the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Message

Posted by Jeff Id on December 10, 2011

The Air Vent hasn’t been as much fun lately. Sure there have been leaks but there has been little discussion of interest outside of the insane climategate garbage. Who wants to listen to a bunch of leftists complain in their emails about governments not repressing industry enough anyway? There is plenty of interesting stuff in science to discuss and since I can’t seem to quit blogging, I intend to re-direct myself to examining data. The pro’s seem to have no propensity for it, so we might as well. Unfortunately, the emails deserve more exposure and there is plenty to write about there but I am an engineer, not a historian. We know the story, a bunch of activists with degrees have taken over climate science – big shock. If any readers want to write on it, send an email. I’m working on a few big posts in the background but they will take time.

So Judith Curry (a very popular blogger) has a post on the communication of science. Willis Eschenbach made the point that communication isn’t the problem, we get it. From my perspective, his point was very welcome:

Public opinion is not “at odds with established scientific evidence”. It is at odds with the IPCC version, the Gavin-sanctioned version of model data that the IPCC and the modelers mistake for evidence.

There is no science communication problem at all in the US. The majority of the public sees the stage productions of the climate alarmists for what they are—pseudo-science and doomsday fantasies.

Like I said, the public sees it very well. They’ve gotten the message that a host of the most important leading lights among the AGW supporters are liars and cheats … so I’d say the communication is getting across very well.

I find this continued insistence that what we have is a problem with bad communication to be hilarious.

It is so blindingly obvious yet earlier today, I listened to Chicago radio and they had a college girl on who was a delegate from here university to Durban. She was blathering on about wanting a livable planet for her kids and how disappointed that she was that the US hadn’t committed enough industrial suicide to make her happy. I’m certain that she hadn’t paid for her plane ticket and passport with her waitressing receipts.

How many ways have we been told by “scienticians” that we’re doomed? If the endless re-wording hasn’t worked, why won’t they consider the content?

Answer: Because the sandwich board – end of the worlder’s -

 

are far smarter than us..


27 Responses to “The Message”

  1. M. Simon said

    Looks like good one night stand material. If the First Mate would let me. We have no secrets. Well at least in that area.

  2. Stephen said

    Durban accord has passed according to msnbc.com and abcnews.com. We’re toast it the senate approves it.

  3. George said

    Reading the #COP17 tweets today I was amazed that nearly all of the messages fell into two groups:

    1. Those who sincerely believe that the world is in “danger” but who are uninformed and are not aware the sea levels are not rising at an accelerating rate and not aware that temperatures are not soaring.

    2. Those who see “the process” as a mechanism for “punishing” the developed countries and shifting wealth.

    Sad, really. We have the naive being led by thieves.

  4. kim said

    No, they’re Dementers.
    ===========

  5. George said

    Well, at this point AR4 has been completely discredited. The foundations on which it was formed have been discredited. Tisdale has some comparisons of the models with observations and Lucia has done some of that recently, too. The question remains “For how long can the observations diverge from the models before the models are declared invalid?”.

    If you project your model run into the future and the observations show something completely different happening, then the models are obviously wrong. These people are behaving like it is still 2007. A lot of the underpinnings of that IPCC report have been discredited since then.

  6. max said

    “For how long can the observations diverge from the models before the models are declared invalid?”

    From what I’ve seen in other fields, if the advocates are really dedicated (and these are) at least 4 decades. Oh people might stop using the models in about 10 years as it becomes more obvious they are no good, but they cannot be declared invalid until most of the senior people in the field no longer have doctorates and a corpus of work based upon the models. Economics in notorious for keeping bad models and it took physicists 80 years of slow nibbling to correct the mass of the electron even though it was pretty obvious that the model mass was too high.

  7. j ferguson said

    Max: “…until most of the senior people in the field no longer have doctorates and a corpus of work based upon the models. ”

    Could you enlarge on this a little? I don’t get your drift.

  8. I find this message far more credible than the UN’s IPCC Reports.

    http://cfact.org/pdf/ClimateDepot_A-Z_ClimateRealityCheck.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  9. AJStrata said

    Jeff,

    I see you also are surprised by how some of the skeptics are unwilling to engage on the topics being uncovered by the emails (and I too am weary of this mess). When I pointed out that the entire tree-ring construction business is based on a completely false assumption (one scientifically obvious), McIntyre responded he did not want to give up on this avenue and two sentences could not undo all the work! See here for the post I mentioned to you previously”

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17710

    Sadly, yes it can. As engineers you and I know when yo go down a blind alley due to a bad assumption, it matters not how long you traveled that alley – it was all for nothing if your foundational premise fails.

    Anyway, as much as it wearies me, I have decided those of us who know better cannot be silent as these misrepresentations and lies continue to be spread under the guise of ‘science’.

    I tripped over another one of those damning emails that illustrates how far these people went to hide or ignore contrary scientific results that would blow holes in their claims.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17729

    If you have time or desire I would appreciate your comments. If not – I totally understand! This stuff can wear you down.

  10. M. Simon said

    AJ,

    I hardly write about politics these days. And that includes everything from CAGW to Presidential politics. Nothing short of severe pain is going to cure the disease. I’m for just letting it happen these days. Yeah. CAGW is bad mojo. But this is even worse by several orders of magnitude:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-uk-trail-mf-global-collapse-may-have-apocalyptic-consequences-eurozone-canadian-banks-jeffe

    I do have a thing or two to say about engineering:

    http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

  11. AJStrata said

    M Simon,

    You have all the traits of a dear friend of mine. He has converted his 3 car garage into (1) a metal shop, (2) wood shop, (3) electronics shop and (4) lots of storage. I admire the real engineers that create with their hands, I am at the system level, were we design more than do.

    What I realized a long time ago was the scientists were given much looser standards to work to than us lowly engineers. Lower standards in terms of coding, quality control etc (unless they build instruments, which makes them more engineer!).

    I guess my weariness comes from realizing how much we have lost in science. How low the bar now is. How minimal standards are for attempting to unlock the grand, complex mysteries. Engineering is seeing the same slide in basic capability. Now people who struggle with math, SW tools, computers, etc are deemed engineers because they checked some boxes in some lame institutional training.

    We are losing our edge education-wise, skill-wise and quality-wise. IPCC is just one huge egregious example of society imploding on low expectations.

  12. Jeff Id said

    AJ, I think you have it right. The same points have been made on paleo reconstructions by others many times. I can’t comment at your blog. It asks me to log in and when I do it takes me to the wordpress login. I must be missing something but there isn’t much time in the day to work these things out.

  13. David JP said

    For the glass half full point of view, think about how this situation would be different if we didn’t have this wonderful exchange of free speech through the (truly open) internet blogs?

    The fact that some of us recognize the anti-science being practiced at those other blogs when they censor questioning comments should provide hope in this otherwise completely normal, and very dreary human induced mess. :-)

    That makes me glad. I would recommend that folks stick to the science as much as possible; and replace the bad with something good. And something good may simply be that the answer with today’s knowledge/data is that we still don’t know enough, scientifically, to have confidence in anybody’s CI.

    Jeff, did you receive a reply from Dr. Curry regarding the dropped link to the air vent on her blog?

  14. Jeff Id said

    David,

    Judith has been surprisingly absent from comment. The primary response from her end was removal of tAV from her blogroll so far. I do like her for her courage but that series of papers wouldn’t get my name on it.

  15. Mark T said

    M. Simon,

    I finally decided to follow through on the link you occasionally post and imagine my surprise when I saw your review of the very circuit kit I was eyeballing on Amazon this morning! I think my 8-year old will enjoy it (being a EE myself, I won’t need the in-depth stuff that other reviewers claim as lacking).

    I’m a bit surprised to see a comment here stating that people that struggle with math and SW get called engineers. I know of know other basic education that has tougher math requirements and to date, every competent “programmer” I’ve worked with had an engineering degree (I write sat-comm algorithm SW for the record). Indeed, engineers spend their careers making the math work in the real world, often through SW tools (and code itself).

    Maybe I missed the point?

    Mark

  16. AJStrata said

    Jeff,

    Sorry, the user interface is a bit dated. But I don’t mind stopping by Air Vent (do so daily) to get the comments.
    If you need a password just drop me an email.

  17. AJStrata said

    Mark,

    starting out the bar is set high. As you get older, all sorts sneak through and become experts.

    Think “tenure”. Jeff has kept his chops alive. A lot haven’t.

    Jeff re Judy – not a good response. You are so tame compared to me (of course I review science missions for NASA and would reject most of this AGW stuff).

  18. max said

    ‘Could you enlarge on this a little? I don’t get your drift’

    As long as the top people in a field would be embarrassed by some argument/model/theory being announced to be complete bollocks, it is nearly impossible to get that announcement. What happens is people stop using it, and it becomes an open secret that it’s complete bollocks until the people who would be embarrassed by the announcement no longer control of the field. Take someone like Gavin Schmidt, if there were an announcement that everything he’s done for the last 20 years is wrong his professional career and personal ego would be trashed (many others in the climate establishment are in the same boat), as long as he has influence he will probably use it to keep that sort of announcement from being made. It isn’t until the people who have built their careers and professional identities around some wrong idea are out of power that the idea can be announced to be wrong.

  19. j ferguson said

    Max,
    Crystal clear, thanks.

  20. Frank K. said

    Mark T said
    December 11, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    “I’m a bit surprised to see a comment here stating that people that struggle with math and SW get called engineers. I know of know other basic education that has tougher math requirements and to date, every competent “programmer” I’ve worked with had an engineering degree (I write sat-comm algorithm SW for the record). Indeed, engineers spend their careers making the math work in the real world, often through SW tools (and code itself).”

    Just check out the Model E code FORTRAN listing at NASA/GISS to see how truly awful software written by “scientists” can be. It undocumented, uncommented crap. Yet, people are still running it and writing papers based on its “results”. The standards are quite low, it seems, at least at NASA/GISS.

  21. Mark T said

    starting out the bar is set high. As you get older, all sorts sneak through and become experts.

    Maybe in academia, but that’s certainly not my experience in the real world, particularly the high-tech defense stuff that I do. There are few, if any, “experts” that don’t rightly carry the moniker. The practical reality is that they ultimately need to produce working product, and both math and software are typically required (even if only to review others’ work). Those that can’t do wind up managing (and often poorly).

    Think “tenure”. Jeff has kept his chops alive. A lot haven’t

    Then perhaps you are referring to academia. However, I would note that the various engineering journals, which are similarly dominated by academics, do not run into the same sorts of problems as the climate journals. Criticisms of flawed work are regularly published, and there seems to be none of the back-stabbing and political gamesmanship that goes on in the climate field (I’ve seen cordial back and forths that resulted in agreement and subsequent revision that actually improved the conclusions in fact). The political stakes are not as high, either, and no one view actually dominates to the point that funding depends upon it.

    My view is biased, of course, because I work in the signal processing field, and knowledge of both math and related software tools are not only required, but the level of knowledge required is significantly higher than the average field.

    In the interest of full-disclosure, I did do one project in which the “gatekeeper” for further funding had been previously sold a bill of goods regarding the same technology and thus refused to look at our results. He would have had to admit the technology was feasible had he actually read the paper I submitted (it wasn’t just a paper – something like 80 pages of detailed results as well as the math/theory behind it all). The politics of this decision were a bit different, however, and came down to a “not invented here” attitude (we were originally funded by Air Force Space Battle Lab, which was shut down in November of 2007, and we got lumped under the Air Force TENCAP umbrella, which went to the Air Force Research Lab for its research funding, and we met our gatekeeper – he was brilliant, btw, clearly an expert, which is why he refused to investigate our claims).

    Mark

  22. Mark T said

    Just check out the Model E code FORTRAN listing at NASA/GISS to see how truly awful software written by “scientists” can be. It undocumented, uncommented crap. Yet, people are still running it and writing papers based on its “results”. The standards are quite low, it seems, at least at NASA/GISS.

    I was referring to engineering in general, not climate science. Some of the coders are probably engineers, though “growing up” in the climate field will not give them the same sort of background as those that actually have deadlines and requirements to meet, i.e., those that work in fields where real customers expect real products and they expect them to work properly.

    Engineers that don’t have a solid grasp of the math and theory behind their work don’t go far in the real world. They simply can’t. Their ideas will not pass scrutiny of those that do have such a grasp. Keep in mind, too, that “peer review” in most engineering arenas tends towards hostile face to face confrontations (I’ve done design reviews in front of nearly 100 people at a time, many of which were often simply protecting their budgets). Nobody wants to sign off on something that they know won’t work.

    Mark

  23. Frank K. said

    Mark T said
    December 12, 2011 at 10:09 am

    My comment was responding to the notion that scientific software is “carefully crafted” by scientists (modelers) who are attempting to solve challenging problems (like global climate simulation), when in fact it can be truly bad (especially when compared to software developed by “engineers” in the real world). In mind mind, Model E is totally unacceptable as validated, fully documented scientific software. Yet, the results it produces are being used to influence the public and government leaders on the climate change issue…

  24. Chuckles said

    I think we’re back with the difference between people who are engineers, and people who have studied engineering?

  25. BobN said

    Come on, let’s focus on the real issue. Who’s the babe in the picture?

  26. [...] The Message Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  27. Mark T said

    My comment was responding to the notion that scientific software is “carefully crafted” by scientists (modelers) who are attempting to solve challenging problems (like global climate simulation), when in fact it can be truly bad (especially when compared to software developed by “engineers” in the real world).

    I realize that. In fact, that was my point, engineers, at least it seems to me, tend toward better solutions, not worse. Climate science suffers from a dearth of real engineering talent. There may be engineers working on the Model E code, but they are either not from a traditional engineering background (rather, they have the education but not the experience) or are lost in the echo chamber from which their critique comes. This is why I was rather surprised that AJ noted that those without sufficient math/SW backgrounds get labeled “engineer.” It seems to me that such a designation is actually a compliment for those, on the contrary, with solid math/SW backgrounds.

    As noted, however, I am biased by my own field (as well as my own education). You can’t do signal processing without understanding the math (and anymore, the SW).

    On an interesting side note, I work (through a contractor) for an USAF “wing.” Our commander, an LtC, has a PhD in physics. All (literally all) of his leadership team, about a dozen officers, have engineering degrees. His XO also has a PhD (EE I think). The LtC has the rare position of being in control of the subordinates that get assigned to his command (typically, a commander gets what he gets with little control) and highly technical backgrounds is all he will accept. In general, this means an engineering or physics degree.

    Mark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: