Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?

[Jonathan]

And of course we should have people like Ehrlich in charge of deciding what "foresight intelligence" is, which would mean that the human race would be limited to Ehrlich's personal gloomy mindset and limitations in imagination, creativity and productiveness in the face of any potential problems that might need solving. In other words, instead of indpependent minds freely inventing brilliant new means of production, the centralized solution to everything will be to prevent brilliant new ideas, and to implement the only measures that Ehrlich and his ilk can imagine: reduction, control, prevention, punishment, death.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Hockey Stick will prove to be as big an embarrassment when we finally get real climate science as was spontaneous generation of life was prior to Pasteur's studies.

The AGW crew made the medieval warming period disappear in order to produce the "Hockey Stick". It is a scandal and a disgrace.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't think that the analogy to "spontaneous generation of life" is a good analogy. That idea was neither dumb nor dishonest, given limited understanding at the time of needed controls on observation conditions.

The hockey stick model, by contrast, used statistical methods which could have been seen as faulty, in addition to using outright tampering with data to produce the desired result.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

It's like, "Damn, it's such a bummer that food production and other technologies have advanced, 'cuz it would have been so awesome to have started killing masses of people already in order to save the world from overpopulation. There's got to be a way that we can still get some killing in, though. C'mon, I'm getting really old now, and I want to get some serious killing in before I die!"

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's like, "Damn, it's such a bummer that food production and other technologies have advanced, 'cuz it would have been so awesome to have started killing masses of people already in order to save the world from overpopulation. There's got to be a way that we can still get some killing in, though. C'mon, I'm getting really old now, and I want to get some serious killing in before I die!"

J

LOL!!!

Well paraphrases the gist.

Ellen

Add: Which is why I suspect Ehrlich of being in favor of draconian energy reductions supposedly to avert human hardship but actually because he realizes that the reductions would result in lots of dead people.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Gathering some links.

"Ehrlich, False Prophets and the 'Futures' Market", Energy Tribune, May 04, 2012.

science.time re The Bet in 1980 between Ehrlich and Simon, Sept. 13, 2013.

1978 Ehrlich statement opposing "cheap, abundant energy", stevengoddard, November 14, 2013.

MasterResource, Ehrlich on Energy, Part I, March 13, 2010; Part II, March 20, 2010; Part III, March 23, 2010.

en.cyclopaedia page

Ehrlich's books

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Just as Ehrlich was garbage right out of the box, so was our current POTUS. The world is full of people selling crap. The question is why do the mass media keep passing some of it on like it was gold and why does the culture keep eating it?

--Brant

goldman

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just as Ehrlich was garbage right out of the box, so was our current POTUS. The world is full of people selling crap. The question is why do the mass media keep passing some of it on like it was gold and why does the culture keep eating it?

--Brant

goldman

Brant,

Story.

Change the story, you change the garbage.

That's one of the reasons I'm studying storytelling.

Ayn Rand got it right. Oh, she later went off into nonfiction, but she lived off the story she had created. She even quoted it constantly.

Notice that the culture doesn't reference Ayn Rand's impact on thinkers based on ITOE. They talk about the story she made. They don't don't talk about measurement omission. They ask, "Who is John Galt?"

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

And, Michael, fiction is where she made most of her money even with the publication of The Ayn Rand Letter.

--Brant

I think TARL is why she didn't die next to broke almost 25 years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged

[Ellen Stuttle]

Pursuing Ehrlich - I've been meaning to do some detailed looking into his career for several years, but there's always been so much else to look into pertaining to climate issues, I hadn't gotten around to Ehrlich.

Apparently, he takes credit for having prognosticated climate change/global warming.

This is from the current Wikipedia biographical article:

link

[bold emphasis added]

After 2000

During a 2004 interview, Ehrlich answered questions about the predictions he made in The Population Bomb. He acknowledged that some of what he had written had not "come to pass", but reaffirmed his basic view that over-population is a major problem. He noted that, "Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline!"[18] Ehrlich also stated that 600 million people were very hungry, billions were under-nourished, and that his predictions about disease and climate change were essentially correct.[18] Retrospectively, Ehrlich believes that The Population Bomb was "way too optimistic".[10]

[....]

CRITICS

[....]

Some have criticized Ehrlich for not sufficiently acknowledging the mistakes he has made in the past, and maintaining a consistent argument in spite of new countervailing evidence.[12] [Dan] Gardner believes that Ehrlich has been insufficiently forthright in acknowledging errors he made, while being intellectually dishonest or evasive in taking credit for things he claims he got "right". For example, he rarely acknowledges the mistakes he made in predicting material shortages, massive death tolls from starvation (up to one billion in Age of Affluence) or regarding the collapse of specific countries. Meanwhile, he is happy to claim credit for "predicting" the rise of AIDS or global warming. However, in the case of disease, Ehrlich had predicted the rise of a disease based on overcrowding, or the weakened immune systems of starving people, so it is "a stretch to see this as forecasting the emergence of AIDS in the 1980s." Similarly, global warming was one of the scenarios that Ehrlich outlined, so claiming credit for it, while disavowing responsibility for failed scenarios is a double standard. Gardner believes that Ehrlich is displaying classical signs of cognitive dissonance, and that his failure to grapple with obvious errors in his own judgement render his current thinking suspect.[12]

~~~

Notes

[10] Tom Turner (2011). "Story: Paul Ehrlich, the Vindication of a Public Scholar.". Spot.us (first published by The Earth Island Journal). American Public Media. Retrieved 4 March 2013.

[12] Dan Gardner (2010). Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail and Why We Believe Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

[18] Paul Ehrlich (13 August 2004). "When Paul's Said and Done". Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Grist Magazine, Inc. Archived from the original on 15 November 2004. Retrieved 4 March 2013.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Ehrlich is a master of all of the strategies and tactics of pseudoscience. And he is respected, defended and protected by the left while critics of his and similar work are now smeared as kooks.

J

[Selene]

Came across this in one of my daily "redneck" [Marotta's bias phrasing] e-mails today, so I jest poored me some white litning and settled down under the tree and read this:

On Evaporation, the Scientific Battle Rages

Posted: 15 Apr 2014 06:38 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

Since they lose pretty much every argument, the global warming fraudsters try to tell us that the science is settled, and we should all just shut up. In fact, however, debates over various aspects of climate science are constantly raging. This one is a great example: “Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates.”

But first, let’s set the stage. It is generally accepted that ceteris paribus, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to increase global temperatures, slightly. The problem–from the warmists’ standpoint–is that the increase is trivial, 1 degree C tops. So the only way the alarmists can create frightening scenarios is by hypothesizing positive feedback effects that will increase that one degree to six or seven. It is easy to devise a model that incorporates extravagant feedback assumptions, and therefore will kick out scary predictions. Fantasy in, fantasy out.

In fact, there is a vigorous debate about feedbacks: What are they? Are they positive or negative? If positive (or negative), what is their magnitude? Science does not yet give us the answers to these questions. So the debate goes on. This analysis suggests that the alarmists’ models have failed to deal properly with evaporation, and that may account for the fact that they have proved to be wildly inaccurate. It is instructive to read the entire post, and then the comments. Having done so, contemplate the liberals’ hysterical insistence that the debate is over. In fact, as any rational observer can see, the debate has barely begun:

The physics of evaporation has complications related to what happens at the water / air interface such as wind speed and wave action. However if these factors remain constant, how evaporation changes with temperature and humidity can be estimated with well-known equations based on how water vapor pressure varies with temperature. For example, at a typical ocean temperature of 17 C, it should increase about 6.5% / C if the water vapor increases to maintain relative humidity, that the climate models indicate. If the surface air tracks the water within ± 2 C, the rate varies from 6.2% to 6.9% / C. Data over oceans by Wentz et, al (2007) report values of about 6% / C.

But the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C. There are no claims of reduced wind speeds or wave action or increased relative humidity to explain this. However many papers on the subject claim that the available energy is limiting evaporation in these models. But physics theory tells us that the latent energy for evaporation comes from the temperature of the water itself. The latent heat leaving the surface cools it and deposits heat in the atmosphere, part of which escapes to outer space. This combination causes negative feedback. The reduced net energy from increased CO2 still warms the surface, but this energy can’t be separated from what aids the final increased evaporation. A 6% / C increase applies to the water after the negative feedback is complete. Do the climate models ignore this cooling and feedback process? …

[T]he developers of the climate models seem to be confusing independent and dependent variables. Evaporation is the driver or forcing agent controlled by the physics at the surface, and G and D must respond to a change in it. If the surface temperature rises, the additional latent heat lost at the surface will cause an offsetting decrease in the temperature and thus G. And the latent heat deposited in the atmosphere warms it and increases the downwelling radiation, D (and the outgoing radiation). We now have a feedback process at work. Equation (1) can only be used as a check after a correct solution is found to new values of E, D and G after the feedback process is complete. It appears there is a serious error in how climate models estimate evaporation as indicated in the rest of this paper.

We have developed a dynamic three level energy balance model (reference 1) with updates as described later that can be used for a number of forcings and feedbacks including the response to changes in evaporation and the cooling of the surface and the warming of the atmosphere.

The results are shown on the next page. No energy constraints of evaporations are seen. …

It appears the climate models are grossly underestimating the negative feedback from latent heat transfer. For case 3 in the table above, the feedback multiplier of 1.57 / 2.70 = 0.581 implies a feedback factor for a change in evaporation of 6% / C of –0.720 C / C. This corresponds to the IPCC value for water vapor of 1.8 Wm-2 / C divided by their value of l of 3.2 to give a feedback factor of +0.562 C / C. …

The IPCC has a positive cloud feedback of 0.69 Wm-2 / C with a very large range. But it is not based on reduced clouds with warming, but as a residual of the amount of warming the models can not explain by the other feedbacks (Soden and Held (2006), p 3357, paragraph 2). So this is not a true estimate of cloud feedback. Eliminating it and replacing the lapse rate feedback with our evaporation feedback cuts the IPCC feedback multiplier from 2.48 down to 0.910.

There is much, much more, replete with equations and calculations. Is this analysis correct? I am not competent to judge, but it is obvious even to the casual observer that all of the real climate science is currently being done by the realists, not the alarmists. Far from being complete, our understanding of the Earth’s climate is in its infancy. The last thing we should do at this point is be guided by politically-motivated charlatans who try to shut down the process of scientific inquiry.

[tmj]

Git a load of the queen of London , poorin, betcha got a glass jest for water too

That reminded me of something I read about the early days in computing at Princeton. I think it was from a book titled Turing's Cathedral. Time on the computer was shared between multiple teams working for the war effort. Weather prediction was very important for the logistics of war planning , troop and material movements and the like. Some saw the computing power as a possible solution for developing accurate weather prediction. At least one member of the team said the lack of computing power was not what would make accurate prediction possible, the problem was bigger than modeling to understand the dynamics of the complicated nature of the atmosphere and it's physics. To make an accurate model would require so much data as to nearly mimic the actual atmosphere. But if it were even possible to "map" the atmosphere sufficiently you would be left with essentially the same problem a really good picture of the thing you are trying to understand and not necessarily the understanding of the thing. Paraphrasing grandly ,but I believe it points to a big problem with data collection and computer modeling of such a dynamic "system" . Unfortunately I think the book is "in" my misplaced e-reader , so I can not verify that this may not just be a gigantic misremembering , and perhaps,I waste of everyone's time .

[Ellen Stuttle]

I haven't read the whole post yet. But the statement made in this part about ongoing and vigorous debate is correct. Plausibility for alarm over human-produced CO2 hinges on strong positive feedback.

Ellen

Came across this in one of my daily "redneck" [Marotta's bias phrasing] e-mails today, so I jest poored me some white litning and settled down under the tree and read this:

On Evaporation, the Scientific Battle Rages

Posted: 15 Apr 2014 06:38 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

Since they lose pretty much every argument, the global warming fraudsters try to tell us that the science is settled, and we should all just shut up. In fact, however, debates over various aspects of climate science are constantly raging.

This one is a great example: Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates.

But first, let's set the stage. It is generally accepted that ceteris paribus, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to increase global temperatures, slightly. The problem - from the warmists' standpoint - is that the increase is trivial, 1 degree C tops. So the only way the alarmists can create frightening scenarios is by hypothesizing positive feedback effects that will increase that one degree to six or seven. It is easy to devise a model that incorporates extravagant feedback assumptions, and therefore will kick out scary predictions. Fantasy in, fantasy out.

In fact, there is a vigorous debate about feedbacks: What are they? Are they positive or negative? If positive (or negative), what is their magnitude? Science does not yet give us the answers to these questions. So the debate goes on. This analysis suggests that the alarmists models have failed to deal properly with evaporation, and that may account for the fact that they have proved to be wildly inaccurate. It is instructive to read the entire post, and then the comments. Having done so, contemplate the liberals' hysterical insistence that the debate is over. In fact, as any rational observer can see, the debate has barely begun:

[....]

[Jonathan]

Mark Steyn vs Michael Mann:

http://www.steynonline.com/6273/dont-start-deleting-those-emails-just-yet

http://www.steynonline.com/6270/the-clash-of-sticks

http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html

Excerpted from the above link:

Even more ominous, the DC Superior Court, which let the suit proceed, embraced this reasoning in its ruling.

"The CEI Defendants' persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies' conclusion that Plaintiff's work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements."

In other words, Steyn's evaluation of Mann's scientific claims can be legally suppressed because Steyn dares to question the conclusions of established scientific institutions connected to the government. On this basis, the DC Superior Court arrives at the preposterous conclusion that it is a violation of Mann's rights to "question his intellect and reasoning." That's an awfully nice prerogative to be granted by government: an exemption against any challenge to your reasoning.

I said before that I don't know how the rest of us skeptics escaped being sued along with Steyn. Now we know. Mann is attempting to establish a precedent for climate censorship. If he wins this suit, then we're all targets.

Mann has made a lot of noise about setting himself as some kind of modern Galileo, a persecuted scientist. This analogy was all wrong from the beginning. Galileo was not the enforcer of the prevailing scientific "consensus" but its caustic critic. And now it is Mann who is trying to dictate what others can and cannot say about scientific facts and reasoning. So no, he's not a modern Galileo. He's a modern Cardinal Bellarmine.

Or perhaps there is a better historical analogy. Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann's libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

Mann has recently declared himself to be both a scientist and a political activist. But in attempting to intimidate his critics and suppress free debate on global warming, he is violating the fundamental rules of both science and politics. If it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science. If it is a crime to dissent, then there is no politics.

Mann vs. Steyn may be the trial of the century. It may determine, not merely whether the environmentalists can shut down industrial civilization, but whether they can shut down the independent thinking of skeptical dissidents.

J

[Selene]

Yep, I heard the show and I will be reading the decision.

Look a new hockey stick and it is sexier and flashes...and it came in the Regime's e-mail today...

I have to get the right link...

[Selene]

Even though the prior post was in today's e-mail and states twelve million [12,000,000], numbnuts was giving a statement that eight million [8,000,000] had signed up:

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced that eight million people have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and that 35 percent are under the age of 35, countering the criticism that it would attract mainly older and sicker people.

In detailing the statistics, the White House said 18- to 34-year-olds made up 28 percent of enrollees. The 35 percent number included children who would typically be covered by a parent’s policy.

While the number of younger applicants has risen, it remains below the level that some private analysts said is necessary for the long-term viability of the insurance marketplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/us/obama-says-young-adults-push-health-care-enrollment-above-targets.html?e

[Ellen Stuttle]

Zeroing in on a paragraph from the Tracinsky article about Steyn (et al.) vs Mann which Jonathan excerpted from in post 139

link

[....] Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann's libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

What's terrifying is the possibility that he'll succeed.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Like a skin infection coming to a head, he'll fail by succeeding. It's a bridge too far.

--Brant

[Selene]

Zeroing in on a paragraph from the Tracinsky article about Steyn (et al.) vs Mann which Jonathan excerpted from in post 139

link

[....] Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann's libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

What's terrifying is the possibility that he'll succeed.

Ellen

Ellen:

Do I remember correctly that he preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Ellen:

Do I remember correctly that he preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

A...

Something like that. Lysenko was a Lamarckian on steroioids.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Like a skin infection coming to a head, he'll fail by succeeding. It's a bridge too far.

--Brant

Meanwhile, a legal precedent that it's disallowable to challenge EPA pronouncements might be established.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

Do I remember correctly that [Lysenko] preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

A...

I don't think so. He thought wheat could be Lamarckianly modified and the peasants weren't allowed to keep their seed grain, with resultant famine.

I'll look up some details in a bit.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen:

Do I remember correctly that [Lysenko] preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

A...

I don't think so. He thought wheat could be Lamarckianly modified and the peasants weren't allowed to keep their seed grain, with resultant famine.

I'll look up some details in a bit.

Ellen

That would be sort of like (biological) alchemy. I don't think L was into that; Newton classically was, but with much greater excuse.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

Do I remember correctly that [Lysenko] preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

A...

I don't think so. He thought wheat could be Lamarckianly modified and the peasants weren't allowed to keep their seed grain, with resultant famine.

I'll look up some details in a bit.

Ellen

That would be sort of like (biological) alchemy. I don't think L was into that; Newton classically was, but with much greater excuse.

--Brant

What would be "sort of like (biological) alchemy"? Thinking you could grow wheat from apple seeds or thinking that wheat could be Lamarckianly modified?

Newton needed no excuse for being into alchemy. Anachronistic to think an excuse was needed in Newton's time.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's a fairly brief source on Lysenko:

link

[bold emphasis added]

Trofim Lysenko

AKA Trofim Denisovich Lysenko

Born: 29-Sep-1898

Birthplace: Karlovka, Ukraine

Died: 20-Nov-1976

Location of death: Kiev, Ukraine, USSR

Cause of death: unspecified

Gender: Male

Race or Ethnicity: White

Occupation: Scientist, Hoaxer

Nationality: Ukraine

Executive summary: Dazzled Stalin with false genetic theory

Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet biologist and agronomist who rejected the research of Gregor Mendel, which was then and is now considered a basic foundation of genetics. Instead Lysenko pursued what was called "socialist genetics," politicized science that made him the favorite scientist of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

In 1927 Lysenko reported a stunning breakthrough, describing a new method to fertilize fields without the use of fertilizers or minerals, using a process called vernalization, in which germinating seeds are exposed to low temperatures under conditions allowing scientists to control the plant's flowering time.

Vernalization is a proven biological phenomenon, but Lysenko's methodology was the opposite of the scientific method - he designed his research to reach pre-ordained results, and by habit and policy he ignored any results which did not advance his theories. He claimed that the process of vernalization could be inherited in plants, and reported experiments that supposedly yielded healthy, robust pea plants even in the dead of winter, in subsequent generations of plants untreated by vernalization. In the impoverished and frequently frozen Soviet Union, Lysenko's falsified findings were trumpeted widely in state-owned media, and he was portrayed as a hero of the Soviet state.

Lysenko was placed in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, overseeing the Soviet Union's entire research program dedicated to increasing crop yields. His methods were mandated on collectivized farms across the Soviet Union and throughout the USSR's international sphere of influence, and played a key role in repeated famines that left many millions of Soviet citizens dead and mired research in the Soviet Union for decades.

Under the Soviet system all science was funded by the state, which meant that so long as Lysenko remained in Stalin's good graces it was career suicide for any scientist to dispute him. Few did, and Lysenko's opponents were frequently sent to the gulag. Science textbooks were rewritten, with Lysenko's work replacing what he called "alien foreign bourgeois biology". Even after Stalin's death and denunciation by Nikita Khrushchev, Lysenko maintained his position at the apex of Soviet science until the mid-1960s.

University: Poltava School of Horticulture (1921)

University: BS Agronomy, Kiev Institute of Agriculture (1925)

Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences President (1940-65)

Stalin Prize 1941

Ukrainian Ancestry

Author of books:

Heredity and Its Variability (1945)

The Science of Biology Today (1948)

Do you know something we don't?

Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile

Copyright ©2014 Soylent Communications

Ellen