

Wegman didn't deny any such thing. When somebody is accused of a felony crime, when the narrator know for a fact that no such thing happened - that is called LYING.

I know you climate alarmist like to twist and torture evidence but come on.

Mar 7, 2012 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterpapertiger

He (Dwyer) doesn't like the HSI either.

Mar 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

Even on a quick browse through Dwyer and Shollenberger, it is absolutely obvious that the latter is full of tendentious BS.

Quick example:- Shollenberger's chapter heading quote from Goebbels and Dwyer's knee jerk reference to Godwin's law. In fact Shollenberger's use of this quotation is entirely apposite.

The difficulty Dwyer (And Mann. And Gleick. And all the rest of the merry Team) has is that it is very easy to destroy trust and extremely difficult to regain it. And, having studied some of Mann's emanations over several years, I wouldn't believe a word he said about anything.

So hats off to Shollenberger for at least wasting his time reading Mann's book before reviewing it.

Myself, I wouldn't line the cat's litter tray with it.

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

I'm not going to pursue this because it's not worth it. I'm not actually disagreeing with either of you, just saying that this particular spat is irrelevant to just about anything we're talking about and both Shollenberger and O'Dwyer look to me as if they're simply point-scoring.

[Snip - calm down]

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Martin B dont you mean 'former'?

"Even on a quick browse through Dwyer and Shollenberger, it is absolutely obvious that the latter is full of tendentious BS."

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

[Snip - calm down]

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterpapertiger

Why should Mann start being honest now?

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Mann first asserts that there was, apparently, "substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre".

Also in the same sentence he further asserts that Wegman had, by implication, lied when he "denied [collaboration] in his testimony under oath in Congress".

But, in Wegman's full quote, not Mann's truncated, Wegman describes EXACTLY what collaboration -- substantial or otherwise -- occurred with McIntyre. (which seems to be the basis for the first assertion)

It was necessary for Mann to truncate the quote for it to appear as if collaboration, or more accurately "help in replicating his [McIntyres] work" as it was put to Wegman, had been denied.

Mann, assisted by Frank here, is trying to have his cake and eat it too:

"Yes, Wegman did collaborate with McIntyre as evidenced by his quote where he describes what collaboration occurred, and he also lied when he denied collaboration - in the very same passage! "

Mar 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

To a complete legal layman it looks like Wegman has a possible libel case against Mann, who has, apparently knowingly, accused him of lying under oath to Congress, which I understand would be committing a serious crime.

I may easily be entirely wrong.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

Wegman clarifies the nature of contact between himself and McIntyre. Stupak lets it go at that.

Who do you think coached Stupak to ask that question? Just asking.

The allegation of substantial contact between Wegman and McIntyre, by Mann, is based on the Mashey 'report'.

The mere fact that Mann is willing to believe in conspiratorial nonsense such as the Mashey 'report' shows that he has lost his way.

Mann does misrepresent the Wegman testimony . Wegman did not deny any and all kind of contact with McIntyre, but only clarified that the kind of contact he had. It appears to have been an admissible type. Mann represents the facts to be otherwise, based on the Mashey report.


The whole book is filled with such nonsensical allegations.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

the little sense I can make of Frank's point here is that Mann thinks there was substantial collaboration between Wegman and McIntyre. Wegman denied this in his testimony to Congress and then, in a chunk of testimony omitted by Mann, says exactly what collaboration took place.

Frank claims that this was not substantial collaboration. Therefore Mann is correct to claim that Wegman denied substantial collaboration.

Brandon's defence is invalid, in Frank's view, because Wegman's testimony is only about trivial collaboration. Mann suggests there was substantial collaboration which Wegman excluded from his testimony and of course Frank is duty-boiund to agree with this opinion from the great prophet. basically, Wegman gave false testimony about the full extent of his dealings with McIntyre and Mann somehow knows this. Therefore Wegman is an unreliable witness!

This outdoes in terms of mystification even the legendary Nick Stoke. It is pretty pathetic stuff - almost worthy of Hengist.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Meh. I'm tending to view this very much as Mike Jackson is. I don't really think all this fisking and fisk>fisking is helpful, most especially in the minutiae of selective interpretations with added assumptions of motives. It just gets muddy.

Where Mann misrepresents events, papers, chronologies and such, and where it can clearly be articulated, then let the bells toll. Shy of that, I'm afraid my eyes glaze over as much as when I read any of that drivel up-chucked by John Mashey (god forbid). It's tit-for-tat tittle-tattle and I just can't perceive this as anything more.

I don't want to discourage Brandon one iota, and I do appreciate his determination to not let misinformation and revisionism enter into the literary canon unaddressed, but I would implore him to shoot for more substantial, less emotive, bones to gnaw on. I have no doubt they're in there.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Simon (2:31) I fully agree.

But what really saddens me when it happens on this site is seeing the instant attacks against anyone who might have perhaps posed a very small point against a sceptic's arguments, as occurred here where Mike Jackson is instantly portrayed as an alarmist due to an apparently trivial disagreement with Brandon's words.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta

In my opinion, Brandon's original comments in the thread at Lucia's (look down the seemingly unrelated make a better read and analysis than the pdf. I urge interested parties to re-examine the original thread.

I've read the book. It's almost total disinformation. There's nothing new in this book in respect to the proxy reconstructions, where it's a repetition of talking points with no effort to clearly cite or appraise the criticisms.

As long as the climate "community" endorses and praises bilge like this, they can't complain when people take them less and less seriously on other matters where they wish to be heard.

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

Bilge it is then. Sorry to go for the argument from authority - but there seem to be more important things to do in this small corner. :)

Mar 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Thanks SteveM.. found the beginning. For ref: the start of Brandon's analysis of Mann's book over at Lucia's.

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Great to see Brandon's review getting head-post treatment here ... but, hey, Josh ... don't I even get a h/t?!

Grumble ... grumble ...last time I'll ever tweet one of my finds before I had a chance to post about it ;-)

But seriously ... I do disagree with those who think that Brandon was nit-picking in his review.

As I had noted in my post on Sunday, when I was reviewing his comments at Lucia's - before I knew about his .pdf summary of the "non-technical" parts - the (albeit not surprising) big picture that emerged of Mann's opus reminded me very much of what one finds in David Irving's "scholarship".

Mann's "scientific" tricks™ have spilled over into his literary endeavours - and he gets away with it as long as no one checks his work with a critical eye.

So, I, for one, appreciate the time and trouble Brandon took to bring the pixels that form the pattern - in the big picture - into focus.

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

I find it amusing the only way one can argue Mann didn't libel Wegman is to say Mann was completely wrong. The argument is if there was no "substantial undisclosed collaboration," Mann was wrong to say there "apparently" was. However, since he was wrong, what Wegman supposedly denied wasn't true, therefore Wegman wasn't guilty of perjury.

This position requires one accept Mann misrepresented his source, fabricated a claim about what Wegman said, and used that fabrication to say something was "apparently" true even though it obviously was not.

And it doesn't avoid the charge of libel. Adding the word "apparently" doesn't make everything okay. On some very technical point you can argue Mann didn't accuse Wegman of a perjury, but the impression he intentionally gave is so strong I suspect any judge would dismiss the technicality.

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

[Sbip - Venting]

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

He really doesn't care about the science (why constantly stick up for what history will show is a piece of cr*p hockey stick), just send him the money and he'll be happy.

Funny thing is Mann you may have finally made your millions of dollars you expected to get because your a scientist but history will not have JPEG's of your bank balance in them.

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

I haven't read the book but from the quotes, criticisms and snippets I find it hard to swallow that some of the content could be considered proper conduct for a federally funded professional scientist.

I took an oath as an Electrical Engineer in the Province of Ontario, Canada to follow a code of professional ethics. If I wrote a book like Mann's or acted like Peter Gleick, I would very likely lose my professional certification.

Here is a link to that code. Tell me how scientists like Gleick and Mann stack up:

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeC

Simon Hopkinson, I'm confused by you suggesting you would care if I discussed "[w]here Mann misrepresents events, papers, chronologies and such." The second example I discuss in my document is a case of Mann misrepresenting a publication by Fred Singer. The fifth example I discuss has Mann misrepresenting a paper by Tom Peterson. The sixth example I discuss has Mann misrepresenting the published work of McIntyre and McKitrick... I understand your eyes may "glaze over" easily, but I find it impossible to imagine how you didn't notice this.

By the way, you mention "added assumptions of motives." When I was composing that document, I intentionally avoided discussing motives. I don't recall a case where I claimed to know Mann's motive for anything. Am I missing something?

Incidentally, if you would like a more "technical" discussion, I'm currently working on such a document. I expect to have it finished by this weekend. I tried to keep the first document simple and easy so it would be more accessible, but it's hardly a full discussion of the issues I found in Mann's book.

Mar 7, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

Hilary, I am so sorry! Updated.

Mar 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

Frank O'Dwyer has a direct writing style that makes for a clear, enjoyable read. My impression from the linked post is that he's a smart, knowledgeable guy, and thus some of his points are likely to have merit.

I don't like the personal nature of so much of the Climate Wars, but all parties can benefit from issues-oriented criticism.

I invite Mr O'Dwyer (and other interested people) to critique my comments on the treatment of "Tiljander in Mann08" in Prof Mann's book. I haven't read it, and thus relied on Brandon Shollenberger's quotations. With that caveat, my remarks are in Comment #90439 in the already-linked open thread at The Blackboard. Here's a link to Shollenberger's immediately-prior Comment #90427, which quotes the relevant text.

Tiljander is an obscure technical matter. However, as I try to make clear, in my opinion it is also a "for want of a nail" issue. Without Tiljander, some of the main claims of Mann08 (PNAS) and Mann09 (Science) fail. "Main claims" as set forth by the authors in the papers' abstracts and in accompanying press releases. So (again, in my opinion), it's worth paying attention to how the book handles this question.

Mar 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterAMac

@Brandon - very nice review - thank you.

Brandon's summary of Mike's Nature Trick:

'It is using data from one line to manipulate the data from another line without any rational basis.'

Jon Stewart would approve.

Mar 7, 2012 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

On Judith Curry's blog, I responded to Frank o'Dwyer by saying I don't think there is any value in discussing his points. I believe our disagreements are clear enough that anyone can judge them for themselves. Along this line, I suggested people use o'Dwyer's first point as a litmus test for me. If I am wrong on that point, I ask you consider me wrong about everything I said about Mann's book. Perhaps this is just a rhetorical flourish, but I stand by it 100%.

Obviously, the reverse isn't true. Whether or not o'Dwyer is wrong on that point, I encourage people to read what else he has to say. I also encourage them to read what Michael Mann has to say (on Twitter):

@fodwyer Wording is ambiguous, but should be 2C total warming/450ppm for consistency. Everything else in the book consistent on this point.

@fodwyer Some of the #s on p 18 of #HSCW not quite right. EU target is 2C tot rel. to pre-indust (approx 450ppm). To be fixed next printing.

Michael Mann acknowledges my position.

Mar 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

Thanks, Josh ... I'll forgive you now :-)

Mar 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

AMac - I still believe there is a need for a definitive (and not overly complicated) "Tiljander for dummies" post. However Mike Mann keeps digging himself in deeper so the entertainment continues.

Mar 7, 2012 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterclivere

Does the University of Easy Access do correspondence courses in creative writing?

Mar 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

If you go to google and start typing in
mann hockey stick
what are the first two completions google suggests?

Mar 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I think that I can understand Mann's POV, after all Wegman was investigating Mann and it has now become the norm that when you are investigating Mann, at no point are you allowed to communicate in any way with Steve McIntyre. The fact that Wegman did not know that this would be the right thing to do (after all, it was being telecommunicated to him from the future) meant that Wegman was clearly lying to Congress, it's all a matter of the principle component.

Mar 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman

Mike Jackson: Mar 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM says:

I'm not going to pursue this because it's not worth it. I'm not actually disagreeing with either of you, just saying that this particular spat is irrelevant to just about anything we're talking about and both Shollenberger and O'Dwyer look to me as if they're simply point-scoring."

It's a pity Mike, that having grudgingly accepted the point ("I'm not actually disagreeing with you"), you haven't the grace to take it further and see how this one libellous statement merely sets the tone for Mann's entire relationship with the truth. It is not, IMHO, an "irrelevant spat": libel never is. You would certainly be (quite rightly) up in arms if I called you a liar (assuming His Grace didn't snip me). Do you see my point? (and I don't regard you as a liar. :-) )

Mar 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

Brandon, when reading the posts at Lucia's I was going to comment that I don't see a contradiction between the three attribution paragraphs. In your PDF, I can kind of see your point.

Mann is arguing at different points in time as well.
The 3 points are basically, if the temperatures were flat and then suddenly increased that suggests CO2 is guilty, if Temperatures were warmer in the past, that MIGHT suggest CO2 is innocent and natural variability is the guilty party,(Sorry Steve) and there is more evidence to convict CO2 so even if temperatures were warmer in the past that wouldn't change the case.

There is another light from which the arguments must be seen, thought it appears there is no contradiction here. Michael Mann is somewhat of the view that models are overstating warming, because of some hidden negative feedbacks, that were also happening in the past. He suggested the Pacific Thermostat theory of Cane, as one possibility. That is, the Medieval Warm Period was not global because of a natural feedback to some warming in the past.

Mar 7, 2012 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

MikeN the bucket load of information on the MWP form around the world is not enough to make it global, and yet a hand full of 'magic trees ' from a limited geographical are can tell us all about world temperatures despite the fact that other things can effect their growth and we not even sure how much temperature does effect them. How does that work?

Mar 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

MikeN, I'm not sure I understand your position, so if you don't mind, I'll try to simplify the text I offered.

Mann claims unprecedented temperatures would offer support for the their of AGW. He then claims if temperatures were not unprecedented, it would have no bearing on the case for AGW.

I don't see any way to reconcile those two claims. Can you explain to me how you would do it? Conversely, if I've misinterpreted something, could you point it out?

Mar 7, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

I swear I typed "theory," not "their." I think the blog software must have a bug!

Mar 7, 2012 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

"...the (albeit not surprising) big picture that emerged of Mann's opus reminded me very much of what one finds in David Irving's "scholarship"." --Hilary Ostrov

Aieee! Cue the Dukas! Mann's manic gesticulations have summoned forth a veiled demon of the anti-Godwin sort. Thoroughly deserved. : ]

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

It is not wise for the plotters of apocalypse threats, or their trusty technocrats, to reveal too much of themselves. Their logic gets torn to shreds, their personalities are exposed to ridicule and what they might well see as contumely, and they get diverted from their primary tasks - tasks which mostly involve far less informed people that those whose attacks they have invited by being so revealing.

Anyway, what I meant to say was cometh the hour, cometh the man. Brandon, you de man!

Mar 7, 2012 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

@jorgekafkazar Mar 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Aieee! Cue the Dukas! Mann's manic gesticulations have summoned forth a veiled demon of the anti-Godwin sort. Thoroughly deserved. : ]

Sorry, but my mother always told me ... if it looks like a duck, (cooks books a duck), walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, then ... it's a duck ;-)

Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Brandon, when I read the quotes in your posts at Lucia's, I didn't see the contradiction, but in the PDF, I saw your logic that the two statements are contradictory.

Basically, he is saying that this is one more piece of evidence to support the theory, but the theory is supported by many other points of evidence. This is the essence of the global warming arguments made on blogs. No matter how many errors are pointed out, people will go back to CO2 causes warming, therefore minor mistakes don't matter.

I understood the third point about how natural variability would be the dominant factor as Mann playing devil's advocate.

You have then taken it to say, well Mann is contradicting himself. You can't say this is a point in favor, but if it's not true, then it's not a point against. But that type of thinking is used many times. For example, I say that DNA evidence can point out that you are guilty, but it can't say that you are innocent, just because some DNS that was found didn't match doesn't mean you weren't there as well.

Mar 8, 2012 at 4:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

MikeN, I'm believe you're missing a simple point. In your analogy, the DNA evidence couldn't prove the person innocent. However, it could weaken the case against the person by indicating someone else may have been responsible. If a jury heard there was DNA evidence putting someone else at the scene, they'd obviously take that into consideration. They wouldn't consider it irrelevant as Mann says past warming would be.

Mar 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

One can only marvel at defences like O'Dwyers he neatly deals head on with the central claims issued by finding all the wiggle room he can (and which Mann obligingly provides) and therefore making your eyes bleed with irrelevancies but meanwhile carefully stepping over, and ignoring, all the implied corpses left behind triumphantly like some flamboyant Inspector Clouseau!

I mean who cares if you chose to step over "incorrect calculation of principal components" so long as you get the point across that Mann didn't just say "bad data" was the only claim? ;)

So yes 5 0. In some game only he plays ;)

I'm reading the book myself and finding it hard going. The shift from technical to political is jarring since the styles are totally different. Maybe if you are a fan of Mann it flows smoothly to your brain but to me it seems petty, petulant, point scoring when political and variable tolerant in the technical.

And the lack of subtley in engineering upcoming points is laughable to my eyes. I loved all the ground work laid about the "tricks" that Mann had came up with from childhood onwards. Hmm where's that leading ;)

Also Frinstance, it might work on the uninitiated to give the create the impression that McIntyre is just one of many dingbats attacking Mann, rather than the most trenchant and significant critic he has faced, but if you are more in the know I think you can only see through this as a crappy and obvious little "technique" like his laying the ground with the "tricks" trick;)

I'm still more interested in the in inevitable upcoming in-depth analysis from some of the more technical stuff though. I am up to the part where he is explaining short centering and I am not encouraged by the fact he is using the emotive comparison of IQ factor analysis to "help" lay the groundwork for its justification (as I see it).

I mean is he going to say crtiticising his PCA analysis is tantamount to racism? ;)

Mar 8, 2012 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>