Comments on: Some Final Thoughts on The NASA Temperature Restatement http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:42:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mike http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6616 Mike Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:15:46 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6616 <p>Speaking of Suzuki, you should really check out his defense of AGW at his foundation's site: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange07130401.asp.</p> <p>Let's break this down, chunk it as we say in the writing biz:</p> <p>1) Vancouver has been keeping temp records for one human lifetime (since 1937).<br /> 2) In that time, we have had two SECOND-warmest Junes. They were 25 years apart.<br /> 3) We are not told what the WARMEST June on record during one human lifetime in this corner of the planet was; I assume that's because it would make an already-meaningless statistic look even more so.</p> <p>Lies, damn lies, and statistics - the unholy trinity of the AGW religion :)</p> Speaking of Suzuki, you should really check out his defense of AGW at his foundation’s site: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange07130401.asp.

Let’s break this down, chunk it as we say in the writing biz:

1) Vancouver has been keeping temp records for one human lifetime (since 1937).
2) In that time, we have had two SECOND-warmest Junes. They were 25 years apart.
3) We are not told what the WARMEST June on record during one human lifetime in this corner of the planet was; I assume that’s because it would make an already-meaningless statistic look even more so.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics – the unholy trinity of the AGW religion :)

]]> By: Mike http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6615 Mike Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:05:01 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6615 <p>I live in Vancouver, home of the Standartenfuehrer of the Reichsministerium fur Klimaanderung, David Suzuki and thousands of other profiteering True Believers. It has been rainy, cloudy, cool, wet, clammy, and otherwise unseasonably COLD all summer. Conveniently, I'm sure (though I can't be bothered asking) the explanation is that INSTABILITY is the key feature of AGW - not just the random fluctuations we can expect of a non-doom-oriented climate scenario. Make the data fit into your scenario - that's like real good science, dudes! >:P</p> I live in Vancouver, home of the Standartenfuehrer of the Reichsministerium fur Klimaanderung, David Suzuki and thousands of other profiteering True Believers. It has been rainy, cloudy, cool, wet, clammy, and otherwise unseasonably COLD all summer. Conveniently, I’m sure (though I can’t be bothered asking) the explanation is that INSTABILITY is the key feature of AGW – not just the random fluctuations we can expect of a non-doom-oriented climate scenario. Make the data fit into your scenario – that’s like real good science, dudes! >:P

]]> By: ALLAN AMES http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6614 ALLAN AMES Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:06:13 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6614 <p>Kralizec notes “But no bureaucrat needs to do anything unless he, his job, or some other interest of his is at stake.”. This is the heart of the problem. There presently is no advantage for U.S. federal agencies to be transparent. Prescriptive releases of information like item 1 of Coyote’s recommendations can always be practically circumvented by the bureaucracy by burying the information elsewhere. Case in point is the note by John Cook. Few people can scan the 130000+/- lines of GISS 1E code and extract anything useful from it. I have said elsewhere, understanding what Fortran code does by studying it is rather like trying to fathom the U.S economy from watching trailer trucks go by on the interstate highway. All you know is that a truck went by; you do not know what was in it, where it came from, and where, or even if, it is going. It is probably up to us to get our representatives to make NASA scientists more open to external review.</p> Kralizec notes “But no bureaucrat needs to do anything unless he, his job, or some other interest of his is at stake.”. This is the heart of the problem. There presently is no advantage for U.S. federal agencies to be transparent. Prescriptive releases of information like item 1 of Coyote’s recommendations can always be practically circumvented by the bureaucracy by burying the information elsewhere. Case in point is the note by John Cook. Few people can scan the 130000+/- lines of GISS 1E code and extract anything useful from it. I have said elsewhere, understanding what Fortran code does by studying it is rather like trying to fathom the U.S economy from watching trailer trucks go by on the interstate highway. All you know is that a truck went by; you do not know what was in it, where it came from, and where, or even if, it is going. It is probably up to us to get our representatives to make NASA scientists more open to external review.

]]> By: ALLAN AMES http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6613 ALLAN AMES Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:05:21 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6613 <p>Kralizec notes “But no bureaucrat needs to do anything unless he, his job, or some other interest of his is at stake.”. This is the heart of the problem. There presently is no advantage for U.S. federal agencies to be transparent. Prescriptive releases of information like item 1 of Coyote’s recommendations can always be practically circumvented by the bureaucracy by burying the information elsewhere. Case in point is the note by John Cook. Few people can scan the 130000+/- lines of GISS 1E code and extract anything useful from it. I have said elsewhere, understanding what Fortran code does by studying it is rather like trying to fathom the U.S economy from watching trailer trucks go by on the interstate highway. All you know is that a truck went by; you do not know what was in it, where it came from, and where, or even if, it is going. It is probably up to us to get our representatives to make NASA scientists more open to external review.</p> Kralizec notes “But no bureaucrat needs to do anything unless he, his job, or some other interest of his is at stake.”. This is the heart of the problem. There presently is no advantage for U.S. federal agencies to be transparent. Prescriptive releases of information like item 1 of Coyote’s recommendations can always be practically circumvented by the bureaucracy by burying the information elsewhere. Case in point is the note by John Cook. Few people can scan the 130000+/- lines of GISS 1E code and extract anything useful from it. I have said elsewhere, understanding what Fortran code does by studying it is rather like trying to fathom the U.S economy from watching trailer trucks go by on the interstate highway. All you know is that a truck went by; you do not know what was in it, where it came from, and where, or even if, it is going. It is probably up to us to get our representatives to make NASA scientists more open to external review.

]]> By: JDE http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6612 JDE Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:39:21 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6612 <p>A question: how many of the global temperature monitoring organizations are having their data analyzed through the original NASA algorithms? I would suspect that, while not submitting their underlying code for peer review, NASA has made these data analysis tools available to other organizations and states for their use in monitoring "Global Warming". Is there some way to determine if such a distribution has taken place and who may be using the flawed tools?</p> <p>Finally, should the original flawed NASA work be renamed "AlGorerithms"? (Sorry, couldn't resist).</p> A question: how many of the global temperature monitoring organizations are having their data analyzed through the original NASA algorithms? I would suspect that, while not submitting their underlying code for peer review, NASA has made these data analysis tools available to other organizations and states for their use in monitoring “Global Warming”. Is there some way to determine if such a distribution has taken place and who may be using the flawed tools?

Finally, should the original flawed NASA work be renamed “AlGorerithms”? (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

]]> By: twv http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6611 twv Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:22:37 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6611 <p>McE is right: Truth is not determined by pleasantness. Climate change happens regardless of how we think of it. It is not socially constructed, though it is likely (to what extent quite uncertain) <i>socially influenced.</i> There's a difference.</p> <p>But to pretend that only one side or the other (as if there were only two sides!) in the current debate recognizes this truth about truth is goofy. Most of my environmentalist friends feel quite morally smug about the issue, though only a few know anything about statistics, chaos, chemistry, etc. Or history. They just "know," because on faith they believe that human civilization <i>must</i> be in dangerous disequilibrium with natural processes. </p> <p>Similarly, my anti-enviro neighbors are generally optimistic about man's relationship to nature.</p> <p>Neither disposition -- both reflected in their hopes and moralities -- has much scientific merit.</p> <p>And while Al Gore may see catastrophic global warming as an "inconvenient truth," there are good reasons for his opponents to see the scenario as a "convenient conjecture" for his political allies. If you like regulation, you'll love the scenario.</p> <p>And it does stand to reason. Regulation is very bad at making social co-operation work better. But it is very good at making it work worse, and if human co-operation in industrial society is making the world warmer, then . . .</p> McE is right: Truth is not determined by pleasantness. Climate change happens regardless of how we think of it. It is not socially constructed, though it is likely (to what extent quite uncertain) socially influenced. There’s a difference.

But to pretend that only one side or the other (as if there were only two sides!) in the current debate recognizes this truth about truth is goofy. Most of my environmentalist friends feel quite morally smug about the issue, though only a few know anything about statistics, chaos, chemistry, etc. Or history. They just “know,” because on faith they believe that human civilization must be in dangerous disequilibrium with natural processes.

Similarly, my anti-enviro neighbors are generally optimistic about man’s relationship to nature.

Neither disposition — both reflected in their hopes and moralities — has much scientific merit.

And while Al Gore may see catastrophic global warming as an “inconvenient truth,” there are good reasons for his opponents to see the scenario as a “convenient conjecture” for his political allies. If you like regulation, you’ll love the scenario.

And it does stand to reason. Regulation is very bad at making social co-operation work better. But it is very good at making it work worse, and if human co-operation in industrial society is making the world warmer, then . . .

]]> By: TTT http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6610 TTT Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:03:32 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6610 <p><i>Now take two people. One in his heart really wants this theory not to be true, and hopes we don't have to face this horrible lose-lose tradeoff. The other has a deeply felt wish that this theory is true, and hopes man does face this horrible future. Which person do you like better? And recognize, RealClimate is holding up the latter as the only moral man.</i></p> <p>Don't you mean, "which person do you want to have a beer with?" </p> <p>Truth is not determined by how pleasant things are. AGW's existence is independent of your feelings. I don't "like" someone who argues that the Holocaust couldn't have happened because people shouldn't be so mean. </p> Now take two people. One in his heart really wants this theory not to be true, and hopes we don’t have to face this horrible lose-lose tradeoff. The other has a deeply felt wish that this theory is true, and hopes man does face this horrible future. Which person do you like better? And recognize, RealClimate is holding up the latter as the only moral man.

Don’t you mean, “which person do you want to have a beer with?”

Truth is not determined by how pleasant things are. AGW’s existence is independent of your feelings. I don’t “like” someone who argues that the Holocaust couldn’t have happened because people shouldn’t be so mean.

]]> By: McE http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6609 McE Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:14:25 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6609 <p>"Is it bad that I'm skeptical on model based predictions because they can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow (with any sort of real accuracy) but they KNOW that in 2009 we will see the beginnings of a major warming period."</p> <p>There's a statistical fallacy in the above statement. I can easily predict that I'm going to die sometime in the next 40-60 years ago with a very high degree of certainty. It's much harder to predict whether or not I'm going to die tomorrow with anywhere near the same level of certainty. Statistics usually works this way, the longer the period, the greater the predictability.</p> “Is it bad that I’m skeptical on model based predictions because they can’t tell me if it’s going to rain tomorrow (with any sort of real accuracy) but they KNOW that in 2009 we will see the beginnings of a major warming period.”

There’s a statistical fallacy in the above statement. I can easily predict that I’m going to die sometime in the next 40-60 years ago with a very high degree of certainty. It’s much harder to predict whether or not I’m going to die tomorrow with anywhere near the same level of certainty. Statistics usually works this way, the longer the period, the greater the predictability.

]]> By: McE http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6608 McE Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:07:53 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6608 <p>"1 NOAA and GISS both need to release their detailed algorithms and computer software code for adjusting and aggregating USHCN and global temperature data"</p> <p>Here you go, enjoy: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/</p> “1 NOAA and GISS both need to release their detailed algorithms and computer software code for adjusting and aggregating USHCN and global temperature data”

Here you go, enjoy: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

]]> By: John Cook http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/some-final-thou.html/comment-page-1#comment-6607 John Cook Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:42:58 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/08/some-final-thou.html #comment-6607 <p>Joe Citizen, apologies, my comment was addressed to dearieme's comment about Hansen behaving like a crook (I got the names confused).</p> Joe Citizen, apologies, my comment was addressed to dearieme’s comment about Hansen behaving like a crook (I got the names confused).

]]>