Neverending Audit

If climate change were a dude, via bird and moon

Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:25:28 -0400

If climate change were a dude, via bird and moon

Trendology for Contrarians

Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:56:41 -0400

Dana,

For what it’s worth, I think that some of Shub’s remarks about the paper’s trendology should be accepted as constructive criticisms. For instance:

Cook and co-authors rationalize the decrease in the proportion of papers supporting the consensus, via a convoluted theory, as evidence for a high degree of consensus. They contend the decrease implies more papers have accepted the consensus and therefore don’t need to talk about it. At the same time, they take the increase in absolute numbers of orthodox position papers as evidence for ‘increasing consensus’.

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i

My emphasis. Nevermind the contrarian packaging. Shub has his own narrative to push and his eyeballs to attract. This is a small price to pay if that provides you with ways to improve your work.

If Cook & al needs to rationalize its trendology the way it does, there’s not amount of formal results that would compensate the heavy assumptions on which it rests. Besides, the trends observed in the paper look quite constant to me. And they do not seem to rest on the most robust stats around. They do not look contrarian-proof.

So I think responding to this criticism would be a good idea here. Take both criticisms like a scientist would, and use them to construct a better paper, and with it a better world.

If I had an advice for climate scientists, it would be:

One does not simply graph a trendology in front of a contrarian crowd.

Not following that rule is asking for trouble, Dana. You know why, I hope. If not, please read back the last 7 years of Steve’s.

Don’t you know any statistician? They could help, you know. There’s a post doc who contributed in this very thread who might be interested to get his name on some papers.

Also, please consider hiring an editor. Don’t you know any critical reviewers at the Guardian’s? There are professionals for this kind of jobs. Better-written papers would save us Climateballers lots of man-hours.

I digress.

My main point should be this: even if there’s no real trend, that does not affect your results much. The point of the paper, as I see it, is to refute the theory of consensus collapse. (Please note to that effect my criticism in my comment above: the results of the paper refutes a narrative, not an assertion, as we can read in the paper.) This theory is shown false even with a flat trend.

There is no collapse. That is all you need to show. This meme is untrue. No need to push the trendology further: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

Hope this helps,

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:03:00 -0400

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

What About Now?

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:15:49 -0400

[Neal J. King discovers that conflict and stress are tied up around the Auditor’s quest.]

I spent an hour last December talking with Steve McIntyre at the AGU meeting in SF; quite civil. But his main topic was his struggles to get data out of Michael Mann about the hockeystick – the main events of which took place years ago. I stopped him, and asked:

Steve, I’m really not that interested in this – this was years ago. I’m more interested in knowing, What does Stephen McIntyre want his life to be about now?

I did not get an answer to that. Steve declared that he had to catch someone at another talk, and we parted on pleasant terms.

The secret life of internet climate trolls

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:19:00 -0400

The secret life of internet climate trolls:

Meet the Climate Trolls is a three-part video series, exploring who gets to define the truth about climate change in the digital age.

Preemptive Audit

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:23:51 -0400

[Richard finally provides references for survey design he deems proper.]

Thanks. Finally!

I think the keystrokes were introduced for perceptual studies, to inspect record rates that are in ms or less. This could be useful here to discriminate raters that would have followed the Auditor’s advice:

Note that I suggested that readers spend equivalent time to those who responded to Lew’s survey. If, for example, you don’t care about the quality of your answer or you are answering the question the same way – as some Lew respondents did -, it takes scarcely any time to fill out the survey. **Indeed, if one were so inclined, one could submit multiple responses very quickly.** If one were so inclined, HideMyAss.com enables IP address changes in the blink of an eye as well.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/05/cooks-survey/#comment-417816

Our emphasis.

Perhaps that suggestion belongs to the doctrine of preemptive audit.

Water in the Anthropocene, via Florian Lengyel.

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:26:00 -0400

Water in the Anthropocene, via Florian Lengyel.

"Democrats and Republicans don’t inhabit totally different worlds. Maybe they just don’t take survey..."

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:38:01 -0400

“Democrats and Republicans don’t inhabit totally different worlds. Maybe they just don’t take survey questions very seriously.”

- If you pay them money, partisans will tell you the truth

Citizens Climate Lobby | Creating the political will for a sustainable climate.

Sat, 08 Jun 2013 21:15:58 -0400

Citizens Climate Lobby | Creating the political will for a sustainable climate.:

To create the political will for a stable climate. To empower individuals to have breakthroughs in exercising their personal and political power

"At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully."

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:35:01 -0400

“At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully.”

- Hakuin

It’s Not About The Nail, , says Jason Headley

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:45:31 -0400

It’s Not About The Nail, , says Jason Headley

"I would choose Heaven for climate but Hell for companionship."

Thu, 30 May 2013 22:18:00 -0400

“I would choose Heaven for climate but Hell for companionship.”

- Neither Ben Wade nor Mark Twain

Rewilding made simple

Thu, 30 May 2013 08:59:09 -0400

Rewilding made simple

On Squirrels

Wed, 29 May 2013 10:23:00 -0400

> But isn’t that precisely what this whole “Calling out climate change deniers in Congress” is all about [squirrels]?

Saying “look, squirrel!” is just another way to refer to what is called an_ ignoratio elenchi_. Even if a webpage accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things (it’s about time Denizens acknowledge this about our weekly hurly burly), it still should be about what it is.

Topicality is a fuzzy concept and aboutness is even worse:

While information scientists may well be concerned with the literary aboutness (John Hutchins, 1975, 1977, 1978), philosophers of mind and psychologists with the psychological or intentional aboutness (John Searle, 1983) and language of thought (Jerry Fodor, 1975), and semantic externalists with the external state of affairs (Hilary Putnam, 1975). These seminal perspectives are respectively analogous to Ogden and Richards’ literary, psychological, and external contexts (1923), as well as Karl Popper’s World 1, 2, and 3 (1977).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness

The topic of this op-ed is not exactly the topic of that Obama page. It might be said to be about the use of the term “deniers” by the political establishment. The thesis should minimally be something like, understating: this usage should raise concerns.

Everything that serves to support this position is up for grabs. This can include implications about the thesis (e.g. deaths and taxes), or not (cf. CA). This is settled by ground rules. Everything that lies beyond these ground rules is squirrel territory,

This does not mean that as soon as you make a move in that ball park, you are not ignoring the question. Because once you make a move M, you are somehow commited to it. (It’s more complicated than that, but this will suffice for now.) That is, if you question point P1 with the move M1, if that move M1 gets attacked by ~M1 (“M1 is false”) or M1? (“how do you know M1?”), you can’t reply, “but P2″!

In other words, pointing at another, independent point to dodge any kind of monkey wrench characterizes what a squirrel is.

There are bigger squirrels than others.

It might not be possible to have a conversation without squirrels.

As long as the bigger squirrels get resolved when called, everything should be alright.

The semi-formal outline above justifies in a way why I prefer to talk about squirrels. Let’s take an example. Please recall that the argument of our current op-ed rests on this claim:

The number of ‘deniers’ in the House of Representatives and Senate are less than 25% of the total. And at least half of these do not hold irrational positions (by my judgment anyways) on the climate change debate.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress

Most of my moves so far have been to question the second sentence of the quoted claim. To that effect, I have no reason to trust Judge Judy, Barack Obama, his grassroot organisation, nor anyone else to find the positions of the House or Representatives and Senate say about climate change. So far, my skepticism has been warranted.

That does not mean I’ve found anything irrational. In fact, I have no reason to believe that these elected officials are expressing much more than talking points, at least as far as the official lines are concerned. In which case, their personal rationality is quite safe.

Could we talk about the rationality of talking points? Perhaps. Myself, I’d rather stick to talking points simpliciter. My character is nota cognitive scientist, but a ninja. The moves are what they are. In the strange game of ClimateBall, the only losing move is not to play:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5986919630

So thanks for playing, everyone.

How many Denizens it takes to realize that a webpage is more or less a rip-off from ThinkProgress’:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate-zombie-caucus/

I don’t know.

I’ve sent them a note about both about their use of the D word and the poor diligence they paid to their quote hunting.

Zombies deserve better than that, at least for David Chalmers’ sake.

Thanks for playing and for your overall concerns,

Over and out,

Accurate, Adequate, Meaningful, and Effective

Tue, 28 May 2013 10:48:00 -0400

[Bart R requested that I find seven exemplary, accurate, pragmatic, persistent politicians who’ve directly making accurate scientific statements about climate, with adequate economic plans to address relevant issues meaningfully and effectively. Here’s a first tentative.]

That might be tough to find, but perhaps that’s not impossible. I’d even venture that when all these good representatives stop rehearsing talking points, they start making sense. To me, what matters are the talking points, as they become thinking points [1].

Your challenge is tempting. I wonder how you’d score Bernie Sanders’ proposal:

Legislation that I introduced(pdf) with the support of leading environmental organizations in the country can actually address the crisis and do what has to be done to protect the planet. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, co-sponsored the bill that would reverse greenhouse gas emissions in a significant way. It also would help create millions of jobs as we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and such sustainably energies as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. A major focus of this legislation is a price on carbon and methane emissions. **This fee on the largest fossil-fuel polluters affects fewer than 3,000 entities nationwide but covers 85% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the Congressional Research Service.** The legislation ends fossil fuel subsidies. It also protects communities by requiring that drillers engaged in a new technology called fracking must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and disclose chemicals they use. To help consumers, 60% of the carbon fee revenue will be rebated to every US resident. To level the playing field for US manufacturers and create incentives for international cooperation, there would be a border fee on imported fuels and products unless the nation they were shipped from had a similar carbon price. To transform our energy system, the legislation would make the boldest ever investment in energy efficiency and sustainable energy. That includes **weatherizing** 1m homes a year, as President Obama has advocated. It also means tripling the budget for advanced research and investing hundreds of billions through incentives and a public-private Sustainable Technologies Fund focusing on energy efficiency and clean transportation technology, as well as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass alternatives. In our bill, we also provide funds to train workers for jobs in the sustainable energy economy and to help communities become resilient in the face of extreme weather. We accomplish all of this while paying down the debt by roughly $300bn over 10 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/16/bernie-sanders-climate-change-legislation

Would that kind of proposal meet your capitalistic requirements? As a ninja, I must admit that the emphasized bit does appeal to me. I also like the concept of weatherizing, if only because I will try to include it in my poetic project:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/weatherandclimate

Please note that I am not an American citizen. I am encountering most of these names for the first time. That’s the main reason for paying due diligence to their claims regarding climate, for which barackobama.com’s page was quite suboptimal.

The thinking points these good people promote (in a technical sense) deserve more exposure.

[1] http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/

"As Henry David Thoreau wrote — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one..."

Mon, 27 May 2013 13:57:48 -0400

“As Henry David Thoreau wrote — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” — so will we practice. Our aim is to recruit teachers — citizens from every part of society who will work with us to spread the recognition of the corrupting influence of money, and help us build the movement to reform it.”

- About Rootstrikers

Artist finds inspiration in Canadian government’s attempt...

Mon, 27 May 2013 09:11:59 -0400

Artist finds inspiration in Canadian government’s attempt to silence her

"Back in the day, we called comments “letters to the editor.” Someone read them, picked..."

Sat, 25 May 2013 08:52:33 -0400

“Back in the day, we called comments “letters to the editor.” Someone read them, picked the best ones, & published them. Many were STILL bad.”

- Please subscribe to AvoidComments: be the change you want to see in the world. Avoid reading comments.

"My friend said to me, “I think the weather’s trippy.” I said, “No, man,..."

Fri, 24 May 2013 23:34:18 -0400

“My friend said to me, “I think the weather’s trippy.” I said, “No, man, it’s not the weather that’s trippy, perhaps it is the way that we perceive it that is indeed trippy.” Then I thought, “Man, I should have just said, ‘Yeah.’””

- Mitch Hedberg

Climate Bullies

Fri, 24 May 2013 14:00:00 -0400

> Willard is a bully. Just like Mac. Just like me.

Perhaps, but not long ago Moshpit was distinguishing good and bad bullies. Where has the special pleading gone?

Bullying qualifies anyone who resorts to violent means to intimidate in communication. Nicknaming is only one of them. Labeling is another one. Among its practitioners, we must include Judge Judy, who just used a trick to qualify Indefinite Others as wingnuts, and recently called Less Indefinite Others dittoheads.

Speaking of whom, “Judge Judy” was her choice for a nickname:

Judge Judy’s verdict: I think that these exchanges have been terrific, getting to heart of the scientific and policy issues, and showing some genuine back-and-forth debate.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/04/lindzen-et-al-response-and-parry/

I don’t think that the fact that Judge Judy used this nickname alone justifies my own usage. (Nicknames are given by others, for starters.) In other words, I don’t find the usual justification behind The Team (tm)’s epithet valid.

I can own what I do. All my justifications have been documented, along all the mistreatment I’ve received until I decided to defend myself with my creativity. I hope anyone who does what I do owns it too.

Steve McIntyre has the opportunity to become one of the most important person in the climate blogosphere and he acts like a bully, wheras willard is a ninja that tames trolls with Love and Light. (Think about that!) And even then, willard considers revising his editorial practices according to the community’s standards in which he evolves, if he still cares, which I doubt. There is no need for nicknames to stand one’s ground in debates, and I hope the point I was making in using them so is made quite clear by this very comment.

Politeness suffices.

> [S]how some integrity and go call Brandon Chewbacca.

I won’t because I made a promise. I might call him Brave Brandon when he brags while refusing to address arguments presented to him. If he does dismiss them with his infamous “You make no sense!”, I reserve the right to remind people that Brave Brandon does channel his inner Chewbacca quite a lot. An important aspect of his bravery, besides the fact that he now seemed to have returned at Lucia’s, where I’ve been uninvited.

I also reserve the right to remind anyone of his inner Chewbacca.

If anyone thinks “Brave Brandon” is more humane than “Chewbacca”, well, good for them.

Steve McIntyre should be the first to revise his editorial practices. They are ungentlemanly and distasteful, to put it mildly.

UPDATE (19:00): This comment was published on 2013-05-24 at 13:54 EDT. On the same day, Steve published this op-ed:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/24/briffa-2013/

On the website, it is marked 14:01. On my RSS Reader, it is marked 15:01.