nerdgirl

Yes, the primary component. Dr. Wegman's report showed that MBH incorrectly centered the data: Principal component is the term not “primary”. While “principal” and “primary” are synonyms in vernacular, they’re not the same thing in statistics. It’s akin to skydivers differentiating between the container, reserve, and main, whereas someone unfamiliar with the skydiving might just call it all “your parachute.” (Or like the difference between the vernacular use of the word “theory” and the precise technical use.) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a statistical method used when one needs to compare multiple data sets that have multiple variables, i.e., it’s more than just “X” & “Y” but “M-Z” that vary over some field. (PCA is used for a lot of things, including identifying volatile compounds by ‘electronic noses,’ which is the application that I have ‘on the ground’ experience w/PCA.) McIntyre & McKitrick asserted that “the underlying data should be transformed to have a standardized variance prior to taking a PC [principal component], which implies we should have used a PC based on the decomposition of the correlation matrix rather than the covariance matrix” [italics in original] Wegman is referring to the variance ("centering") in the excerpt you quoted. Even if McIntyre & McKitrick‘s critique was valid, they don’t address the other model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature done by other folks than Mann (e.g., Jones et al [which extended the hockey stick back to 200CE], 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004, the 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report, etc.). See attachments from a variety of sources, data sets, including recalculations of Mann’s data all generating the "hockey stick" shape and simulations. Notable is Rutherford, et al’s 2004 paper that used the same bristlecone pine data set as Mann but applied M&M’s statistical variance methodology, i.e., addresses the centering issue. Rutherford, et al got the same ‘hockey stick’ graph shape (see attachments “Rutherford”). If one is concerned w/r/t releasing data, how does one reconcile that Wegman (GMU) has not released his report data in response to request from David Ritson (Stanford) and others, who have identified significant problems with the calculations in the Wegman report? (See attached emails; Ritson, afaik, never received any acknowledgement much less answers to the questions he posed. One more example of peer-review in action after issue of a report.) If you have ONE variable that produces a hockey-stick result OVER the influence of all the other inputs, is that single input valid data? No. However, that’s not what happened and doesn’t represent M&M or Wegman were doing (or claimed to have been doing). The scenario you describe in the context of temperature reconstructions is roughly akin statements that “the parachute failed” on a no-pull death. M&M’s eliminated data, not a principal component. PCs are calculated. The calculation depends on different variances applied. Because they discarded data (up to 80% of Mann’s data by one back-calculation ), the principal component analysis they did generated a different result. The description you gave “If you have ONE variable that produces a hockey-stick result OVER the influence of all the other inputs, is that single input valid data” is closer to what McIntyre and McKitrick did. At least 2 statisticians, Wahl and Ammann have published critical analyses of M&M. (And one-half of M has rebutted Wahl & Ammann on his website). When one starts looking across the rhetoric & data (across all sides, not just “one” or the “other”) what one finds is that Mann’s 1998 bristlecone pine calculations were challenged by McIntyre and McKitrick (not the other data nor the other calculations that went into generating “hockey stick” graphs). Subsequent attempts to re-examine Mann’s calculations validated Mann’s findings when using McIntyre and McKitrick’s method on Mann’s data (i.e., multiple independent correlations of the “hockey stick” shape). McIntyre&McKitrick and Wegman’s findings using different data (but commenting on Mann’s 1998 calculations) have not been independently validated even tho’ third party requests have been made and (at least M&Ms) fail tests for suitability. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What do you mean by "PC"? (The issue was the variance not the principal component, if that's to what you are referring.) As part of the Nature Corrigendum (1 July 2004, v430, p.105), Mann submitted >80 additional supplementary files (PM me if you want a pdf) to the 1998 original paper. Yes, that was part of the 2005-06 National Academy of Sciences report on "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", which was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). Please explain. As M&M's criticism is related to statistical derivations based on tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees (e.g., proxy data for ~300-2000 years ago), that’s not surprising. How do explain/disregard M&M selectively eliminating data when they re-did their calculation? If one eliminates data ("indicators" in the technical parlance), one will get a different result. (If one didn't that would be likely more problematic.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Litigator - it seems you are arguing a case.

The point is that the initial argument is a distracter and problematic, as demonstrated by (1) examples of much more well-funded programs with less well-justified technical or strategic motivations, and (2) counter-examples of real problems that aren’t well-funded. When one makes an assertion that amounts of money are being invested, it’s reasonable to expect that the claimant could situate that funding relative to other funding programs. A research group with which I was affiliated a number of years ago got funding from DARPA nominally under a program to investigate cold fusion via sonoluminescence (changing sound into light). There was a lot of money “tossed around.” The PI used the funding partially to disprove some of assertions about ‘desktop nuclear fusion’ and partially to fund scientifically-sound research. Programs funding Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), i.e., cold fusion research, still exist. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Causation of what? (Yours is a good & fair question, I’m just not sure to determination of which causal mechanism it’s directed.) “Causation” of the program that distributes funding? That’s agency dependent and varies highly. For example, the DoD has a complex process involving 5-year budget planning cycles (POM); 1-year budget processes (FYDP) for the PBR; requirements processes through the Joint Chiefs of Staff Office (J8), which is supposed to be driven by the combatant commanders; and requirements driven by suggestions of Congress (in that special way Congress suggests things). Every US federal RDTE funding programs requires some form of peer review as part of the granting or contracting process. Depending on the program & agency, there may be monthly, quarterly, or yearly reviews by the Program Manager (who should be competent …) &/or an outside review panel. Claims of causal mechanisms scientifically? In peer review of publications both before publication and by the larger community after publication, conclusions that suggest/assert a causal mechanism is a main object of review, i.e., does that data and the methods support the conclusion (or correlation if that’s the object of the paper, e.g., epidemiology)? If the data and methods are inadequate it goes back to the authors. That’s primary literature. Critics of a proposed causal mechanism will frequently go back to the data or go back to the laboratory (really, send their grad students and post docs in the lab) to try to disprove the conclusion(s), e.g., in response to Telayarken’s (ORNL-then, now-Purdue) publication on sonoluminesce-driven cold fusion a few years ago, a few other leaders in the field immediately (almost literally) initated research to counter the causal claims ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5767/1532.pdf). The silicone breast implants case is a great example where a causation mechanism was never clearly proven but where multiple small n correlations and non-data driven conclusions were thrust into the courts (including the court of public opinion, because everyone had heard in secondary, tertiary accounts …). In the late 1990s, I shared access to a 750 MHz NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance instrument, not MRI) that was being used to probe for 29^Si as part of “bleeding rates.” Another example is the perpetuated vaccine-autism link – neither correlation nor a causal mechanism has ever been demonstrated, but there are a lot of folks who would advocate US policy changed to reflect their fears … or those who oppose the HPV vaccine – those health science policy decisions are impacted by many non-scientific, non-causal mechanism factors. What society or the government chooses to do in response to the science is science policy and eventually impacts general policy … and causation mechanisms there are highly non-scientific. And I would not advocate for policy to be purely a technocratic endeavor. That’s where ethics, economics, and priorities should be considered. Many of the priorities are highly non-scientific. Altho’ it is a strong argument in favor of having advisory bodies such as the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to inform policymakers on the confidence (error bars, which scientists love but policy makers and the public find more problematic) of science (or lack thereof) underlying the policy choices they are making. I concur with the skepticism ... one of the motivators (for me at least) to go back to the primary data. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have any specific numbers in mind? E.g., how much RDT&E money has been invested in climatology/climate research, compared to say missile defense? How much do you know about trends in funding for biodefense post-fall 2001 compared to public health? Do you have any idea how many 'manhours' have been lost during OIF/OEF due to diarrheal diseases and how much funding has been invested in developing pretreatments and therapeutics to those causitive agents? If your scenario regarding creation & implementation of research funding programs is correct, one should expect billions and billions being put toward alternative energy research and technology to end dependence on oil. Why hasn't there been? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Today the President of OPEC speculated that oil could reach $150-$170 (US)/barrel this summer. The world passed $100/barrel in March, surpassing even the 1980 price when adjusted for inflation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

At least 3 dozen former Guantanamo detainees have been implicated in post-release violence. Fox News story, which notes that # represents 7% of the released detainees. There has been at least one prior confirmed detainee who became a suicide bomber after being radicalized due to detention. Here's another one who became a Taliban leader after he 'networked' at Gitmo: "Militants found recruits among Guantanamo's wrongly detained." Is there anything to assess whether this suicide bomber/alleged Guantanamo detainee was radicalized *because* of his alleged experience while in detention as well? The individuals responsible for the March 2004 bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people were petty to moderate criminals radicalized and organized in while in Spanish prison. Bill is correct -- this is further evidence (beyond the findings in the 3 Supreme Court rulings) why detainees need to (not should) be put on trial, if guilty convicted, and put away for the rest of their lives. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Smaller than the US or decreasing the size of their military? Norway requires compulsory military or other national service for all males over 18. IIRC, Sweden tried to eliminate compulsory service, unsure what the result was. Japan is expanding its military activities and prominence of military within its givernment, including the creation of a cabinet level Ministry of Defense position in 2006 and unprecedented movement of the Maritime Self-Defense Forces (MSDF) to Diego Garcia (>3500 miles from Japan) at the start of OIF. MIT's Dick Samuels makes a very different assertion -- that Japan is moving beyond the "shopworn myths" regarding its security role. See e.g., his latest book Securing Japan: Tokyo's Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia, which is very good & highly readable, imo. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the additional analysis. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the summary. From the synopsis reads as a fair and wise ruling, imo, with the exception of the implications for ambiguous "assault rifle" category as you pointed out. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Samuel Huntington had something to say about that a few years ago: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington’s map. That identifies the problem (or at least one identification of the perceived problem). What does one do to alleviate it? Or does each nation-state pursue radical isolationism? Or return to pre-Westphalian anarchism? Tom Barnett (former OSD, under SecDef Rumsfeld) suggested considering it a clash of the non-integrating gap with the functioning core: The Pentagon’s New Map. The map. And provided one strategy to decrease the non-integrating gap: Blueprint for Action, which I was personally less impressed with than PNM but give him credit for proposing a way forward. Disagree heartily with your former claim – trying to apply to simplistic, single-solution approaches is going to address only superficial factors at best … as worst it's a distracter and will further direct resources ($, time, & lives) toward situations that will not address the radical Salafists or exacerbate. Vision without strategy and executables is recyclable electrons traveling between neurons. Radical Islamists/members of the radical Salafists ‘hate’ me a lot more than you: independent, educated, feisty female! I do agree that there is a larger culture class occurring: regressive fundamentalism vs progressive civil order. Technology has empowered group and individuals – I call them the “1000 points of Greyness” – they subvert traditional delivery systems and co-opt beneficial commercial technology for threatening and indiscriminate purposes, using relatively unskilled technologies to pursue disperse insurgent tactics. Fundamentalist, apocryphal groups who want to take the world back to their whacked vision of the 7th Century CE opposing dancing, alcohol, and kite-flying but sat phones & RPGs are okay We still have the $120B ‘hot potato’ of Reconstruction. State seems to be the stuckee. Excellent suggestion. How do you propose doing that? Sanctions? Against whom? How? Which government? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? And how does one accomplish that without infringing on the capitalist marketplace? Sovereignty of other states? More regulations on transnational banking? Strengthen international treaties against money laundering? What do you know about what has been done to thwart terrorist financing networks? Why has it not been effective? Do you think that the administration has been ineffective in pursuing this? What have they not done, that they should have? Historically, how has that approach worked with more geographically localized insurgencies with less access to communications technology? Concur. What constitutes a "clear winner"? And where is this "clear winner" going to be declared? This is why it is so important to clearly delineate what are US national security & foreign policy goals before entertaining ways and means (roughly strategy and tactics). To illustrate that I’m not asking you questions that I am unwilling to answer, some of my thoughts w/r/t addressing these holistic US national security and foreign policy challenges: here & here. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No. Containment (largely via sanctions) and diplomacy worked w/Libya. You are right that the OIF and OEF played a role, not in the way described. As the draw-up to the invasion of Iraq was occurring, the career foreign service officers and diplomatic corps were able to do their jobs of pursuing US policy interests as promulgated and defined by the administration. Diplomacy worked. The stage for Libya’s renunciation had been set during President Clinton’s administration, predominantly through strong support of UN efforts. Diplomacy takes time, i.e., it’s not a vocation for those who demand instantaneous gratification, & diplomacy is an a-partisan endeavor. Sanctions and negotiations pre-dated 9-11 and March 2003. The findings of the Lockerbie trial set the international stage. It’s an example of successful treatment of prosecution of terrorism as an international criminal issue and the affect that such criminal prosecution can have on states. For more see the US State Dept’s Background Note: Libya and the US Congressional Research Service Libya : Background and U.S. Relations from November 2005 (i.e., still a Republican-controlled Congress, if that’s important to you) and mirrored currently on the US State Dept website. Qadhafi wanted to open his country in response to UN economic sanctions – a very capitalist motivation for a supposed “socialist.” UN sanctions were effective: not in “starving” people (starving the populace was *never* the intention) but in isolating Libya from the international community and global market place. Oil is/was Libya’s principal source of income. Qadhafi is also getting old. He’s not apocryphal is his Islam. And he has a very politically-active son, Sayf al Islam, an alum of London School of Economics, who widely believed to be the likely successor (although he has hinted at advocacy for direct democracy ). Containment worked with Libya, and it’s working to some extent with the DPRK. (Kim Jong Il is willing to sacrifice his people; he’s not willing to risk his legacy and DPRK becoming a failed state.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, sanctions can work and have as part of diplomacy and dialogue. Sanctions are a tool in the metaphorical foreign policy tool box. Sanctions are most effective when the combine not only threats but inducements to elicit compliance Are sanctions the best way to deal with "unfriendly" states is a better question, imo. Sanctions take time and often have indirect effects, which don't play well for those who want 8-second foreign policy (both in time to 'getting their way' and in time to listen to a news clip). Sanctions work best when they combine proverbial carrots *and* sticks. Sanctions work best when the world community is united, e.g., apartheid in South Africa. Sanctions require effective strategic communications. The effectiveness of sanctions depends on what other countries are involved, what types of sanctions, and what the countries imports/exports are and how they function to determine if sanctions will hurt them. Sanctions were a huge piece in spurring Libya to give up its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, along with incentives, a desire to rejoin the international community, and diplomacy. Sanctions are a piece in the rollback of the DPRK's nuclear program, along with incentives, diplomacy, and Kim Jong Il's rational actor desire to see his state continue after his death. Trying to apply one model for every state and situation is usually not the most effective method. Trying to apply only sanctions without incentives is usually not the most effective method. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The world needs a clear winner right now. Badly. First, I am impressed! Seriously. That is a response worthy of former SecDef Rumsfeld addressing the Pentagon press corps. Resolute. Authoritative. And getting around to not answering the question. Why does the world "need" a clear winner right now? How is a clear winner going to address Salafist networks? How do you get a clear winner when the enemy is an insurgent, is hiding among the local populace, &/or receives tacit support from the local population? How do propose achieving this "clear winner" status? Who was the "clear winner" in Malaya, Algeria, Northern Ireland? (And those were relatively geographically localized insurgencies.) Unless you're proposing some super-national governing body to which all states cede sovereignty? (And I highly doubt that.) What constitutes a "clear winner"? Where is this "clear winner" going to be declared? There's no wall to fall; no Soviet Union to collapse. There is no Fulda Gap that our side is going to secure and be victorious. And -forbid, what if that winner isn't us? That resolves the bilateral you constructed. The "whole" world? It's like trying to convince sub-Saharan Africa or South America that the threat of nuclear or radiological terrorism is something about which they should be concerned. It's not on their metaphorical radar. If one wants to truly address global needs, things that I would suggest 'the world' needs now more: clean water (that will eliminate the majority of diahhreal deaths); political and institutional stability; lowered risk of state-based nuclear proliferation and fewer nuclear weapons unilaterally (both lower the risk of theft by non-state actors); and an inexpensive, heat-stable treatment for malaria (that isn't DDT). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thoughts: it has emerged as an example of state terrorism. The "Mapping Terror in Zimbabwe: Political Violence & Elections 2008" link that Nigel posted earlier is strikingly powerful in illustrating the extent and level of violence perpetrated by representatives of the government against its own citizens since the elections: "Over 1,000 cases of political violence and intimidation, carried out after the March 29th elections, are represented on this map." A further example of efforts using ICT to enable quantitative/semi-quantitative documentation of mass violence/humans rights abuses. The US Ambassador, James McGee has repeatedly spoken out and is being criticized by Mugabe's government in response. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Had drinks at the top of the SAS last time I was in Bodø, June 2006. Never have stayed there. Usually stay at the hostel before heading over to the Lofotens. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Neat thread - thanks. Å, Norway. It's a small village near the end of the Lofoten Islands, north of the Arctic Circle. Live there, no. Spend 4-6 summer months there - writing, hiking, cycling, kayaking, yes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm sorry. Apparently I was unclear in my earlier response. Radioactivity is natural. Neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the isolation of natural plutonium, nor the creation of synthetic plutonium from natural uranium is natural (where natural means does not require input from humans). Radioactive uranium & one isotope of plutonium occur naturally (like arsenic and smallpox). Depleted uranium is not enriched uranium. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As always, thanks for the updates & links. What do you think of the PM Brown's call for sanctions against Mugabe's government? Potentially useful or further entrench Mugabe's position/status as anti-colonial? VR/Marg FOX News story BBC video Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Please put me in the parental choice category. In an ideal world, I would prefer it not be used. I'm more definitive on things like opposition to proliferation of bugs, gas, shiny-metal-death; torture; etc. and opposition to conclusions that assert subjective anecdote as data and confuses low-n subjective experience with correlation and causation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Really? I'm not sure exactly what is the specific metric to qualify for any nation-state being in "deep dookie." For comparison, one might look to failed states or near-failing states. Whether either major candidate is elected (or Rep Barr), it is highly unlikely the US will be a failing or near-failing state, e.g., Somalia, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Haiti. On what do you base that assessment? If you have such strong opinion, you must be extremely familiar with the candidate's record and history (the real one not just the blog-o-sphere gossip.) What in the candidate's record and history suggest that end state? And how do you propose the candidate will supersede the other two branches of government and 50 State governments? In what time frame do you see this occurring, why, and how? Whether Sen McCain or Sen Obama is elected, I have confidence in the US Constitution, the institutions, due process, and the people who have sworn to uphold those institutions of the US will survive and likely continue to thrive for many. I may prefer the choices, policies, record, and advisors/likely appointees of one over the other. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, they were not Class A (Senate confirmed) or Class C (not Senate confirmed, limited term) political appointments. They were federal civil service positions. To quote AG Mukasey: "the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career department employees is impermissible and unacceptable." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There is no doubt that Canada benefits from its asymmetrical position in Norad and Nato. Emphasizing your point from a slightly different angle: Among the US, Canada, and UK there are many 'special relationships,' particularly on defense & intelligence issues - both historical and practical. For example, the CANUKUS Tripartite Agreements. The CANUKUS for chemical and biological defense dates back to the 1940s and is very robust and active today. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Depleted uranium has the radioactive isotopes of uranium removed. The radioactive isotopes are removed in the enrichment process. What's enriched becomes enriched uranium, which is not depleted uranium. Radioactivity is natural. All bananas (containing potassium-40) are radioactive. Arsenic and the variola major virus (the causitive agent of smallpox) are also all natural. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Bonus point for invoking Ken Waltz! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying