Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

November 25, 2014, 8:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JCH

$

0

0

Hi Judy – Excellent post! However, one comment. You wrote

“the Berkeley Earth surface temperature effort seems objective.”

It certainly was objective, but it is not independent of the analyses completed by NCDC, GISS and CRU has the data that is used is still biased to mostly the same locations as they used. See the posts on this

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/comment-on-the-article-in-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/comments-and-questions-on-the-best-analyses/

As I wrote in the first post

“if they are in nearly the same geographic location as the GHCN sites, they are not providing much independent new information.”

As I wrote then, I encourage you (or others) “to document how much overlap there is in Muller’s analysis with the locations used by GISS, NCDC and CRU.”

This still has not been done to my knowledge.

Roger Sr

---

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

November 25, 2014, 8:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

$

0

0

you get silence when you make bone headed mistakes a couple paragraphs into your document.
If I told you the moon was made of green cheese you have every right to ignore me.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

November 25, 2014, 8:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Suppose a group has a great deal of information—enough to produce the unambiguously right outcome…

Making wiser groups:

◾Silence the leader
◾‘Prime’ critical thinking
◾Appoint a devil’s advocate
◾Establish contrarian teams
◾Use the scientific method

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

November 25, 2014, 8:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

$

0

0

miker613 – Why not also read RP Jr.’s new book and form an independent view?

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Nate Silver was just reacting to herd pressure, not any scientific reasoning. His behavior in that example helps make Judy’s case even stronger.

Roger Sr.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

November 25, 2014, 8:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

$

0

0

“Richard, the strange thing is that in posts like these, Judith states the importance of disagreement, but despite this importance, seems more focussed on what she perceives to be some negative personal impacts.”

More focussed?

gosh one parenthetical factual statement and you go all hyperbolic.

Its a fact that Judith has experienced ostracism.

It’s a fact that many on our side of the debate have called her anti science, denier, have announced the death of career and career advancement.

However in all of this she has not played the victim. If you want to see how victims act, go look at Bill Cosby’s Accuser’s.

Much as you and your thug friends would like to shut Judith up she won’t play the victim and be silent

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

November 25, 2014, 9:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Bob Irving

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

wrong Roger.

in some cases its the same location in other cases its different locations.
Its also different times.

Currently we use around 40K stations
the vast majority of the sources are GHCN D– Daily raw
the balance is GCOS– Daily.
a small amount of monthly data is used IF and only IF it is not found
in daily data.

1. CRU uses between 4000 and 5000 stations. All monthly all adjusted.
2 GISS uses between 7-8 K stations from GHCN-M and a couple
other collections. Adjusted monthly data.

As an example look at GISS in the USA

USHCN is over 1000 stations. Why so few? because their method
REQUIRES long stations.

Now go look at the source of USHCN: GHCN-D you will find 20K stations
in the US.

Different locations: More locations: more data is used ( raw data at that) because our method doesnt rely on long series.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Bob Irving

November 25, 2014, 9:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Reputational issues, misinterpreted signals that don’t get checked: are these not just symptoms of an unhealthy (in relational/psychological terms) community? Perhaps, we humans, are not very good at generating ‘healthy’ communities? And I certainly don’t claim to be ‘healthy’ minded myself. Even in this email, I may have created a signal that can be misinterpreted.

I find this topic related to groups as interesting as that related to groups and individuals re certainty and ignorance. I am fascinated by the power of my own interpretive framework to vanish evidence I don’t like and believe that mole hills I do like are mountains. And I am just talking about myself here. Damn, I am guilty again.

And thank you for another great post.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

November 25, 2014, 9:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Bob Irving

$

0

0

Steven Mosher – You continue to misinterpret.

Most of this extra site are expected to be in the same general area. Show us otherwise,

If you have 10 more stations in the New York state, for example, they provide more confidence on the trend in that region (which is a valuable addition), but do not add anything to information on other regions.

To make your point, instead of rudely dismissing, show us regions where sites are added that are not sampled by the other analyses.

---

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

November 25, 2014, 9:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JustinWonder

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by rpielke

$

0

0

The link to Politico above (talking about Keystone) is among the worst articles I’ve ever read because of what it says about the future of our society –e.g., socialist planners, living in a bubble, robbing the unborn of a future.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JustinWonder

November 25, 2014, 9:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Wagathon

$

0

0

There is no need to find a motive, which might imply a monolithic conspiracy. Instead, you only need to acknowledge that there is a system of rewards and constraints to which people respond. Then there is the intersection of special interests. Once it gets started in a certain direction it gains a life of it’s own. For example, a brilliant scientist, say Hansen, expresses,concern that the climate is warming due to anthropogenic CO2 (which may be true), someone else runs with that and confirms the conclusion, a politician drives legislation to fund research, more people are added to the group. More papers are published, the communities grow. New journals are created with reviewers drawn from the growing population of the group. A political organization is growing and it’s leaders buy votes with subsidies and funding. Opponents are labeled as evil, a common political tactic. NGOs form around the issue, now it becomes a belief, a movement, a self-selecting political identity with associated values. A counter-culture group forms in opposition and mirrors everything the other group does, ad infinitum.

This is just one narrative, likely false, but it’s a way to see that there is no need for a conspiracy or a single motive. It could just be a historical cascade.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

November 25, 2014, 9:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by PMHinSC

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by JustinWonder

$

0

0

easy peasy. the data has been there since day one.

ONE reason to supply the data and code ( since day one) is to give
YOU the tools to do your own busy work.

Take colorado. You know that state, right?

Here are our stations

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/region/colorado

Its even google mapped for you

Then go compare that with USHCN which GISS uses.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=14&name=&world_map.x=154&world_map.y=129

New York?

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/region/new-york

171 active stations
308 historical

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/new-york

We posted the data so that YOU could answer the questions YOU found scientifically interesting.

Suffice it to say. USHCN which GISS uses is 1000 stations or so, DERIVED FROM GHCN-D which is 20K stations or so in the US.

20K is greater than 1K

GHCN-D covers different locations ( as you know)
GHCN-D covers different times ( as you know)

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by PMHinSC

November 25, 2014, 9:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

This might be OT but I didn’t know anywhere else to put it:
It seems that in California the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Western Renewable Energy Project is objecting too much of the California Wind Energy Association’s proposal for possible “renewable energy zones.”
“Environmental advocates have an entirely different perspective.
Helen O’Shea — director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Western Renewable Energy Project — said that while energy companies typically measure the “ground disturbance” of wind turbines as the area covered by their concrete foundations, environmental groups look at the entire project area. That’s important, O’Shea said, because wind developments can interrupt migration corridors for desert tortoises and bighorn sheep, among other species.”

http://www.desertsun.com/story/money/2014/11/24/drecp-hurt-windmill-developments/70059056/

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

November 25, 2014, 9:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by omanuel

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by PMHinSC

$

0

0

There was a hint of proud dad there that seems entirely justified.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by omanuel

November 25, 2014, 9:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

$

0

0

Steven Mosher

Please identify statements you call “bone headed mistakes”.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

November 25, 2014, 9:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by omanuel

$

0

0

I am not sure what she means by “ostracism.” If she means in terms of collaboration, that could be attributed to the fact that her views have changed enough so they are no longer compatible with her colleagues.

---

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

November 25, 2014, 9:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

$

0

0

<blockquote>it is undeniable that pro-AGW people in the media are saying a lot of negative things about Dr. Curry</blockquote> Do you have any examples?

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

November 25, 2014, 9:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by John Smith (it's my real name)

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

$

0

0

<blockquote>‘special authority or who wield power’ </blockquote> Are you saying that some authority is preventing skeptics from speaking out? Who would that be?

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by John Smith (it's my real name)

November 25, 2014, 9:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Joseph

$

0

0

seems a good time to quote kim

“we go mad as a herd and become skeptics one by one”

so true…(kim, hope I remembered correctly)

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

November 25, 2014, 9:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by brent

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by John Smith (it's my real name)

$

0

0

No. I would limit skeptics to those who speak out. Curry and Mosher also speak out and would probably refuse the moniker, which is fine. You haven’t silenced us, nor will you. But some with private doubts have I’m sure been intimidated. Your lack of shame about this is shameful indeed.

Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by brent

November 25, 2014, 9:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Dick Hertz

≪ Previous: Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by Richard Drake

$

0

0

“Ah consensus … the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?” – Margaret Thatcher
snip
The Delphi Technique
Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator “the victim.” This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd

http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp

Your Delphi facilitator skills are slipping Michael :)