Scottish Sceptic

The general rule of batteries like AA, AAA, C, D types, is that you should always replace old batteries with three NEW ones of EXACTLY the same type. The reason for this, is that if you use three batteries of different capacities, then the device usually stops working when the lowest capacity battery goes flat. But worse, the other batteries can then reverse the energy flow through the flat battery making it likely to leak and destroy whatever you have in it.
However, YOU CAN USE OLD BATTERIES. Any for anyone who has kids, who are constantly breaking things or deciding they’ve grown out of them, this can save a lot of money.
The trick, is to take the working batteries out (and you’ll need to have a cheap tester for this – because it’s worse than useless storing flat batteries), and to store them away at the front of the draw where you keep the other batteries in their own compartment (aka cardboard box) … and here’s the important part kept together with the ones they were used with, with a rubber band.
The last is important, because you then have a draw filled with various makes and types of batteries held together by a rubber band. And so long as you re-use them together (or for example, use one or two out of the three) then they are as safe as using new ones.
And being at the front of the drawer … when you just need a few odd batteries in a hurry … these are the ones you take.
But one thing to bear in mind, is that whilst re-used batteries are ideal for things like kitchen timers, more kids games … where running out is not a problem, they will not last as long – so no sticking such batteries into a GPS, going into the wilderness without any spare (or a compass) and expecting to get home.

I just go and write “there’s no news today”, and then … Via Tony Heller who himself got it from Roger Tallbloke:

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said. (link)

Gavin Schmidt whose contribution was always in the shadow of his much more famous boss Hansen, will be remembered for work such as this:
Although my fondest memory of Gavin was from a conference where he and similarly minded people presented this graph as “proof” of massive feedbacks in the climate:

He was such a hilarious man

RIP
(Retire in peace)

Apart from the continual wailing and gnashing of teeth following Pruitt’s appointment to the EPA last week, there is no news.
Although … I now realise … that having reported the lack of news as news, that in itself is news.
Maybe the title should have been:
The only news today is that this is the only news?

Addendum

Now I think about it “news” must be the plural of “New”, and I think of a noticeboard or a bit of a paper where “new” stories were posted. So “news” is all the things that are new. So “is there news” is short for “is there anything new today”. So, I’m inclining back to the view that there is no news today.

In the last article I asked people to undertake a quick test (see here) and thanks to all those who took part – it’s started to answer the very simple question: if a lot of people drew a line through some points how close would an average person place the line to that of a computer. But I’m leaving open the question of whether the computer line or human is “right” because its a difficult one.
A typical test was as follows:
The graph consists of 51 points. The graph scales are -1 to 1 (x-axis) and 1.2 to 1.2 (y-axis).
The user was asked to select the best fit line to the points. One line was a best fit, the other lines had random offset added up to +/-0.25 and the gradient was increased by a random amount up to +/-0.25. Thus on average one end of the line would be around 0.25 from the best fit line. The standard deviation of points around the best fit line was about 0.3.
After 16 responses, the answers were checked. The results are as follows:

• On average people selected the calculated best fit curve 48% of the time.
• In 10 out of the 11 questions, the most frequently selected line was the best fit. (the odd one out was the first)
• In those 10 questions where the best fit was most frequently chosen, the best fit on its own was selected 52% of the time, and the best fit and second most popular was selected 75% of the time.
• There was a very marginal difference between those claiming to be engineers and scientists (average right of 6 and 5.6 respectively)
• There was a very marginal difference between the lower education qualifications and highers (~0.8 more between school qualified and post graduate qualified)

Answers stacked according to relative frequency with most popular at bottom. This shows around 75% of respondents picked the most popular or second most popular choice. Note the most popular choice on the first was not the computer best fit line.

Conclusion

At this stage the differences between the nominal groups are insignificant. So, the significant finding is that in the test, people were not picking the computer’s “best fit” around 50% of the time. This does not mean they got it “wrong” – because people may use far more complex criteria than a simple computer.
But the result begs the question: how big a difference was there between the best fit and the next best?
I calculate the difference between the nearest gradient and nearest average offset to the best fit will be about 0.1 times the standard deviation. However, a line is unlikely to have both the closest gradient and offset. So another way to compare the lines is to use the “biggest deviation”, which will be the offset + gradient contribution at the worst end of the line (where offset and gradient both tend away from the best fit line).
By my calculations, the way I’ve set it up in the test, the nearest line should be about 0.2 x the standard deviation away from the best fit at its worst end.

Details

The points are created as follows. Where rnd(a,b) is a random number between a and b.

1. Y1 = rnd(0,1)
2. Y2 = Y1^1.6 (with a random sign)
3. Y3 = 0.7 * Y2
4. Y4 = Y3 + rnd(-0.2,0.2) + rnd(-0.7,0.7) * X

The lines are drawn as follows:

1. A random line matches the slope and average of the points
2. All other lines have random offset and gradient of rnd(-.25,.25) and rnd(-.25,.25) *x

Calcs

1. The combined worst end standard deviation along the line from -1 to 1, will be twice the average standard deviation (0.125) = 0.25.
2. If  we assume the lines are evenly spaced, (by my estimation) the closest line should have a maximum offset about 0.25/4
3. If the point standard deviation is 0.3, the the average end of line difference is (0.25/4)/0.3 = 0.2

[WATU 4]

House Republicans demand climate documents from state attorneys general — again
For years, the Glassy-Eyed Cult (GECs) have been able to use their huge power in the US, backed by the huge FAKE news press, to assault and silence any scientifically sceptical people. Politicians cowered under the threat of being picked out as “deniers” or being called “anti-science” by the media. The GECs could more or less get “scientific” papers & data made to order to “prove” whatever they wanted.
And they had many a lackey prosecutor, politician, “scientist”, journalist at their beck and call to viciously attack any who dared to stand up against them.
Well, now the tables have literally turned. The EPA is being run by Scott Pruit, someone who has been in litigation with the GEC in that organisation and today those pursuing a witch hunt against Exxon are themselves being investigated. And unlike Obama who encouraged their law breaking and had no intention of enforcing any congressional subpoena, Trump will enact the law.
Likewise, not only is the house oversight committee for NOAA insisting they also comply with their subpoena under threat of legal action from Trump, but there is another separate external about to happen.
And as for NASA – they are all over the news as “defiantly standing up to Trump”, which is a clear indication they’ve given up all hope of any future under this administration.

Is that what was really going on?

For me, what I’m really looking forward to is the moment where we get someone who has really looked at the data in a dispassionate way – or simply lays the actual raw unadulterated data out for all to see and we start to see what the climate has really been doing. It will certainly be less “alarmist” than that currently shown, the childish added trends will certainly disappear. But underneath there still ought to be some real changes occurring.
So whilst I’m absolutely certain most of the GEC bottles will be knocked off the wall, I’m looking forward to that moment when I think: “Oh that one really was true – how interesting”.

Not long to go now!

I went to twitter to gauge the reaction of the snowflakes to Scott Pruit’s confirmation to run the EPA is just beginning to hit twitter …

@POTUS @EPA Scott Pruit Denies science and climate change. Trump favors money over saving the planet

— tego7@hotmail.com (@tegok65) February 17, 2017

“Scott Pruitt could end up being one of Trump’s most consequential Cabinet picks” https://t.co/tBgeGVysFJ — John L. Hamilton (@StyxMaker) February 17, 2017

but this news is only adding to the hoard of tweets about Happer Trump’s chief scientist:

Trump’s glassy-eyed would be science adviser calls actual climate scientists a ’glassy-eyed cult’ https://t.co/mkDMzx4EjY — John Gibbons (@think_or_swim) February 17, 2017

With a fair dolloping of tweets about NASA going down defiantly:

NASA defiantly telling cli change sci despite Trump’s doubts #RESISTANCE https://t.co/zz3Y9hDGZm pic.twitter.com/xspEEgRkFs — Kevindoylejones (@Kevindoylejones) February 17, 2017

And as expected we’re starting to get some over the top head exploding tweets:

Get this climate denying POS the fuck out of here! Fuck Scott Pruitt, fuck Anti-Intellectualism, fuck pseudoscience & fuck Trump. #resist https://t.co/wQd55eK19c

— Steven Castro (@Steve_Castro14) February 17, 2017

Trump declare war on planet Earth.He approve pipeline fire up coal mine insider say he got Executive Order pul US out Paris climate agrement — Turehu Patupaiarehe (@Patupaiarehe13) February 17, 2017

The evidence for Trump’s insanity is overwhelming. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. #Evidencematters

— Dronepiper (@Dronepiper) February 17, 2017

GOP bunch of madmen hell bent on destroying America & global climate. Trump let’s coal miners dump waste in streams https://t.co/wT2li0fprk

— Nan Miguel (@miguel_nan) February 17, 2017

Because Trump is an unhinged, fascist who is trying to democracy.Climate deniernjn charge of EPA. Racist AG idiot head of Ed. Wake the F UP https://t.co/CaQtujNNoc

— KidandtheWolf (@kidandthewolfs) February 18, 2017

And NOAAgate is still rumbling on in the discussions:

Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted #climate science to speak out https://t.co/MpzavQiMxB #trump #cdnpoli #ableg #toronto — Ross (@Haggisman57) February 17, 2017

So is the (non) story about copying data:

Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump https://t.co/rMryTl9nlw

— Nadya Zhexembayeva (@NadyaZhexembay) December 17, 2016

There’s news of a directive:

Trump prepares directives aimed at dismantling Obama’s climate policies https://t.co/Np21v1GCpV via @business
— Rob Urban (@roburban) February 17, 2017

All in all, it’s not a bad time for us Sceptics
The mood is summed up by this tweet:

If we can’t count on accurate info from the DOE, where should we go to learn about climate change? – Chris https://t.co/CizquAYQaO

— March for Science (@ScienceTeens) February 17, 2017

According to “Scientific” American, (which I hear is gunning for Trump and continually pushes global warming pseudo-science):

Lawmakers are remaking NASA in order to leave parts of the agency’s earth science program untouched but remove its climate change research

Exactly how they come to this statement is unclear, because I watched the congressional hearing on NASA myself and although there was a clear consensus to focus effort on going to the Moon and/or Mars there was almost nothing said about its propaganda work on climate.
Like me  “Scientific” American are left guessing and can only refer to what was said at the hearing:

At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing yesterday, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he wants a “rebalancing” of NASA’s mission. The lawmaker told E&E News he wants the agency to reprioritize its mission because the Obama administration cut space exploration funds.
Specifically, that could mean NASA’s work on climate change would go to another agency, with or without funding, or possibly would get cut. Smith and other Republicans avoided laying out specifics but acknowledged that earth science at NASA would likely face some significant changes in the near future.
“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” he said. “Our weather satellites have been an immense help, for example, and that’s from NASA, but I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that. Meanwhile, we only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.”

My guess, given the previous appalling behaviour of Hansen and Gavin Schmidt in NASA; the way they seem to have personally led the charge against various republicans and scientists who now have a direct line to Trump; the ongoing atrocious adjustments, and the way Gavin Schmidt is making no attempt to reign in the comments on Twitter, Gavin seems to already know NASA climate is for the chop.
Likewise, I think NOAA are going to have its wings clipped and a few encouraged to use their talents elsewhere.
However, unless there is some plan for a dramatic re-organisation and the creation of some new credible organisation for global climate data, a likely home for NASA’s old work is NOAA. But also quite possible is that NASA’s old climate work is outsourced to some university or private institute which would do the work on a contract basis.

Ever since the 19th century when people first realised that the earth has regularly changed it’s climate, the evidence for ongoing continuous climate change has been growing. This is patently obvious if you look at the longest temperature series from Central England:

Yes there was warming in the 20th century – it’s clearly there! But there was bigger warming from the 1690s to the 1730s. And the cooling after 1730 is comparable to the warming in the 20th century. And in any case, the rise in CO2 was only measured from the mid 20th century and therefore the rise that could be associated with rising CO2 is puny in comparison to several other periods in the last 350 years.
But what is truly daft, is that serious concern about Climate really started with the turn of the millennium (many have suggested it was millennium madness). And, throughout this period of daft insane obsession with “global warming” … the evidence from the satellites clearly shows no significant warming at all:
Why has the obsession been greatest in the period with no significant warming worth speaking about?
The obvious answer to both why the cult developed and why we’ve had not discernable warming is the same: 1998 there was an El Nino – and because that created a period of huge warming for a few years, that both triggered the daft “Glassy-eyed cult” (GEC), but also meant that any period from 1998 onwards would be biased toward cooling.
The problem for the GEC was that the 1998 warming was not followed by anything comparable until 2016, and by then the data had accumulated showing that the warming had stopped. So, whilst the GEC hoped that 2016 would retrigger the climate hysteria, instead it triggered the election of Trump.
With Trump we will almost certainly see a draining of the climate swamp. This will reveal the full horror within: a culture of bogus data, fabricated results, politically inspired changes, attacks using government money and power on anyone and everything that dares to question their pseudo-science. And with that junk cleared out, we should get back to the bedrock of real science.
That will reveal 20th century warming, but not only will it remove the bogus “Upjustments”, but it will also give us back a true idea of the scale and strength of natural variation. Natural variation which for various reasons I feel likely to give us cooling in the next decade. (Note: because climate is so difficult to predict you’ll notice I started my prediction last year when I could claim to start from an El Nino year!!)
But whatever the climate does, it’s not going to warm as the GEC said it would, so in 20 years time the appalling behaviour of the climate-swamp dwelling GEC is not going to look good. In one hundred years time – when they know the important scientific advances that were missed by this generation of academics because of their obsession with global warming it will look something between daft and criminal.

#NOAAgate

That “fading into irrelevance” kind of scenario, however, is without NOAAgate. There now appears to be at least two whistle-blowers. Dr Bates is the first, the other(s) is/are unknown. They could just substantiate what Dr Bates has said, but they could have much more evidence to damn NOAA and perhaps others. And investigations like this, where there are already 2+ whistle-blowers, have a tendency to bring out more. So, the investigations might start small, but they could quickly grow “alarmingly” 🙂
And as I have said before: the Republicans will want to make a clean sheet of NOAA and others like NASA to ensure that there is no rumbling Obama inspired scandal that remains hidden undetected to blow up in their own face just before the next elections.

In a bizarre turn of events, we now have republican Lamar Smith who Chairs the NOAA oversight committee, issuing a press statement effectively demanding NOAA (who are answerable to Trump) comply with their outstanding legal subpoena.
And here’s the fun bit … if NOAA continue to refuse to comply, then it will be Trump who has to agree to take legal action against what is then his own administration. (which is why Obama never took action).
OK, I seriously doubt that will happen, but I do think there’s clearly a little bit of friction detectable in NOAAgate. Because, rather than complying with the law and supplying the documents under the subpoena, NOAA have decided to start their own investigation – and continue to ignore Lamar’s subpoena.
Is this an oversight? Is it a slap in the face of Lamar Smith? Is it just a procedural move? I really can’t say, but we can say that NOAA do not comply by the 28th February Trump’s administration will be in direct conflict with the Congress.
The following is copied from Climate Scepticism:
The Press release is entitled “Committee Probes Allegations of Politicization of NOAA Study” and sets out the background to the issue as follows:

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed.
The committee heard from whistleblowers who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.
Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

In recent weeks, further information has come to light that exposes the internal conflicts related to this NOAA study. Dr John Bates, a recently-retired principal scientist at NOAA who created science integrity principles at the agency, raised public concerns that the Karl study ignored NOAA standards, was rushed to publication, and was not free from political bias. In fact, Dr Bates wrote in a blog post that lead author, Mr Thomas Karl, had his “thumb on the scale” throughout the entire process.

After explaining that the Committee has a duty to investigate alleged politicization or misconduct, the letter requests the following information by 28th Feb:

• All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the release of the Karl study.
• All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the release of ERSST Version 4 dataset, or any other dataset used in the Karl study.
• All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to concerns raised about datasets used in the Karl study.
• All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the scientific integrity of the study, including but not limited [to] the archiving of datasets.

Implications

Continue reading →