Print Story The results are in!
Diary
By Breaker (Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:55:28 AM EST) (all tags)
The People of HuSi have spoken


Good HuSi's, I accept the results of this democratic poll.

I commit to trolling you all far more in the future, whilst trolling you significantly less.

I will rant in an opinionated fashion, long, hard barely thought through polemics, and yet reduce the opinionated content contained within these super soaraway Breakermatic Diaries.

Accordingly, I pledge a 0% increase in real terms of posting frequency, Breakermatic Diaries for Breakermatic Diary Readers.

And I will, of course, pursue more interesting polls.

----------------

Well, the CRU email hack does seem to be getting some legs in the press now.

To demonstrate the level of scientific rigour, here is a quote from the Met office:
there is a 50 per cent chance that the world average temperature in 2010 will be warmer than in 1998

I am glad that the science is settled.  Glossing over the fact that there is also a 50% chance of the weather in 2010 being colder than 1998, there's also a 50% chance of heads landing face up when I flip this coin.

Whatever the actual state of the planet is with regards our pollution output, we need to be able to trust in our scientists to be impartial, analytic fact processing machines.

One person who was asking for data from CRU has posted his experiences intersposed with the replies from CRU and internal emails:
Willis Eschenbach in the link above describes the scientific method:
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work

When asked to show his data and working, the CRU scientist Phil Jones replied:
I will still not pass on the data. 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.

Some further quotes from Phil Jones (from link above):
I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain.

Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

There are many others like that from these emails.

Climate policy should therefore not come at the expense of development policy. But it does.

A non-AGW fetishist writes on the Greenhouse effect.

Far worse, the shrinking number of polar bears looks like it is due to some bastards dropping them out of planes.

What can be done about this crisis of science?  Do we tear up all the research institutions and recreate them with a requirement that all data, calculations and so on must be open for scrutiny?  I don't believe we should be pushing filth into our environment just for the sheer hell of it; we must try to remove as much waste from industry and society as possible.  But with scientists and science so badly discredited, even Green High Priest George Moonbat concedes I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely. (see comments following the article). 

Moonbat has gone up immensely in my opinion for that brave statement.  Now, I do not think that all scientists researching the climate are playing fast and loose with the scientific method.  But they will all now be tainted by this.

In government, should we establish protocols for having documents in locked, secure briefcases, or just arrive at 10 Downing St by the back door instead?

Seems to be the season for security breaches; leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion.  One of the key questions which the inquiry will have to answer is whether Mr Blair misled parliament.  Blair is a war criminal in some people's eyes but will he ever be given the opportunity to defend himself in The Hague?

It'll be OK though as the next generation will be too poorly educated - "weaknesses remain in pupils’ grasp of English and maths" despite "impressive investment in education over the past 12 years".

For example, I am not sure this is a Men's society - they teach cookery, stitching, and organise sober pub crawls.  The Feminazis are out in force as they see their gender relations budget being halved: Olivia Bailey, NUS national women's officer, responded: "Discrimination against men on the basis of gender is so unusual as to be non-existent, so what exactly will a men's society do? To suggest that men need a specific space to be 'men' is ludicrous, when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces."

Right then I am off to feed and change MiniBreaker, then take her to baby sensory class.  The Daughter Unit grows and thrives, burbling away da-da-da-da-da-de.  She now raises her arms when I go to lift her out of her cot, and goes crazy waving her arms when I get home from work.

I look at all the grief that our country and world face (see links above) and wonder what kind of society we are bequeathing her.

< Movember Update | I commit to becoming 70s big. >
The results are in! | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
+1 Daughters by Phage (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:21:36 AM EST
We also need more parental posts.

+1 Daughters indeed by debacle (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:32:44 AM EST
IYKWIM.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]
+1 daughters? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:52:00 AM EST
One is enough for right now thanks!  Maybe next year...


[ Parent ]
heh by lolwhat (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:54:30 AM EST
global cooling global warming global climate change ... what's next?

OK, yeah, we pollute. In some spots - esp. China and India, which currently get a free pass under Kyoto by the way - we pollute a shitload. Guess what? I'm not saying it's 100% right that we do that. However, that's the price we pay for leading the lifestyle we do; no human activity will ever be pollution-free, no matter what technology we come up with.

If someone could figure out a way to reduce pollution drastically without throwing billions of people into poverty, then I'd be all for it. Right now, however, our only choices are to keep as much manufacturing as possible in places that enforce pollution laws, or to enact shitty policies like cap-and-trade which merely force manufacturing over to places that don't.

And yes, as someone with kids, I can't help but worry about their future. Those of us who are paying attention have realized that it isn't gonna be pretty, for anyone except a select few, and guess what, none of us here are in that number.
--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.

with the way things are going by infinitera (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:29:53 AM EST
I expect the majority of nation-states will start energy rationing, enforced brown-outs and other such measures in the 2030s, as the effects become more and more severe and harder to ignore. A carbon crash diet to avoid a 2 meter sealevel rise and other problems by 2100.

Starting now and pushing others to start now will be a lot less painful.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
I completely fail to understand what you're saying by komet (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:58:48 AM EST
baby sensory class??



--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
Yes. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:58:38 AM EST
Baby Sensory class.

Some singing, a little physical interaction like waving, near / far movements and practicing sitting or crawling, some textured toys to play with and also some scented object to play with.

It's all supposed to stimulate the baby's brain by targetting the senses in turn.  Not too sure how much use it is but it gets MBW out and about with other mothers in the area, and when she can't make it I get to eye up the maternal frippet.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:49:17 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Yes I do,. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:12:41 PM EST
Reading comprehension 101:
it gets MBW out and about with other mothers in the area, and when she can't make it I get to eye up the maternal frippet.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #23 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:28:28 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
I am sorry for your disability. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:56:47 PM EST
Maybe wait for web 3.0?  I hr iz nly 32 chz pr msg, mr btr44llkthxbai.


[ Parent ]
"[T]hey will all now be tainted by this" by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #5 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:44:10 AM EST
Only in the eyes of the people who didn't believe them in the first place. The rest - those you endearingly call AGW fetischists - are just as unlikely to have their opinion of science in general changed by some inconsequential adjunct professors in a British university nobody outside East Anglia had ever heard about a week ago.

That guy Jones sounds like an idiot from those excerpts, by the way.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

I don't know by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:41:33 AM EST
Even Moonbat's been shaken by this and he could be considered very much an on-side fetishist.  From full on cheerleader to being a skeptic of the science.  That is far, far from the people who didn't believe them in the first place as you assert.

And I thought that the CRU in Hadley was one of 4 centres providing the timeseries data for the IPCC?  Ah yes: it's HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

So they're not exactly some minor player here.

I agree Jones is not shown in any kind light here, and for the scrupulous, honest scientists researching climate change it is a tragedy that they will be included with Dr Jones in people's minds. 

That is the point I'm making; the core data that the IPCC bases their recommendations on will be considered flawed as the default position. 


[ Parent ]
errrr full quote by TPD (4.00 / 2) #10 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:44:14 PM EST
"The weather forecaster said there is a 50 per cent chance that the world average temperature in 2010 will be warmer than in 1998, which is the warmest on record in the Met Office’s 160 years of data."

and yes I know IHBT I'll get my coat!


why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
Still doesn't change anything. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:46:50 PM EST
If I flip this coin there's still a 50% chance it'll come up tails.

The quote boils down to "it's an even split between 2 outcomes, but I'll err on the alarmist side with the way I describe it".


[ Parent ]
it sorta does. by garlic (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:53:54 PM EST
Instead of coin flipping, it's more like dice rolling -- saying there's a 50% chance you'll roll a 10+ on 2 dice


[ Parent ]
Nope. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:43:25 PM EST
Coins have a third side. I hit it once on a toss.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
No, by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #14 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:00:36 PM EST
two outcomes doesn't imply an even split in the slightest. Especially as it's actually comparing H₀ (temperatures stay the same or cool) to H₁ (temperatures rise). You can put quite a lot of the probability under "temperatures stay the same" if you ask me.

[ Parent ]
You're confusing the issue by Driusan (4.00 / 3) #15 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:51:32 PM EST
Don't you know science is discredited? Why are you trying to confuse the issue with your discredited "science" and "logic"?

--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
Eh? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:17:17 PM EST
You could also write:

Especially as it's actually comparing H₀ (temperatures stay the same or warm) to H₁ (temperatures cool).

You can put quite a lot of the probability under "temperatures stay the same" if you ask me.

Yeah, they didn't.

Suspect, then is it not?  It is spin and nothing more.  They get the headline "50%" into your head and attach to that "warming".

For this, read "How to Spin Sell" and follow on with "Triumph of the Political Class". 

Then look at these statements again.


[ Parent ]
What Druisan said. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:18:41 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Weak. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:25:33 PM EST
Nice climbdown though.


[ Parent ]
Yep, weak. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:51:18 PM EST
Oh, you WIN! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #26 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:11:50 PM EST
There's an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real.

Ah, consensus.  Go and read those links I posted please, where those whose views were critical were drummed out of the club.

They find it quite embarrassing trying to explain the positive scientific case for the world being created in 4004 BC, or how the holograms of the September 11th airliners were projected, or how the climate change conspiracy penetrated the Met Office as well as the universities.

Much the same as those "peer reviewed scientists" are having trouble with the Medieval Warm Period, no?


[ Parent ]
My bad by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:32:23 PM EST
I meant
Second, in lieu of that they try to zero in on little details of the reality case. An eye couldn't evolve since half an eye is no use, the World Trade Centre couldn't collapse until the temperature reached the melting point of steel, the Eastern side of Antarctica isn't melting very fast.

That's a very effective Internet debating strategy, because you can sidetrack your opponents into massively long, effortful and time-consuming debates on minutiae. And if your opponents refuse you just say "HA! See, you can't really debate me!"

But the thing you're debating about is just one tiny little piece in the jigsaw of reality. Even if the alternate-realists were right, it would barely shift the overall consensus.

Meanwhile, the alternate-realists have barely any bits of jigsaw to support their own views.

This whole leaked email thing falls very neatly into this strategy of argument. The alternate-realists are aiming to get the realists enmeshed into a massively long, convoluted and energy-sapping debate over something trivial. Meanwhile they themselves don't have to exert a jot of energy defending their own views.

BTW, you do realise the Monbiot article was satire, don't you?

[ Parent ]
See reply to TE below. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 05:10:41 AM EST
you do realise the Monbiot article was satire, don't you?

Was it?  OH NOES.

The only bits I quoted from Moonbat, I believe was when he was writing earnestly not satirically.


[ Parent ]
Do you really not get it? by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #29 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 02:01:20 AM EST
The point of the quote is that an average year could be as hot as the year of an exceptional heatwave.

You've removed the part of the quote explaining that year had an exceptional heatwave and are now saying "HUR HUR GUYZ LOOK HOW STOOPID DIS QUOTE IZ".
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Yeah I know by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 05:05:53 AM EST
But the laznguage used was poor, and had a fair amount of spin inherent.

You see, if that scientist had written what you did above, I'd have had no problem with it.


[ Parent ]
Nice climbdown. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:27:22 AM EST


[ Parent ]
I notice however by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:34:13 AM EST
You've not commented on any of the damage to science that has been done.

Why, it's almost as if you're trying to zero in on little details of the reality case.
That's a very effective Internet debating strategy, because you can sidetrack your opponents into massively long, effortful and time-consuming debates on minutiae.

So, about that medieval warming period?


[ Parent ]
Damage to science: by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:50:54 AM EST
Not really:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars

I don't know why you quoted the bit which describes why I'm not interested in discussing the details with you, though.

But in general, discussing details of something when your axioms are different is pretty much guaranteed to waste everyone's time, really.

[ Parent ]
Damage to science by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 02:13:45 PM EST
the scientists behind them as fully human: snarky, dismissive, prone to using colloquialisms instead of technical terms, and protective of their data—perhaps unethically protective.

Some of the mails reveal what appears to be a truculent disregard for scientific ethics when it comes to providing data to critics.

The public and political contentiousness of climate science imbued everything with a sense of defensiveness and frustration that made it all look worse.

All quotes from your link.


[ Parent ]
That's how science by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 02:38:44 PM EST
Works:
That’s how science works. It’s not a hippie love-in; it’s rugby. Every time you put out a paper, the guy you pissed off at last year’s Houston conference is gonna be laying in wait. Every time you think you’ve made a breakthrough, that asshole supervisor who told you you needed more data will be standing ready to shoot it down. You want to know how the Human Genome Project finished so far ahead of schedule? Because it was the Human Genome projects, two competing teams locked in bitter rivalry, one led by J. Craig Venter, one by Francis Collins — and from what I hear, those guys did not like each other at all.

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.


--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
And therein lies the problem by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 04:32:42 PM EST
you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it

Hadley's scientists didn't do that, did they?  They obstructed rival scientists acces to the raw data.


[ Parent ]
By "rival scientist" by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 05:47:08 PM EST
Do you mean businessman-turned-blogger Steven McIntyre who received that email in 2004 and complained that other scientists are allowed the data long before this leak?

You can certainly argue that even hostile bloggers prone to selective misquotation (don't you hate those guys) should be allowed access to the data. But that's a minor detail, and one that was known long before this hacked data was posted.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
There's a bigger issue there though by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:05:17 PM EST
Aside from blocking McIntyre, the peer review process was subverted as well.

Now, I can understand private companies witholding data and research from competitors.

But publicly funded scientists, who are there taking salaries way below their market value for altruistic reasons, hiding their data and methods?

That can't be right, from a moral or scientific viewpoint.


[ Parent ]
I can summon spirits from the vasty deep by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:25:56 PM EST
Again, this is mostly a Climate Change Deniers Greatest Hits package.

In 2003 a literature review paper was published in "Climate Change" journal. It was critized by the authors it cited:

Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work. There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal

In that context someone sent an email suggesting that they stop submitting to that journal.

However, just because someone suggested it, doesn't mean it was actually done.

It's an edge case. If half the editorial board of a peer-reviewed journal don't think their peer review process is working, does it still count as a peer-reviewed journal?

This is all relatively minor stuff. It's being presented as major stuff since the Copenhagen conference on climate change is coming up, so may as well round up the useful idiots to do their echo chamber thing...
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Meh. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:48:05 PM EST
Read the links.

And get the data, coded models out there for public scrutiny.

After all, it is the public that funds them, and the public that will suffer or succeeed.


[ Parent ]
I love it by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #45 Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:10:49 AM EST
When I produce detailed commentary on your links, and you respond "read the links".
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Here's another one for you by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #46 Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 09:58:13 AM EST
Not sure why you keep linking to George Monbiot by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #47 Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 02:34:37 AM EST
It's not like I'm a fan of his: thought his last book was hopelessly confused.

He doesn't think the hacked emails undermine the scientific case for climate change, which is what we were talking about.

He's a media guy, and thinks it's a big deal in media terms, not scientific terms. As I've already said he thinks it's a useful media strategy to force one resignation and then say "the issue is dealt with". As we've seen, the alternative means thousands of words of detailed argument, which won't work in a Newsnight segment.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
No, but he thinks the by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #48 Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 06:43:28 AM EST
Science has been undermined.  For man-made climate change, he's still on message.

But for now at least, a little more skeptical.


[ Parent ]
by your logic by TPD (4.00 / 1) #36 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 08:02:18 AM EST
there is a 50% chance that I will win the lottery, (I might just get a ticket in case)


why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
[ Parent ]
This whole controversy boils down to by dmg (4.00 / 2) #16 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:42:36 PM EST
Do you trust your politicians not to lie to you.

If you do, then you get what you deserve. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Oh I do by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:10:00 PM EST
But until recently, I've been holding scientists in higher regard.


[ Parent ]
I ust took the trash out to the bin by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:50:00 PM EST
in shorts and a t-shirt.  a daye bere the turkey day.


--
Click
Well done. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 05:45:43 AM EST
You shall have a cookie!


[ Parent ]
no by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #44 Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:18:25 AM EST
I prefer mincemeat pie.

--
Click
[ Parent ]
The results are in! | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback