I’ve been thrown out of better. It seems that my commentary was unwelcome at the New York Times. Last night – at around 3 am – I left a comment in reply to Paul Krugman’s post on the bad people wanting to prosecute scientists. Ironically, the post was centered on an issue of disclosure, privacy and indirectly free speech. Titled – American Thought Police – in reference to the evil Republican requests for emails from some political rivals. Where he goes wrong is to chuck in this little tidbit h/t Bishop Hill:
Archive for March, 2011
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 28, 2011
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 26, 2011
Recently there have been some posts on the internet which have had my attention. First, is a series of posts by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit that have led to another vastly expanded version of hide the decline. It turns out that Briffa’s data wasn’t only truncated in recent years but also in historic years. F-ing unbelievable fraud in my opinion, which is the only word for it. You’ll note we don’t use that word here, but if both shoes fit….
It also looks like the team was far more active in ‘fixing’ the data than they could ever have admitted. If many here have noticed, the over-the-top guys on the enviroblogs i.e. dhog’s and MapleLeaf types have often made the climategate argument that it made sense to replace the bad data with temp because it didn’t match temp. Of course the argument was pure sophistry since the ‘skeptics/realists/thinking person’s’ point was that the ‘decline’ meant that the treemometer data isn’t a good temperature measure but I wonder how these sorts of sophistknowledgists apply the argument to clipping of historic data? What is the argument that historic data should also be clipped. The reality is obvious of course but now the peanut gallery is also faced with the question — what is the ‘scientific’ reason for chucking the ‘historic’ data you don’t like?
Here’s the absolutely damning image Steve produced.
So with that said, a reader called my attention to a recent post at Real Climate which deserves a reply. Of course I can’t post there (even on a climate paper with my own name on it) and therefore will be required to place my reply here. IMO, even without regular posts, tAV is a better blog anyway. At least we’re honest here.
The RC post was brought about by yet another leftist post from Nature – the pamphlet apparently which deserves much critique for the continued non-recognition of the actual problems in the Climate Science™ sales pitch. If you read the Nature link, I promise that you will loose IQ points and would recommend against it, but to each his own.
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 21, 2011
Do you realize that America just bombed a country by authority of the president, killing people without a single US address as to the reason, intent, or expected involvement from the president?
Sure there was a UN resolution – minimally discussed, but why are America and UK throwing billions of dollars of weapons at Libya without public explanation?
What if G.W. Bush tried the same?
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 16, 2011
Two and a half PC’s.
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 13, 2011
Copied from comments on the other thread
Some of the readers may still be interested the fate of our draft paper “Where do winds come from?” and our condensation theory as originally highlighted on The Air Vent here. A second referee was appointed –- many thanks to all of those that helped with that. Now we wait for their judgements. In the meantime, several substantive comments and replies have been posted. We believe that responding to these comments has clarified our presentation and helped identify and address some misunderstandings. Again we are grateful to all those who have contributed. The open discussion was extended until at least April 7th, 2011 (from the original deadline of December 10th, 2010).
We are glad to be part of this new way of assessing and refining science and invite you to join! We welcome comments, criticisms and suggestions. How can we be more convincing? (Additional developments on this topic can also be found here.)
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 11, 2011
Josh had this awesome depiction of Romm right where I see him. At least at the elevation of its nesting habitat, it is safe from the 5 feet of sea level rise.
Although, there’s good news, the emerging species may now be able to nest a little lower. Hopefully we’ll know soon what this little peeper becomes when it reaches maturity.
For some perspective on that sea level rise, here’s a couple of articles, sans the sounds of emergence:
Putting the Brakes on Acceleration – Willis Eschenbach
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 8, 2011
Still no time for climate blogging. In fact if anything, time is shorter.
If you have any interest in climate science and why the skeptics are winning the war of reason over ‘scientists’, read this post by Steve Mosher and Charles the moderator at WUWT.
The recent CA article is also worth your time, I haven’t read the other link at WUWT yet.
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 4, 2011
by Ryan O’Donnell
kgnd & Cross-Validation: PART II (TTLS vs. Ridge Regression and Table S3)
In his O’Donnellgate post, Steig makes the following observation:
It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that the *main* criticism I had of O’Donnell’s paper was never addressed. If you’re interested in this detail, it has to do with the choice of the parameter ‘k_gnd’, which I wrote about in my last post. In my very first review, I pointed out that as shown in their Table S3, using k_gnd = 7, “results in estimates of the missing data in West Antarctica stations that is further from climatology (which would result, for example, from an artificial negative trend) than using lower values of k_gnd.”
Mysteriously, this table is now absent in the final paper (which I was not given a chance to review).
This is not complicated folks. O’Donnell and gang, not liking my criticisms of the way they used TTLS, and in particular the fact that the truncation parameter they wanted to use, suddently started using IRIDGE. This has the advantage of having a build in verification function, which means you can’t see what the verification statistics are, which means that it is much easier to NOT SHOW THE BAD VERIFICATION STATISTICS I was criticizing them for. Maybe that is not why they used iridge. I don’t know WHY they used IRIDGE but I did not suggest it to them nor endorse it.
[at J N-G’s only:] P.P.P.S So if anyone wants to speculate that hiding table S3 is O’Donnell lying again, go for it, since speculation is all most people seem to be doing these days.
A few of these observations are fairly easy to deal with. Steig claims that the disappearance of Table S3 (which we will discuss in a moment) was “mysterious”, states that its disappearance was unknown to himself as a reviewer, and implies (and condones speculation) that this was done nefarious purpose.
The problem is . . . none of this is true. Steig did, in fact, see the revised Supporting Information with Table S3 removed. The removal was far from “mysterious”, as Steig himself acknowledges in his third review:
An unfortunate aspect to this new manuscript is that, being much shorter, it now provides less information on the details of the various tests that O’Donnell et al. have done. This is not the authors fault, but rather is a response to reviewers’ requests for a shorter supplementary section. The main thing is that the ‘iridge’ procedure is a bit of a black box, and yet this is now what is emphasized in the manuscript. That’s too bad because it is probably less useful as a ‘teaching’ manuscript than earlier versions. I would love to see O’Donnell et al. discuss in a bit more details (perhaps just a few sentences) how the iridget caclculations actually work, since this is not very well described in the original work of Schneider. This is just a suggestion to the authors, and I do not feel strongly that they should be held to it.
Apparently, Steig’s post-review change-of-heart includes forgetting that he saw the revised SI with the table removed, forgetting that he knew why it was removed, and forgetting that the only additional request he had with respect to the SI was that we add a few words on iRidge (which we declined to do for reasons stated at the end of this post here).
Posted by Jeff Condon on March 1, 2011
Nick Stokes has been messing around with another regression of the Antarctic, he’s done some good stuff but I believe is seeing some of the difficulty of spatial trend containment using PCA methods. It’s fairly interesting: