Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 9.1: Getting Their Picture on the Cover …
A characterization of climate change deniers on the January 6, 2010 cover of Rolling Stone . [Cover courtesy of Rolling Stone issue
dated, January 6, 2010. © Rolling Stone LLC 2010. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted by Permission.]
Others who were cited were quoted selectively, at best. Francis Zwiers, chief of the Canadian
Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, indicated that he had not—despite Regalado's assertion to
the contrary—endorsed McIntyre's claim that the hockey stick was an artifact of the statistical
conventions used. 9 He had gone “to great pains in the interview” to underscore that the technical
issues under discussion did “not mean that the general form of the reconstruction (illustrating the
unusual nature of the 20th century) is wrong,” and he pointed to a number of independent
reconstructions that provided a similar picture to that of the hockey stick.
I was the third person Regalado interviewed who emphasized that several independent
reconstructions confirmed the hockey stick conclusions. Yet that crucial point was not even hinted at
in the article. I also explained to Regalado that my group had published work showing that the hockey
stick was not sensitive to statistical conventions in the manner implied by McIntyre. This fact was
barely recognizable, however, in Regalado's innuendo-laden paraphrase (emphasis added): “Dr.
Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math
techniques.”
Regalado also gave readers the false impression that my coauthors and I had something to hide.
He quoted me as saying: “Giving them [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm would be giving in to
the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.” I doubt I said that to Regalado since the
algorithm was published with our original (MBH98) article, and there would thus be no need to give
it to someone. 10 I might have said something like that regarding the source code , that is, the specific
computer program I had written, and for good reasons: (1) Our source code wasn't necessary to
reproduce and verify our findings. Scientists such as Eduardo Zorita who were engaged in research to
assess our methods, for example, had independently implemented our algorithm without access to our
source code. (2) Our source code was our intellectual property. The National Science Foundation
(NSF), which had funded our work, had already established that we had more than met the standards
of disclosure of data and methods expected of NSF-funded scientists and that the specific source code
we had written was our intellectual property. 11 (3) While I was happy to provide source code—and
had—to colleagues (including competitors) who were engaged in good faith attempts to assess our
methods, important precedents were at issue here. Did we really want to head down the slippery
slope of releasing proprietary materials indiscriminately? What other vexatious demands might be
made of us and others? It was source code today, but where would it end? Short scripts, research
notes, perhaps even private e-mail correspondence? As it would turn out, my worst fears along these
lines would be justified.
There were other problems with Regalado's article. Thacker notes, for example, that Regalado
inappropriately conflated the more nuanced scientific disagreements that our group had with Hans Von
Storch (documented in chapter 7 ) with McIntyre's erroneous claim that the hockey stick itself was
some sort of statistical artifact. 12 Regalado's most severe critic was, ironically enough, former WSJ
front-page editor Frank Allen. Allen characterized Regalado's article as a “public disservice”
littered with “snide comments” and “unsupported assumptions.” According to Thacker, Allen could
 
 
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search