Fox Business and Others Accept Peer Review Dodge

They Need Needed Someone Who Understands

This To ‘Splain it To Them

This weekend I was startled and very pleased to see the financial shows on Fox Business discussing some of the issues about “ClimateGate”.

Sadly, their “panel” was up against a talking points troll and they let him run rampant unchallenged. Repeatedly he ranted about “it’s all Peer Reviewed PEER REVIEWED!!!”

As though that granted immunity from the issue.

And answer came there none.

Someone needs to let the news guys know that it was the apparent Suborning of Peer Review that makes this so horrid. That these were the peer reviewers and they were doing it fraudulently (IMHO) with attempts to blackball dissenters and what looked like blackmail editors (with threats of boycotts).

Rather like attending a police brutality hearing and having the defence shout: These are policemen POLICEMEN!!! Someone ought to have said: Yes, and that is the whole point…

So I’m still wondering just how long it will take for the Lame Stream Media to catch up with the rest of the world. (Don’t get me wrong, I really like Fox Business and CNBC and Bloomberg for business news, and even on regular news they are often ahead of the LSM outlets since money waits for no one… But on Climategate they are sorely behind the curve.)

UPDATE: The following days have had Fox Business redeem themselves. Two different interviews on two different shows highlighting the peer review “issues”. Good On Ya Fox!

Advertisement

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in CRUt. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Fox Business and Others Accept Peer Review Dodge

  1. There is an excellent audio <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm"here, where Aynsley Kellow, a Tasmanian professor, and an IPCC expert reviewer no less, comes out swinging on this very topic. What the interviewer probably thought was coming, was a standard ‘move along, nothing to see here’ message.

    Man, he was wrong. And Science is the better for it.

  2. twawki says:

    OT Tony Abbott, Climate skeptic new leader of the Opposition in Australia – next step is to stop ETS

    http://www.twawki.com

  3. TurkeyLurkey says:

    Well, FNC was on it today, and did indeed convey the idea that UAE mails showed suppression of dissenting opinion.

    Twice during Baer ‘Special Report’…
    TL

  4. Barry R. says:

    You know, I just found your website as a result of ‘climategate’, and as a rusty ex-programmer I’m enjoying it a lot.

    The thing you’re saying that seems most significant to me is that when you’ve looked at weather stations that stay in roughly the same place the temperature at those stations hasn’t gone up. It seems to me that if I’m reading you right that’s the killer argument in the climate debate. If looking at the stations that haven’t moved doesn’t show warming, and the jigglery-pokeray of gridding and synthetic stations does show warming, that’s pretty much all she wrote on the scientific debate. The processing is creating the signal.

    REPLY: [ You got it! -ems ]

  5. Harold Vance says:

    Barry R.,

    AGW = Airports Globally Warming.

    That’s it in a nutshell. You couldn’t pick a worse spot to collect a “climate” quality dataset if you tried.

  6. Jeff Alberts says:

    Is a discenter a place one goes to throw insults at friends? ;)

    REPLY: [ No, it’s where folks are pushed when they are displaced from the central meme … the “Not” “Center” folks end up there, having a nice party, I might add! -ems ]

  7. ScientistForTruth says:

    Barry R.

    That’s basically my observation in these posts as well:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/crops-and-130-years-of-climate-records/

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/climate-robustness/

    This ‘global warming’ is, for the most part, an anthropogenic statistical artifact. Look anywhere fixed on the habitable part of the earth where temperature records are well over 100 years long and you usually won’t find much of a trend. What warming trend you do find is often an artifact of averaging minimum temperatures and maximum daily temperatures to find an average. Due to urbanization, minimum temperatures at night have been creeping up, and this is pushing up the average.

  8. Al says:

    What would happen if the trend calculation was performed before the agglomeration?

    That is: Instead of trying desperately to infill missing temperature records to calculate anomalies on an apples-to-apples basis, treat each thermometer as an imperfect experiment attempting to determine the local trend itself.

    A ten-year trend line analysis should immediately yield not just the line itself, but a solid estimate of the error.

    Moved station? Not an issue: Just treat the moved station as a new station. New instrumentation? New station.

    Additionally, treat the trend analysis as an experimental modeling problem instead of an exercise in smoothing. In experimental modeling, you explicitly test whether it makes any sense to add an additional parameter. Essentially because the “best fit” is always going to be a polynomial with at least as many parameters as you have data points. But if one starts out at one linear fit and ask “Does the improvement-of-fit justify splitting this into two separate trends?” one should still end up with lengthy trends.

    REPLY: [ You find a lot of stations with no warming. The “warming signal” is only in in the newer, more tropical, thermometers added into the averages. For examples of what happens to individual UK thermometers see:

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/UK-records.htm

    For a more detailed look at some of the math, see:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

    I like your ideas for an analytical approach. -ems ]

  9. NathanB says:

    @Al

    In the end I still don’t think it would make much of a difference. I think it would still be GIGO. How are you going to estimate the error with nothing to compare it to?

    The point is, just about all of the data supplied by the weather stations is unreliable. With Airports, you can’t trust any of it, especially from a year to year basis.

    As the urban sprawl has engulfed them, you’re going to get an ever increasing heat island effect. Even over and above the one caused by the idiocy of placing a thermometer on an open expanse of tarmac.

  10. EMS, I’ve had a good deal of experience with accounting systems, and it has just struck me that the whole temperature database should be constructed in a transactional fashion.

    To wit:

    Each station in the record has an ‘account’ – a GUID if you will, and all temperature values are recorded as transactions for an account, date, and type of transaction.

    Types of transactions (trx) could usefully be globally codified: as it’s clear that a potent source of confusion is just what value adjustment happened to what data, when.

    Accounting systems which use the ‘single-table’ approach and are in essence just a big bucket of transactions thereby, could in fact be adapted for this sort of recording.

    Trx types would obviously include:

    – RAW measurement
    – UHI adjustment
    – EQP equipment change/calibration etc
    – LOC location change adjustment

    and so on.

    Then, every Step in any process which causes value adjustments to be made to any data point (account/station, day) could be traced, and most importantly, added as a new trx, thus leaving the raw data strictly alone.

    Auditors love this sort of approach, and the database engines make short work of the heavy lifting in terms of summing trx, addiing trx, and of course the database itself is typically chock full of compliance features (thanks to SarbOx).

    As a final aid to traceability, each trx can be stamped with the process name that put it there, and even a description. And who…..

    And the beauty of this is that the existing data-generation routines can still operate, but instead of altering arrays of values, they would be adding trx.

    As the start of a Global Temperature Dataset, a transactional accounting-style structure would begin to address the ‘amateur hour’ data storage and versioning techniques we see in so much of the CRU dataset, thanks to Harry.

    Thoughts?

    REPLY: [ Interesting approach. It would be hard to sell to the present user base, but you would not have the present issues with nobody really knowing the history of the data items they are using. -ems ]

  11. hro001 says:

    Seems to me that their much vaunted “peer review” is not the only “dodge” they’ve used!

    I’m not a scientist – nor a statistician – and while I do some VB and C## programming, I don’t consider myself a programmer, either. BUT, I do know how to read between (and beyond) the lines of emails. And I do know how to recognize a steamroller when it’s heading towards me – as I’ve noted in one of my own “musings”:

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-foggy-solution-to-the-climate-question/

    You may, or may not, have heard of David Irving – a faux historian, aka “revisionist scholar” – who launched a spectactularly failed libel suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt (because she had called him a Holocaust denier). [Some media coverage of the trial in 2000 dubbed it “the trial of the century”]

    One of Irving’s techniques in “doing history” was to “add a word here, drop a word there”.

    These “post-normal” [whatever that might mean, I’m inclined to think it’s nothing more than post-modernist poppycock] scientists seem to have no compunctions about slightly modifiying a page from Irving’s book: “add a little data here, drop a little data there”.

    And they have the nerve to call those who have the temerity to question them “deniers” or “skeptics”.

  12. hkyson says:

    “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    REPLY: [ You have fairly nicely summed up the “middle ground layman” perspective on things. Luckily, there is more we can do than accept the “Damned if we do, more damned if we don’t” choice. We can learn more. That is where I was about 2 years ago. I set out to “learn more about the Global Warming that was happening”. What I found was that it was not happening. The skeptics are right. “Global Warming” is entirely an artifact of bad thermometer changes coupled with a ‘cherry picked’ baseline at the exit from the little ice age. Nothing more. There is no catastrophy from warming headed our way. You will see that in the next decade as, with the PDO flip, we continue the cooling from the 1998 top.

    All of that is disjoint from the issue of Climategate. Climategate was not just any scientists and it was not just a little doctored data.

    These were the #1 central figures of ALL the global temperature data series of the world. These were the folks writing the IPCC reports claiming catastrophe.
    These were the folks DOING the peer review and, per their own words, suborning it.

    Climategate is the story around the fact that these folks have assured the “peer review” process did not work. ANYONE who says that things need to be “peer reviewed” to be valid now must contend that fact: As of now all peer reviewed literature is suspect until proven otherwise. They stacked the deck and cooked the books.

    Climategate is the story around the fact that these folks molested the historic data series. As of now, we have no validated data series for the history of the planet prior to the satellite era (and even that ought to be double checked). NOAA / NCDC make The Key input to all the major “value added” products (GIStemp, HadCRUT, even the Japanese series) – that being GHCN. GHCN is ‘buggered’ via thermometer deletions and in a Climategate email (in a posting here I go thorough it) we find NCDC staff and CRU staff discussing how to assure whom gets on the IPCC staff to write the IPCC reports as they had done in the past We can no longer trust any of NOAA, NCDC, CRU, GISS HadCRUT, GIStmp, GHCN, USHCN as they are all the product of this one closely knit group of folks.

    Climatgate is the story around the horridly broken computer code that produces HadCRUT data. I dissect GIStemp here (see the tab up top) and find it similarly broken. Their computer processes do not meet even the most basic standards needed to design a bridge or balance your checkbook, never mind predict the future of the planet.

    Glimategate is the story around the data loss or deletion, agenda driven “science” with goal driven behaviour, attempts to suppress proof to the contrary, and generally shows that we have no trustworthy “science” to be “settled” at this time.

    The entire edifice of AGW / Global Warming is based on these folks work, and it is found to be corrupted and potentially fraudulent (at minimum, it is so biased and broken as to be invalid based on ‘confirmation bias’ and goal seeking behaviour).

    Finally, if you look at the “AGW and GIStemp issues” and the “CRUt” issues under “Categories” on the right hand side of this page and the “GIStemp” tab up top you will find a variety of analysis that show there is no AGW. There is almost entirely a corruption of the raw data set by thermometer deletions that mimics warming. But selected long lived thermometers show no warming. Individual continents show no warming (such as Africa). Even New Zealand that DOES show warming, ceases to show it when you remove the thermometer bias. (One cold island thermometer is deleted from the last decade or so, but left in the baseline. Take it out of the ENTIRE record, and that data shows no warming).

    So at the end of the day, the truth is that there is no warming, there is no AGW, and there is no Hobson’s Choice of “bad or worse”.

    You also have the choice of: “Things are as they always have been and as they will be.” You have about a 2 year process ahead of you (maybe as short as a few months if my work is read and helpful to you) to reach an acceptance of that fact. It does take a willingness to look at things for yourself, though. Simply listening to The Daily Propaganda will not be helpful…

    Please, do not believe me. Look at the work done and judge for yourself. If you can’t “do code” find a friend who does and have them run it. If you don’t trust a graph, then download the data yourself and make your own. That is what I did. Or just look at some of the long lived station data that shows nothing other than a cyclical weather pattern of about 60 years duration. Cooling in the ’70s, then flipped to warming, now flipped back to cooling. A “30 year climate” definition is “fooled” by that longer cycle; that purely natural flipping of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO (and it’s Atlantic companion the AMO ).

    But please do not accept that the science is settled, that authority is all that matters, or that the “safe and prudent thing” is to destroy the world economy. The “safe and prudent thing” is to sit back, take a breath, realize those we trusted to be “in charge” of our temperature history have had a gross malfeasance of duty, and start over.

    There is nothing we can do globally to change the CO2 profile inside 20 years via economic manipulation anyway, a few more years spent creating a valid temperature history will not hurt anything. (China and India will burn huge quantities of coal and oil; they have already signed the contracts and are building the coal fired power plants. It makes no difference what we do, to the CO2 profile of the future, all we can do is move more of it to China and India.)

    We have time, and the prudent thing to do is to not panic and re-do the work in the full view of public scrutiny. Anything else is just validating the apparent corruption and potential fraud of Climategate.

    If you are still haunted by dreams of a CO2 cooked planet, look here:

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/

    And realize that it is not hard to suck the CO2 out of the air with plants… -E.M.Smith ]

  13. Jeff Alberts says:

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    We wouldn’t know those things regardless of whether “global warming is occurring” or not. That’s the point. Climate is going to change. It’s changing right now. It changed yesterday. Some places got warmer, some got cooler, some remained the same as the day before. It’s simply not possible to pick a CO2 signal, much less an human-induced signal, out of climate data.

  14. lnocsifan says:

    Do you realize you are debunking the current monster fad among college students and still-thinking-they-are college students? People of that type love to find a demon, like the previous generation with their CO2 belching power plants, and organize some movements to defeat these scoundrels. It helps to fill their time and gives them something exciting to do, other than drugs and sex. If you think you can easily take their motive for existing away, you are quite wrong. AGW will not go away for climategate or for the sake of truth or science.

    REPLY: [ Just point out to them that they are going pay for it, because you are going to retire soon… They change ‘right quick’. Heck, on the National Medicare Plan from Obama, they had a large double digit erosion of support in the teens-to-twenty-something when word got out they were going to be required to buy health insurance at inflated prices to subsidize their parents Government Medical Care ;-) So just announce that it’s their future, and you hope they get a great job to make the payments…
    -E.M.Smith ]

Comments are closed.