Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

The corruption of the peer-review process

When tribalism trumps truth:

Mark Steyn: Cooking the books on climate

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The “science” of the CRU dominates the “science” behind the United Nations IPCC, which dominates the “science” behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now-routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Barack Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don’t worry, it’s all “peer-reviewed.”

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review”. When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “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!”

Which, in essence, is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.

The e-mails of “Andy” (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose “Climate Audit” Web site exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann’s global-warming “hockey stick” graph, “Andy” writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he’s going to “cover” the story from a more oblique angle:

“I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

“peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?”

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does!

“Re, your point at the end – you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.”

And that’s what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann’s mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the revelations of the past week, you’re as big a dupe as Begley or Revkin.

As Erik puts it, One is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim.

Why did this happen?

Scientific fraudsters are not, in general, people pushing theories they know to be false. Outright charlatanism is not actually common, because it’s relatively easy to detect. Humans are evolved for a social competitive environment and are rather good at spotting lies, except when they’re fooling themselves because they want to believe.

In general, scientific fraudsters are people who are overinvested in a theory that they believe. Because they know it must be true, they interpret predictive failures as “The data is surely wrong”. It is only a short step from “The data is surely wrong” to fixing the pesky data until it looks right

As it is, The Entire Climate Warming Movement Stands Discredited. The data was clearly cooked, but we’ll be paying for the poor policymaking:

If the historical temperature data were generally known to be garbage (which I was pretty sure was true even before the leak), it couldn’t be used to justify public policy that is both bad and expensive – like the U.S.’s “cap-and-trade” bill in progress, which has so many giveaways and exemptions that it subverts its own ostensible purposes.

Obama’s heading to the Climate Change conference next, and he’ll be dictating policy after the facts were made to fit the theory.

Hold on to your wallet.

Related reading
A few thoughts on Climategate, via James Joyner, who’ll be on C-Span tomorrow at 7:30-8:30AM Eastern.

Share

By

Putin and Obama, frigid winter, and the roundup

Putin vs Obama: The Strong Horse vs. My Little Pony

Lost on the western media and assorted schmos from the blogosphere is the obvious fact that these macho pictures of Putin were not released for their amusement, but for Putin’s benefit. And, in the current international climate, they benefit him quite a bit. They benefit Putin and Russia because, for most of the world unblotched by the the crippling “sophistication” of the West, Putin is compared, inevitably, to Barack Obama. And when that happens, it’s like comparing a Wild Mustang to My Little Pony.

The House GOP on Obama and PhRMA

The whole arrangement gives off the strong odor of cronyism and inside-dealing. No one but the White House and PhRMA seems satisfied with it. You can read left-wing criticism of the deal here and here. The White House spin is here.

Since we can’t get enough of Obama, now he’s going to make unprecedented address to ‘Students across America’ Sept 8.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion continues Throwing Darts at HR3200 – Day 3 (Cost Sharing Limits Gone Wild)

This is a tough slog through mind-numbing verbiage which accomplishes limits on cost-sharing, but does not reveal the implications of such cost sharing limitations for people who prefer alternatives to traditional Medicare. Might this have the effect of eliminating the alternatives to traditional Medicare because of the limitations on cost-sharing? Am I paranoid, or correct, or both?

Read about page 347 of HR3200 and keep in mind that the guy who wrote that post is a law professor at Cornell, and has read more than his share of mind-numbing legalese verbiage, and he is “having to take multiple breaks before my head explodes with frustration.”

Hackwatch: Now That Republicans Don’t Run it, David Brooks Discovers the Virtues of Limited Government.

Neoneocon asks, Whatever could the connection be between Lamaze class and President Obama?

Via Maria, better order a new pair of polartec socks: Almanac Predicts ‘Very Frigid’ Winter

“We feel the middle part of the country’s really going to be cold — very, very cold, very, very frigid, with a lot of snow,” she said. “On the East and West coasts, it’s going to be a little milder. Not to say it’s going to be a mild short winter, but it’ll be milder compared to the middle of the country.”

The Unintended consequences of using the use of isobutane and propane hydrocarbon gases as refrigerants, instead of the much more inert freon.

An excellent post from Moe Lane, I’m not really surprised at the acceptance of blood sacrifice…From Free People, Castro-Love, Unending

…these people — certainly some dismaying percentage of them — actually like it: actually like the dictatorship and all the murderous oppression that goes with it. You can’t remain entirely ignorant or naïve after 50 years of this dictatorship. And that is a very, very bitter pill to swallow.

Last, but very important (WARNING: a very graphic post particularly if you view the videos:), Gateway Pundit remembers the Massacre at Beslan– 5 Years Ago Today

UPDATE
On Beslan, via The Astute Bloggers (WARNING: graphic photos),

There is more to this atrocity than was ever published by the MSM. See links under ‘Beslan – Child rape, torture and ritual murder’ at The Religion of Peacetm Subject Index

Share

By

Bamboozled with Global Warming piety

Via Francisco, “We Have to Take Away People’s Fear of Climate Change”

Hans von Storch is one of Germany’s leading researchers on climate change. DER SPIEGEL spoke with him about why fears of global warming are exaggerated and the doom-mongering tendencies of German scientists.
…
SPIEGEL: Are there only negative consequences when the temperature increases by two or three degrees on the planet?

Storch: Detailed forecasts are not possible, because we don’t know how emissions will in fact develop. We climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios. In other words, things could end up being completely different. But there are undoubtedly parts of the world that will benefit on balance from climate change. Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold and uncomfortable in the past. But it’s considered practically heretical to even raise such issues.

Finally, a believer in global warming who’s not globalarmist. He’s a heretic.

Meanwhile Jeff Goldstein posts on Secular Piety and the New Age Orthodoxy (h/t Larwyn), since Time Magazine has come up with 51 things to make us globally pure. Among the 51 things Time Mag recommends for saving the Earth/your soul/whatever is

Plant a bamboo fence
Bamboo makes a beautiful fence, and because it grows so quickly (as much as 1 ft. a day or more, depending on the species), it absorbs more CO2 than, say, a rosebush. Most homeowners have to restrict its growth, lest it get out of control. Do this, however, and you reduce bamboo’s capacity as a carbon sink. Only large-scale plantings, which absorb CO2 faster than they release it, can favorably tip the scales. How big is your yard?

Aside the fact that Time’s also saying to “ditch the mansion” (are you listening, Al?), and “move to a high-rise”, which would not permit you to plant bamboo, let me tell you the first thing you need to know about bamboo:

You can not just plant a bamboo fence

Down the street where I live there’s a modest house on a corner where the original owners planted bamboo, thinking it’d make a nice hedge. That was in the 1950s.

This is what the yard looks like this morning:

This bamboo website says,

On the other hand, bamboo is the fastest growing plant on Earth. Some species have actually been measured to grow over 4 feet in 24 hours. A pole of bamboo can regenerate to its full mass in just six months! Bamboo can be continuously re-harvested every 3 years, without causing damage to the plant system and surrounding environment. During the time it takes to regenerate, the bamboo plant’s root system stays intact so erosion is prevented. Continuous harvesting of this woody grass every 3-7 years, actually improves the overall health of the plant.

They are not kidding.

Bamboo is extremely invasive in this part of the country. By extremely invasive I mean that it not only takes over the entire land mass you allocate to it and the neighbors’ yards, it breaks through concrete sidewalks and curbs.

If you try to fool yourself into believing the bamboo will be a carbon sink, I guarantee you that you’ll produce more than enough carbon trying to contain the bamboo. Like the song says,

I’m tellin you
When you’re blue
Why there’s a lot to do
In the house of bamboo

Why there’s a lot to do, because you’ll be trying to contain the bamboo.

When you cut the bamboo down to the roots and dig all the stumps and roots out of the ground, it comes back. No matter how cold the winter, how flooded the spring and fall, how hot and dry the summer, bamboo will be there for you forever.

Bamboo is the kudzu of the North East.

The people who own that house have had not only to constantly cut back the bamboo because it obstructs the view of the intersection, they’ve had to repair the public sidewalk at their expense, and once had to redo the foundation of the house because of root damage.

Take my advice and DO NOT PLANT BAMBOO.

And while you’re at it, forget about mint, too.

If you still want bamboo, buy one of these and keep it indoors:

Update: for the love of everything holy do not plant a bamboo fence. You will end up wanting to invent time travel solely so you could go back to your previous self and beat yourself with a bamboo club.
Digg!
Technorati tags Global Warming, Time Magazine

Share

By

Early Spring in The Principality

After yesterday’s New Year’s Day downpour we continue to enjoy wonderful weather – sunny and in the mid-50s.
This has caused crocus confusion:

and the lavender and snapdragons are still holding up:

So are the weeds, but I don’t mind at all. I can only hope the rest of Winter is like this.

During the past two weeks Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, Kobayashi Maru and Eternity Road have been discussing global warming. At least what used to be called Global Warming; now the catchphrase is Climate Change.

Eternity Road poses Global Warming: The Unasked Questions

  • By what standard would one judge whether global warming is actually occurring?
  • Do we have data, not merely for our own era but for past eras, that indicates in an objective fashion that this is the case?
  • If global warming is occurring, what will its foreseeable effects be over the near term? Over the long term?
  • Are those effects beneficial or detrimental to human life? Mildly, moderately, or seriously?
  • If the effects of global warming are foreseen to be detrimental, is it plausible that any change in human behavior could undo it?
  • If the effects of global warming are foreseen to be detrimental but not catastrophically so — that is, if global warming carries no reasonable prospect of mass death or impoverishment — what are the pros and cons of adapting ourselves to a warmer world, as opposed to straining to keep it as it is today?

SC&A sees man’s role in answering those questions: Necessary Rerun: Hating Ourselves To Death: The Environmentalist Demands

Humans are a part of nature- a most important part. We meant to use all those those things in nature that are available to us. Do we hate ourselves much- and do we have so much hubris- to believe that we are not a part of nature?

Are there ecological issues that must be addressed? Of course there are. That said, too many are perfectly happy to see mankind as the problem and focus on bestowing the scarlet letter. Whatever problems we must address, we are in fact, the source of the solution – and it is for that we need to be recognized and not as the ‘cancer’ on nature. The solution will not be realized by reducing populations and redefining human values (To be sure, those slated for ‘elimination’ do not include those who support the idea. Surprise)

In fact, from a historical perspective, man’s greatest achievements have come about as the result of dealing with the situation at hand and not by ‘killing off’ the problem. Those who hate mankind have no faith in imagination, possibilities and the human capacity to achieve, progress and reach an ever greater potential. Greatness is never arrived at from despair or self hatred. In fact, the proponents of man as the ‘cancer’ of nature are no different than racists. It is they who decide what and who are of value and it is they who wish to decide the future of others. If your grandmother is ill, she too, becomes disposable. If your child has chronic asthma, well, he or she is less than perfect. If the rest of us who are healthy are a ‘cancer,’ one can only imagine how much value is placed on those less than perfect, or those who might be different. We know about that, firsthand

Kobayashi Maru ponders The Theology of Global Warming, Part II, after he realized that

big, observable events that might indicate global warming but not its exact cause–like ice sheets breaking loose in the Arctic or Antarctic–are taken up in an MSM whirlwhind whereas big, observable events like unprecendented solar flare activity provoke far less notice, much less any speculation or editorializing about a possible link to global warming?

Both SC&A and KM linked to my posts where I clearly stated that there is no consensus on global warming.

When I first did those two posts last year I received A Lot of angry emails (I wasn’t taking blog comments at that point) filled with personal attacks, not arguments pro/against my position on global warming. The gist of the emails had to do with my being a moron. One of the emails explained at length why it’s important that there is consensus, as if science’s main concern were to build consensus instead of accurately observing, measuring and replicating results. Indeed, if they can not be measured, quantified, and replicated, your observations will never amount to science, no matter how attractive your theory might be. Building consensus is the art of the politician, not of the scientist.

I expect that’s how apostates are treated.

Shortly after writing those posts I went to a conference and casually said during lunchtime, “I’m not all that sold on global warming”. The reaction (shock, anger, and disgust) around the table was worse than if I’d said the most obscene blasphemy. It was an interesting reaction, considering that the people involved supposedly had a modicum of science in their backgrounds.

All the same, while we ponder Global Warming/Climate Change here in the East Coast, it’d probably be a good idea if we don’t ask the folks in Colorado and the Great Plains how they are enjoying global warming.

For the time being, I’m certainly enjoying this warm spell here in The Principality.
(The Principality = Princeton Borough + Princeton Township)

Update
The Daily Ablution:

That’s not to say that one or two end-of-year items didn’t catch my interest – did you realise, for example, that last year was the coolest worldwide since 2001 (PDF – see page 3)? (Indeed, the Russian winter of 2005-06 was the coldest for decades). Would it surprise you to learn that the arctic ice cap recovered slightly from its 2005 extent (PDF – page 2)? Probably, given the spin on facts that most of the media almost invariably employ when the topic of climate change arises. Similarly, coverage of the IPCC’s recent adjustment of its worst-case projections for sea level rise this century (from 34 to 17 inches) seems muted, especially when one considers the likely media response had the estimate been increased by the same proportion.

Update 2 Middle Ground

there is an emerging “middle ground” of scientists who are not a) screeching hysterics crying that we are all going to roast – after all the polar bears are dead or, b) paid shills of the evil energy industry who is just trying to keep us all down, man.

(h/t Larwyn and The Anchoress)
Digg!

Share