Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Of course the denialists jumped on this email, at first assuming that Jones was discussing a decline in temperatures, and then modifying their charges when it became clear that this was not the case. In any case, Jones defense was to argue that the term "trick" was "used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do...". Well, can this defense be justified or, to put it another way, is the term "trick" used as a colloquialism in the statistical/mathematical/scientific literature?
Well, yeah. Here's what you get when you run inurl:pdf "computational trick" through google:
And here's is what you get when you run "inurl:pdf "mathematical trick"" through the same source.
In fact, if you look at the first link, you will note that was "invented in the context" of theoretical physics, so if there is a conspiracy, it goes much deeper than anyone has currently suggested.
PS. Just reading Desmog, I notice that someone else thought of running these searches before me.
71 comments:
In fact, if you look at the first link, you will note that was "invented in the context" of theoretical physics, so if there is a conspiracy, it goes much deeper than anyone has currently suggested.
In light of this, the "logical" thing to do is to throw everything out and start all over again.
And by starting all over again, I'm of course referring to all physics and math. ;)
This is just a semantic argument, the word trick doesn't necessarily imply deception, although it surely may.
But that's a pretty weak defense of Jones, since the underlying assumption of the tree ring analysis is that hotter climate makes wider rings.
Given that there are other influences beyond temperature on tree ring width, such a carbon dioxide levels and rainfall, why do the post-1960 tree rings not show faster growth?
There seems no dispute that CO2 levels have increased over the second half of the twentieth century, and therefore trees should have grown faster.
If the dendroclimatology record doesn't reflect the last 49 years of known measured temperature, what makes anyone believe it accurately follows temperature before that?
Replacing the declining tree ring-inferred proxy temperatures with thermometer data doesn't answer that question, so the "trick" is nothing very scientifically, mathematically, or technically admirable.
Or useful.
So either it was a deliberate attempt to generate a misleading graph, or it was a useless artifice.
Not good science, either way.
Boris, if you read the emails, you will see that there is a long, pained discussion about whether its worthwhile using Briffa's sequence or not. They decide to do so, eventually.
As to whats behind the divergence problem, theres a mound of literature on it, and a number of theories ranging from "global dimming" to issues in the siting of individual trees. Whether Jones et al should have used tree rings where the issue comes up (there are other tree ring sequences where it does not--or not used tre rings at all,)--is not the same question as whether there was an attempt at deception. A "trick" in the pejorative sense. Quit moving the goalposts.
Gaia is now officially dead, gone to meet her maker, six feet under, tens toes up, sung the Halleluiah chorus.
She's f'ken snuffed it.
Killed by Climate Scientology.
Full wake and eulogy by Barry Obama next week in Copenhagen
Do you know who does that video you linked to?
In fact, they concatenated an entirely differently-derived time series data set, which itself was of questionable fidelity, onto the end of a truncated original series that bore a terminal trend they could not explain.
This is the mathematical and logical equivalent to producing a multi-year graph of positive economic growth, with the first part of the curve showing total employment, and then substituting the CPI inflation rate at the point when the job growth trend begins to weaken.
You can call that "moving the goal posts", but it was Jones et al who were moving away from accepted and sane statistical practice.
BCL back to parsing "the trick" while the rest of the world has moved on to much bigger and better things, like the Harry Read Me file:
"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid the decline)" and "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!", or, "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! . . . " from Scientists Behaving Badly The Weekly Standard
Parse VERY ARTIFICIAL and Aarrggghhh.
There seems no dispute that CO2 levels have increased over the second half of the twentieth century, and therefore trees should have grown faster.
Trees in the northern latitudes were the ones that diveged from temperature -- and as Big noted there were other human related reasons at play for this.
If you want to throw out tree rings, there are other proxies to consider that don't appear to diverge.
like the Harry Read Me file:
Yeah, that was been explained by an actual computer scientist.
The word "trick" just means a clever or handy little solution to a problem. It in itself does not indicate trickery. It's just a descriptive word.
It's the way this and other emails talk about deliberately tweaking the methodology to "hide" certain inconvenient temperature trends that shows these guys to be charlatans.
Another scientist/engineer with a different take. The Smoking Code.
Deniers should also be fair here. Not all climatologists who believe in AGW are unethical, and certainly not all of them are attempting to fudge data to support their claims. The more ethical among them are admitting that their models are deeply flawed, and that the planet has not warmed in the past decade.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
The deniers have been practicing their own form of alarmism that is no less responsible or accurate than the Monbiots, Suzukis and Gores of the world. It isn't some global socialist conspiracy, but simply a relatively new field of research where groupthink has hijacked the discourse, polluted the data, and politicized the results. That will work itself out with time.
From a fellow blogger called Stan,
Gotta love the apologists:
The code is crap, but the science is solid!
The monitoring stations fail basic standards, but the science is solid!
The peer review process is rigged, but the science is solid!
No one checks anyone else's work, but the science is solid!
No one thought to check their instruments, but the science is solid!
The transparency necessary for the scientific method has been ignored, but the science is solid!
The statistical work is amateurish and they have refused to seek help from experts, but the science is solid!
The CGMs have never been verified or validated, but the science is solid!
The critical hotspot signature can't be found, but the science is solid!
The raw temperature data shows no warming, but the science is solid!
The IPCC claims about polar bears, and disease, and hurricanes, etc. may have been disproved, but the science is solid!
These scientists may have been exposed as incompetent bozos, but the science is solid!
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Global-warming-and-bugs-in-the-software-code-that-measures-global-warming?cid=exrss-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner
It was actually 2 Canadians that first challenged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, starting in 2003.
you can read it here,
perhaps Kady will read it too.
( in the leaked emails, they are referred to hundreds of times, called the MMs)
'The Canadians who changed the climate debate'
Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadians+changed+climate+debate/2306516/story.html
Another scientist/engineer with a different take. The Smoking Code.
The Smoking Code looks at a fragment of the code where as Deltoid's blog notes at what follows that section and comes to a different conclusion about what it meant.
The person who wrote the Smoking Code takes a stab in the dark on where the code was used, whereas Tim Lambert in Deltoid takes the extra step to try and find the paper this code was used in. As Lambert notes since the file is labeled osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, he went looking for papers with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 -- and appears to have found the paper and it doesn't appear to have the corrected data set.
I read McIntyre & McKitrick's book. Their criticism is rock solid. The beauty of statistics is that it can be understood by anyone who understands statistical methodology. You don't have to be a climate expert to examine their data and their methods, you only have to understand statistics. These guys do, and they've completely discredited the hockey stick.
The hockey stick should never have been considered credible to begin with. It was based primarily on tree ring analysis (the scientific equivalent to palm reading) done on 25 trees from two different locations. An absurdly small and biased sample.
"Parse VERY ARTIFICIAL and Aarrggghhh."
So where is the output that resulted from this? Which paper has been discredited?
Lenny:
''...M and M's findings sparked hearings on the science of global warming by the U.S. Congress, and an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences.
Their report concluded that while the wider science behind 20th century global warming remains valid,
the hockey stick graph and other long-term temperature models were fraught with "uncertainties" and that Mann's calculations
"tended to bias the shape of (hockey stick) reconstructions."
Mann was required to publish a retraction about some of his statistical methods in the science journal Nature....''
You have to wonder who's feeding the illiterate Wilson her responses?
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Albert Einstein
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
Wilson,
I'm aware that the National Academy of Science supported the conclusions of the "Hockey Stick", despite your misleading cut n' paste.
But if you weren't entirely clueless you'd know that my question had nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick", unless you're claiming that the "Artificial Decline" comment has some connection to that paper. If that's the case I'd love to see your evidence.
AnalScents,
The Oregon petition is a sham. And no I'm not going to waste my time showing you why. If you're really that credulous you're welcome to remain so - actually, scratch that - I'm show you why the OP is a sham as soon as you substatiate all of your bogus assertions at 12:38.
Actually, that would be 'google' TG.
Canadian + climategate
and up comes McIntyre and McKitrick.
And being Canadian, they should be summoned to Ottawa, to be interrogated in committee...then, CBCs kady will report on climategate!!
If they have evidence that global warming is a fraud,
we deserve to hear it!
AnalScents?
feeling a little Gored, Lenny?
Tom Lewis PHD pol sci comment
This fellow claims the "science" has been reviewed by 2500 scientists. I took the trouble to look them up (based on the names attached to the IPCC report) and found who they are VERY revealing. I found 7 climate scientists, 243 sociologists, 28 historians, 1109 political scientists (my own speciality), 2 physicists, 9 chemists, 1 vulcanologist, and the remainder being untracable as to degrees or specialties. I also found NUMEROUS references in reputable science publications where scientists (inclusing some on the IPCC review list) who repudiated the report as having been changed after their review, some who had already gone on record as having stated that this was BAD SCIENCE yet the IPCC shows them as "supporting". I think a full investigation by both scientific authorities and the legal (police) authorities needs to be conducted. I can only conclude that this is a scientific and political fraud on a scale unseen in human history. As for the accusations by certain speakers (including greenpeace spokesmen) that those who question this issue are equivalent to holocaust deniers, that is disgusting to me personally as my father survived Bergen-Belsen.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091206/climate_emails_091206/20091206?hub=SciTech
Another "gem" from the alarmist camp debunked or ignored?
The alarmists like to hurls insults and discredit everyone if they don't share the AGW religion.
An oldie I came across
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html
As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!
Maybe our Senators will look into climategate if the opposition dominated committees won't!
Whatever keeps you moist, you dried up old hag.
Mann was required to publish a retraction about some of his statistical methods in the science journal Nature....''
Are you talking about this letter? Not much of a retraction as much as noting that uncertainty was noted in their original article.
Interesting, even if you want to through out the "hockey stick graph from associated with Mann, you still have to deal with this one, and this one and this one and this one... and there are more like proxies from boreholes, galcier, stalagmites....
As the National Academy of Science noted in their response on the "hockey stick" matter: "There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council."
It's just not Mann's study that's showing this trend.
Sharon,
"...been selected by the IPCC Working Group..."
sorry disqualified by nature of the tainted peer review process of eliminating any dissenting opinions. by the UN body.
Anything that Phil Jones is attached has to be audited outside the approved "peer group".
Nice try where is the 2,500 scientists list? Did you try to change the channel?
Serves you right, Sharon.
No amount of engaging them will change anything.
It's much more rewarding to just insult them.
Tits oot for the lads, CS!
Sharon,
The Peer Review was "rigged".
"The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil Jones
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
Good on them.
No more wasting value peer-review time on these charlatans.
Now...those tits, CS, if you please?
Real Scientists are fighting back:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
Well, at least she's letting the men do her thinking for her.
Whatever keeps you moist, you dried up old hag.
Tits oot for the lads, CS!
Now...those tits, CS, if you please?
All this from the same guy who accused me of "attacking women" in a MacLeans thread the other day. Though I'm sure his admirers will jump to his defense and explain to me why this is OK.
What a sad, pathetic little man. A broken little man.
RR,
I am not a female, but TG like to use gender to attack people.
I generally ignore cowards compensating for erectile dysfunction who use the gender card and hide from public scrutiny behind an alias.
This impotent little turd is only brave on the keyboard and allowed to spread his hateful comments on only a few boards.
Ignoring him is the best strategy. The host decides what he allows for discourse.
You can show me you tits too, RR, if you want. I've certainly grown tired of looking at (and smelling) your ass.
Ignoring him is the best strategy. The host decides what he allows for discourse.
I asked him to do that years ago, troll. He keeps coming back and pestering me. Here and elsewhere.
That's your response, Wilson?
"Another "gem" from the alarmist camp debunked or ignored?"
Yes, Analscents, some totally unsubstaniated comment somewhere on the internet totally debunks something-or-other.
"sorry disqualified by nature of the tainted peer review process of eliminating any dissenting opinions. by the UN body."
Produce evidence or stop lying, you illiterate twat.
"Nice try where is the 2,500 scientists list? "
In the IPCC report freely available online, idiot.
"No more wasting value peer-review time on these charlatans."
In fact, the infinitely stupid Analscents doesn't even understand the accusation he's trying to make.
The paper being referred to in the email was peer-reviewed and published, but shouldn't have been. It was an embarrassing piece of crap let through by the "skeptical" editor, De Freitas, and ultimately resulted in the resignation of 6 editors.
So, in fact, the only example of the subversion of the peer-review process occurred in getting a "skeptical" paper published.
Without a doubt, he's a lonely, friendless little eunuch, though I doubt his ED poses a problem. Clearly he hasn't had his way with a woman in decades. I usually do ignore him. But it's fun to tweak him once in awhile. After you get him going, you can actually watch his mental state deteriorate. It worsens progressively with each post. I find it particularly rewarding when he threatens me with physical violence. He's the toughest SOB to ever sit before a keyboard. Ocassionally (but only occasionally) I feel guilty. Like I'm being a bully or something. He's just such a sad, needy, broken little man.
Produce evidence or stop lying, you illiterate twat.
The evidence is in the emails cock-breath. They openly speak of how to "rid themselves of troublesome editors". They've had over a week to deny the emails, and instead have basically admitted to them. Not to mention deleting the original raw data (which they spoke of doing in the emails as well, the better to hide it from those who might question them).
So then, you should be able to tell me what those papers that where unfairly ommitted from the IPCC report were, right Rantsie?
"Not to mention deleting the original raw data (which they spoke of doing in the emails as well, the better to hide it from those who might question them)."
How do you "hide" something by tossing out your copy of something that doesn't belong to you? If I throw away my entire CD collection will I have "hidden" all those recordings from the world?
And who are these "troublesome editors" you're referring to?
I familiar with the "troublesome editor", De Freitas, who I discussed above. Who are these other fellows you're talking about?
Ah,I love the smell of warmer desperation in the morning.
If you put in a claim with your insurance company that your room mate inadvertently threw out your CDs, and the insurance company discovers an email you wrote previous to that stating: "My ex-wife isn't getting her hands on my CD collection even if I have to throw them out", how likely are you to collect on that?
They threaten to toss the raw data. The raw data is then tossed. And now it's just an "oversight". And they've kept only the "value-added" data. Sounds right to me.
RR,
It is funny how "skeptics" are attacked and labelled if they question the validity of the Junk Science or the tax grab of Cap and Trade.
Obama's team is downplaying the plot and suggesting it is only a small number of people and a single dataset involved in the scandal.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933589.ece
Ah,I love the smell of warmer desperation in the morning.
That's just the smell of ass coming off of CanadianSense and Raging Ranger.
Nice try where is the 2,500 scientists list? Did you try to change the channel?
No, I just realized there was no point in starting a debate, especially since there (gasp) other things I needed to get done that night, including getting some sleep.
Here's something... the IPCC website has pdfs from the reports. The index has a list of the authors. Starts on pg. 15 and goes to page 28.
More than seven climatologists.
Had a previous link to the provisional group of authors authors for the first report.
There are still some small-minded people who don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and they are seizing on these reports of fudged data, destroyed data, rigged peer reviews, intimidation, and documentary evidence of conspiracy to support their unscientific views.
But that's all begging the real question, is AGW a real phenomenon?
Of course it is.
Mankind is responsible for the vast bulk of observed glbal warming.
Do you skeptics think declining temperature trends hide themselves?
Dummies.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. "Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil Jones
Okay, do you know exactly what the paper was that Jones was talking about. Did end up having any validity? What did it bring to the discussion?
Nature referenced both papers in their editorial on the Hack.
"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."
So peer review worked because Jones wasn't able to manipulate the process.
More on the W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003 paper and the fact it's publication caused its editors to resign here.
McIntyre and McKitrick should be nominated for the Order of Canada for their work in exposing Piltdown Mann's trickery.
Serves you right, Sharon.
No amount of engaging them will change anything.
It's much more rewarding to just insult them.
Ti-Guy... I've always understood your position... but I'm really starting to understand it.
Ti-Guy... I've always understood your position... but I'm really starting to understand it.
It's particularly bad on this topic, because you know most of the trolls don't have the first clue as to what they're talking about. So it's guaranteed that anything they assert will have to be fact-checked and researched before you respond. And then you waste all that time because they don't care what your response will be. They've got the next cut an paste ready to go.
And then there's the worst one of all...Raging Ranter, who could in fact step up and do some of that himself, but for some reason, chooses not to.
These people make me sick to my stomach.
The sad part is this is a very simple concept at its core. Our earth is no different from a Petri dish, with humans playing the part of the bacterial colony of course. At some point all colonies grow beyond the point of sustainability and there is a massive die-off, literally their waste kills them. The human population is growing with the same exponential curve as a bacterial colony in a Petri dish, we’re now well over 6 billion and heading for 8 billion before the middle of the 21st century. Does anyone remember what the global population was at the beginning of the 20th century? Google it.
The climate change deniers fail to grasp the concept that over the next few decades the combined pollution of the world will be sextupled from current levels as China, India, Brazil, the Philippines, and remainder of the other most populous nations become as industrialized as we are. Remember that for most of the industrial revolution, 90% of the global pollution was created by just 12% of the earth’s population. That will change to 65% of the earth’s population by the later part of the 21st century. The Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, etc, etc, all have TVs and they know how we live. They want the same lifestyle, and we have no right to say they can’t have it. Now I’m pretty optimistic as I think we could double the amount of pollution without any effect on climate or anything else for that matter …but 6X current levels??? Sorry folks, but there’s no way we can survive that.
If the popular opinion of the globe sides with people like CS, Wilson and Raging-Ragemonger …our species truly deserves the mass die-off that will most certainly come if we do nothing. To put it plainly, we’re too stupid to exist.
"...how likely are you to collect on that? "
Uh...so what is it that the scientists are "collecting on" in your "analogy"?
And where are those "editors" you were on about?
"It is funny how "skeptics" are attacked and labelled if they question the validity of the Junk Science or the tax grab of Cap and Trade."
It's funny how know-nothings like yourself make endless assertions that you can't substaniate, then try to call yourself a "skeptic".
"fudged data, destroyed data, rigged peer reviews, "
Admittedly, there was one instance of a "skeptical" editor manipulating peer-review to get a flawed paper published.
And, as we know, destroying a copy of data does not destroy the data.
But, despite my repeated requests nobody has shown me the "fudged data". How about you, Boris?
The Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, etc, etc, all have TVs and they know how we live. They want the same lifestyle, and we have no right to say they can’t have it.
I'm just hoping they're paying attention to what happens to a population that's affluent, for whom most material needs have been met and which considers itself relatively educated: it produces right wingers like the type we have now. Selfish, ignorant, poorly-socialised and juvenile assholes who so desperately need conflict they seek it out and/or create it.
Maybe it will be different with ancient civilisations like India and China in which wisdom is highly valued, but I doubt it.
And then there's the worst one of all...Raging Ranter, who could in fact step up and do some of that himself, but for some reason, chooses not to.
Could do some of what myself? Copy and paste? I don't bother. I've taken a wait and see approach on this climate change stuff. I've gone back and forth so many times over the years, I no longer identify with either the warmists or the deniers. But it's fun to tweak the hard core believers, and that is what I choose to do.
These people make me sick to my stomach.
As I was saying... it progresses with each post.
Could do some of what myself?
Correcting wingnut mischaracterisations, especially when it comes to scientific research. You're the only troll I can think of who seems to understand science and who's provided evidence of having read actual books.
It's a precious gift. Don't be stingy with it. You could become their queen!
The sad part is this is a very simple concept at its core. Our earth is no different from a Petri dish, with humans playing the part of the bacterial colony of course. At some point all colonies grow beyond blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.........
Yeah, it's all really simple. A little petri dish analogy and there we go, a scientific view of the universe. You do realize of course that windbag explanations like that do nothing to further your argument don't you?
I used to buy into a lot of this petri dish "Gaia" bullshit. In fact I used to read books like Bill McKibbon's Then End of Nature - one of the earlier AGW doomsday books out there. Hell, I even bought my own copy. However, it soon dawned on me that guys like McKibbon were completely full of shit. And they gave BS analogies just like yours. You'll grow out of it someday too. If you're lucky.
You're the only troll I can think of who seems to understand science and who's provided evidence of having read actual books.
I'm not sure if I understand science or not. I understand (very) basic statistical methodology, and some of the weaknesses thereof. But that comes from the application of said methodology to the field of economics. Which is where my skepticism comes in.
Statistical methodology and mathematical "rigour" have turned economics into a wankfest of meaningless number-crunching, where practitioners obsess over minute changes in sundry variables, and nobody can predict anything. I can't help but notice some parallels in the field of climatology. Especially since they, too, rely on computer models built upon regression analysis and non-parametric statistics (i.e. statistics that are further fucked up with the introduction of calculus in an attempt to deal with nonlinearities).
Granted, the economics analogy isn't a great fit. It's more difficult to predict economics because human behaviour can change in reaction to predictions. However, I believe this is mostly neutralized by the sheer number of economic forecasts out there, which tend to cancel each other out. And still they can't predict shit.
The fact that climatologists are relying so heavily on the same types of computer models with the same types of regression analysis gives me reason for pause. It's just too damn easy to build one's biases into these models. It happens unconsciously, and it can happen to the most ethical, rigourous and disciplined of researchers. For now, I abide by Nassim Nicolas Taleb's maxim: Trust the science, not the scientist.
RR,
Climatologists predicted the melting arctic, predicted that the number of Southern species moving North would increase (like the opossum and the N. Mockingbird). Economists have managed to predict fuck all, unless its 2 years after the event. And their problem isn't just in the regression analysis; partly its because of their whole "rational actor" thing. Partly because its hard to tell sometimes whether there is an actual subject matter beneath their mathematizations.
So don't assume that just because they suck climatology does. Underneath climatology is physics. Underneath economics is a symbolic structure that involves coins and etc. Different thing entirely.
All true BCL, which is why I noted that my economics analogy wasn't a great fit. I should also note that Nassim Nicolas Taleb, from whose books I learned a complete suspicion of all things statistical, believes in the science behind global warming. (And he totally boot-fucks the math-monkey economists, which is why I love reading his shit.)
As for species moving north, the opposite is also true. Lynx populations, for example, are now moving south into Minnesota and Michigan, where they're cross-breeding with bobcats. (This has been confirmed by DNA.) This likely due to significant reforestation efforts in the northern states. They're just reclaiming old habitat.
Coyotes have migrated all over the continent to take the place of retreating wolves. They've moved further in every direction. Wolves themselves are now are making a comeback in many areas they haven't been seen in years.
Humans have changed the landscape and local ecologies significantly, making it more habitable for some species, less so for others. All that proves exactly nothing, but it shows that species do move for reasons other than climate. Admittedly, overall the balance seems to be moving northward.
I think the Perimeter Institute was going to do something about looking into whether economics does (or can) have some sort of basis in a hard science.
I don't think there is much of a theoretical framework for economics; it suffers and will continue to suffer from wilful and deliberate obstruction to the flow of information in a complex system (input and feedback), which neither regulation nor deregulation can solve.
It simply cannot have a basis in hard science. It does not measure variables that adhere to immutable laws of science, and therefore cannot be nailed down into complex mathematical formulae.
There is a wealth of economic knowledge out there; most of it in the form of a more philosophical style of writing, often written by non-economists (Karl Popper, Hume, Smith, Hayek, even Keynes' early work). Back then, economic literature was quite insightful and informative; they hadn't yet killed it by attempting to enforce "mathematical rigour" upon it. Unfortunately, they never taught it to us in university. I had to search it out on my own.
Even the alleged Nobel Prize in economics is nothing of the sort. It's awarded by the Swedish central bank, not the Nobel committee. Alfred Nobel refused to create an endowment for economics, so the Bank of Sweden created one "in memory of Alfred Nobel". It's a sham. How many people even know that it's a fake Nobel prize?
Find those mysterious "editors" yet, Rantsie?
BTW, I forgot to compliment you on your new avatar. I like it better than that photo of a fat, ugly pig-of-a-man you used to use.
Glad you like it Cockbreath.
I note with amusement that the word verification I must enter to submit this comment is phaggy. (No joke.) Entirely appropriate, since I am replying to you.
It simply cannot have a basis in hard science. It does not measure variables that adhere to immutable laws of science, and therefore cannot be nailed down into complex mathematical formulae.
Going through some of the textbooks in climatology, there's a few that link it directly to the "hard sciences." Examples -- Dynamic Climatology: Basis in Mathematics and Physics, Fundamentals of Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere, Physics of Climate... (there are more.)
Don't tell me... all these textbooks are part of a con and that students should try and get their money back. Damn university departments not vetting their course material enough.
In the post you quoted, I was talking about economics, not climatology. If you'd have read more than the first paragraph, you'd have seen that.
Big city mover is a local Ottawa movers we rank top in list of Ottawa moving companies.
we are local Ottawa movers for all kind of moving activities in Ottawa.We are a full-service local moving company,
which means that we can take care of your move from start to finish in the Ottawa area.
Our skilled crew gets you packed and unpacked in such short order. Movers you can count on.
Post a Comment