What would you do if someone claimed deceptive graphs were published in a paper when the graphs didn’t even appear in that paper? What would you do if when that person was directed to the paper and told the paper doesn’t include those graphs, they still insisted the paper published those deceptive graphs?
This actually happened just a short while ago. andthentheresphysics, formerly known as wottsupwiththat, adamantly defended his claim this paper presented 10 hockey sticks “chosen to be most hockey-stick like.” That paper has three figures. You can see all three in this image:
There are only six graphs. Anyone who glances at the five page paper would know this. All they’d have to do is open the paper and look for ten graphs. When they found only six, they’d know there definitely weren’t 10 hockey sticks presented within the paper.
I gave andthentheresphysics a link to the paper. I gave him it while telling him there weren’t 10 hockey sticks within the paper. Somehow, despite having been provided the link and needing only to scroll through five pages to see I was right, he managed to double down on his position. Rather than click on a link to the source he was discussing, he went to an entirely different source. He choose to ignore the primary source which required no thought or effort to examine and promoted some entirely different source instead.
It is dumbfounding. It is insane. How are you supposed to respond when someone fabricates things so blatantly then refuses to even look at the source they’re discussing?
I don’t know. What I do know is it’s hilarious. Anyone who ever talks to or reads andthentheresphysics should see it.
February 5th update: I was given a… strange misunderstanding of this post today:
The numbers in that tweet refer to the number of hockey sticks “chosen to be most hockey-stick like.” The truth is there were none. The claim was entirely made up. This post points out there were only six graphs to show there couldn’t have been 10 deceptive chosen hockey sticks. I don’t know how that morphed in that reader’s mind to mean there were six deceptively chosen hockey sticks, especially not when three of the graphs clearly aren’t hockey sticks.
Still, to clarify, there were no deceptively chosen hockey sticks in that paper. The figure andtheresphysics had in mind was present in an entirely different document written by entirely different people. This post isn’t intended to delve into all the details of this. It’s just to show that, after being told he misrepresented the source multiple times, he refused to even look at it – he’d have immediately seen his claim was wrong.