the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

In the Real World, Accuracy Counts

Posted by Jeff Id on July 20, 2014

I received a notice of new publications today, and along with it a graphic linking to yet another Antarctic doom paper.   In it, the link uses the flawed Steig 09 temperature plot of the Antarctic taken from the cover of Nature.    A particularly interesting choice considering that GRL published the corrected version (our paper), and Nature carried the flawed version proudly displayed right on its cover.

GRL Geophysical Research Letters Antarctic Glaciers Climate Change

 

For those of us who care about little things like accuracy in science, this is a realistic appearance of Antarctic temperature trends over that same timeframe.  Of course the actual measured temperatures in the West Antarctic (lower left in particular) don’t appear quite as doom-worthy.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

Another Use for R

Posted by Jeff Id on July 2, 2014

So how about something different.   I learned R programming here for climate software.   Plotting, fitting curves, calculating stats and all kinds of linear algebra.   Prior to that I had programmed in various forms of C, Basic, a few other arcane languages, assembly/machine, etc…  I had written my own matrix multipliers and inverters multiple times. It was all low level engineering style languages for equipment integration, calculation and a literal ton of other applications.   R turns out to be very flexible for most of what I had done in other languages, and could have handled a large portion of the problems with a much reduced development time.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve expanded my use of R to some unique applications.   I have used the R algorithms to calculate some fairly sophisticated lenses, but interestingly have adopted the software to perform material requirement planning to a level difficult to find in commercial software.   The ability to work with large matrices makes R well suited to the task.   Lean manufacturing requires just in time delivery of components.  Inventory is a significant cost to a company and is paid for in after-tax dollars so it must be controlled to a high degree for a company to succeed.    In a mid-sized company as ours has become, we have over two thousand part numbers which turn into about 600 finished goods of various types.   In our business case, these finished goods need to be stocked at appropriate levels to service our customers within a fixed range of part numbers.

So what we have is:

Forecast usage based on history and customer provided expectations

Target inventory levels for components

Manufacturing time for various processes

Shipment time for components

From those basic numbers and a variety of other information including bills of material (list of subcomponents in an assembly), lead times and manufacturing location, we use R software to calculate our manufacturing schedule, component ordering, required delivery dates and note any problems in the delivery time.  Just in case you think this might be simple, our supply chain is quite long, sometimes as much as 13 weeks with various steps happening at planned points along the process.

A common example for us is where electronic components are ordered in the US, shipped overseas in 1 week, 1 week allowed for assembly to circuit boards, ship back to US by air 1 week, final assembly in us 1 week.  In the meantime, other components for the same finished product, might be built to arrive at the same time as the circuit boards from another facility with a longer 3 week production time and those might be intended to ship by sea over 5 weeks to arrive simultaneously with the stock requirement of the circuit boards such that a production build happens on the correct date.   Now even that isn’t terribly complicated but we utilize the same components in multiple part numbers. Each one forecast and stocked on independent schedules such that economic quantities of components must be delivered in time for the first of what sometimes is multiple builds.  Expand that problem over two thousand active part numbers and that is our situation.

The software calculates its recommended orders and writes a huge 20,000 plus line file into excel, highlighting orders to be placed and even writes live equations into the cells such that if the buyer decides that the order needs to be altered, projected inventory is recalculated on the fly.   Warning symbols are also generated by live equations in excel such that inventory overstock or under stock situations are highlighted.

It’s pretty interesting to me and a commercial version, which we have purchased but not yet implemented, is surprisingly expensive.   While many people will tell you that their software can handle it, there are only a few on the market which perform these calculations to the level that our company has been able to implement and operate with for two years now.

And it was done in R.

The ability to program and plan like this gives us the ability to take our projected stock level as a matrix, multiplied by a vector of the true component costs to achieve our projected inventory value for the next 3.5 months with two lines like this:

totalinventorycost =  sweep(projectedinventory,2,cost,”*”)

inval=rowSums(totalinventorycost)

Slide that information into your cash flow planning and you have closed the loop between future inventory levels and expected cash needs for the next 3 months.

We have R software that calculates sales commissions for outside reps, checks delivery status and manufacturing status, recommends orders, designs lenses, calculates component usage, and a few tax related routines as well.   In addition to that, I use it for all kinds of math driven electrical and mechanical engineering related tasks.

I’m pretty certain that the creators of R didn’t expect their statistical software to be abused in such a capitalistic manner.  However, I do consider it a positive impact of the climate change nonsense the boys at Real Climate exposed all of us to.   I also must give credit to Mr. McIntyre as it was his continued promotion of the language that got me started down this path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Antarctic sea ice area anomaly – record high

Posted by Jeff Id on June 29, 2014

From Cryosphere Today:

Antarctic sea ice established a pretty dramatic spike in ice area anomaly apparently continuing its recent upward trend in rather pointed fashion.

seaice.anomaly.antarctic[1]

 

Global sea ice continues above average for the year:

global.daily.ice.area.withtrend[1]

Arctic ice is still holding in its lower level since 2007:

seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]

 

Please refrain from asserting nefarious intent for posting the data.   It is interesting to all of us after all.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Antarctic sea ice – 2nd highest (Anomaly) in satellite records

Posted by Jeff Id on June 26, 2014

seaice.anomaly.antarctic[1]

Antarctic sea ice extent- posted 6-26-14 http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Antarctic sea ice posting 2nd highest anomaly since satellite records began.  In the Antarctic continent on the bottom of the planet where apparently hot is cold and cold is hot.   :D

Is anyone else surprised at the nearly monotonic increase in the past several years.   Don’t worry alarmists, the trend will change someday.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments »

Nothing New Under the Sun

Posted by Jeff Id on June 18, 2014

I still regularly read climate blogs and occasionally drop a comment but a surprising thing has happened to me lately.   I am almost completely disengaged from climate science.   The mystery is gone for me.   I don’t care much which model said what, the latest Antarctic doom nonsense barely raises an eyebrow, sea ice melting not a drip of interest.   Stats are still fun at CA when they come up and I did mine a bunch of data from the government website.   Did you know we spent nearly 200 million dollars on climate education for minorities  – which means anyone not white male.  Well funded skeptics — Bah!! The political nonsense drives me crazy but when people cannot parse what is happening to Iraq, taxes or windmills, how can we truly be serious about climate discussions.   Even Steve McIntyre’s latest expose on yet another hockey Schtick paper isn’t enough to give me blog energy.  So the Air Vent languishes nearly unused.

Climate wars continue on but where is the fun in discovering yet another exaggerated conclusion in the latest, soon to be forgotten, climate publication.   I hope readers recognize that this era will go down in history as a dark time for climate science, rather than the progressive awakening that the populist text-messaging public perceives.  Bunch of morons IMHO.   A dark and ugly anti-scientific time, not that dissimilar from our ancestors whom we mock for believing in a flat Earth.    The vocal skeptics will not be seen in high regard either, for those who look deep enough in history to even find us.   Not because we aren’t already proven right but rather because we don’t have a big enough footprint on history to make an impact.   Mabye we could make a dent with a few billion $$ though.

I just wonder how people see the world sometimes.  Blank minds with full shopping carts is a terrible way to travel life.  In the end, the lack of understanding makes no difference to the climate.  Fortunately the populist masses, so intent on painted faux-images of a perfect green world, won’t be overheating their neurons to make decisions that actually change the weather and can rather waste their time burning their brains on the latest fads politicians and media dream up like corn powered cars, sex scandals and diet pills.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments »

Just in — Fletch outed as anonymous reviewer in Environmental Research Letters

Posted by Jeff Id on May 16, 2014

Steve McIntyre highlighted a response from the Institute of Physics (Publsihers of Environmental Research Letters) to a UK Times article reporting the suppression of a global warming paper submitted by Dr. Bengtsson.  A paper which again attempted to document the less than supportive evidence observed temperatures provide for climate models.  The paper was written by a well known climate scientist who chose the unfortunate path of publishing TRUTH rather than Real Climate dogma necessary for success in today’s Climate Science™ field.

The article caught my attention because the reasons given for rejection are wholly unscientific and truly indefensible yet they are expressed as boldly as can be.   No really!  The author of the reply, Dr. Nicola Gulley, literally used the actual bold herself:

Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.

I am literally gobsmacked by the comment.

The reason Nicola Gully highlights for rejection is unique.  Even though numerous papers showing the like have been suppressed,  apparently everyone is already aware by now of the massive failures of climate models to represent observed temperatures, so observing said failure in a journal is NOT innovative enough.

“As the referees report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

Since models have obviously failed, someone should phone Gavin Schmidt.

If you live in a climate cave, here is an example of models vs temperature (failure) — exhibit # 1,134,207.   McIntyre et blog: observed temp trend is shown as the red line.

boxplot_glb_tas_1979-2013[1]

 

We are promised the potential for more enlightening reviews in the coming days but in the meantime, this quoted section from a rejection review gives much for consideration:

One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models

So models and observations are not to be compared.   Got that folks!! STOP EXPECTING CLIMATE MODELS TO MATCH ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS YOU IDIOTS!  Clearly the gufuflesmirts, pdfs and johnson rods are not congruent with the michleson factor!!!  Any MORON knows that!

What a riot.

Apparently the lead editor is unable to parse that kind of high tech review himself so, well, um….

We will stay tuned in the coming days for the continuing saga as yet another climate scientist experiences public flogging for noting that modeled temperature trends are not consistent and way over observations.

The whole episode remided me of Chevy Chase in Fletch:

Willy: What the hell you need ball bearings for?
Fletch: Awww, come on guys, it’s so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course.
[leans arm on hot engine part]
Fletch: Hey! It’s all ball bearings nowadays. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I’m gonna need ’bout ten quarts of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.

————–

UPDATE,

For those who think this comparison is over the top.  Noted Climate modeler and mathematician Gavin Shmidt this year authored a truly silly paper where he compared observations to climate models.  Unlike Bengtsson, his paper was published even though it included the following opposite and scientifically unsupportable claim:

We see no indication, however, that transient climate response is systematically overestimated in the CMIP5 climate models as has been speculated, or that decadal variability across the ensemble of models is systematically underestimated, although at least some individual models probably fall short in this respect.

Compare that to our quote highlighted above:

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 37 Comments »

Interpretations of Propaganda

Posted by Jeff Id on May 15, 2014

A Gallup poll reported recently the percentage of people who believe in global warming and the impact on their lives.

 

1fg1lko9aeudfirowsqxww[1]

It’s interesting that the lowest point for the dark green line occurs in early 2010, right after climategate.   People seem smart enough to recognize the basic physics of global warming, and some appear blindly susceptible to the fear mongering when it involves people hurting the environment.  Considering that we have seen no global warming since 1998, it is impressive that 11% more people are afraid of serious effects to their lives than in 1998 when the first poll was recorded.

They must think that the thermometer records are a an evil Koch brother plot or something.   I don’t know, it is impossible to make any sense out of what people think sometimes.

The good news is it only cost approximately a half trillion dollars to change those opinions.  By that estimate, we can pass 50 percent fear-for-life for only another 637 billion and a supermajority of 66% for only 1.36 trillion dollars!

Money well spent I say!

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

What is it with “journalism” these days?

Posted by Jeff Id on May 11, 2014

Fabius Maximus wrote a post about the tea party which disparaged the Air Vent crowd.   Apparently we are tribal and all you guys must belong to the tea party.

Comments frequently remind me of this. I posted a comment the skeptics at Jeff Condon’s The Air Vent about the benefits of properly citing the source of graphics. Amazingly, the folks there disagreed. ““I don’t think references add much credibility.” After all, “climate scientists make plenty of errors on blogs just like the rest of us.” Worth a read of their tribal reactions.”

He literally took the sentence: “I don’t think references add much credibility to correlation sorted paleoclimatology.” to “I don’t think references add much credibility”.   And called it amazing that I disagreed with the need to cite.  It looks like Fabius will be interviewing for MSNBC this week.

This is the same individual who stopped by critiquing my copy-pasted reference to a chart I borrowed from WUWT, made several odd claims on a variety of subjects both politics and science, and several obscure claims about climate scientists — all without references.

e.g.:

It’s somewhat similar to the incidence of fake quotes so often found on conservative’s websites.

This is not often found in the work of climate scientists, who tend to be careful about selecting and citing sources.

Anyway, I left a rough comment for him at his obviously superior “journalism” blog, perhaps he deserves a few friends.

—-

More interestingly, I had fun this weekend at the folks house.   This is my son driving the lawn tractor (blades off of course) for the first time.  We were returning from dumping about our 10th load of leaves.  He was pretty serious about it!

photo1

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

Hot News for Temperatures

Posted by Jeff Id on May 7, 2014

Anthony Watts made a rather extraordinary announcement on his blog WUWT (AKA the center of the internet).   It has the potential to initiate a necessary change to climate science at its foundation, because if he is correct in his assertion, measured warming trends in the US and ostensibly globally have been overstated.  I see his claims as revolutionary, which is a pretty strong word, because they have the potential to change much of our understanding about global warming science.  To make my case, lets start first with what climate science doesn’t disagree with:

Adjustments to trends:

2014_ushcn_raw-vs-adjusted[1]

Click for graph source – Source Data: NOAA USHCN V2.5 data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

 

WARNING –  While climate science created these well-known corrections, these are the same adjustments that Lewandowsky labeled me a conspiracy theorist in a published psychology paper for acknowledging their existence. Be careful in discussing this NOAA generated data as it might get you diagnosed with a personality disorder in a “highly regarded” international psychology journal…… or maybe even a tax audit…

UPDATE:

An accurate plot of adjustments from Nick Stokes from comments below:

ushcn[1]

The Y axis is actually Deg C rather than F

A link to Nick’s post and code to generate the graph is here:

—-

 

More seriously, these are known adjustments to the thermometers deemed necessary by climate science in order to accurately depict US temperatures.  They are right from the US thermometer data, right from the USHCN website.  The adjustments may be accurate and necessary and after the thermometers are corrected, they are held out by climate science as an excellent representation of actual temperature trends.  Until the last few years, we had no true knowledge as to how accurate the corrected trends are.  Before we go too far though, the corrections often seem quite reasonable, yet there is some conflict with satellite and radiosonde (balloon measurements).   I’ve always been uncertain of their veracity.

On other matters, we also know with certainty that climate models run too hot when compared to these adjusted observations.  That said, some of the deeply ensconced climate alarmist types in the mainstream of the climate field have still failed to admit what is painfully obvious at this point, while other main stream types have moved off message to make corrections to the models.  Basically my own really obvious “certainty” is still being argued with in ridiculous fashion in some die-hard corners of the climate science field.

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]

This graph above is from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and it shows the trends of ground temps vs modeled temps.   In fairness, some of the more vocal climate scientists didn’t like this plot because of the start point Dr. Spencer chose, but the argument they made is complete nonsense as the SLOPE of the observations is the key and it is statistically much lower than the slope of the modeled data.  Quite a few papers are published now stating this well-known fact in more statistically complete fashion, so this graph is not by any means a stand alone article to be critiqued out of existence by an inconvenient starting point.  I often say that stats usually just tell you what you can already see in the data and normal people see models running ahead of observations.

I used this version for my argument today because Roy’s plot includes both surface temperatures (HadCRUT4) and satellite lower troposphere temperatures UAH.  It is important because the satellite temperatures are lagging behind the ground thermometer observations (slightly) and the land-based portion of the surface thermometers are the point of Anthony Watts research.   The following statement and graph really caught my attention and are what prompted this post.  If you are reading this blog, it will probably catch yours. In particular, note the following statement and the 3 subtitles in the plot below:

Our findings show that trend is indeed affected, not only by siting, but also by adjustments:

 

watts_et_al_2012-figure20-conus-compliant-nonc-noaa[1]

 

Biasing the record

Why is that a big deal?    Because it is extraordinary to find a statistically differentiable signal difference in a large group of temperature stations.  Now I need to preface that statement with – stations that are not pre-selected for items which would knowingly bias their record.   What Anthony Watts et. al. have done is rank temperature stations by pre-defined criteria, for the singular purpose of comparing data having different levels of human or environmental influence over their record.   Anthony Watts biased the record by separating high and low quality stations!

So lets consider for a moment what this says…. Stations with minimal influence (Class 1 & 2) show a much lower trend than stations with known influences.   The difference is extreme — they show half of the trend of the temperature corrected result.  That claim alone is frankly — huge.

Nick Stokes, a known skeptic abuser and technically adept blogger, wrote what I found to be a very compelling post that showed historic temperatures for the entire globe can be estimated reliably by as few as 60 temperature stations.  Although the post and math were very cool, the result isn’t technically that surprising.   What it shows quite clearly though, is that no matter which 60 stations you choose, you end up with very similar results.

Except apparently when Anthony Watts chooses the stations.

Not possible!

From Nick’s entertaining demonstration, and from the mainstream climate science claims that homogenized corrected temperatures are accurate, it should be nearly impossible to choose less influenced stations by objective criteria and come to a significantly different trend than the homogenized result.   But what Anthony Watts has demonstrated before and restated in a blog about coming work is that he has done exactly that.    Data from the least influenced, and therefore the best possible thermometers, is dramatically lower than the homogenized land temperature trends that nearly everyone in climate science use in their publications.

What is more, in Anthony’s previous work, he and his coauthors demonstrated a significant correlation between station quality and trend.   The better the station sighting, the lower the trend.   This is actually common sense in the weather industry as nearly every human influence to a local environment creates local warming effects.  From adding blacktop, air conditioner outlets, blocking airflow with buildings, concrete runways on and on, progress almost always creates local increases in temperature which influences reading of individual thermometers.  Other changes can shift temperatures cooler or warmer, such as station movement or changing the time of observation.   None of the local warming/cooling effects are controversial from my reading, but all of these sorts of problems are what homogenization of temperature stations is supposed to correct for.

Now Anthony’s previous work was roundly critiqued by people for certain shortcomings.   Climate science is highly politicized so many of the critiques were unfounded and even truly wrongfooted attacks based on result rather than true scientific problems but Anthony took them seriously and has apparently come back with an improved version having again similar results which directly address previous issues.  Instead of reducing the differences or limiting the difference between mainstream temperature publications and his result, the corrections have reinforced the previous results.

Future critics of Anthony’s work can make the claim that he has made some error, or somehow his choice of station quality is biased in some unknown way, and they in fact have done those things in the past. However, these stations are classified by outside influence and it is extremely unlikely that an “error” would result in a continuous (or nearly continuous) reduction of trend from class 5 to class 1 stations.   How could an error in the work produce such controlled results?  It doesn’t seem to be a reasonable claim.   To top it all off, Anthony’s result just seems like common sense.  Stations not influenced by buildings or air conditioners, or movements, or time of observation, produce lower trends.

To be clear again, I am not advocating for Anthony’s result, I haven’t read it.  I don’t know it.   What I do know, and what I am saying is that there should be NO significant differences if the station quality was properly corrected for in mainstream ground temperature series.  Either a gross error was made which is very unlikely as critiques have already been flown and addressed, or we have identified a big problem in land based temperature measurement.

The early reaction

Thus far we have only a bit of commentary on the results from the BEST Berkeley data group, and it isn’t at all encouraging.   I am hoping, and expecting, to see a group of more open minds look deeply into this in the future because Anthony Watt’s surface station project is the most thorough look anyone has ever taken at the quality of the temperature data being recorded.   The results are dramatically different from our current understanding of temperature trends and that is what non-political science is about, understanding.

If these truly revolutionary claims are correct, and scientifically in a multi-billion dollar field they are revolutionary claims, the global temperature trends (observations) are likely higher lower than shown in Figure 2 HadCRUT4 above and climate model projections are trending warmer than observations by even more than we already know.  A proper, coldly scientific review is necessary and it will mean a full audit of global temperature stations if we ever hope to make truly predictive climate models.

There is much more to write, I just hope that not just normal scientists, but mainstream global warming science takes a hard look at what this study is claiming in the near future.  The good news for Anthony Watts is that if he is correct, ignoring the result will only delay the inevitable outcome as the cold science of temperature measurement will certainly prove stronger than a multi-billion dollar political movement.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 82 Comments »

Climate Today

Posted by Jeff Id on April 21, 2014

Time, time, we can’t get more time.   The climate grinds though on with or without our opinions.   Rather thoughtless of it to ignore what we think, at least in my opinion, but I suppose that is the point, or perhaps that it should be the point.   Still, people feel the need to insert their opinions in the face of climate, even when it is in conflict with climate itself.  It is as though the self-absorbed belief in the reality of their opinions trumps the reality of climate.   Climate change is real… it has always been real.  The earth warms, cools and was even a ball of lava at one time.   If we look far enough into the future, we can even see a time when the Earth becomes a superheated ball of solar plasma.

Still, our vaunted science has made the decision for us that today’s global temperature is perfect for us.   Those who made this decision are climate scientists.  Global citizens who hold themselves out to be experts in many fields, climate science, economics, government policy, energy generation, food production, ocean chemistry, computer programming, statistics, are among the most common.   These powerful individuals have established certain facts of science, which are indisputable, and utilized them to both predict disaster and recommend a future path to salvation for the entire human race.

As both Goliaths and Galileo’s of science, they see themselves as the brightest points of light, the Gaian Illuminati, those who fight against corrupted human forces for the greater environmental good.   Humanity slowly is bending to their will, following the growing outcry step by step.   The soft words of hope against the harsh reality of basic science hypnotizing them into belief that we must change as a species, and we must do it now.  But there is a disease in the movement, a not-so-subtle disease which is corrupting the message to the people, and the science.   The disease is the same disease the Gaian Illuminati seek to eradicate, yet have contracted themselves.

Money and power

And governments are more than happy to provide them both.

It has become a symbiotic relationship, like plants which require animals to create CO2 and animals which require plants to split the CO2 and release the O2, climate scientists cannot survive without government, and government needs climate science to promote its own growth.  It started in a not so subtle way, with research, then committees, then whole governmental divisions who’s whole purpose is to study climate.  First those groups made recommendations for more study, and the formation of additional subgroups.  Eventually, minor rule making was added to address the groups findings.   This pressed into whole rule-making bodies who’s sole existence was to make recommendations for regulations on industry with the premise that it would somehow help climate change.  Simultaneously, these groups continued to make more recommendations for expanded research and funding. Today, the rule making has expanded until centralized global governmental control of energy production is in sight, and we would have to willfully ignore the history to believe that stopping with energy production is a reasonable conclusion.

The corruption of the system has progressed beyond the merely palpable.  It has bent to the point where conflicting opinions are actively suppressed and misrepresentation of observed data has literally become commonplace amongst the most famous but only where it promotes the cause.   The computer climate models which started with the best intentions, have fallen wildly short of expectations, or rather observed warming has fallen well short of the models, yet our vaunted, world-powerful climate scientists have become unwilling to admit even that painfully obvious discrepancy.

Then there are those who have the gall to write against this powerful climate industry.   Because that is what climate science is.  A smog-belching, economy-sucking, rule-making, profit-taking industry.

COP15-UN-Climate-Change-S-001[1]

Opening ceremony of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The sheer size of the thing should be enough to give pause, yet growth is the continued agenda, and nothing, including reality, will get in the way of this steamroller’s industrial goals.   Imagine the money to fly these people in, to pay the hotels, food, hall rental, the fuel, annual salaries, education, phone bills. Worse, these people make no product.   No net output of value comes from this group of near-universally overpriced individuals.  No output which can be trusted, believed or even parsed by a normal human is generated from the science or government organizations you see in that picture.   That statement is generally true, no matter which argument they are making. It is too corrupted with nonsense and unrelated agendas, and it is therefore very, very expensive, not because of the plane tickets, but because of the rules they demand from their subjects.   Rules as a genuflection to their beliefs, not their science, but a mash of pro-governmental and anti-industrial climate goals.

Because at the root, taxation is their food, nutrients, power, and hope for the future of their industry.  The best colleges, the most influence, the best jobs.  They need your fear to get your taxes, and whether the root-level minions know it, or admit to it, the leaders are certainly very clear on this.

Belief

Belief is the core of the cause.   Belief that any observed change of the Earth is not only caused by human activity, but is absolutely a bad thing.   Many of us wonder about the magnitude of change caused by CO2 emission, and many wonder whether the changes will create floods or hurricanes, but there is little help for understanding these or other potential consequences from the field of climate science.  Though there is plenty of scientific ‘opinion’ in the literature, the fluff and exaggeration is literally impossible to parse.

I sometimes wonder just how do they know our current global temperature is perfect?  I have seen no study which reasonably demonstrates that our current climate is truly ideal.   It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that we were born into a perfect climate which could never change for the better in either direction.  Still, from ice ages we know with certainty, that colder is very, VERY bad for people in general.  If 6 degrees colder is so bad, how can it be so certain that only two degrees warmer is going to result in destruction.    As a general concept, it seems extremely unlikely that we have achieved the perfect balance of temperature, and an extraordinary claim such as that, should require extraordinary proof.   Yet we have none but opinion of experts to guide us in this matter.   Not science, just opinion.  And that opinion flies in the face of common sense observation of colder vs warmer climates right here on our planet.

The change is too fast they say – belief not science.

The change is crossing thresholds they claim – belief not science.

We must use green energy – belief not science

We must avoid fossil fuels – belief not science

Climate models match observation – belief not science

I will stop there because the examples are truly endless and the evidence that belief trumps all in the climate industry stares us in the face.   From anti-nuclear rhetoric to authoritarian government promotion, all the symptoms of the disease of tobacco industry style industrial corruption are exhibited.   Politics and nonsense have trumped common sense and reality.  Science has taken a necessary back seat to results, and those who wish to be most successful in the field provide the most sensationalist claims.

All for the cause.

It was a proud day when I told mom that a group of psychologists on another continent had intentionally misrepresented my opinions in order to discredit me.   It is just another very clear symptom of a greater disease that such activities are considered reasonable and allowed through a review process.

Where will it end

In short, I don’t know, but I do have a tiny piece of understanding which I learned from industry that I like to tell people in paraphrase.   Businesses in general are very tough things to break.     They can be bent, twisted and redirected, but will fight very hard when survival is the requirement.   Climategate, as big and obvious as it was, barely touched the climate industry.   Not because it wasn’t horribly embarrassing, and not because it didn’t expose corruption, but rather because it did not affect funding of the scientists involved.     Even the specific individuals involved, continued on their previous paths as though nothing had happened.  The media capitulated to pressure from the climate industry and failed to report the real issues.  But most importantly, the willing governments continued and even expanded the money flow.

Yet observations continue to defy prediction and lag ever farther behind models, some in the field are making corrections for the problem while simultaneously denying the problem even exists.  The very existence of the problem represents a condition that is impossible to rectify in the context of science yet again makes perfect sense in politics.

Perhaps it is for wiser minds than myself to visualize the future of this industry, but in general it looks pretty bleak and unstoppable to me.

Addendum – because it happened

I made the mistake of turning on Bill Maher (for the first time in my life) while writing this and just learned from a man on the panel that we need 6 garbage cans in our houses to save the planet.   He literally said 6 and the audience loudly applauded.   None of them apparently know about the industrial sorting of garbage in developed countries with only one garbage can

But they do know what they believe.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 57 Comments »

Clarification of Understanding

Posted by Jeff Id on April 11, 2014

From WUWT and Frontiers of Psychology – a further clarification of the retraction.    I made it clear in my complaint that it didn’t seem ethical to identify and attack people in a scientific journal – after reading their code of ethics documents – and it seems others did the same.   Besides the basic ethics rationalization for retraction, I note that Frontiers left this in the middle of the paper below:

because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization.

So they have identified themselves as sympathetic believers in a field now more akin to religion than science.   It was clearly done to let everyone know they are still on the send-us-checks and don’t-boycott-us team.  As to the rest of the content, I’m less impressed now with their reaction than I was previously.   The journal clearly doesn’t recognize just how dysfunctional they have become when the reason for retraction of a hack and slash blogpost disguised as a paper, is because names were used and nothing to do with its otherwise unscientific nature.

Anyway – here it is in full:

Rights of Human Subjects in Scientific Papers

The retracted Recursive Fury paper has created quite a blogger and twitter storm. A sensational storm indeed, with hints to conspiracy theories, claims of legal threats and perceived contradictions. It has been fury – one of the strongest human emotions – that has (perhaps understandably at first sight) guided the discussion around this retraction. Not surprisingly though, the truth is not as sensational and much simpler.

The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed.

For Frontiers, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent. With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal. While the subjects and their statements were public, they did not give their consent to a public psychological diagnosis in a scientific study. Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.

It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.

Frontiers’ core mission is to improve peer review. One principle that we follow is that scientific publishing should sit in the hands of scientists. Frontiers implements this principle by supporting scientists to operate the peer-review process from the beginning to the end. Frontiers remains faithful to this mission, despite the risks that comes with it. We will stay the course because we fundamentally believe that authors should bear the full responsibility of submitting papers with the highest standards and that scientists should bear the full responsibility of deciding what science is published. After publication, the community is engaged and a post-publication review naturally follows. Post-publication review is facilitated by the Frontiers’ commenting and social networking platforms. This process may reveal fundamental errors or issues that go against principles of scholarly publishing. Like all other journals, Frontiers seriously investigates any well-founded complaints or allegations, and retraction only happens in cases of absolute necessity and only after extensive analysis. For the paper in question, the issue was clear, the analysis was exhaustive, all efforts were made to work with the authors to find a solution and we even worked on the retraction statement with the authors. But there was no moral dilemma from the start – we do not support scientific publications where human subjects can be identified without their consent.
Henry Markram
Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers

Posted in Uncategorized | 36 Comments »

Adults in the room?

Posted by Jeff Id on April 6, 2014

Several blogs are already carrying the comment by the journal Frontiers of Science, which appears to be in response to Lewandowsky et ilk’s even-wilder-than-the-paper claims of having their rights suppressed.

(Lausanne, Switzerland) – There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury:Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.

As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.

We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.

One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.

Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.

This statement is in stark contrast to some other Lewandowsky’s claims (rants) which are now known to be complete fabrications:

The strategies employed in those attacks follow a common playbook, regardless of which scientific proposition is being denied and regardless of who the targeted scientists are: There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient.

Lewandowsky seems posses a singular ability to ignore evidence which does not support his worldview.  I’m no psycho-ologist but it seems clear that his simplified reality is a shelter for him, where he can exist as a white-hat good guy and throw rocks at those who don’t fit his model.

It seems to me that Lewandowsky is dangerously deep in his own imaginations of conspiracy.  How far will a man go who has written several articles to the point with no visible evidence to back his claims up.  In his recent rant, he made the even more ridiculous point that nobody has made a “scholarly” critique of his articles.  The same articles Lewandowsky, and his journal,  recently and consistently have refused to give others any access to the data he alleges created the paper.

UWA Vice Chancellor Johnson Refuses Data Again Again

They even called Steve McIntyre unbalanced in their refusal.  Even one with Lewandowsky’s limitations must recognize that he cannot be addressed in science, if he refuses access to his secret data.  Data which allegedly was used to conclude that many of my favorite scientists, engineers and climate professionals are conspiracy theorists. 

I mean really, this scientist is claiming that his paper is un-critiqued, while simultaneously refusing data to the people who would critique it.

I have to be careful here, or he will assume that I am saying he illegitimately adjusted the data to produce a trend and publish another whacko paper referencing me, in the last continent which will have him.   I wouldn’t put it past him one bit to tweak the data himself illegitimately, but his methodology is so skewed that the data doesn’t require tweaking to achieve his result.   It only needs a few crazy answers created by “internet people” –having fun.  Take it from a blogger, internet people are crazy!!  :D

Not as crazy as Lewandowsky though.

Still, Anthony Watts had the right title for his article: Journal takes Lewandowsky and his supporters to task on ‘threats’ over retracted ‘Recursive Fury’ paper.

It seems to me that the Journal, seeing the continuing ridiculous comments by Lewandowsky and many of his internet advocates, was compelled by the extreme inaccuracy and childish behavior of the authors, to set the record straight. I unreservedly applaud them for taking that step, it restores a modicum of their own credibility in my eyes, yet I am still left with questions:

How did that kind of blatant character attack paper get published in a “scientific” journal in the first place? 

Does the journal recognize this as an obvious symptom of internal problems?

Will the journal take the necessary self-examination steps required to correct the problem for the long term?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments »

The Truth Will Out

Posted by Jeff Id on March 28, 2014

Richard Tol

“It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” he said. “

Article here: Simple reality just the way normal people like it

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

Good news for stocks folks – The End of the World is Moved Back —- again!

Posted by Jeff Id on March 22, 2014

It’s unfortunate that I don’t have time for blogging cause I’m sure there is some easy math to play with in this article by Michael Mann.   The article is essentailly “climate porn” for believers who are still praying for the end of the world.  In it, even he admits that temperatures aren’t rising, although he stays away from recognizing that climate model gods have failed him.   The intent of the article seems to be to move the bar of absolute global doom – apparently because the last bar was missed.

sandwich-board-man-warns-us-of-impending-doom[1]

Who could have guessed that in pre-apocalyptic earth, end of the worlders would have created such lucrative and easy jobs for themselves.

The title of the article was originally – False Hope.   The text of the article leads us to the understanding that we have false hope that the world WON’T end, that hope being given to us by the fact that the world ISN’T warming as the hundred-plus billion dollar climate sandwich board industry predicted.    None of those problems have reached the level where “Scientific American” is concerned about their own credibility, as they have prostrated themselves before that particular climate god so many times in the past that the practice of publishing climate based nonsense from the right people is reflexive at this point.

The new signpost of doom is planted by Mann, firmly in the soil at 2036 with this improved title.

Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036

Interestingly, Mann was able to write climate sensitivity levels far lower than I would have expected without himself being called a “denier”.  There are plenty of contoversial statements in the article starting with this one which I challenge anyone to provide proof of:

Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity.

I believe most actual “scientists” would say the opposite.  Rather two C would be beneficial from food, water, health, land, etc perspectives.  This national security nonsense is for the purpose of collecting money from that government channel and exists for no other reason.  However, I don’t have proof of more scientists claiming 2C is good for humans than Mann’s fabricated claim that MOST scientists believe it will be bad.  At least in my case I admit it.

The Two C by 2036 claim is most interesting because that is only 22 years away and we have only warmed about 0.8C since 1950 i.e. THE global warming years.  Despite the pause, which he admits actually exists in this article, Mann is predicting a MASSIVE increase in global warming trend over the next 22 years of 0.6C/decade!  Of course he does it by using a 3C climate sensitivity that other climate scientists have found to be over 2X what observations show.  I think that even 3C puts him more toward the lower middle range of the now known to be defective climate models.

To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later [see graph on pages 78 and 79].

The article is far more entertaining than I have written here but that is all I have time for at the moment.   Feel free to copy your favorite bits below.

Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments »

Strike Out

Posted by Jeff Id on March 20, 2014

Bishop Hill blog has posted a fun thread on our favorite climate scientist wannabe, Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky.  Apparently the moon landing followup psycho-paper was removed from publication entirely.   A rare and embarrassing event to be sure.  Especially for such strong pro-science individuals as Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science™ (SkS) fame.

We are told from the BH article that the post vanished from their blog shortly after publication.   Probably due to the fact that the blatant lack of objectivity didn’t quite reach the bar for a typical SkS post.  The whole mess is stuck in the Google cash for us to read here.

My favorite quote in the deleted article is this:

Lewandowsky, known for his creative publication titles, came up with another doosey for the follow-up paper:

I’m glad Lew is known for his titles, cause it ain’t his sciency skills that are going to put food on the table.

Dana writes:

Frontiers Bails Out

However, nobody likes being called a conspiracy theorist, and thus climate contrarians really didn’t appreciate Recursive Fury.  Very soon after its publication, the journal Frontiers was receiving letters from contrarians threatening libel lawsuits.  In late March 2013, the journal decided to “provisionally remove the link to the article while these issues are investigated.”  The paper was in limbo for nearly a full year until Frontiers finally caved to these threats.

In its investigation, the journal found no academic or ethical problems with Recursive Fury.  However, the fear of being sued by contrarians for libel remained.  The University of Western Australia (UWA: Lewandowsky’s university when Recursive Fury was published – he later moved to the University of Bristol) also investigated the matter and found no academic, ethical, or legal problems with the paper.  In fact, UWA is so confident in the validity of the paper that they’re hosting it on their own servers.

After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits.  Both sides have finally agreed to retract Recursive Fury.

It’s unfortunate that the Frontiers editors were unwilling to stand behind a study that they admitted was sound from an academic and ethical standpoint, especially since UWA concluded the paper would withstand a legal assault.  Nobody wants to get caught up in a lawsuit, but by caving in here, Frontiers has undoubtedly emboldened climate contrarians to use this tactic again in the future to suppress inconvenient research.  Academics also can’t be confident that the Frontiers staff will stand behind them if they publish research in the journal and are subjected to similar frivolous attacks.  Frontiers may very well be worse off having lost the confidence of the academic community than if they had called the bluffs of the contrarians threatening frivolous lawsuits.

Hopefully editors of other climate-related journals will learn from this debacle and refuse to let climate contrarians bully them into suppressing valid but inconvenient research.

So it was those evil well-funded skeptics who beat up on the poor government funded science team who brazenly accused a bunch of people of saying and believing things they didn’t, using blatantly fraudulent statistics and making complete asses of themselves, all in an attempt to “discredit” those who recognize that OERVATOINS ARE NOT WARMING AS MUCH AS CLIMATE MODELS!

Not even close.

In the non-government world where people need to produce something functional to make a living, we have a word for non-productive people like Lewandowsky and Dana.

Idiots!

And then we fire them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers