....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky

Michael Mann, defends the fake/inept (your choice) statistics of Stephan Lewandowsky. From 'Michael Mann, Scientist(?)'s Facebook page.
Michael E. Mann says: 'Stephen McIntyre goes back to same dishonest "recipe for manufacturing doubt" behind his attacks on Hockey Stick. His latest attacks on Professor Stephen Lewandowski's new study on climate change denialism actually exploits the same sleight of hand (throwing out important signals in a dataset) behind his original attacks on the Hockey Stick reconstruction, as detailed in "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars"'

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Lewandowsky

Stephan Lewandowsky publishes widely on topics that interest him. Lewandowsky is an authority on the relative merits of pie and bar charts, for example. (See http://smr.sagepub.com/content/18/2-3/200.short). More recently Lewandowsky has published on the topic of myth debunking - explaining to others the steps necessary to remove incorrect thoughts from the minds of simpletons (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf). The following graphic is an example of this cutting edge cognitive psychology, taken from Lewandowsky's 'Debunking Handbook':

It turns out that Lewandowsky has recently conducted a survey of 'skeptic' thinking and its relation to climate change research. Lewandowsky sent surveys to 'skeptic' and 'warmist' web sites and collated the results obtained. Unfortunately none of the skeptic sites publicized the survey. Somewhat surprisingly then, many conclusions about skeptic thought were obtained. Apparently, warmist respondees had taken it upon themselves to answer as skeptics. The resulting 'fake', 'bogus', 'erroneous' (etc.) responses likely skew the findings of the survey, as pointed out by Steve McIntyre here: http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/.

Lewandowsky, in the spirit of open scientific endeavor, has now taken to removing questions on this from the forum he operates - as shown below in the two posts from 10-September 2012 (before and after Lewandowsky, or Lewandowsky's moderator's edits).

Before:


After:



I don't think that this was either inflammatory or an accusation of deception, I was simply asking about the logic of the paper, and what Lewandowsky might do next based on his apparent logic.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Can Phil Jones Cut-and-Paste?

Looking through the ClimateGate II emails, I noticed a while back this message from Phil Jones to Osborn, Briffa, and Amman:

date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:00:05 +0100 (BST) 
from: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk 
subject: CA 
to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ammannatXYZxyzr.edu 

This is a confidential email 

Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the 
responses and letters up. 

There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and 
a third later one. 

Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim? 

Most are just rants, but his seem to imply he knows 
what he's talking about. 

Cheers 
Phil 


PS - don't think I've forgotten Wengen. The best thing to stuff 
this lot is the Wengen paper coming out. 

This reveals that:

  • Phil and colleague read Climate Audit in detail, even in 2008
  • Phil parses the responses carefully - concluding that Jim Edwards "knows what he's talking about"
  • Phil asks Osborn to save Jim Edwards' comments (can Phil not cut-and-paste for himself?!)

I checked one of the Climate Audit posts in question. It is here. Sure enough, Jim Edwards is helpfully providing arguments to the CRU, as he skeptically picks through the information presented by Steve. No wonder Phil was interested! Did Osborn manage to cut-and-paste any of Edwards' arguments into future FOI responses? These guys can't even evade FOI requests on their own - they needed to plagiarize their legal arguments!

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Real Climate Comment Deletion Ongoing



In recent days there has been a fascinating exchange of information concerning Yamal (see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/ and http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/09/uea-submission-to-tribunal-on-wahl-foi/ (and follow up postings on ClimateAudit).

Things seem to be looking difficult to explain - without considering the possibility of 'unscientific' rocessing of scientific data by the CRU team. Strangely Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have strenuously occupied them selves claiming that this is a 'molehill' (Mann) and worthy of intensive positioning posts (Schmidt).

I (ZT) made a comment or two on the Real Climate thread linked above, pointing out where Gavin Schmidt's comments were factually incorrect. Strangely my posts were permitted, except the one above, which took issue with a reply to one of ZT's earlier comments. This particular comment did not wind up in the Bore Hole - and I assure you that I entered the captcha code correctly. So it seems that Real Climate are continuing their time tested tradition of deleting comments.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Are There Fingerprints in the Climategate Archives?

Are there differences in the recipients of Climategate I and II email messages? To analyze this I used the following commands:
egrep -i "^To:" *.txt |\
       tr -cs A-Za-z0-9 '\012' |\
       tr A-Z a-z |\
       awk '{ count[$1]++}END{for(w in count){print w " " count[w]}}' |\
       sort -n -k2
These commands pull out the 'To:' line(s) from each email, turns these lines into a set of individual words, lowercase these strings, then count the frequency of occurrence of each string. Finally the results are sorted numerically, based on the count field. The results of this is a long screenful of output with some extraneous strings, such as 'txt' with a count number, like this:
mann 918
phil 603
keith 624
ucar 640
de 645
t 791
hulme 815
osborn 885
com 903
m 970
k 1086
p 1181
briffa 1548
jones 1753
gov 1892
edu 2746
uea 4654
to 5729
txt 5736
ac 6404
uk 7232
Filtering this by hand to remove the strings like 'txt' and 'uk' yields the following counts for the top five recipients and senders:
CG I
mann 183
osborn 200
jones 313
briffa 373
CG II
hulme 815
osborn 885
briffa 1548
jones 1753
So - Keith Briffa was the leading recipient of emails in CG I and Jones is the leading recipient of emails in CG II. Whether this is symptomatic of significantly different sources for the email archives, I do not know for sure, but it is suggestive of a difference.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Climatology, the Mayans, Etc.

As commented on Watts Up With That:
The basic 6 point plan if you want to run society….

1. Claim that some natural variation is caused by sin (of some sort)
2. Demonstrate the validity of your assertion through convenient observations (black death, drought, climate fluctuations, etc.)
3. Keep all the records yourself
4. Institute no-sin policies (that do not apply to you)
5. Collect taxes to fund your organization
6. Wait for your cult to be overthrown in 1,000-2,000 years or so

Worked for the Mayans, etc. why does everyone keep spoiling things for the Climatologists?

And the WUWT moderator, Robt, appended: ["run" society, or "ruin" society? Robt]

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Watching the (Atmospheric) Detectives

I had an interesting discussion with some climate modeling experts over at the 'National Center for Atmospheric Science recently. (Currently summarized here: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2012/on-comparing-models-and-observations).

This was about a post apparently comparing models and observations, so I asked about the time period considered suitable for falsifying climate models (apparently 17 years) and how climate models can be verified.

I learnt that reversing a CFD model in time is not mathematically trivial - but is possible - as many papers have been published on this topic. Hence a viable means of proving the validity of GCMs may be reversing time and predicting past climatic events.

Unfortunately, this suggestion was not enthusiastically embraced by the eager modeling 'scientists'!

I pointed out that 'time reversed' temperature models are quite common - for example - medical examiners employ such models to determine the time of death from postmortem temperature measurements.

The modelers argued that not only were the GCMs impossible to validate by comparison with observation (really) but they must also be supplied by the supposed temperature trend ('forcings') in order to make their 'predictions'!

This is similar to telling the medical examiner to determine the time of death, and that by the way it should be exactly 1 am in the morning! I noted that this form of 'forensic' evidence might not seem appropriate, should one ever find oneself in the dock, though a lazy detective might appreciate the convenience of not actually have to prove the facts.

Sadly, this comment was snipped. Such snippings (which are typical of the behavior of the warmist sites) are not really the stuff of openness and honesty, are they?

Much more the behavior of evidence destroying rotten cops - I am not impressed.