the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money

Posted by Jeff Id on January 14, 2010

Michael Mann got paid $541,184 usd in F.ING stimulus money to make a multivariate mash of proxy, temp and model data.

————

Collaborative Research: P2C2–Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model

NSF Org: AGS
Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
divider line
divider line
Initial Amendment Date: June 18, 2009
divider line
Latest Amendment Date: June 18, 2009
divider line
Award Number: 0902133
divider line
Award Instrument: Standard Grant
divider line
Program Manager: David J. Verardo
AGS Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
GEO Directorate for Geosciences
divider line
Start Date: June 15, 2009
divider line
Expires: May 31, 2012 (Estimated)
divider line
Awarded Amount to Date: $541184
divider line
Investigator(s): Michael Mann mann@psu.edu (Principal Investigator)
Klaus Keller (Co-Principal Investigator)
divider line
Sponsor: Pennsylvania State Univ University Park
110 Technology Center Building
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 814/865-1372
divider line
NSF Program(s): PALEOCLIMATE PROGRAM
divider line
Field Application(s): 0000099 Other Applications NEC
divider line
Program Reference Code(s): EGCH, 6890, 1304
divider line
Program Element Code(s): 1530

ABSTRACT

Funding is provided to combine paleoclimate and instrumental observations with a new Earth system Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) to improve constraints on key climate parameters including those governing dynamical and potentially abrupt responses to forcing. Specifically, the research team will focus on dynamical mechanisms associated with the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) using an existing EMIC (“LOVECLIM”). The broader impacts involve supporting postdoctoral scholars and graduate students and contributing to the understanding of abrupt climate change.

This award is funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

The Mann, currently under investigation for his role in climategate, having calls for investigation of his blatantly, flatly false research, was chosen for stimulus money. Absolutely crazy, it’s friggin’ nuts people. How many people had 40 percent of their annual salary STOLEN by the government to PAY FOR MORE LIES!

I am SICK TO DEATH OF THIS SHIT! FIRE EVERY ONE OF THESE POLITICIANS, EVERY SINGLE ONE NEEDS TO GO. THEY ARE ALL LIARS AND SCUM AND DON’T DESERVE THEIR PAYCHECKS.

STIMULUS!

IT’S WORKING ON ME!!

NOT MY MONEY YOU BASTARDS.

And some jerk on another thread is telling me it isn’t about the money. [self snip – keep it up mister and you’ll be banned]

—-

A calmer and therefore less reasonable take is here.


123 Responses to “Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money”

  1. KevinM said

    Deep breaths boss. Now put down the steak knife and climb back in the window.

  2. Chris in Australia said

    When the S*it hits the fan, Mann will be able to afford a better lawyer, or two !

  3. Jeff Id said

    #1, I’m feeling better now, Systolic’s down to 200. I was starting to see spots there.

    It’s impossible to understand this as stimulus money. What an absolute joke.

  4. Now we’ll get HS curves for ENSO and the AMO to replace these curves:

    From this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html
    And:

    From this post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html

  5. stan said

    Lane Kiffin is the Michael Mann of college football, failing and violating his way up the ladder.

  6. FixitDammit said

    Yeah – let’s get to the criminal prosecutions – enough dancing around.

  7. RB said

    I did not realize that I upset the blogmaster.

  8. Jeff Id said

    #7, You didn’t. My Irish temper came out with this garbage that’s all.

    There is no way that stim money can be justified for crap that will do nothing but cost more to refute. It’s galling.

  9. Jeff Id said

    I was referring to the sophist Ed. Who made a dozen ridiculous claims, insulted me and refused to look up things for himself.

  10. stan said

    Jeff,

    If you knew what happened to most of the “stimulus” money, you’d have a stroke.

    One interesting thing about this government effort at supposed “stimulus”, is that the multiplier may be the first in history to be negative. Just about every economist with any integrity knows that govt spending has a multiplier less than one. But it’s tough for govt spending not to be of some benefit to the economy, even if the benefit is less than the cost.

    But this bill was so bloated and so secretive (and in keeping with all the other BO initiatives to expand govt) that the private sector, especially small business owners, completely freaked out. The fear of the mess being created in DC has petrified everyone. So the overall economic impact of all the spending may very well worsen as the spending grows.

  11. Frank K. said

    I don’t want Jeff to blow another gasket, but Mann’s take of the stimulus money is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, last year GISS directly benefited from the $5-6 million dollar computer upgrade at GSFS, as described here.

    The money quote (literally):

    “Discover will be hosting climate simulations for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City and Goddard’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). Stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will enable installation of another 4,128 Nehalem processors this fall, bringing Discover to 15,160 processors.”

    Bottom line – $5-6 million dollars in stimulus funds for running Model E!! Gavin must be blushing…

  12. Frank K. said

    Here’s more on how the stimulus pork was divided up…

    National Science Foundation: $3 billion…(this is where Mann’s chunk of pork came from)

    NASA: $600 million, including $400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research…(this funded Gavin’s computers)

    From the top of the document…

    “This package is the first crucial step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and begin the process of transforming it for the 21st century with $275 billion in economic recovery tax cuts and $550 billion in thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.”

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites and Sensors: $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling…

  13. Jeff Id said

    #12, My heart doesn’t like you. 😀

  14. Mark T said

    Have you ever looked at FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov)? You can search on all the federal opportunities, which includes awards, that are available. There is a specific set of radio buttons labeled “Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action” to see what types of things that money is going towards.

    It’s also worthwhile to search the SBIR/STTR databases to see what type of research is happening out there in general (small business innovation research and small business technology transfer, which requires an academic institution partnership). You’d be surprised, I’m betting, at all the CO2 investigation the DOE does, for example, at the small business and institution level. The NSF and NIH are other avenues for searching. Awards for Phase II funding can be up to $750k for SBIRs, probably more for STTRs, and the latter doesn’t really require a “product.”

    Mark

  15. mrpkw said

    Come on Jeff, if you follow any American politics at all, you know that the “stimulus” (AKA Porkulus) money has nothing to due with stimulating the economy. It’s the world’s largest Lberal slush fund (getting Democrats re-elected)

  16. P Gosselin said

    Expensive, lowest grade hockey sticks that break as soon as they make contact with ice.

  17. […] kreeg het geld in juni 2009 voor een periode van drie jaar. The Air Vent heeft een omschrijving van het project dat valt onder de National Science Foundation. Jeff “Id” Condon van The […]

  18. Craigo said

    It would appear that there is a price tag on integrity and it has at least 6 numbers. You could almost be tempted but I suspect they have those tricky tests to weed out unbelievers.

    “Green Jobs” ah doesn’t it just roll off the tongue. In Australia, this apparently means “work for the dole” (unemployment payment) – picking up rubbish along the highway but now counted as a “new green job”. Throw in a few short term traineeships (short term training to plant trees for land care) and hey presto – more “new green jobs” added to the rapidly mounting “success” of the program. If someone managed to do both, that would be two new green jobs – amazing!

  19. Ed Darrell said

    The Mann, while under investigation for his role in climategate, having calls for investigation of his blatantly, flatly false research, was chosen for stimulus money.

    Look at the dates. This one was awarded in June. No stolen e-mails until November.

    Keep your history straight, and you won’t have to repeat past errors.

    Absolutely crazy, it’s friggin’ nuts people. How many people had 40 percent of their annual salary STOLEN by the government to PAY FOR MORE LIES!

    You’re paid with money stolen from people? No, of course that’s not what you mean.

    1. NSF grants have been underfunded for the past 40 years, at least. NSF keeps a list of grants considered worthy, but for which there was not enough money in the pool. Odds are all of the grants done with this money falls into that category — projects considered worthy of funding, but no money available to fund.

    2. NSF grants come with the full force of the ethics requirements of U.S. law — tougher regulation than any climate skeptic has: Jail time and hefty fines for fraud. If you have information of wrongdoing, you should notify the inspector general for that agency. Repeated unjustified notifications of the agency’s IG probably won’t result in prosecution, but could lead to malicious prosecution or harassment suits in civil law.

    I am SICK TO DEATH OF THIS SHIT! FIRE EVERY ONE OF THESE POLITICIANS, EVERY SINGLE ONE NEEDS TO GO. THEY ARE ALL LIARS AND SCUM AND DON’T DESERVE THEIR PAYCHECKS.

    Where’s your competing grant application? All you have to do is apply for the money, if you have the project in mind to disprove Mann’s findings.

    What? No such project?

  20. Jeff Id said

    “if you have the project in mind to disprove Mann’s findings.”

    Read the header bar.

  21. Ryan O said

    Hey . . . I’m related to Millard Fillmore!

  22. Ryan O said

    In case no one gets the reference . . . click on Ed’s name. 😉 And yes, I am related to Millard Fillmore – truly one of the most inconsequential American presidents. 😀

  23. Geoff said

    Hi Jeff, since you’ve only been looking at these issues for a relatively short time you probably won’t recognize the name David Verardo, but he’s the one who told Steve McIntyre that Mann’s code for MBH 98 was personal property and did not have to be disclosed (see http://climateaudit.org/2005/07/19/title-to-mbh98-source-code/ ). I would say this needs attention.

  24. Jeff Id said

    #23, I wonder if you would have any interest in writing it up?

  25. Roger said

    Yesterday I checked out a link from the comments on the excellent climate blog WattsUpWithThat and discovered the work of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi. He is a former NASA scientist who rebelled against his AGW-mad masters and returned to work in his native Hungary.

    Read the article and don’t miss the presentation at the end. It is also worth googling him for some reports of the opposition sceptics have faced.

    The importance of Miskolczi is that he claims to have PROVED that the greenhouse effect is not infinite, ie that by adding more CO2 the effect goes up indefinitely. Rather, in an Earth-type atmosphere with clouds and a vast reservoir of water there is a theoretical maximum effect which we reached long ago.

    In other words, global temperatures are not merely insensitive to CO2. They are independent of CO2! The climate changes we have experienced are due to other factors – some of which are of course in minor part anthropogenic.

    The details of his maths are beyond me but his work appears to have predicted some measurable (and measured) effects to within the limits of experimental accuracy, which would put it at the highest order of theoretical physics.

    The AGW media control would once have been able to bury this. Thanks to the blogosphere I hope that his work receives unprecedented scrutiny and peer-to-peer review, as if it holds up the entire CO2 scam explodes.

    Sometimes I think there may be a God and that he does have a sense of humour.

  26. Ed Darrell said

    Millard Fillmore – truly one of the most inconsequential American presidents.

    Japan being so inconsequential to the U.S. today, and the University of Buffalo having distinguished itself in no detectable way . . .

    You’ve never heard of H. L. Mencken, either, I presume. He was in the same business as those who snipe at scientists studying climate, at least once. He repented, however.

  27. The Diatribe Guy said

    I’m unclear, Jeff. How do you really feel about this?

  28. Jeff Id said

    #27, There’s too much stupid in the world. Last night I was really pissed off, today only moderately pissed off.

  29. Ryan O said

    #26 I generally don’t snipe at the climate scientists. I reserve that for their cadre of warmist sycophants, who spend their time demeaning any critical investigation of the work they themselves do not understand.

  30. curious said

    “He repented, however.”

    Guess it is a religious thing after all.

  31. enough said

    Back when they passed the stimulus it was another on of those last minute deals where the bill was not completely updated on line until days after the bill had passed. It was one of those closed door sessions that pushed it thru. I scanned the bill quickly, and I found at least 50 Billion directed to this AGW crap. After congress is fired, whe need a law with teeth concerning open meetings. There is not a chance any local gov would get buy with the bull shit going on in Washington.

  32. Frank K. said

    “Where’s your competing grant application? All you have to do is apply for the money, if you have the project in mind to disprove Mann’s findings.”

    What is it about 10% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits that Ed doesn’t understand??? We do not NEED any of this garbage research…

  33. Ed Darrell said

    We do not NEED any of this garbage research…

    Is it catching?

    Half of our economic growth over the past 50 years was driven by this type of research, much of it by research from this same agency, selected in this same process.

    I’m convinced y’all are cheering for China to surpass the U.S. To paraphrase David Gardner and the Reagan Excellence in Education Commission, were a foreign nation to do to us what y’all are trying to do, we’d consider it an act of war.

  34. Ed Darrell said

    I noted, of Mencken’s famous bathtub hoax:

    “He repented, however.”

    Curious said:

    Guess it is a religious thing after all.

    For your side, with the hoaxes, I think it probably is. Damn the facts, full dudgeon ahead, right?

  35. Ed Darrell said

    and I found at least 50 Billion directed to this AGW crap.

    Got a list? I’d like to see that.

  36. Frank K. said

    “Half of our economic growth over the past 50 years was driven by this type of research, much of it by research from this same agency, selected in this same process.”

    Half? No way. Certainly not THIS research. And certainly not at the expense of trillion dollar deficits. Again, what is it about 10% unemployment and massive government debt that you don’t understand? To people like you, apparently, research money must grow on trees…

    And there is NOTHING to be gained economically from the kind of climate research being pursued by Mann and his ilk…

  37. Ed Darrell said

    Oh, I could be a little high. But Frank K. is dead wrong. Luddite wrong. Lysenko wrong.

    I don’t care to argue the point — Frank K. has exposed himself as no friend to American economic growth. In research areas, there is a strong feeling that had we kept up the rate of research prior to the Reagan administration, we’d not be sitting here with 10% unemployment and the massive government debt. Of course, you can make the same conclusion simply by arguing the Supreme Court allowed the Florida ballot counting to continue in 2000.

    Two points: Y’all are dangerously, anti-Americanly anti-science. Y’all don’t seem to know much about how research is funded, or why, and why it’s important.

    “Basic Research: The Seed Corn for Economic Growth and Improved Quality of Life”
    http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/Basic_Research.htm

    “Prizes for Basic Research — Human Capital, Economic Might and the Shadow of History”
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w12226

    APS on basic research and economic growth:
    http://www.aps.org/policy/upload/tfai.PDF

    Positive Sum Strategy, from the National Academies of Science
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=612&page=263

  38. Frank K. said

    “Got a list? I’d like to see that.”

    Here you go. At least $1 billion in AGW crap in there. And remember, this is supposed to be STIMULUS money, which is in addition to the annual budget allocations for AGW crap. Obviously, some researchers are getting stimulated more than others…

  39. Frank K. said

    “But Frank K. is dead wrong…”

    Sorry Ed, you’re wrong. Somehow you morphed “climate research” into all research – and I did not say we should not do any research. Again, you seem to be blind to the fact that we as a nation are in debt and cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on dubious climate research…

  40. curious said

    34 – …. “For your side, with the hoaxes, I think it probably is. Damn the facts, full dudgeon ahead, right?”

    Masterly inversion sir!

    Coming back at you: Replace “hoaxes” with “proxies” and I think you have something you should take on board.

  41. enough said

    ” and I found at least 50 Billion directed to this AGW crap.

    Got a list? I’d like to see that.


    Just get on line at the congressional web site and read the bill

    NOAA, NASA, NCAR, NSF, DOE, ………….

  42. Ryan O said

    Fear not, peoples. Ed has a tendency to exaggerate:

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/climate-audit-on-climategate/

    For exhorting the rest of us to show him the sources . . . Ed’s sure light on his own sources. So, Ed, got any?

  43. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I don’t care to argue the point — Frank K. has exposed himself as no friend to American economic growth. In research areas, there is a strong feeling that had we kept up the rate of research prior to the Reagan administration, we’d not be sitting here with 10% unemployment and the massive government debt. Of course, you can make the same conclusion simply by arguing the Supreme Court allowed the Florida ballot counting to continue in 2000.

    Jeff ID, these kind of comments are why I think you might want to go lighter on the political discussions in favor of analysis of all things climate science. Without going into specifics with a single thread devoted to individual points you are going to get these no-brainer replies – like gee Y’all must be able to understand that lack of sufficient government subsidies for research has caused our current economic down turn. What Y’all does know is that since the government has opened its coiffures (with, of course, our tax dollars and our children’s and their children and their children and…) like there is no tomorrow (or the day after or the day after that or…) we have ever more begging for government handouts.

    I just heard a couple of professors arguing for a handout to save journalism through subsidies for the major newspapers and TV outlets. They kept saying that these handouts were essential for saving the foundations of our democracy – like voters today devote much time to reading newspapers or watching TV newscasts and if they do, based on my experience, I doubt that they will get anything near a complete picture.

    Interesting also that the issue of government subsidies for journalism (and I have heard the same argument applied to subsidies for science) always raises the issue of government control and political interference with the process. The usual defender of these handouts will tell you that what we need is a constant (and large) source of funds for these subsidies with no strings attached. In the end you get people “paying” for something that they no longer can control (as they could in a free market by not purchasing or contributing) or agree with and the power goes to an eventual evolving of a journalistic/scientific elite.

    So if Y’all want more long winded pontifications from a grumpy old libertarian just keep it up.

  44. Jeff Id said

    Kenneth, Ed’s statement is about the most ignorant version of history I’ve witnessed. I do have to let off steam but actually was more pissed off about business issues and took it out on a half million for Mann. We’ve got a dumbass who thinks 22 million is small change, a half million is for chumps, the IPCC directs 4 million per year, Regan caused the deficit by cutting government spending. It’s too stupid to read. I don’t see that as name calling either, it really is that dumb.

    There are plenty of people who make well reasoned yet IMHO incorrect points on these threads. Ed is not one of them. Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything on them anyway, so you’re right that the tone of the grump threads takes away from the rest of the blog by attracting the logically challenged. I’ll try to leave it alone for a while.

  45. Jeff Id said

    BTW, I’m working on GHCN temps some more.

  46. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I posted some grid analysis results on the CRU #3 (latest CRU) thread.

  47. […] Jeff’s blood pressure is skyrocketing. Soothing comments might be in order here. Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money […]

  48. Navy Bob said

    David Verardo’s name has appeared only rarely during the multiyear, multiblog AGW debate, but it’s possible he is the Moriarity mastermind behind the whole global scam – at least on the US side of the pond. As an NSF funding official he has the ability to direct money to those who produce politically reliable results, as his stimulus grant to Dr. Mann indicates. After Steve McIntyre returned from addressing Judith Curry’s students at Georgia Tech, there was a comment from AlanB on Climate Audit referring to “NSF managers getting angry that we invite Steve within a university context.” I wonder just how influential Mr. Verardo has been over the years.

  49. Ed Darrell said

    As an NSF funding official he has the ability to direct money to those who produce politically reliable results, as his stimulus grant to Dr. Mann indicates.

    Are you assuming no internal NSF controls on funding? It’s highly unlikely that any one person at NSF could direct funds — decisions are made by a series of committees who rank proposals, with the top-ranking proposals getting money if there is money — nor is it likely there are not a series of controls on post-grant spending, too.

  50. Layman Lurker said

    #49

    Ed, in your opinion, what constitutes “a series of controls on post grant spending”?

  51. Jeff Id said

    “decisions are made by a series of committees who rank proposals,”

    They f’ed up.

  52. Ed Darrell said

    #50 – I should have phrased that just a bit more carefully.

    Grants don’t come in the form of a check that the recipient may then use to buy tickets to Brazil and the beach. The money is transferred to the institution where, it has been established, there are sufficient financial controls. Each grant has some one at the granting agency who “manages” the grant. This person checks in to be sure there are proper financial controls at the start, may check back periodically to be sure the work is proceeding apace, that the work is proceeding on the topic agreed (investigators on NSF grants may not change the subject matter of their grant).

    At the end there is a report to the granting agency to make sure that the money was spent as the agency intended, and a post-grant evaluation is made. Researchers are occasionally asked to return the money, even after the work is done, if they fail to live up to some part of the agreement.

    Especially since Reagan, NSF hasn’t had the money to fund all worthy grants. Knowing that lack of funding is often a death penalty to the research proposed, NSF has set up a series of evaluations to be sure the most worthy research proposals get the money, setting up competition even between branches of science.

    Under NSF criteria, I suspect we could take the dozen most scientifically and research literate people posting here, and they’d arrive at about the same rankings. Here we have no idea what other proposals were competing, how much money was available, nor anything else about how the decision was made. There are intimations that there was an earmark in the bill for this research, but I doubt it (and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything).

  53. Ed Darrell said

    Here’s 28 pages of NSF’s standard grant management jargon; while most universities should be well within the ethical boundaries, grant applicants and grant recipients get regular reminders that abuse of funding is a violation of federal law that can result in criminal charges:
    http://www.nsf.gov/pubs//gc1/jan10.pdf

    It’s not exactly micromanagement, but most people would find working under these rules to be oppressive — they aren’t conducive to waste of federal money; I mean requirements like this:

    42. Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States
    In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated
    April 16, 1997, “grantees are encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt policies and
    programs for their employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally owned
    vehicles.”

    When was the last time you were quizzed about your seatbelt use in your work? When was the last time you were told you had to comply with seatbelt laws in your work?

  54. Jeff Id said

    #53, That is exactly the point? Too many stupid rules, enforced by mindless masses and nobody considering the value of the money given away? This is what’s wrong with the left, they never consider just what impact all these rules actually have on cost. A whole program needs to exist just to encourage people to comply with existing law!! Consider the difficulty a small company would have complying with a policy like that.

    Just how the hell is ‘climate research’ an economic stimulus? Just were are the funds for small business loans with easier lending rules, partial guarantees? Currently it’s nearly impossible to get a small business loan because banks don’t want any more risk, but people don’t realize that. In Chicago, there are only a few people for the whole area who can approve a SBA left but people don’t realize how hard it is unless they try to get one.

    Our company could create 25 permanent jobs with a half million dollars, Michael Mann can blindly mash together messy data and form a sophists argument around it. It’s just as dumb and ignorant a use of economy stimulating money as I could imagine. But as was said above, the money was used by corrupt leftist politicians to buy off more votes, expand government, payoff big businesses they claim to revile and create additional rather than less economic load for the economy.

    If people want to break the law we should let the idiots not wear seatbelts, it’s evolution – don’t fight it.

  55. Layman Lurker said

    “At the end there is a report to the granting agency to make sure that the money was spent as the agency intended, and a post-grant evaluation is made. Researchers are occasionally asked to return the money, even after the work is done, if they fail to live up to some part of the agreement.”

    Ed, are these reports available to the public?

  56. enough said

    You are forgetting what the stimulus bill really is. It is an ear marked political slush fund for the administration to pay off those who got them elected. It was written behind closed doors with no open debate and passed in a hurry with the economy as an excuse. The ultimate alarm.

  57. cbullitt said

    Here’s the chain: Porkulus $$$ to Mann to “prove” global warming–Obama, EPA, rentseekers use “proof” to create “green/alternative energy boodoggles (run or owned by cronies, of course)–
    boondoggles are sold as “savior of the inner city (read oblivious but reliable left voters)which has been ignored.”
    Are you feeling “stimulated” yet?

  58. Ed Darrell said

    Ed, are these reports available to the public?

    #55: Have you looked? Yes, they are published annually, at least. We used to get thick copies of this stuff at the Senate Labor Committee. They’re probably available on-line.

    #56: Show me the earmark. You’re making quite an allegation. The material available on this blog says it’s a general grant. The stimulus bill is available on-line. Show us the earmark — or, in a demonstration of grand manners, apologize to Mann.

    You’re forgetting that your allegations are easily confirmable if true — and so far, I’d have to say you’re engaged in a huge act of fiction. My brief foray through the law found nothing close to an earmark on this, and no one took credit for it.

    Show us the earmark.

    As I noted earlier, NSF has been underfunded for more than two decades. If you give a couple of billion to NSF, they have backlogged a long series of worthy research projects that are much more than “shovel ready.” This stimulus bill has not eased all the backlog of worthy projects by a long, long way.

    Cbullitt: Your allegations are patently false, but the sort of crap that this blog tolerates, and invites by its toleration. Yeah, I’m stimulated to whack you on the side of the head with a civics book. It’s the only time a civics book would have ever affected your head, I’ll wager.

    Emily Post is next.

  59. Jeff Id said

    “but the sort of crap that this blog tolerates, and invites by its toleration.”

    Another political hack and a socialist world view supporting censorship?? Isn’t that how this all started Ed, only dogma filled AGW sites are capable of fair discussion?

    “stimulated to whack you on the side of the head”

    Please keep the physical threats out of it. There’s no real policy for discussion here but if you have something reasoned to discuss, I think we can keep it more civil than that.

  60. Kenneth Fritsch said

    As I noted earlier, NSF has been underfunded for more than two decades. If you give a couple of billion to NSF, they have backlogged a long series of worthy research projects that are much more than “shovel ready.” This stimulus bill has not eased all the backlog of worthy projects by a long, long way.

    Ed, have Y’all ever heard of the concept of limited resources. You parade onto the scene with very general statements like NSF being under funded and a backlog of worthy projects in waiting. One can hear these pleas for government funding for worthy projects from numerous sources these days and without any reference to the budget deficits which are increasing exponentially. I would advise you to get real if you plan on continuing to post here.

    What is this mantra of under funding and who are you to decide what the funding level should be or what should be funded– a science god sent to save us all?

    I myself see nothing special about Mann receiving funds for doing whatever it might be that he plans to do. The point should be whether the stimulus bill holds water as intended for job creation or is being used for political pork, no matter how directly or indirectly doled out and no matter what bureaucratic rules were applied.

    I personally judge these stimulus bills as counter productive even when aimed at job production as they are artificial and not lasting. But perhaps what you are saying is that those in the business of grubbing money from Washington should grub it wherever and however they can because, well, their causes are virtuous and worthy.

  61. Ed Darrell said

    Here’s the chain: Porkulus $$$ to Mann to “prove” global warming–Obama, EPA, rentseekers use “proof” to create “green/alternative energy boodoggles (run or owned by cronies, of course)– boondoggles are sold as “savior of the inner city (read oblivious but reliable left voters)which has been ignored.”
    Are you feeling “stimulated” yet?

    And Jeff said:

    Another political hack and a socialist world view supporting censorship?? Isn’t that how this all started Ed, only dogma filled AGW sites are capable of fair discussion?

    * * * * *

    Please keep the physical threats out of it. There’s no real policy for discussion here but if you have something reasoned to discuss, I think we can keep it more civil than that.

    I think we can, too, but not if we use a double standard that encourages abuse of one side and not the other. I didn’t say anything about censorship — it’s astounding to me, still, that denialists and even a few real skeptics can’t distinguish between discussion with disagreement, and censorship. My having my say isn’t censoring you.

    It’s the double standard that bothers me.

    NSF isn’t run by the government. It’s not a political organization. Shame on the poster for claiming it is.

  62. Ed Darrell said

    And curse those unclosed blockquotes. Shoulda been a “close blockquote” after ” . . . more civil than that.”

  63. Jeff Id said

    Ed, you are frustrating in that you continually misdirect and misinterpret every single statement you read. One of the first points you got in a goofy disagreement about was censorship on which types of blogs. remember?

    “My experience is that censorship is almost exclusively the province of blogs dedicated to denying warming and human causation. ”

    Now you come here and say”

    “Your allegations are patently false, but the sort of crap that this blog tolerates, and invites by its toleration”

    This is a clear call for censorship, after all, how would we not tolerate something? It would necessarily take some form of censorship right? It’s this “intolerance” that the left is so good at btw. Typically while simultaneously espousing free speech. See Tamino for example.

    Then you finish up by saying some crap about a double standard.

    “I think we can, too, but not if we use a double standard that encourages abuse of one side and not the other.”

    How can it be a double standard if everyone can post anything? I can’t help it if you post things that reasonable people simply cannot agree with. Your head is full of wrongthink, there’s not much I can do.

    Keep the physical threats to yourself. I’ll make sure you do but I have little patients for treating people like children.

  64. Ed Darrell said

    I said: “As I noted earlier, NSF has been underfunded for more than two decades. If you give a couple of billion to NSF, they have backlogged a long series of worthy research projects that are much more than “shovel ready.” This stimulus bill has not eased all the backlog of worthy projects by a long, long way.”

    Kenneth Fritsch responded:

    Ed, have Y’all ever heard of the concept of limited resources. You parade onto the scene with very general statements like NSF being under funded and a backlog of worthy projects in waiting. One can hear these pleas for government funding for worthy projects from numerous sources these days and without any reference to the budget deficits which are increasing exponentially. I would advise you to get real if you plan on continuing to post here.

    There are a lot of studies and commentary to show we’re coasting on engineering and science discovery and invention achievements of the past. Research for the future is underfunded. We need to invent and innovate instead, and to do that we need basic science research. Charges of political bias in research generally work out to be hooey, when they get even close to the actual facts.

    The fact is that federal finding is probably the largest source of basic research funding. That’s too bad, but in an environment where Bell Labs is threatened and Edison Labs haven’t existed for 80 years, that’s the way it is.

    Snagging a grant is not a sure thing.

    Are resources limited? Sure. Are we spending in deficits? Yes. Consider your family budget. You’re out of work, your cards are all but maxed out and you have in the bank only enough to pay the penalty for withdrawing all your 401K funds. With $100 left in your pocket, you can hire a roof repairman to fix the tiny leak that just showed up, or you can put some plastic over it with duct tape and drive to the state capital to interview for a new job where you’ve been designated the #1 candidate.

    Roof or job?

    Cutting research spending is like fixing the roof and foregoing the job.

    What is this mantra of under funding and who are you to decide what the funding level should be or what should be funded– a science god sent to save us all?

    Show me someone other that Sen. Tom Coburn, Luddite-Oklahoma, who says we have enough research now. Can you? It doesn’t appear to me you’ve been following this issue long, if at all. You might want to read up on the issue.

    I sat through more than two dozen hearings on funding for NSF, NIH, NCI and everything else under Senate Labor’s jurisdiction in the years I spent there. No one ever claimed research funding was adequate to meet our future needs. No one. Some expressed hope that commercialization would help out. Some expressed hope that a better economy might make things better. But when we got a better economy, Republicans still held down research funding, claiming the better economy was due entirely to balanced budgets of the Clinton administration, and they couldn’t afford a dime more for the future. It’s not my judgment. If you have contrary facts, please bring ’em.

    I myself see nothing special about Mann receiving funds for doing whatever it might be that he plans to do. The point should be whether the stimulus bill holds water as intended for job creation or is being used for political pork, no matter how directly or indirectly doled out and no matter what bureaucratic rules were applied.

    And Mann’s hiring of people doesn’t count as hiring of people why? Your slander of his grant by calling it “political pork” should be reprimanded by the moderator, but let me note that this was a competitive grant by all appearances above, which had gone through a few levels of analysis to be certain it wasn’t political pork.

    Do you even know what Congressional District the work will be done in? Do you blame Mann’s Congressman for bringing home the pork? Are you sure that makes sense?

    I personally judge these stimulus bills as counter productive even when aimed at job production as they are artificial and not lasting. But perhaps what you are saying is that those in the business of grubbing money from Washington should grub it wherever and however they can because, well, their causes are virtuous and worthy.

    I think all the rationalists in economics think the stimulus was necessary. Krugman and Stiglitz make outstanding cases that it may fail because it was so small, too small to do the job. This is the same error Franklin Roosevelt made, too little stimulus. The same error the Japanese made that gave them the Lost Decade. I’d love to see your economic analysis for how a stimulus bill was a bad idea. I don’t think even Milton Friedman could have made that argument sound like a firm case.

    I’m saying that our future depends on the sorts of innovations that come out of basic research, and especially with regard to energy independence and a clean planet, the work people do to understand warming and head off any pollution that may cause it, is good stuff. In stimulus economic terms, it puts highly-educated people to work now. In America’s security terms, it can point the way to an energy secure future, and perhaps help our nation steal the technology lead in green applied science back from China.

    Yeah, virtuous work probably should be funded. We’ve never been able to fund all virtuous work, especially virtuous science work, in the history of our nation. That’s a poor reason to cut back, or to grouse about funding now.

    If you think your research is more deserving, go for it. You know that simply saying “I don’t think Mann deserves it” will get you the money.

    So, in the absence of competing grant apps that were ruled more virtuous by NSF, in the presence of great need for the sorts of information Mann proposes to provide, I have a tough time finding reason to grouse about his grant.

  65. curious said

    “So, in the absence of competing grant apps that were ruled more virtuous by NSF, in the presence of great need for the sorts of information Mann proposes to provide, I have a tough time finding reason to grouse about his grant.”

    How about his trackrecord on quality control?

  66. jeff id said

    #65 hehe.

    Ed sees nothing. Can you imagine living in a world where every reality must be substituted for a false on of your own imagination. It sounds tiring.

  67. Ed Darrell said

    How can it be a double standard if everyone can post anything? I can’t help it if you post things that reasonable people simply cannot agree with. Your head is full of wrongthink, there’s not much I can do.

    Keep the physical threats to yourself. I’ll make sure you do but I have little patients for treating people like children.</blockquote

    Why is it that physical threats against Mann don't get this same treatment? Why is it you tee off on my response to an offensive post, but not on the offensive post I responded to?

    Do you really think I have the power to reach through the tubes of the internet and knock someone upside the head with a civics book? You accuse me of misinterpreting, as you misinterpret my post in the most offensive way you can.

    And, sadly, did I not predict your response?

    I get it fine: I can threaten any scientist who works on global warming research, unless they deny warming. I can libel any scientist, or anyone who supports them, so long as I keep it directed to those whose work shows warming or a tendency to human causation. I can threaten people physically, so long as I threaten those who don't agree with you.

    Are those the rules?

    I can see why you don't want offensive claims made against you and your claims. I object to your passive toleration of offensive claims made against others. It's the double standard I object to, once again. If you want to tone down the debate, do it fairly, please.

  68. Ed Darrell said

    How about his trackrecord on quality control?

    As revealed in serious work published in journals? Or as revealed by interpretations on blogs of stolen e-mails, interpretations made by people who didn’t know the NSF grant process is public?

    Are you calling the stealing of e-mails a quality control issue, or do you have a serious complaint you could explain about Mann’s work?

  69. Ed Darrell said

    Ed sees nothing. Can you imagine living in a world where every reality must be substituted for a false on of your own imagination. It sounds tiring.

    It’s also tiring to explain at length a misunderstanding you or your colleagues have about grant funding, only to have it rudely and crudely dismissed as a problem with my imagination.

    What do you see? Can you be specific? Where is the problem in the NSF process, in this specific grant? I see lots of insinuation. I see lots of Monty Python-esque “nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say no more.”

    That’s sufficient for British comedy. I think the claim that there is a problem with this grant requires more substance. I regret that I have not read every word of this blog and cannot read the mind of its author to know what I’m supposed to see — as an attorney, as a former grant administrator-of-record, as an interested citizen, I don’t see a problem. Can you spell it out?

  70. curious said

    68 – here’s one:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/nature08286.html

    I’m not aware of any stolen emails – are you?

  71. jeff id said

    Michael Mann does bad work in the first place. It’s impossibly wrong to have our money taken to expand the process. You seem just fine with it, b/c apparently you have no idea what it’s like to earn a half million from nothing rather than have it given.

    Not my money dammit. It ain’t yours and you are not qualified to administer it.

    The rest of this isn’t worth my time.

  72. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Ed Darrell, Y’all sound no different to me then the multitudes with their hands out for government funding – my cause is important, my cause has payback, my cause needs priority, my cause is under funded, my cause is misunderstood and by Luddites no less, without funding my cause the world as we know it will end, my cause is supported by all the experts , and finally if my cause with other spending of projects like it appear to be leading to a financial breakdown of the economy do not believe it because what we need is more spending – as ridiculous as that might first sound to the uninformed.

    Further there are no limits to spending because government solves problems by spending more and certainly not by backing away from seemingly non performing projects. It appears to be a failed government subsidized program only because we have not spent enough on it. In fact there are no failed government sponsored programs, only programs that the government has not spent lavishly enough on- just ask Paul Krugman.

    Why do people not see the logic in all this and why are Y’all complaining about science under funding when we have an administration that will spend on any thing that moves and salutes the government as the problem solver. Maybe you can argue for a Ben Bernanke helicopter drop of freshly printed money onto the headquarters of the NSF – they’ll know how to spend the money.

  73. enough said

    Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient.

    The entire stimulus bill was an earmark that circumvented the budget process.

  74. timetochooseagain said

    72-There is the smackdown somebody should have given this guy a long time ago!

    I usually say this when one talking head totally owns another on some cable news opinion program, but, well, SLAM!

  75. Ed Darrell said

    Ed Darrell, Y’all sound no different to me then the multitudes with their hands out for government funding – my cause is important, my cause has payback, my cause needs priority, my cause is under funded, my cause is misunderstood and by Luddites no less, without funding my cause the world as we know it will end, my cause is supported by all the experts , and finally if my cause with other spending of projects like it appear to be leading to a financial breakdown of the economy do not believe it because what we need is more spending – as ridiculous as that might first sound to the uninformed.

    It’s clear that opposition to studying climate change, and especially opposition to doing anything about it, is politically motivated, and not motivated by science nor economics, nor compassion nor common economic sense.

    I had hoped Jeff was right, that this was an issue of running science, and not politics. Thank you for setting us all straight.

  76. Jeff Id said

    #75

    Ed, I’m up early today and saw this. For some reason you constantly get under my skin. This thread is a political one Duh! Your view that more government funding will save the world, is political opinion, one which right thinking people know is not well reasoned. Funding Mann to process variables is not a study for understanding, but rather a mash of variables to produce unprecedented whatever the govt. wants. Why is it that you can’t understand, technical people can see with perfect clarity the bad work of Michael Mann, we don’t want to fund it.

    Like it or not, politics has corrupted the science, placed a bunch of leftists in charge, and given us extreme leftist envirowhacko’s who espouse the virtues of riding bikes over driving cars. All a scientist has to do is produce the right result to get the funding they want.

    I don’t really give a crap that the NSF publicly claims the work to be worthwhile. It’s very obviously not worthwhile. That means that the funds are just another example of the government stealing our money and giving it for furtherance of political goals. And it is stealing as certainly as if I held up a bank at gunpoint.

  77. Ed Darrell said

    Like it or not, politics has corrupted the science, placed a bunch of leftists in charge, and given us extreme leftist envirowhacko’s who espouse the virtues of riding bikes over driving cars. All a scientist has to do is produce the right result to get the funding they want.

    I don’t really give a crap that the NSF publicly claims the work to be worthwhile. It’s very obviously not worthwhile. That means that the funds are just another example of the government stealing our money and giving it for furtherance of political goals. And it is stealing as certainly as if I held up a bank at gunpoint.

    I’ve been waiting for some evidence to back such a claim. This would have been the post for you to lay it out.

    But, 76 comments, all we know is that something is under your skin simultaneously with your learning that Mann got a grant.

    I’d say take some Zyrtec or Benedryl and call your allergist in the morning. Your irritation cannot be linked to any wrongdoing on the part of NSF or Mann, at least not in the rational world. Something else is bugging you.

    There’s no wrongdoing there. Sorry it irritates you. You may want to commiserate with Mohammed Nasheed on the issue.

  78. Jeff Id said

    Ed I’ve pointed you to the information multiple times. Look at the hockey stick posts link below the header bar.

    There is no evidence that the Maldeves are in any danger whatsoever. And if they were, they would have a hundred years to build canoes and move to higher ground.

  79. Layman Lurker said

    Jeff, I have spotted a “trend”. Ed wouldn’t touch one of your technical posts with a ten foot pole.

  80. Jeff Id said

    haha, Trolls fear graphs.

  81. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Ed Darrell, I only speak for myself here and since you brought up government (under)funding I thought I would have a go at how a libertarian, such as myself, sees it and in general terms, not just science funding.

    All grants for the stimulus package are supposed to have a jobs’ creation estimate connected with it and published on the internet. We know how well those estimates have been documented. I am curious how many jobs that Mann is claiming for his grant.

    Further, just to clue you in here on Mann’s past works, it really does not amount to much more than data manipulation that could be done by a graduate student with some guidance from Mann himself – when he is not participating with the RC advocacy.

    Also the mantra from the consensus is that the science is settled on AGW, so what is the justification that Mann could give for his grant. It surely would not appear to be to reinvent what the consensus already knows. Perhaps it is for a book he might want to author on the influences of the evil fossil fuel executives and their blogging puppets on the AGW discussion. He could have the manuscripts written in long hand by otherwise unemployed people as a grand example of what the government can do to stimulate the economy.

  82. Kenneth Fritsch said

    If anyone is interested in the trends in federal spending on R&D in the US, look at Table 2 from the NSF link below:

    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09320/

    The link below gives historical federal funding for R&D as percent of GDP.

    http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm

    The link below shows industrial R&D in 1990 for comparisons with federal spending on R&D.

    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf03306/

    Here is another link that allows comparison of government and industrial funded research for the US and other nations of the world.

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/41/33719708.pdf

  83. curious said

    76 – “And it is stealing as certainly as if I held up a bank at gunpoint.”…

    … or ran it as Chief Exec?!🙂

  84. […] They even complain when researchers get grants to study the stuff, as if the researchers were buying Maseratis and taking vacations to the Caribbean on the money. […]

  85. Eli Rabett said

    FWIW, the economic benefit of research sponsored by the atmospheric sciences division of NSF is seen in improved weather forecasts, improved air quality, improved understanding of climate. Climate and air quality long range issues, but an understanding is vital to those concerned with agriculture, water availability and more. We get our money’s worth and more.

    Mann and colleagues are trying to demonstrate how proxy and instrumental measurements can improve forecasting, this approach of using data from the past to constrain forecasts of the future (data assimilation) has proven itself in weather forecasting. If successful, it means that long range forecasts (months/years) can be improved.

    What’s not to like?

  86. Jeff Id said

    Eli,

    My issue is with the quality and usefullness of standard Mannian style (data assimilation)

    Here’s specifically what the report says.
    to improve constraints on key climate parameters including those governing dynamical and potentially abrupt responses to forcing.

    There are too many proxy quality issues to be sorted out to consider them in any way to be temperature. Especially with the “abrupt responses” language. In my opinion, there are no good proxy papers in publication with the best effort made by Dr. Loehle. At least he didn’t play games with the numbers to make a hockey stick. So now if we constrain climate models with hockey sticks, how can that possibly improve forecasting?

    This is a half million dollars to turn a model into even more of a hockeystick. It cannot help forecasting, it cannot help accuracy to add inaccurate data into a model.

    Therefore, it’s a huge waste of money, it’s not an economic stimulus as billed, and does nothing but promote future alarmist agenda work rather than quality science or create jobs. There isn’t a lot of gray area on this either.

  87. Ed Darrell said

    Another gap in my knowledge: Who is investigating Michael Mann? I mean, what agency — and for what?

  88. Kenneth Fritsch said

    FWIW, the economic benefit of research sponsored by the atmospheric sciences division of NSF is seen in improved weather forecasts, improved air quality, improved understanding of climate. Climate and air quality long range issues, but an understanding is vital to those concerned with agriculture, water availability and more. We get our money’s worth and more.

    An interesting pronouncement, but what does it really mean. We can argue the basics of who should be funding this research and all the political problems involving government funding, but for the moment lets say that we can all readily understand that weather forecasting improvements have demonstrable payback (although not referenced in comment).

    Can the same be said for the longer term climate forecasts? Please provide examples of these types of forecasts and payback. Some of the climate scientists warned on hurricanes, but I have not seen any resulting actions that would indicate those warnings (more in dollar terms due to population trends than increasing frequencies or intensities of TCs) were taken seriously. I have seen insurance rate increases, but those are based more on past occurrences than forecasts.

    I see a significant amount of funding being used to estimate the effects of AGW on diseases and spread of diseases, and some of it for Mann’s university as I recall. Given the difficulty in making these projections, I can see where the conclusions, as tenuous as they might be, will come down on the “right side” of this issue.

  89. Andrew said

    88-Speaking as a Florida resident, IMAO there is a REASON that the Housing Bubble popped here earlier than elsewhere and has been deeper than most places.

    That reason was the fact that Florida seemed to have a bulls-eye on it that many thought was growing bigger and redder due to AGW. 2004 was one hell of a season for us and it scared Snow Birds the hell away.

    Now, you could say that reduced coastal development has long term economic benefits in terms of hurricane damages. And I would agree. But the alarmism-and it was alarmism-has in the short term only exacerbated economic pain.

  90. Ed Darrell said

    Some of the climate scientists warned on hurricanes, but I have not seen any resulting actions that would indicate those warnings (more in dollar terms due to population trends than increasing frequencies or intensities of TCs) were taken seriously. I have seen insurance rate increases, but those are based more on past occurrences than forecasts.

    Presentations to the national association of city managers and mayors a decade ago made it clear that insurance actuaries were using forecasts, and not relying on the past. Had they relied on the past, they said, they’d be throwing their companies’ money away. Think about it: They’re working to make sure there’s enough investment money to cover the expected outlay of claims made, and still make a profit, without pricing their company out of business. They can’t rely on history, if history shows fewer hurricanes and not more.

    On Wall Street, where it counts, the money managers have avoided gambling: They’ve stuck to projections of increasing insurance claims and other problems due to effects of global warming.

  91. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Ed Darrell, you might want to include some actual results of hurricane predictions over that time period. The oldest and the one William Gray was involved with has been shown to not have and admitted to not having predictive power. Other hurricane predicting algorithms have not been around sufficiently long to show predictive power. It is, of course, one thing to forecast hurricane nubers, but entirely another to get the intensity and landfall correct – or even remotely close.

    Insurance companies will use predictions/forecasts, but that is because that is all they have and, of course, it helps to have a source to blame to covers ones ass in these situations or to justify higher rates because a group is accomadating them by forecasting future disasters. That does not mean that the forecasts are helping them determine the “correct” rates. In fact, the rates tend to go up dramatically based on the most recent hurricane damage and that tends to go with looking back, e.g. Katrina. One would suspect, if they had it right, little adjustment would be needed for rates after a big hurricane event.

    Other problems are that states and the feds subsidize the risky behavior of people wanting to live in hurricane harms way by subsidizing their insurances and recoveries from storms. And these actions occur regardless of the climate science warnings – be they about frequency, intensity or simply people migration to risky areas.

  92. Ed Darrell said

    Insurance companies will use predictions/forecasts, but that is because that is all they have . . .

    Glad you agree. In that case, it’s inaccurate to say the actuaries use history, because they don’t. It’s also clear to see why increasing the accuracy of forecasts is a major concern of business, and why this sort of research is so important.

  93. Andrew said

    “On Wall Street, where it counts, the money managers have avoided gambling: They’ve stuck to projections of increasing insurance claims and other problems due to effects of global warming.”

    That’s because insurance companies would be able to raise their rates, and instead of the government telling them “NO!”, they would say-“Oh, well in that case…”

    Investors see this and think “that’s clever” and invest their money into this gravy train.

    Ironically enough, this one case has left wingers saying that fat cats are being prudent, but any other blatant profit making would send them to the stratosphere over “greed”.

  94. RB said

    “But the alarmism-and it was alarmism-has in the short term only exacerbated economic pain.”
    This is total b.s. Florida collapsed under the weight of the bubble as did California and Arizona – but it was in fact San Diego that was the canary in the coalmine for the housing market. This is the flip-side of the debate – perhaps we should call these folks the denialist alarmists.

  95. Ed Darrell said

    That’s because insurance companies would be able to raise their rates, and instead of the government telling them “NO!”, they would say-”Oh, well in that case…”

    IF the rate increase won’t push business to the competitors, and IF the rate increase is approved by the state insurance commission. Insurance is regulated by each state, remember, with no federal regulation. In most states, all rate increases must be approved by the regulators.

    That’s why it’s so important to get the numbers right before the event. Insurance commissions are very loathe to approve rate increases to homeowners after a storm has cost them thousands.

    There are lots of incentives for the insurance companies to get their forecasts right, and heavy, maybe fatal penalties for those who get it wrong. They don’t like to gamble. If they say global warming is a concern, they are not fooling. Billions, maybe trillions, ride on these forecasts. And each company competes with the others to get the forecasts more accurate.

  96. Ed Darrell said

    Other problems are that states and the feds subsidize the risky behavior of people wanting to live in hurricane harms way by subsidizing their insurances and recoveries from storms

    That’s partly true for flood insurance, which is offered by the federal government and not by private companies as a rule (if you know of an exception, I’d like to find that company).

    What we’re talking about mostly is hail and wind damage. Once the roof is off the house and the storm surge comes, it’s a flood, and the feds have the burden. But forecasting the wind and hail damage goes back to global warming. If storms really do get more intense, whether there are more of them or not, insurance companies will be hit. They need to be ready, not with a post-storm rate increase, but with pre-storm profits from invested premiums, to pay off quickly, and to pay off less than they made in investments.

  97. Andrew said

    94-Forgive me for not living in San Diego but our prices were coming down in 2006. MOST of the rest of the country didn’t see this until one or two years later.

    95-I implicitly noted that the insurance companies must get the go ahead for the rate increase from the regulators. I almost explicitly said it. When that happens, the regulators want to be able to tell the voters why it was necessary. What better excuse to tell people other than “hey, it’s AGW!”.

    Of COURSE competition would drive people to companies with lower rates-except that I didn’t say “some” insurers would be clever enough to come up with this idea-Most insurance companies would jump at the chance to raise rates. And when the government lets them, it lets them ALL raise the rates. So if their rates have been too low for their tastes, they will ALL raise them!

    You need to be whacked over the head with the Wealth of Nations.

  98. RB said

    #97, yes, but it was because the housing market was most extended in these states. It has nothing to do with global warming, I’m sorry you are living under that delusion. The most bubbly areas crack earlier and harder. That’s how it was and has always been for the housing market.

  99. timetochooseagain said

    98-I agree that it had nothing to do with AGW. Now the reaction to alleged effects it seems we must disagree on.

    Perhaps I overstated it a bit. What would be more accurate is not that the relationship was causal, but rather, a contributing factor.

    You know something, you are incredibly rude and use very derisive language. Have I said anything to you to prompt the use of “delusion” and “denialist alarmist”. If you think I’m misinformed their are much better ways of convincing me. Being angry decreases my willingness to concede anything to you by several percentage points.

    But sure let’s all pick on the college student who is musing on his recollections of his mother’s real estate monitoring obsession.

  100. RB said

    #99, I apologize for the tone and the words – yes, there are a lot of group-specific pejoratives used in this discussion on both sides such as the popular condescending tone towards “alarmists”, which of course doesn’t justify using it in any specific context.

  101. timetochooseagain said

    Well what do you think we should call people who we feel overstate the severity of the problem? The other tribe needs a name you know, otherwise we can’t make cool Tee shirts!😉

  102. timetochooseagain said

    I should add that I’m not being completely facetious. In my own writings, I struggle to avoid inappropriate labeling. It’s just something people fall into, I think. I usually try to say more neutral things. Now alarmism is a real ism and it’s use is sometimes appropriate, just as some people can be alarmist if they encourage excessive alarm-AGW or anything else. But I think most advocates aren’t alarmist so much as genuinely-and I think wrongly-alarmed.

  103. Ed Darrell said

    95-I implicitly noted that the insurance companies must get the go ahead for the rate increase from the regulators. I almost explicitly said it. When that happens, the regulators want to be able to tell the voters why it was necessary. What better excuse to tell people other than “hey, it’s AGW!”.

    Of COURSE competition would drive people to companies with lower rates-except that I didn’t say “some” insurers would be clever enough to come up with this idea-Most insurance companies would jump at the chance to raise rates. And when the government lets them, it lets them ALL raise the rates. So if their rates have been too low for their tastes, they will ALL raise them!

    You need to be whacked over the head with the Wealth of Nations

    What chapter of Smith’s work covers any part of this?

    You assume that regulators are all captive to the industry and all they need is some excuse, no matter how thin, to allow rates to float up. Regardless what Smith may have said at any point, he never tried to get an insurance rate increase in Massachusetts, nor another in Texas after rates rose 25% the previous year, nor in Louisiana after two Hurricanes blew through, nor in Florida after four hurricanes. Insurance companies cannot afford to gamble that the voters will be asleep and allow a post-disaster rate increase to make up for the shortfall. As a pragmatic matter, the reinsurance guys would drop them in a heartbeat, and they’d be out of business.

    Smith did cover the need to keep income greater than outflow in order to remain in business, but other than that you’re not even up to his 1776 explanation, let alone the 1996 projections of more hurricanes, more hailstorms, more straight-line wind disasters, and (insurance companies hope) more floods.

    When insurance companies ask for rate increases, the regulators want to be able to tell them “no.” You forgot that part.

    And by the way, in most states, companies ask for rate increases on their own, not as a group. Some states allow several to do it at once, but it’s a company-by-company number, not a state-wide green light.

  104. Eli Rabett said

    To pick examples of where better forecasts would save lives and resources, how about (1 year horizon) seasonal forecasts affecting planting, the amount of snow melt to order for the highways, or (5 year horizon) water supplies over extended periods, (10-50 year horizon) building reservoirs, modifying building codes needed to deal with increased/decreased flooding, high winds, etc.

    Any increase in skill would more than pay for itself immediately.

    Mutiproxy methods need not only provide temperatures, they also (see MBH 98) are useful for precipitation and other things, inc storm damage. You just have to have enough proxies.

    However, it is, Eli supposes, that you have now stepped back from the Proxmire standard and recognize that Mann’s approach is reasonable.

  105. Andrew said

    “You assume that regulators are all captive to the industry”

    The other way around. I assume regulators have the rates too low and the industry would love to convince them to raise the limits.

    The reason I mention The Wealth of Nations is because you don’t seem to comprehend that people behave in their own self interest.

    And regulators want to be able to keep their jobs, or at least get a lot of money. So they don’t always want to say no. Not if the insurance company is offering them something.

    And in states with an income tax, there is the benefit of revenue when the companies do well.

  106. Ed Darrell said

    And regulators want to be able to keep their jobs, or at least get a lot of money. So they don’t always want to say no. Not if the insurance company is offering them something.

    My experience in government and criminal law causes me to worry when people assume that the government is corrupt. It’s a bad assumption in the U.S., certain small places excepted (see “the Progressive Movement”), and I think it usually reflects on the person making the assumption, present company excepted I am sure.

    And in states with an income tax, there is the benefit of revenue when the companies do well.

    Neither Texas nor Florida has an income tax. It was a good idea, but it doesn’t work in real life.

    Think about it pragmatically: Will a state make more income tax money off of the 100,000 businesses in the state if they get adequate insurance reimbursements and can get their company’s back up and running quickly after a disaster? Or will the states do better from the fewer than 20 insurance companies who would make a profit off of higher insurance rates ill-gotten?

    A state does better when there is no disaster. No amount of hanky-panky can make up for the losses of roads, hourly income, goods, and services, when a disaster strikes.

  107. Ed Darrell said

    Shoulda been plural, “companies,” and not possessive. I regret the error.

  108. Jeff Id said

    However, it is, Eli supposes, that you have now stepped back from the Proxmire standard and recognize that Mann’s approach is reasonable.

    Eli, I realize you’re trying to stir me up. I get no end of entertainment of bashing on Mann08 – so I appreciate the opportunity.

    How the hell could sorting out which data you want and chucking the rest be reasonable? The whole basis of the M08 is nothing but hand waiving. It’s crap, garbage, rubbish and only the most disingenuous advocate envirowhackos could ever support such crap.

    Cathartic!

  109. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Glad you agree. In that case, it’s inaccurate to say the actuaries use history, because they don’t. It’s also clear to see why increasing the accuracy of forecasts is a major concern of business, and why this sort of research is so important.

    Ed and Eli, I have noticed that this discussion has drifted from the original question and into generalities here. Remember I asked what examples you could supply of climate predictions and forecasting that have provided payback. You seem to be saying that, gee, it would be great to predict this or that (and no matter how feasible I guess) and just think of the payback. Yes, insurance companies would like to know the when and where for hurricanes and it could provide them benefits but the question is that reseaerch money is a limited resource and it is best applied to projects that have the greatest feasibility for success.

    We do, of course, have basic reasearch that is carried out simply to learn, but when we do that we do not attempt to show pay back.

    Do Y’all think that you would have much success with an application for research funding that simply said if we could predict X we could reap Y?

  110. Kenneth Fritsch said

    My experience in government and criminal law causes me to worry when people assume that the government is corrupt.

    Now, Ed, that is great point. The extreme mischief that governments can do well within the limits of the law should not get lost in a discussion of out and out corruption by government.

  111. timetochooseagain said

    You don’t understand. Yes, in Florida and Texas there is no income tax. But what you don’t seem to grasp is that with a graduated income tax (“progressive”) yields the most revenue when money is more concentrated among the rich. Insurance companies have more money than the individuals who purchase policies from them, if not the businesses. Individuals buy insurance, too, you know. This isn’t health care. So the state governments would benefit in terms of revenue if the insurance companies got more money from individuals. And just because the rates are higher (not “ill gotten” but gotten by lobbying for a relax of excessive regulation-notice that I believe the rates are artificially low) doesn’t mean that the quality of the insurance company’s service suffers-the people’s businesses might even get back up in running more quickly, since the insurance company can more readily reimburse them.

    “My experience in government and criminal law causes me to worry when people assume that the government is corrupt. It’s a bad assumption in the U.S.”

    I don’t assume. It’s a law of nature that money motivates people. If you really think that government is largely incorruptible you aren’t making a bad assumption you’re being naive. Everybody has a price.

    Anyway, this argument is tiresome. Good day.

  112. Eli Rabett said

    To Kevin, Eli would like to point out that it would be great to have data from the future, but failing that we have to rely on models. And yeah, if you have a proposal that says if we do this we have a high probability of being able to predict that, assuming you convince the referees, why yes, you have a winner, esp with mission driven funders like NIH, DOE, DOD, etc.

  113. Eli Rabett said

    “How the hell could sorting out which data you want and chucking the rest be reasonable? ”

    Consider a lab experiment, you design it to take data. You ALWAYS check the data for reasonableness. A good design includes such checks. If some of the data fails the test you evaluate it to find the cause (power supply failed, the optics were not properly aligned). You need to find the cause so you can go back to recording signal. And you chuck the noise. Anyone working with students finds that they take lots of “data” that is just noise, and a large part of the training is teaching them to recognize when they are recording noise. Adding noise to signal is not good laboratory practice.

    Now consider proxys. You didn’t design the proxy, the FIRST problem is to decide if the proxy HAS signal in it. To get this you use an instrumental record. So the SECOND thing you need to do is find an appropriate instrumental record. The THIRD thing is to compare part of the appropriate instrumental record with the proxy to calibrate the proxy and the FOURTH is to use what is left of the proxy to see if the calibration was successful. If not, you can CHUCK that data from your study, although it still may be useful for other studies or even part of it may be useful for your study. There is no guarantee that any proxy will contain useful information.

  114. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I would advise you to give it up with Eli. He is merely restating the general essentials of constructing a proxy without any considerations for the avoidance of data snooping and cherry picking.

    That takes a little bit more nuanced introspection, and if it was not mentioned the first time through, I doubt very much that anything you or I might say will change that.

  115. Eli Rabett said

    Kenneth, the point WAS STATED as a general principle

  116. Layman Lurker said

    Eli, what you have just described wrt proxies is selection bias, pure and simple, and will tend to produce hockey sticks. The degree of hockey stickiness will depend on the degree to which the true signal/noise ratio has been corrupted.

    Consider the following. You know what the typical NL batting average was .240 for the current season. You want to know what the typical batting average was in the previous season through a representative sample. Which sample is going to have more predictive power, a random sample of 100 players or selection of only those players within the sample which batted .240 for the current season?

  117. Jeff Id said

    Eli, if there was a known, explained, detectable defect in the data, you would be right. Since this is absolutely not the case with proxy data, our only choice is to use methods which do not bias the data such as “average for signal”. Mann simply sorts for trend, data with a correlation threshold of r=.1 is good r=.99999 is bad. It’s unfortunate that people are so easily baffled by this obvious failure in logic.

    Mann08 and 09 methods cause a strong amplification of the calibration signal in reference to historic data. It’s advocacy not science. I don’t know your technical bacground but I would suggest you don’t make yourself an advocate for this work. There are plenty of good papers around you can latch onto and beat the drum for crazy policy.

    Mann proxy stuff is regularly crap work which appears to a technical reader to be specifically designed to produce hockey sticks. It’s very difficult for me to understand how a person can accidentally come up with one method after another, all having flaws which result in the same output. It’s equally difficult to understand how even the advocate scientists in climategate continue to approve this garbage work. Work that would likely get chucked from any high school physics class on the planet.

  118. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Mann et al are also good at after the fact making up rules to fit their past selections, e. g. the method applied after the fact to select PCs for proxies (and then when tested by Steve M it did not appear to work as advertised). I think that Mann et al are aware (possibly after the fact) of the importance of using selection of (reasonable) criteria, they just have not learned that it has to be applied a priori.

    Jeff, I think Steve M with his Canadian demeanor is simply too polite to call Mann’s work crap as you do, but I certainly would join you saying that this part of Mann’s work is crap. But you know what bothers me more than Mann’s crap is the fact that others in the field have not labeled it as such.

    Remember the PCA expert that reviewed McMc’s reply to a Mann et al paper on the issue of PCA applications, Jolliffe, I believe his name is, who you called out at another blog and he finally admitted to being a reviewer. He actually and intentionally mislead people when blogging about PCAs without identifying himself as a reviewer. He had to pay homage to AGW before doing any thing resembling criticism of the Mann paper. In fact his criticism came across as so deferential that he appeared not to be sure of his own expertise.

    In my book Mann has problems but Jolliffe and those like him have bigger ones or at least create bigger ones.

  119. Jeff Id said

    Ian did a good job standing up for himself but your point is absolutely right. He first had to pay homage at the altar, then he was allowed to speak before the AGW gods.
    Actually, now that I’ve got more background, Tamino backing down was a huge thing. It’s no wonder I got kicked out so quickly.

    I should have saved the bridge burning email he got after my being banned. It was sweet!

  120. Ed Darrell said

    Ed and Eli, I have noticed that this discussion has drifted from the original question and into generalities here. Remember I asked what examples you could supply of climate predictions and forecasting that have provided payback. You seem to be saying that, gee, it would be great to predict this or that (and no matter how feasible I guess) and just think of the payback. Yes, insurance companies would like to know the when and where for hurricanes and it could provide them benefits but the question is that reseaerch money is a limited resource and it is best applied to projects that have the greatest feasibility for success.

    Someone assumed that more hurricanes is the only predictable outcome. That’s not what the climatologists said, nor is it what saved the tails of the insurance companies so far.

    The predictions are that weather swings will be more severe, and the general severity over time will be greater. So, one year perhaps we get a near-repeat of the 1900 Galveston hurricane (we did). That was so severe that the insurance companies were not properly covered for themselves, indicating once again the value of getting forecasts accurately. But for the previous decade, the general rule that there would be more severe weather damage over the year, whether in one huge storm, or in a dozen sudden, more damaging hailstorms in disparate parts of Texas, the actuaries claim that a warmer climate means more weather damage holds up.

    They’re right on the big stuff. They can’t tell for certain that your house in Texas will be hit. They can tell that more houses in Texas will be hit, and hit more severely. For insurance companies, for science, that’s good enough.

    When the last big one rolled in I sat with a woman who had planned to weekend in Galveston. We watched on CNN a panoramic shot of the island as her house burned. She was lucky. The house had burned down completely before the storm surge hit, so her fire insurance should have covered it all (we don’t discuss the painful stuff, but I’m going off of insurance annals of sorts) — her next-door neighbor’s house didn’t burn, but was scraped off the island by the storm surge. Oops, the insurance company said, that’s flood damage, and he homeowner must rely on the less munificent federal flood insurance . . .

    FEMA’s charts for 100 and 500 year floods become a part of every commercial real estate transaction done well, with proper due diligence. We got crunched a bit here in Texas over the past five years because FEMA has had to redo many of those maps, due to — you should have guessed it — global warming.

    What would be the pragmatic effect of knowing we won’t have more floods in the future?

    How’s your flood insurance? Do you know how FEMA maps your home?

  121. Ed Darrell said

    Or maybe more poignant, do you know what sort of surge and wind the Army Corps of Engineers figured your local levee needs to withstand? For Sacramento, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, St. Louis and much of the rest of the Mississippi, the Tom Bigbee, etc., etc., that’s an important question, assuming the Corps’s contractors didn’t screw up the construction.

  122. Betsi said

    With 5k i´m ok🙂

  123. […] but accepted “pro bono legal advice.” Let’s not forget this tiny half million Mann got for ‘economic stimulus’.   Peanuts for the most brilliant, I know, but to the rest of us lesser folks a few hundred […]

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

 
%d bloggers like this: