Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Archive for the ‘Scientists Say’ Category

Most Published Medical Research Findings are False?

Posted by greg2213 on January 6, 2013

A journal of the NIH posted a very interesting paper.

Ok, so this is for medicine, where there is some incentive to publish accurate results. I mean, we do want the patient to survive the treatment, right? What about purely theoretical sciences (eg: Climate) where the goal of the research is to get the next grant or to support a Gov’t policy?

Now, admittedly, the human body is complex. I seem to remember a quote (by Hawkings?) that the human body is more complex than black hole physics, or somesuch. Couldn’t find it.

Is this research in itself even accurate? Food for thought.

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.

In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

The paper is here: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Update 1/9/13: Seems that a lot of the scientific papers that are retracted are retracted due to fraud.

Advertisements

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

The Need for Better Theory

Posted by greg2213 on September 11, 2011

The Reference Frame discusses the need for good theory in science. The remarks on Climate models, below, are just a small part of an essay that covers black holes, quamtum mechanics, the need for a better understanding of math and theory among “we the people,” and a few other things.

So the reliance on the climate models is due to a shortage of proper theory, not an excess of it. Those people just don’t understand the things themselves. But they think that if they have an access to expensive computers, these computers may compensate for their personal ignorance. Except that they can’t.

The machines aren’t miraculous and the programs were written by some people. If you can’t do certain calculations without a computer, not even approximately, you won’t even be able to design the tests that will decide whether the models behave properly (at least not when you only claim that your models only reproduce some overall properties of a chaotic system).

A religious belief that the model is omniscient won’t help you. If the model is wrong, other people – better theorists than you – may ultimately see that the model is wrong, regardless of the strength of your beliefs. And if you believe some things despite the evidence, then you are a demonstrable bigot.

Posted in Models, Scientists Say | Leave a Comment »

Why The Left’s Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

Posted by greg2213 on July 7, 2011

Excellent video by Dr. Spencer that neatly summarizes to global warming issue and why the political/green/left bodies pushing it are wrong.

Keep in mind the the Precautionary Principle that says we should destroy our economies and hand world dictatorship rule over to the UN also says that we should invade and crush Iran to keep it from developing, and using, the bomb. Just in case, you know.

Commenters to the video want evidence? There’s been plenty, they’ve ignored it all, why include it now? Besides, that would make a 3.5 minute video into a 3.5 hour video, lose 99% of the viewers, and still not satisfy the every-changing demands. Besides, it’s all on his site anyway, as well as being on various other skeptic sites.

At least one commenter claims that some leftists are skeptics and this is about the science, not the politics. Sorry, but Global Warming is 99% politics and 1% science and it is being driven entirely by groups that most would consider to be leftists.

Via JoNova’s site.

Here’s Dr. Spencer’s new book:
The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Phil Jones Now Says Warming is Significant

Posted by greg2213 on June 11, 2011

I expect any significance is due to the cherry picking of start and stop dates,methods used to crunch the numbers, and so on. From WUWT:

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

the rest: Phil Jones does an about face on “statistically significant” warming

To be fair, when Prof. Jones last commented on the subject he did say that the temp rise was just barely not significant. The warm 2010 bumped it up just enough to become significant. If 2011 is cold enough to bump it back down again, will he make another remark on the subject?

I expect he was the subject of a few choice remarks by people from the warm side of things, due to his making that previous statement. If things do down again then he might decide to just clam up. Probably a wise decision for a man in his position.

Links to the O’Rly? remarks by the commenters on the WUWT post:

 

Posted in Global Warming, Scientists Say, Where's the Warming? | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Study finds global warming over past 4 centuries was due to increased solar activity

Posted by greg2213 on June 6, 2011

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds global warming over the 20th century “not significantly different” from warming episodes that occurred in earlier centuries. The paper finds that the increase in solar activity over the past 400 years explains the warming, without any need to search for a unique cause of late 20th century warming, such as greenhouse gas concentrations. The NIPCC website just posted this summary of the paper:

Here’s the rest of the post: Study finds global warming over past 4 centuries was due to increased solar activity

The paper is not behind a payway, so click the link above to get the link to the PDF. Given that papers of this sort have a much higher bar to pass than alarmist supporting papers I’m going to assume that it’s pretty solid. Conclusive? Who knows. A pretty good piece of research, yes.

A slightly variable sun causes warming of the surface and atmosphere which causes airstreams and currents which are affected by the physical location and shape of the landmasses and the Earth’s rotation, day night cycles, and a few other things. Somewhere CO2/methane might have something to do with it, but that’s looking less likely as time goes on.

One of the issues with the Global Warming concept is the lack of explanation for prior warm periods, warmer than the current period, when CO2 could not have been the driver. And if it was then we should be seeing seriously warmer temps today. We’re not.

Additionally, there is the lack of explanation for why the planet didn’t burn up in past ages when CO2 was far higher than today’s measly concentration. In fact, life flourished back then. If the CO2 concerns were real then we’d be seeing significantly higher, to much higher, temps today and at least some of the hysterical remarks would be coming true. At little bit, anyway.

As it is, all of them can by put into the “The End is Near” bin of failed religious cult predictions. 100% fail rate. If we need to mend our ways then the accusing side should have some credibility, I think. So far, they have none.

As far as I’m concerned, the sooner we got off the “CO2 is bad” kick, the better.

Posted in CO2, Scientists Say | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Scientists Speak Out on Hide the Decline

Posted by greg2213 on March 6, 2011

Update 8/9/12: Interview with Dr. Richard Muller.

Original Post

In my view, and what do I know, hide the decline is simply a way to cheat the system. You don’t like what your primary data is showing so you clip it and add in new data, from an unrelated set, which is moving in the correct direction. This is Standard Operating Procedure according to the defenders and there’s nothing particularly unusual or interesting about it.

(Update 2/8/12 – Speaking of data tampering, check this out. )

I think that if I had done that in my science classes I would have been failed, if I had been caught. I still think it’s cheating, even if the defenders think it’s just fine. Kinda like software piracy, ya know? Most people think it’s just fine, at least in some cases.

NoFrakkinConsensus (NFC) has a great post on the subject and a certain Berkeley physicist (Dr. Richard Muller) seems to agree with me.

The justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I’m willing to publish in. But they had it well hidden…And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say, “Well, you know, it’s a human field. You make mistakes.” And then I show them this and they say “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.” [bold added]

Here’s the rest: Scientists Speak Out – and it comes with lots of links to more good stuff.

The Video:

Personally, I would like to think that any real scientist would be offended by Hide the Decline, but again, what do I know? Money (grant money,) power, and directives from one’s superiors are great incentives to fudge the science.

Dr. Muller also points out, at about 4:30 in that video on NFC, that these are the same people who came up with that graph that shows current temps to be higher than in the 30s, when US measurements show the 30s to be at least as high. He seems to feel that that graph has much less credibility now, given the group that produced it is the same as the group that hid the decline. Verrrry interesting.

The physicist mentioned above, one Dr. Muller, is also heading the BEST project, which is intended to get to the bottom of the temperature issues, “to redo all of this, in a totally transparent way.” Given what Dr. Muller said regarding hide the decline I think that some interesting science might actually happen here. This is what BEST says:

A transparent approach, Based on data analysis
Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.
WUWT has some interesting stuff to say about this project.

More about BEST

More about Hide the Decline

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Should We Dump the Word “Skeptic” in Regards to Climate?

Posted by greg2213 on November 18, 2010

And no, I don’t mean in favor of some brain dead inanity like “Climate Denier.”

From WUWT, italics from the original, bold from me:

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

the rest: Professor Richard Lindzen’s Congressional Testimony

Maybe there’s some hope now that Congress is rational enough to let people like Lindzen speak.

Posted in Scientists Say | Leave a Comment »

Delusionists Engaging Denialists?

Posted by greg2213 on November 8, 2010

Via Climatedepot – A group of scientists are getting together to “combat” those who don’t agree with their views. They could just call us Heretics, I suppose.

Update: I’ll leave the remarks below, since the apply to so many people on the warm side, but apparently the reports about the AGU scientist group were in error (or it’s a CYA tactic.) They say that their group is to provide information. There is a second group, separate from the AGU, which is doing the combating. Details here: AGU backs away from “climate rapid response team” citing faulty reporting.

Since they refer to those who dare to question the “science” as Denialists, a deliberately insulting term, I think it’s only fair to refer to them as Delusionists, a non-insulting term that refers to the complete lack of credibility of their catastrophic scenarios. Snarky? Me? Never.

First, let’s get some definitions straight since the Delusionist crowd likes to bounce back and forth between them.

  • Global Warming version 1: the 0.6 to 0.8 warming that might have happened over the last 130 years or so. This might resemble, or be within shouting distance of,  reality, once heat island effects and an iffy (and adjusted) thermometer record are considered.
  • Global Warming version 2: Anything that comes out of the mouths of Al Gore and the Extremists. No basis in reality. Hockey sticks and disaster scenarios come to mind here. I’ll generally refer to this as CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

What’s the science really say? See the Petition Project statement, that’s what the science says.

You know, this opens itself to all kinds of snarky remarks…

One could say that this is a gathering of scientists looking to defend their stream of government grant money. I wonder how many of these guys would lose their jobs, or be reprimanded/ridiculed by their superiors if they didn’t jump on the bandwagon?

Interesting how the most energetic supporters of the Catastrophic Warming Scenarios all have something to gain, be it money, power, fame, money….

Interesting how all of the mitigation concepts involve increasing government power, massive amounts of government funding, increasing the wealth of certain groups (Al Gore, Pachauri, Investment Houses (G. Sachs,) Big Oil, etc.) and so on. Power and money have always been a corrupting combination.

I suppose we can always look at the environmental glories of China, the USSR, and others. Interesting how the societies these people most want to control are the cleanest ones. Also interesting how their policies will damn the poor people of the world to a life of misery.

Interesting how they feel the need to do this (combat the heretics) when the money on their side of the issue is thousands of times that of the skeptical side.

Now, if they actually had some science behind the disaster scenarios then people might listen to them.

Posted in Remarks, Scientists Say | Leave a Comment »

A Very Good Point About Skeptics

Posted by greg2213 on August 2, 2010

As Dr. Lindzen points out in the video, below, the term “skeptic” implies being skeptical about a plausible thesis. People in doubt (most of us) about the faked moon landing or the flat Earth are not referred to as skeptics. Since catastrophic warming (CW) is not a plausible theory then the word “skeptic” really should be dropped. Perhaps realist or rational thinker would be a better term.

What would be catastrophic would be for this planet to fall back into another ice age, a far more likely occurrence, though that’s likely to be way out in the future.

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

How the System Works

Posted by greg2213 on May 29, 2010

Rumor has it that when a scientific paper is published in a journal that people are allowed to comment on said paper.

Here’s how that process works:  How to Publish a Scientific Comment
in 123 Easy Steps

I’m not quite sure what to make of the very last paragraph, though. So I think I’ll just ignore it.

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »