That is Not a Correction

In my last post, I pointed out an untrue statement made in an article by a climate researcher which the author obviously knew was untrue. I also predicted in a comment:

It should be interesting to see if he directly acknowledges what he wrote was incorrect and tries to fix it. I'm cynical so I expect he won't. I expect neither he nor anyone else who recognizes what he wrote was incorrect/misleading to do a thing about this. That's been the result in most cases in my experience. My experience is people usually refuse to squarely deal with errors/mistakes.

Sometimes I think my cynicism is excessive, but the researcher posted a "correction" to his article which proved my expectations correct. I'm going to show how the "correction" he posted didn't actually correct anything.
Continue reading

So Informative

This is a hasty post as I'm currently living in fear for my life from some wasps that keep harassing me. I just wanted to throw it up on here because I think it's funny. Read this statement:

The figure above shows model runs for the A1B scenario (which is the only scenario with model runs readily available, though its 2016 CO2 concentrations are nearly identical to those of the A2 scenario). AR4 projections between 1970 and 2016 show warming quite close to observations, only 8% higher.

This was in regard for a 2007 set of climate models. It turns out models used for a 2007 report managed to get temperatures largely correct for the period of 1970-2016. Who would have guessed?
Continue reading

Totally Plausible

Hey guys. I've been spending way too much time over at Climate Audit this last week or so because they've been discussing the (supposed) Russian hacks of various computer networks within the United States. System security is a topic I've long been interested in so naturally I was curious what people were saying there. I regret have even looked now.

The quality of the discussion for the last few posts at Climate Audit is surprisingly low. It's nothing compared to what used to be found on the site, which is a shame as I alwlays held the site in high regard. Don't worry though. I'm not going to start some inter-blog argument today. Today, I just want to show you one of the most hilarious arguments I have ever seen anyone make, an argumend endorsed by Steve McIntyre, proprietor of Climate Audit.
Continue reading

Tired

So a couple days ago my attention was drawn to this:

http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328

I'm trying to work out a detailed response pointing out the errors/inaccuracies/misrepresentations in it, but it's so tiring. I don't understand how people can get away with making claims they know to be false over and over. People say science is self-correcting, but just how long is that supposed to take?
Continue reading

My Conspiratorial Thinking

The tweet which led to my last post also led to an exchange on Twitter which I found somewhat peculiar as it involved things like being told I was promoting conspiratorial nonsense. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to find out what this nonsense was, and alas, it appears we may never know what conspiracy theories I have been espousing.

That mystery aside, the exchange allowed me to state why I think people deriding the pursuit of e-mails from climate scientist via legal means like Freedom of Information requests are in the wrong. It's not that I care about the e-mails themselves. I don't. However:

There has been a long history of climate scientists involved in the global warming debate refusing to share information/data. One of the most famous examples was when climate scientist Phil JOnes responded to a person asking for data by saying:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This sort of reaction is not limited to climate science. Examples of it have been discussed in many fields. I think it's silly. If you're a scientist who believes in his/her work, you should have no problem with people examining it. Refusing to share information/data with people, especially because of perceived traits you believe that person has, is completely unscientific.

When scientists behave in such an unscientific manner, I see no problem with people trying to get access to information they were denied in other ways, such as using the legal system. I don't think that's a remarkable view, but my tweet above led to this response:

I think that question is silly as it seems it should be easy to see at least some examples of what i referred to. If a person publishes a paper and refuses to archive the data used in it, the lack of such an archive can often be apparent. If an author of a paper fails to describe steps they took in their analysis, that can often be apparent. So forth and so on.

That said, the person I was exchanging these tweets asked me to state what data I cannot find several times so I offered to write a post highlighting some examples. What comes next will be a list of just a few examples of data and/or information I have wanted to examine but been unable to because researchers refuse to share it.
Continue reading

Upside Down Proxies in the IPCC AR5

A recent tweet:

Led me to yet another one of those articles which likes to pretend critics of the (in)famous Hockey Stick are just obsessed with one study published twenty years ago, hoping if they can prove it was fraudulent, something, something, something despite all the later work confirming the Hockey Stick was right.

That, of course, is complete drivel. Critics of the Hockey Stick have long criticized many temperature reconstructions and argued the later ones do not validate the original Hockey Stick. In fact, a common point many people have made is that the later work which supposedly confirms the original often uses data from the original. In fact, many later studies took output from the original one and used it as input for their analysis.

(It turns out if you use the results of a study in your calculations, your calculations may well match those of the original study. Who knew?)

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to look at today. That bugs me, but the article made me look at something which I hadn't thought about in some time. When I did a little digging into it, I discovered there was information I had never seen before. It's somewhat interesting.
Continue reading

Sick, Part Two

About a week ago I mentioned being sick and that it might lead to me being unavailable for a bit. A few days later, I commented to say it looked like my recovery was going well and I'd be fine. It turns out I spoke a little too soon. Mostly because I'm an idiot.

Back when I was 18, I had a bad reaction to some medicine. As part of my recovery, I told the doctor about how I sometimes get migraines and was given some medication as a preventative measure for them. I didn't quite realize these two medications were the same. Just like last time, the medication messed me up and left me semi-stoned the entire time I was on it. Fun times.

Anyway, things are all better now. I'm clearheaded and feel fine. I'll have my next post up within 48 hours. More importantly, I hope this post can continue to exist so I have a record of the word "amitriptyline." I never want to take this again.

Sick

Hey guys, just a head's up. I'm coming down with something, and there's a chance it'll be bad enough to keep me offline for a few days. I'm hoping it's not that serious and I'll just be in bed for a couple days, but I wanted to let you know in case I don't post for a bit.

On an unrelated matter, which I mention just because the issue of medicine reminded me of it, here's something I find funny. In the United States, a person cannot buy Albuterol, a popular drug from treating asthma, without a prescription from a doctor. They can, however, buy Racepinephrine to use instead. It is nowhere near as effective (and doesn't really target the cause of the problem), and it is also much more dangerous.

I find that amusing. The safer, more effective treatment is barred from individuals with a doctor's approval, but the less safe, less effective treatment is readily available.

"Skeptics" And Sharing Data

I was supposed to be running my next post on correlations today (my goal is to run one such post a week until the series is finished), but recent political developments have left me in a foul mood. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you can see my previous post here. I don't trust myself to put the final touches on a technical post while in a foul mood, so instead, I'd like to discuss a different, but somewhat related, matter.

I am interested in paleoclimatology. I am no Steve McIntyre (who runs Climate Audit), as has been pointed out by several of my critics, but I like to think I am reasonably knowledgeable on the field. I certainly know more about it than the average person, and when it comes to fine technical details of individual proxies/reconstructions, I might even be more knowledgeable than a number of "experts." SO today, I'd like to discuss a problem in the field.
Continue reading