This is the point at which we rise up and hang them all

OK, so, climate change, data faked for the paper that insisted there was no pause and all that.

Ho hum.

And then this:

“the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure,” which means the study cannot be replicated.

Ecksie? Go get that gallows would you? We’re going to need it.

Won’t this all be terribly fun? The first public executions for the new crime of “taking the piss”.

66 comments on “This is the point at which we rise up and hang them all

  1. I’ve been telling you for fucking years, Worstall, that the CAGW scare is a heap of lies and incompetence. And yet you’ve romanced on about carbon taxes and whatnot. The true answer is gibbets.

  2. Worse, it’s clear that infringing even the most basic norms of data management, reproducibility etc. is actively frowned upon.

    When you’re saving the world from ManBearPig, you’ve got no time for that kind of thing…

  3. “the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure,” which means the study cannot be replicated.

    I’m calling balls on this one. If this is in academia there will be backups of the software and data somewhere.

  4. Tim

    This is one area where you haven’t done your homework. I know it is not economics, but suggesting economic solutions to a non-`problem is a bummer.

    This has been unravelling for the last few years.

    And if the problem of a heating atmosphere due to CO2 doesn’t exist, the man-made contribution obviously has, then, no effect.

    400ppm for God’s sake. And it’s bloody plant food.

    I ask myself:
    How many, like me (believers way back), have looked at the situation and ‘changed sides’?
    A lot of people.

    How many have gone from not believing in AGW to believing?
    I know of none.

    Most parrot what they read in the MSM but have not the slightest idea about anything in this field.

    It is a one way road with a lot of troughers paddling in the wrong direction still prepared to say anything to save face and keep the cash coming.

  5. “the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure,” which means the study cannot be replicated.

    So it was a one-off, custom-built machine with no record of how it was put together.
    Rilly?

  6. Tim–Far be it from me to appear in the guise of moderation but I only propose defunding the left via purging them off the state’s tit . Much as one would like to see the bastards hang as retaliation for the 150 million murdered by socialism –so far, we are still the good –if not the nice –guys. Scaffolds not needed –I hope.

  7. I thought the time to rise up and hang them all was after Climategate. You know, when the e-mails were leaked that showed our brave climate scientists had conspired to ‘get rid of’ the ’40s temperature bump by fiddling the temperatures, and eliminated the Medieval warm period by carefully selecting the right tree ring series then truncating the output and tacking on the, (heavily adjusted), instrumental output to “hide the decline”. Etc. Etc.

    But they were carefully investigated by a couple of cronies, told they were naughty boys and given a slap on the wrist, which swiftly morphed into “they were completely cleared” in the narrative,

    And so they merrily carried on lying and cheating and fiddling the data and calling anyone who slightly demurred an anti-science climate denier, then trying, (often successfully), to get them drummed out of society.

    So what’s going to be different this time. Already the ‘rebuttals’ are out there pointing out that David Rose got a couple of graphs wrong and anyway he’s a denier and in the pay of the Koch brothers so that’s all right then.

    Trump will still have a huge uphill battle to try and get this nonsense stopped and I’m not sure this latest event will make a lot of difference.

  8. Mr Ecks, much as I usually admire the moderation and restraint in your comments, I feel that in this case you may have been a little too restrained.

    People have died – people are still dying – of the fuel poverty that has directly followed on from this vicious, and deliberate, anti-human scam. And then there’s the opportunity cost of the trillions wasted on useless mitigation strategies for a problem which, if it occurs, can only be dealt with by adaptation.

    Perhaps we should spare some of the scientists; they are after all only human and the temptations of fame and fortune might have swayed any of us.

    But the misandrists who sat down and deliberately set up this scheme – I’m talking the Ehrlichs, Maurice Strong, Tickell and son, Schellenhuber(sp?) and all the other Club of Rome bastards – with the specific objective of taking political control of the world so that they could save the planet by culling the human race. They deserve to swing.

    Unfortunately, they’re all getting a bit old these days – M. Strong has already popped his clogs – so some of the younger ones will have to step up to the plate so to speak, in order to get that whole ‘encourage the rest’ vibe going.

    But doubtless there will be very little in the way of payback and another bunch of spiteful anti-human bastards will inveigle their evil way into positions of influence and another bunch of useful idiots will grab their chance to ‘save the planet’.

  9. You have been fooled, as has your “streetwise” professor. Or rather, you have fooled yourself, because unless you’re a dickhead, you should know enough not to believe what you read in the Fail.

  10. oooo…so the fact that the story comes from John Bates, a guy who recently retired from NOAA, is of no significance? The consensus must be enforced by all means. And how witty to refer to “the Fail” – I am wetting myself at the sophistication of the Connolley sense of humour.

  11. Mr Ecks – moderation in the defence of liberty is no virtue!!

    I wanna see the bastards dance the Tyburn Hornpipe (metaphorically speaking of course) maybe we’d better content ourselves with sacking them and cancelling their pensions, to avoid the attention of GCHQ, NSA and all the other nosy fuckers who doubtless waste oodles of our money monitoring blogs such as this looking to islamophobia and all the other shit.

  12. Well, there are too many things going on for my tired old brain to comprehend in this area.

    Some stupid dumbbitch is Washington has decreed that the First Amendment doesn’t apply in the Mann v Steyn case, because Mann’s hockey stick has been approved by experts, therefore to criticise it is defamation of character.

    Experts? Did the Founding Fathers include this clause and I missed it?

    So we have a judge shitting on 300 years of law to protect a climate change conman. (She believes Steyn will run out of money now it has to go to trial).

    So we’re away with the fairies and likely to stay that way. Back to Galileo and the Inquisition.

  13. William

    You almost seem slightly irritated with Tim’s post?

    What has Tim been fooled by? And is there something more reliable on these data errors you can link to that we can learn from?

  14. PF

    One day, William, along with many others, will have to cross their particular Rubicon when their position has not only fallen out from under them, but the world sees and recognises it.

    The humilliation will be devastating and some, the more honourable ones, may not make it.

    Although, I suspect that most, like my leftie friends, they will adapt and suddenly have been climate realists all their lives.

  15. > You almost seem slightly irritated with Tim’s post?

    Yes. Because Tim is one of teh few libertarian -types I know who is usually on the sane side of actual climate science. He’s usually prepared to believe the IPCC, at least formally.

    Now, he’s believing the Fail. So I’ve lost my example of a sane libertarian to show my left wing friends that you’re not all a total bunch of nutters when it comes to the science of GW.

    > is there something more reliable

    Of course there is. But you can’t be bothered to look for the easily findable. http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/boiling-bates-down.html is a nice short version; http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-speed-of-entropy.html is a longer one.

    Why are you people so credulous?

  16. You’ve slightly missed the implicit “if” in there. If it is true that the paper and models cannot be redone because the computer is broken then…..

  17. And I’ve never, ever, found and Eli post to be useful. It always trolls in the details and never cuts to the quick.

    And all of this is just confirmation of my long standing position. I’m not going to get into it, I just don’t care. We all know that the right solution anyway around is a carbon tax so let’s go do that. Even if there ain’t no climate change at all a carbon tax along the Nordhaus route would be about as harmful as the other methods we use to pay for government so would not be worse anyway.

    One thing does strike me though. The finding of the paper that refutes the existence of the hiatus. It still finds that we end up at the same temperature as we all thought, yes? Same starting point, same end point? Thus the earlier warming must have been slower than that assumed when we see a hiatus, yes?

    Anyway, it’s all pretty much moot. We’ve moved the world away from A1FT where we had a serious problem to something much closer to A1T, which ain’t a problem. We’ve done it inefficiently (carbon tax not these ridiculous subsidies to expensive solar) but we do seem to be about there.

  18. > the implicit “if” in there

    Oh come on that’s pathetic. “Implicit if”? You’ll be giving me “alternative facts” next.

    Where’s the “implicit if” in “This is the point at which we rise up and hang them all… OK, so, climate change, data faked for the paper that insisted there was no pause and all that.”

    This isn’t the Sun, you’re not writing “Freddie Starr ate my hamster”. Look at your poor credulous commentators: they actually believed you. There was no if. You’re supposed to be providing something above that kind of level.

    Face it: you should correct your headline and your post to acknowledge your error.

    > And I’ve never, ever, found and Eli post to be useful

    Well if you’d read his post you wouldn’t have been dumb enough to post this rubbish, would you? I’m afraid my left-wing friends tell me that they never find your posts helpful. Because they can’t get past the snark to the valuable stuff (on economics). You need to learn the same, I think.

    > One thing does strike me though…

    that you’re still clinging to your “hiatus”. It didn’t exist. I can of course provide the usual references to blogs that go through all the obvious details, if you like.

  19. “Surely, universities have backups?”

    Goodness me, a man who didn’t look at the “climate gate” emails. The dimwits at East Anglia had taken reported temperatures, and adjusted, and adjusted, and adjusted again. Then it turned out that they hadn’t bothered to keep a note of the original numbers.

  20. “This has got to be BS, right?”

    Yes, all of it. The whole bloody lot.

    And they know we know they know it’s bollocks, but still the charade continues.

  21. “This has got to be BS, right? Surely, universities have backups?”

    They were lost down the back of the couch.

  22. I thought the shorter Eli post quite interesting, actually.

    * Bates designed an overly complicated set of procedures for climate data archiving.

    * He got upper management at NOAA to sign on because the charts looked pretty.

    * There were huge delays in implementation because of software problems and more.

    * The process was a huge time sink.

    * But it had the virtue of making Bates the Gatekeeper.

    * Others were not happy with this.

    * They had science they wanted to publish so they found a way around Gatekeeper Bates.

    * Gatekeeper Bates went crying to Lamar Smith.

    * Trump becomes president

    * Denialists need an issue and cast about.

    So, to translate:

    Somebody in climate science finally instituted a data archiving policy.

    It was the approved, official, this-is-how-we-do-it-now method.

    The software took a long time to implement, and was controlled by someone not in the club.

    Climate scientists, having learnt absolutely nothing from past events, had no patience for things like “archiving” and “software quality”, apparently considering stuff like backups “over complicated”.

    So yes, they *did* find ways round the system, to publish their so-called “science” without following the archiving and approval procedures.

    They got caught.

    Trump became president, and the administration is now no longer willing to cover this sort of crap up.

    Climate sceptics are rolling their eyes at the utter predictability of the situation. We’ve got those same ol’ feelings of deja vu. Again.


    By the way, did you guys ever finally manage to replicate CRU TS 2.1? I always felt kind of sorry for poor old Harry, being asked to sort that mess out. Although I’d be a lot more sympathetic if it hadn’t taken Climategate for anyone outside CRU to get to hear about it. So much for scientific integrity.

  23. “This has got to be BS, right? Surely, universities have backups?”

    As someone who has worked in a Uni in an IT let me answer that question – Yes but no.

    Climategate but the fear of god into the higher management even though it is a name that cannot be mentioned. My then employer forked out for a centralised storage system which was then replicated into two other locations and which is written to some kind of write once tape storage every so often.

    Once set up departments were told they could use it for a very reasonable fee. Months later with bugger all stored on management decreed that it could be used by departments for free. Research groups were then set aside a certain amount of space in TB and told to use it. Months later there is still little more than bugger all on there.

    Basically senior researchers like to keep their own data. Then if they move jobs the data moves with them. Yet year after year data is lost as research groups buy their own cheap RAID arrays which then die or data gets deleted by emitted or sacked researchers.

    Nothing will change it never does.

  24. By the way, I really liked this comment at Eli’s.

    “It rather sounds like Bates was hiding his incompetence behind a need for perfection.”

    When everyone knows that good climate science is about the tolerance for imperfection? Heh!

  25. You seem to think that my personal blog is something other than my personal blog.

    It really is, just and only, my personal blog.

    At which point. That data, that information, those calculations, are the reproducible? Or has the computer blown up and we can’t do them again?

    No, not an Eli response, he over there did that and I don’t like him.

    Are the people who say that paper can’t be done again lying? Or are the people who did the paper, umm, not doing science, because we can’t reproduce what they did?

    No ifs or buts please. It’s on or the other and which is it? Lies or not science?

  26. Oh dear, the hiatus that was explained by 50 or so published, peer-reviewed papers, including one by St Jim Hansen, and explained again in a special box in the last IPCC report, and explained in a blog post by Willy’s pal James Annan never existed.

    How are we stupid morons supposed to know when climate scientists are telling us the real story when they change it so frequently? Were the IPCC telling lies?

  27. @dearieme, February 6, 2017 at 3:19 pm
    “I’ve been telling you for fucking years, Worstall, that the CAGW scare is a heap of lies and incompetence. And yet you’ve romanced on about carbon taxes and whatnot. The true answer is gibbets.”

    +1

    @bilbaoboy, February 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm
    “Tim
    This is one area where you haven’t done your homework. I know it is not economics, but suggesting economic solutions to a non-`problem is a bummer.
    This has been unraveling for the last few years.”

    +1

    .
    @William Connolley, February 6, 2017 at 5:19 pm
    “You have been fooled, as has your “streetwise” professor. Or rather, you have fooled yourself, because unless you’re a dickhead, you should know enough not to believe what you read in the Fail.”

    Little Willy, if you try harder, someday you may manage to write a reply which contains some facts and logic rather than spittle-flecked insults.

    PS: I much prefer William of Orange.

  28. > It really is, just and only, my personal blog.

    Yes, but it would be nice if you showed some care for the truth, not a Trumpian carelessness with reality.

    > At which point. That data, that information, those calculations, are the reproducible? Or has the computer blown up and we can’t do them again?

    Ah, excellent. You’re asking questions. Presumably, because you don’t know the answers. But that basic due-diligence is something to do *before* posting, not afterwards.

    And yes, of course, they are reproducible. Not by you, obvs. Or by me. But by anyone who cares to try.

    > Are the people who say that paper can’t be done again lying?

    Yes.

  29. One for WilliamC if you know without too much research into the climate science back catalogue.
    I want to know if average global wind speeds will increase in the next 25 years, stay the same or reduce. Investor in certain types of energy you see. I know that pppm of CO2 will be higher in 25 years, and average temperatures will be higher as a result ( by less than predicted, but still higher I’m sure ) but wind output is what interests me.
    And what would have been the corresponding prediction 25 years ago, and what was the outcome?

  30. Argument from ignorance by assertion. Connolley excells himself. Throw in some bloviating ad homs : just admit that the science is bullshit. You’ll get a shorter gaol sentence.

  31. “And Tim linking to a site that bases its opinion using the MoS as evidence. Rilly?”

    “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

    Heh! Climate science!

  32. Backups? If earth really is facing an existential threat why isn’t this being done in the cloud where everyone can help with the analysis where backups are done automatically?

    There shouldn’t be another cent of tax payers money until they demonstrate that all data is open source and for everyone to run.

  33. Not really, NiV. Tim is just being the Mail’s herald on his blog. I’m surprised he agrees with it. I didn’t insult anyone.

    Heh! Reading!

  34. “Not really, NiV. Tim is just being the Mail’s herald on his blog. I’m surprised he agrees with it. I didn’t insult anyone.”

    Ad hominem doesn’t mean insult. (That’s a special case: the “ad hominem abusive”.) An ad hominem fallacy is where one argues that something is false purely because of the person or entity presenting the argument (lack of qualifications, motive, poor reputation, past history, etc.), instead of presenting a fatal flaw in the argument itself. It’s logically invalid. As is its converse: the Appeal to Authority fallacy, where a statement is argued to be true purely because of the person or entity making it.

    Rejection of Appeal to Authority is one of the foundation stones of science.

    Proper science doesn’t care where arguments come from – it only cares whether they have been shown to be valid or not.

    If, as you suggest, the MoS is such a shoddy source, the only thing that should mean is that it will be particularly easy for you to invalidate the argument they present. Can you?

    Given Eli’s self-damning summary, I’m inclined to think there might be some truth in it. It’s not that what was said is entirely untrue, it’s that climate scientists don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But I don’t know. I’m just waiting for Willy to stop throwing dust in the air and answer the question.

    Bear in mind that based on some of their past behaviour, climate science has a reputation on a par with The Mail, and if I was as inclined towards ad hominem as climate believers are, I’d dismiss their protestations on those grounds alone. But I’m not.

    Did the authors of Karl et al breach the management-approved archiving procedures? Yes or no?

    What was it about these procedures that they found so unreasonable?

    What better alternative system did they put in place themselves? Where did they document it?

    Is there open, public, downloadable, version-controlled, turnkey code and data to reproduce the calculations and results exactly as they were originally done?

    I’m not interested in the office politics. What I want to know is if this is another example of HARRY_README standards of software quality and scientific integrity? Can you prove it?

  35. The general quality of home-brewed software in academia is appalling. I have never seen proper testing and QA methodologies applied, such as unit tests, code review or continuous integration. Even big projects are ad hoc and testing occurs as an afterthought where it occurs at all. As for backups: it would not surprise me in the least if even a largish research project was not archived properly (i.e. versioning, redundant backups, disaster recovery plan, testing of said plan). Proper backups might be expensive and tedious, but not nearly as expensive and tedious as needing them and not having them.

  36. Speaking of ad hominems

    William Connolley – this the same one that got barred by Wikipedia from editing articles on several occasions?

  37. “Pretty much all of that’s covered in those links.”

    No it isn’t.

    Where does it say in those links what these procedures were to which they object? Where’s the link to the turnkey code archive? Did they breach the management-approved archiving policy policy?

    Eli’s statement that “They had science they wanted to publish so they found a way around Gatekeeper Bates” suggests the answer to that last one is “yes, they did”, but “found a way around” could mean “find a way to obey the rules without involving Bates” or something. And what is Bates reply to all these claims? We need a few more rounds from *both* sides before we come to any firm conclusion.

    “William Connolley – this the same one that got barred by Wikipedia from editing articles on several occasions?”

    Yes, but that’s ad hominem fallacy as well, or verging on it. Raise the game.

  38. Hey William, why would we listen to a failed scientist like you who gave up on real science to fix radio’s for a living?

    William…….did get banned by Wikipedia, failed to become a Green Councillor and seems to be so much cleverer that President Trump that he did not become a Billionaire or leader of the free world.

  39. William Connelly, you are an arrant liar, and “Eli” is if anything, worse. Nothing, and I repeat that, nothing you say can be trusted with regard to “Climate Science”. You simply have no integrity on the subject.

    Please go back to deceptively editing Wikipedia to remove true facts and substitute lies as you used to; you were more gainfully employed at that.

    You simply cannot cherry pick data using post selection criteria as a fig leaf and retain any credibility as a scientist.

  40. NIV:
    “Yes, but that’s ad hominem fallacy as well, or verging on it. Raise the game.”

    I can do formal, polite internet debate reasonably well, but I don’t think William and friend trying to be big and hard in a personal blog comments section are worth the effort. They are wanky little cultists fit for nothing but unsporting entertainment.

  41. Strange how the friends of the alarmist tendency seem so unconvincing in argument. Niv sets out a case. Connolley asserts. Which one is more convincing? Eli doesn’t even assert : he simply hints that he knows better, but given his specialism why should anyone believe him?

  42. And little Willie is no doubt back on his own blog crying about the bad people who didn’t just accept his non-existent authority

  43. “And yes, of course, they are reproducible. Not by you, obvs. Or by me. But by anyone who cares to try.”

    OK, I care to try. Where’s the source code, build instructions and data?

  44. Biw… You mean it is not in the paper nor the supplementary information? Which minging journal published this shit?

  45. ” sane libertarian to show my left wing friends that you’re not all a total bunch of nutters”

    How can you show anything to lefties? They’re idiots to start with.

  46. Well, to be fair, you can show them stuff.

    But the reaction will usually just be along the lines of, “Thatcher! Racist! Trump! Fascist! Misogyny! Denier! Muhhhhh! Thatcher!”

  47. Seems simple to me.
    An organisation is commissioned to carry out some research. The results are the central part of the research. No results? We’ll have our money back thank you.
    Government body? Change of management at least, and consider disbanding it.

  48. “the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure,” which means the study cannot be replicated.

    Really doesn’t ring true.

    Mission critical server…

    First choice: do it as a VM. Exists as a bit of software only, with backups and snapshots and all the rest. You have to go out of your way to completely and irrecoverably destroy one of these.

    Second choice: cloud. Pretty much as above.

    Third choice: physical servers with redundancy. Maybe you have multiple servers. You definitely use a basic RAID mirror at least.

    All choices: backups.

  49. “Really doesn’t ring true. Mission critical server…”

    Ha! Have you ever read the HARRY_READ_ME file?

    It gives detailed instructions on how to write software for a “flagship” data product in climate research, to the standards required for peer-reviewed science. (Yes, the result of this was peer-reviewed and included in IPCC reports.)

    It also explains why, when somebody tried to make climate scientists archive their data, Wiki’d Willy would say of it: “It rather sounds like Bates was hiding his incompetence behind a need for perfection.” and why Eli would say: ” Bates designed an overly complicated set of procedures for climate data archiving. […]They had science they wanted to publish so they found a way around Gatekeeper Bates.”

    This is what not having a “need for perfection” looks like.

  50. Pingback: Prior discovery – Stoat

  51. There was no data faked. Rose might say that, Bates didn’t. Bates didn’t like the data they were using. Nothing faked about it.

    A simple fact.

    I have no idea what they mean by the computer failed. It is so vague a claim as to be meaningless. Computers fail every day around the world and the a backup is used to do exactly the same job.

    Replication in science does not mean doing exactly the same thing exactly the same way using exactly the same tools. (Are they supposed to use exactly the same computer as well?) It means replicating the same result using the same method, (or a variation of the method) as described in the paper.

    Another simple fact. It’s been done, here. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

    The same result, there was no pause. The Daily Mail has once again printed a bunch of hysterical lies. Nothing unusual about that. The world keeps getting warmer.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.