GIGO

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans

“Proper ocean modelling would require a tenfold improvement in spatial resolution and a vast increase in computing power, probably requiring quantum computers. If or when quantum computers can reproduce the small-scale interactions, the researchers will remain out of their depth because of their traditional simplifying of conditions.”

This is far from the most important part of that article, but I use it to make the following point: If Greta Thunberg and the Green New Deal hysterics have their way we won’t ever see the quantum computers necessary to those calculations, because we’ll be poor and shivering in the dark while the minimally available electricity is used to heat Al Gore’s pool. We will have already spent all the money we could have used for mitigation of any possible climate change.

Related

Properly skeptical?

In a post describing social media propaganda techniques Corey Doctorow says the following:

“We’re not living through a crisis about what is true, we’re living through a crisis about how we know whether something is true. We’re not disagreeing about facts, we’re disagreeing about epistemology. The “establishment” version of epistemology is, “We use evidence to arrive at the truth, vetted by independent verification (but trust us when we tell you that it’s all been independently verified by people who were properly skeptical and not the bosom buddies of the people they were supposed to be fact-checking).”

The “alternative facts” epistemological method goes like this: “The ‘independent’ experts who were supposed to be verifying the ‘evidence-based’ truth were actually in bed with the people they were supposed to be fact-checking. In the end, it’s all a matter of faith, then: you either have faith that ‘their’ experts are being truthful, or you have faith that we are. Ask your gut, what version feels more truthful?””

However unintentionally*, Doctorow has accurately described the ‘argument from authority,’ shut-down-the-debate propaganda of ‘climate change’ activists.
*He’s compared Greta Thunberg to Joan of Arc. I.e., he approves of Thunberg’s propaganda. She can hardly be considered an authority.

We can imagine he accepts the authority of the ‘97% of scientists agree with CAGW theory‘ misdirection (see also here and here).

We can be sure he would not approve my appropriation of his words in support of the links that follow below. But they do speak to the question he asks about what feels truthful:
ClimateGate fallout continues: CRU admits original data deleted – 2009

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

“The dog ate my temperature data” would be far less suspicious if the scientists involved hadn’t been caught discussing how to avoid FOIA requests for their data; if they hadn’t asked each other to delete emails expressing internal doubts about some of their research assumptions; if the programmers hadn’t complained in their comments about unreliable data custodianship and sloppy organization, or pointed out algorithms where the actual data record was ‘corrected.’ It might be more believable if one of those scientists, Micheal Mann, hadn’t refused to release data and algorithms used in his hokey stick calculations, and if he hadn’t viciously attempted to destroy – professionally and personally – any who voiced the slightest question about that tree ring magnum opus, including interference and intimidation of scientific publishers. Science is falsifiable or it isn’t science.

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding – 2017

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

GAST is Global Average Surface Temperature.

Canada’s global warming models threw out actual historical data and substituted models of what the temperature should have been – 2019

“Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter that Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.””

Maybe the models they used as input to the models were meticulously prepared even though the preparers had a conflict of interest. Maybe it would be better if when they don’t know something, they say so.

Here’s an easily understood critque of how data is manipulated in U.S. National Climate Assessment.
My Gift To Climate Alarmists ~13 min


No way to spin that: So-called scientists feel free to cherry pick their data. The choices strongly imply an agenda. An agenda related to funding.

Finally, here’s a long, insightful, humorous post (That last quality being one possessed neither by Greta Thunberg nor Joan of Arc, though one might suspect Greta does have a martyrdom complex.) touching on arguments from authority and proper skepticism at the website of the invaluable Dr. Judith Curry.
A philospher’s reflections on AGW denial An excerpt:

“…what, if anything, to do about AGW is a political decision, subject to the same forces at play in any other political decision, namely the interplay of conflicting interests. One can hope that someone else’s interests, as she herself sees them, will dovetail with one’s own. But to get in high moral dudgeon when hers don’t betrays the moral maturity of a three year old.”

Ah yes, it is a public policy question about which we’re told we must accept the judgment of some experts (though not experts in public policy) regarding a complete redefinition of our economy.

Ultimately, argument from authority must end in attempts to rank the sincerity, knowledge, methods, and success of predictions from theory of the authorities invoked by each side. The point I want to leave you with is that it’s not the climate change skeptics who are insisting global warming theory is not falsifiable. So, which authorities are practicing science rather than religion?

Related:
Conspiracy of silence -2007
James Robert Cardinal Bellarmine Hansen -2008
Who’s a “denier” now? -2009
What a piece of work is Mann -2015

What a piece of work is Mann

Highly recommended: Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession“, to anyone interested in the genesis of Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick. Steyn’s book is not an attack on the idea of AGW, it’s an exposé of, arguably, the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown; and, indisputably, the most consequential.

Using the words of scientists who strongly believe AGW is true and of those who are more skeptical, it lays out a convincing case that there are differences of opinion among scientists on AGW, if not so much about Michael Mann.

If you (mistakenly) conflate Mann’s agenda with the discipline of climate science, you will like the book still less than even Mann’s “allies” like him. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read it: If you are concerned about erosion of public support for “doing something” about AGW, you should read it so you can help climate science regain a modicum of respectability. As long as Mann is left to hijack the discussion, threaten the careers of distinguished scientists and subvert the peer review process, it is unlikely reasonable people will find any common ground on the topic.

Mann has been able to force the entire discipline of climate science into a corner where failure to defend his work is equated with failure to defend, in Mann’s words, “the cause.” A strange way for a scientist to think. If there is a single principle that distinguishes science from religion it is that scientific theories are falsifiable. Mann is pushing the religion of Mann, not the science of climate study.

The damage to science itself is profound. The damage to freedom of speech is, perhaps, even worse – which is how Steyn got involved in a lawsuit. And came to write this book. The First Amendment is as much subject to Mann’s attack as is the scientific method.

I consider myself well informed on the AGW debate, but I learned quite a bit from this book. You probably will too. This book does not deny AGW, it denies Michael Mann’s devious, unprincipled, ad-hominem attacks on those who dare ask a single question.

We’re being asked to restructure the world economy because of a drawing based on misrepresentation, willful hyperbole and astounding arrogance. You should read “A Disgrace to the Profession” in order to understand what that means, whatever your position on AGW. You should buy “A Disgrace to the Profession” (also at Amazon) because doing so helps defend free speech. Even if Mann were right, it is long past time his bullying lawfare was stopped.

East Anglia AGW, the heat goes on

Never comment your code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

At least we know why the NYT didn’t publish any of the emails.

And I want one of these.
From the comments:

This illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?

Too late, the guys at East Anglia already did all that.

How the Science Gets Settled [Mark Steyn]
It’s about the environment in just the same way Pelosi/Obama/ReidCare is about people’s health.

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’
If they “shredded” FOIA’d data, yes, they should be charged. The worse crime, however, is the damage to science as a concept.

And finally, one of those “rabid deniers” spoke at Hillsdale college in 2007:
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Who’s a "denier" now?

Even the New York Times finds the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit impossible to ignore. I do not think this rises fully to being “coverage,” however, and I note some of the reasons below.

I have included the full text of the Times article below because it usually disappears behind a subscription firewall in a short time.

The Times…skeptics, … say [the emails] they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
One must wonder if the NYT would be as sanguine if something similar had been revealed about the “deniers,” itself a revealing term about the mindset of planet Gore. The Times does not provide any of the actual email content so one might form one’s own opinion about what the emails show. You’ll have to go elsewhere for that coverage.

The TimesSome of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp…
If the gates were open, if the data were available, as they would be in the spirit and practice of science as it has hitherto been defined, no siege would have been necessary – or possible.

The TimesThe evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.
Widely accepted by conspirators who’ve been lying. This is not “coverage” except in the sense of CYA. If anybody is in denial, it is not the skeptics.

The Times“The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, …
This reporter, whose ox has been Gored. Big mistake.

The TimesHe [Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research] said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists. Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.
Yep, it goes to integrity of these “scientists” all right. And, yep, it’s sinister.

The TimesThrough the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.
Uh, no the thermometers don’t show that. They show the opposite for the last decade. Not to mention that we know another climate guru, Dr. James Hansen, has used bad temperature data purporting to prove 1998 to be the warmest year on record. NASA had to withdraw this claim when it was discovered. The best one can say about Dr. Hansen is that he’s very sloppy. This did not stop him from calling for

the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming…

Maybe he needs to consider calling for the same for his East Anglia colleagues.

The Times[those who wrote the emails say they] …did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming.
What would then? Nothing. This is a claim that the theory is not falsifiable and therefore IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

The Times“Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”
Newton released his methods and calculations and risked being proved wrong. These guys didn’t.

It is not about personality, it is about character. Newton wasn’t looking to preserve his gravity research grant status. Newton did not falsify data, or risk the reputation of science for personal gain. Newton spent a great deal of his career searching for evidence that would demonstrate alchemists were right about turning lead into gold. He could not find that evidence and did not claim he had.

One might say the NYT deigned to notice an elephant had materialized in their refrigerator, but calling this coverage is a stretch.

The full article:

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global warming is true.

The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”

Scroll down to the next 3 posts to see actual “coverage,” with the actual content the Times neglected to provide.

Update: 2:16PM
The WaPo is doing a NYT on the story. They are “covering” it in damage control mode.

They think the story is “Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics.” ROTFLMAO

Update: 2:51PM
Now you can search the emails yourself.
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable

James Robert Cardinal Bellarmine Hansen

This is what passes for scientific debate among the Global Warmist elite:

[NASA’s director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming…

Unfortunately, the Big Fossil execs probably won’t have the moxie to stand up at the show trial and shout, “É, si muove!”.

Besides, the Democrats keep talking about nationalizing the oil companies. The Dems are clearly lying when they claim this would increase our gasoline supply.

To reduce CO2 emissions they’re mandating the use of CFL’s, not so much incidentally filling the pockets of Big Electrics (GE, for example, also a BIG winner from proposed carbon trading legislation). When all this fails, Hansen will have to sue Congress for lying, pandemic mercury poisoning and the failure of their cap-and-trade scheme to stop AlGore from cornering the market on carbon indulgences; becoming the only American allowed to emit greenhouse gasses. Hansen will be pleased by the $25 a gallon gasoline, though.

Twenty years ago Hansen began to talk about Global Warming. Forty years ago Hansen’s computer models were predicting a global Ice Age. Last year he was obfuscating about his programing error erroneously “proving” 1998 was the warmest year ever. He was also changing the data. After those changes the results of his corrected program better fit his original presumptions. In twenty more years, maybe he’ll get the coding straight and settle on consistent data.

TOC has noted some of Hansen’s career highlights:

Thursday, April 13, 2006
The heat goes on

Sunday, April 16, 2006
Climate of fear update

Saturday, August 11, 2007
Al Gore Rhythms

Thursday, September 27, 2007
Fire or ice? Follow the money

Friday, September 28, 2007
A trout in the milk

It is a joke to use the word “scientist” in conjunction with someone who refuses to admit that scientific method requires his theory to be falsifiable. What Hansen has is faith, as did Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.

Galileo Galilei was tried by the Inquisition of the Catholic Church for his support of Copernican astronomy. This was a defining moment in the relationship between religion and science.

Now the religion is Environmentalism, and Hansen is a Cardinal to AlGore’s Pope.

Conspiracy of silence


The Union of Concerned Scientists has claimed that there is a conspiracy by the Bush administration to intimidate and censor climatology scientists in the United States on the topic of Global Warming.

It’s a conspiracy, all right, just not the one the real conspirators Union of Concerned Scientists claim it is. Read the whole thing at Real Clear Politics, but here’s the intro:


In trying to prove that the Bush administration is throttling research into global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists rolled out some breathtakingly bad science.

The group unveiled a supposedly scientific survey of more than 1,600 federal climate scientists as evidence that the administration was engaged in “wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming.”

“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, said in a press release. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”

Grifo obviously doesn’t’ appreciate the irony when he trots out a poll that is so flawed that it is manifest evidence of exaggeration, incompetence or dishonesty on his group’s part.

You don’t have to be a social scientist to understand that the survey was deceptive, for example, when it lumped into the same category scientists who said they actually experienced the alleged tampering and scientists who simply “perceived” that it happened to someone else. For example, the group’s press release said “Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings.” But turn to the study’s appendix, and you’ll find that only 15 percent of the respondents said that they had actually experienced such interference.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University is mentioned in this article, but not linked. It should have been, so I’ll correct the oversight.

In counterpoint to the Union of Concerned Scientists we have actual State intimidation of climatologists being practiced in Oregon: Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff


Should the state climatologist lose his title?

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, “I just think there has to be somebody that says, ‘this is the state position on this.'”

Governor, you just did. Why a scientist has to agree with you on a matter of expertise, his, not yours, is unclear. The scientific method demands that theories be subject to open debate. Theories that are not falsifiable because of religion – for example, creationism, cannot be called scientific. Making anthropogenic global warming into a religion will not get around that. But, just like Kansas seems to keep considering making the teaching of creationism mandatory, Oregon is free to make Kyotoism the State doctrine.

Good luck with that. I look forward to Oregon’s achievement of its proportional Kyoto reductions in the very near future.
H/T Drudge Report

In closing, here’s a very brief summary of changes in major IPCC predictions between 2001 and 2006.

Temperature increases down one-third.

Radiative forcing down to 1.6 watts per square meter from 2.43 watts – also down by one-third.

Maximum sea-level increases down one-half.

What’s up is the “certainty” of human activity as the cause for warming we haven’t been able to detect for the last 5 years. From 66 to 90 percent. Up almost one-third.

I’ll bet when the certainty reaches 100% we’ll find the temperature, sea-level and radiative forcing numbers drop to statistically insignificant levels.
H/T A Dog Named Kyoto