Tag: climate science

A Saturday In June

picture of a beachSomewhere, children frolic in swimming pools and oceans under watchful parental eyes. Somewhere, people are taking the opportunity to drive around the country to see what they can see. Somewhere, people have paid cash money to enter an air-conditioned movie theater to view the latest movie of whoever about whatever.

I don’t have a swimming pool, and learned a long time ago that kids pee in swimming pools. I also do not own a beach cottage, and my kids are all grown so I don’t have to watch them lose themselves in the sun and surf. Movies? I gave up going to the movies a long time ago, unless a really great science fiction flick comes along. Nothing worthy has appeared since the first Star Wars.

So, what’s an old guy to do on a Saturday afternoon? Since I am not a golfer or a gardener, my preference is to stay home and play computer whiz and wannabe intellectual guru on the internet. I have twisted interests, but, so what? It keeps me off the streets.

Of particular interest is the Obama Re-Election Campaign. It’s not working too well when, in the middle of a severe recession with the number of jobs dropping like a rock, he says, “The private sector is in good shape.” He could be a star on a reality show if he applies himself.

On the climate front, a young wannabe climate scienctist and PhD, Joelle Gergis, published a new paper that made questionable conclusions. When asked for her data and methods, she got snarky. Apparently, Dr Gergis’ people skills are even worse than her science skills. The very same people whom she refused found egregious problems with her statistics and methodology, even without all the data. Her paper was put on hold until by the other authors of the paper! Imagine, a half-dozen PhD’s spending over $300,000 on a paper that was written so carelessly.

Unfortunately, much of climate science falls into the category of junk, just like Gergis et al, and sometimes for the same reasons. This was a PEER REVIEWED PAPER!!!  None of those PhD dummies at the American Meteorological Society who reviewed the paper caught the problem. Apparently, those so-called scientists at the American Meteorological Society can’t do weather or climate science. Why are they there?  It took an informal bunch of bloggers to call attention to the crime. A. W. Montford at Bishop Hill gives a good layman’s explanation. Steve McIntyre and colleagues at Climate Audit did the work.

Turning to things personal, this is the second week of my wife’s retirement from the public school system. Today was her first foray into the world of nutrition and grocery shopping. I helped her with a list of things needed, and kissed her for good luck before  she disappeared around the corner headed for stores unknown. Things were good. I had her doing some things to relieve me of my difficult duties.

She just returned from the store. There were no chips. There was no beer. Oh, what have I done? Where is that lawn mower? I need to work out some frustration.

Dinosaur Gas Story Is Science Fiction

Picture of BS button
Press Here To Initiate BS Flag

There’s a new study by British scientists that tries to answer the following question.

“Could methane produced by sauropod dinosaurs
have helped drive Mesozoic climate warmth?

To bring this into perspective, a bunch of inebriated British professorial types were sitting at their usual pub table one evening having a bull session. One of them, probably the lead author, jumped up and shouted, “dinosaur farts!” This kind of epiphany, no doubt triggered by a notable methane event at their table, is the way climate science is done. One of the old boys cut a big one, and that lone, gaseous event became a government-funded, peer-reviewed study.

That’s how climate science is done, nowadays. Somebody has a brain fart, and off to the government they go to get their flatulence funded.

So, what does this latest exercise in scientific Tom-Foolery purport to show? Well, for one thing the authors try valiantly to estimate the world of 200 million years ago, and to calculate the number of a certain breed of dinosaur, how much vegetation the being consumed, how much methane was emitted by each one.

In other words the so-called peer-reviewed study is all guess-work. There are no facts supporting the study. You can tell the authors are BS’ing you when the very first sentence uses the words, “likely to have”. That means that they have no clue what they are talking about.

Throughout the paper, the charade continues with phrases which include words “would probably”, and “estimate”. Where are the facts? Where is the evidence?

Many of you know exactly what I am talking about. You, too, have had those alcohol fueled brain storms, and left cocktail napkins on the bar covered with your idea of the next billion dollar business, or your scheme for a perpetual motion machine. The next morning you were over it, although a bit hung over.

Many peer reviewed studies are nothing more than somebody’s exercise in computer spoofing, or just plain people spoofing. You can spot the computer spoofing by the revelation of a mathematical model being used in the study.

There’s a lot of spoofing going on in the world of science, and this is but one example.

Hat tip to Watt Up With That.