Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Diary dates | Main | Spend to save »
Wednesday
Mar272013

David Whitehouse on the CCC

David Whitehouse's response to the CCC blog post is pretty devastating:

If this kind of data were from a drugs trial it would have been stopped long ago, even allowing for the little understood stopping bias effect which occurs when looking for the first signs of effectiveness or harm in such trials.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (26)

I am disappointed in the Committee on Climate Change’s analysis of the Mail on Sunday article. One expects a more objective and sober assessment of empirical facts and research.
How trusting! I don't expect anything of the sort, especially from this bunch with the Trougher-in-Chief leading the way.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:31 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

David Whitehouse failed to mention that the CCC's claim that the model results look good for the last 60 years is irrelevant, since as the Mail graph clearly showed, most of that is hindcast.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:34 PM | Registered Commentersteve ta

Sound of nail being hit on the head once again.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterHed

"One expects a more objective and sober assessment of empirical facts and research."

Does one? From these people?

What in their history would lead to such an expectation?

Perhaps one might hope for a more objective etc etc, but what we expect is pretty much what we got.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Duffin

38 model runs. Only 2/38 are below 2 of the 4 GATs. Only a member of a cult would defend that result.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

Good Lord:

Hoskins and Smith say that the last 15 years of global annual average temperature (land and ocean), which shows no warming, is unimportant. They claim the temperature trend is rising when short-term factors such as El Nino, aerosols and solar effects are filtered out.

"Solar effects are filtered out"?

If it wasn't for the "solar effect" - we, I mean the human race wouldn't be here!

What? Professor Sir Brian Hoskins on behalf of the committee, with assistance from Dr Steve Smith, science advisor to the committee - indeed and without prompting have conclusively proved and confirmed themselves to belong to a global club of alarmist deniers on the public gravy train, deniers of reality and fabricators nonpareil of actual scientific method - these cream faced loons.

CCC - Disneyland science circus on wheels.

Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Well done David Whitehouse!

It is indeed remarkable that to get a new headache tablet approved would call for far more rigorous, and well-audited, analyses than whatever our MPs may have presumed took place over establishing beyond even moderate doubt that (a) rising levels of manmade emissions of CO2 are a major driver of climate change (b) that the result will be such that we are facing an immediate emergency for which a massive, unprecedented disruption of our industrial progress is called for.

What is the opposite of Nullius in Verba appropriate to the CO2 scare? On the IPCC's word, provided we can provide computer models to illustrate it? That should be printed on the letterhead of the Royal Society, of the Committee for Climate Change, and of course on any material at all from the Climate Faction in the Met Office.

If I were a preacher, I'd be working with the following text for my next sermon to help my flock get the full import of David's comments. It is from a work by a well-know bishop:

The implications for policymakers are stark. They have granted an effective monopoly on scientific advice to an organisation [the IPCC] that has proven itself to be corrupt, biased and beset by conflicts of interest. Their advisers on the global warming issue are essentially a law unto themselves, the only oversight of their actions and finding provided by volunteers like McIntyre and his ragtag band of sceptic supporters. There is no conceivable way that politicians can justify this failing to their electorates. They have no choice but to start again.

Source: pps 390 and 390, of The Hockey Stick Illusion

They have not started again. Instead they appointed a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice to help hammer home the wrecking implications of the new faith, and defend it from doubters. David Whitehouse writes this about their recent response to the Rose article:

I am disappointed in the Committee on Climate Change’s analysis of the Mail on Sunday article. One expects a more objective and sober assessment of empirical facts and research.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE). Cardinal Hoskins will be wondering what else he might find 'amongst his weaponry' to deal with the heretics of the GWPF such as David Whitehouse..

Mar 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Perhaps Nigel Lawson could write to the CCC (and cc the letter to the Royal Society) politely suggesting that they have lost their way and that they might not be getting the right advice from their experts. Lord Lawson could suggest a meeting with the GWPF or offer to put the CCC in touch with their analysts.

Mar 27, 2013 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterHed

He doesn't say where the graph comes from. I think It's John Christy's testimony.

Mar 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

What a shame there isn't an Office of Statistical Responsibility, like the Office of Budget Responsibility.

It would be lovely to send the CCC's creative use of statistics to it, and ask for an official comment/ruling. I suspect it might be highly embarrassing.

Is there a national statistics organisation? Might be interesting to see what think about such tortuous misuse of statistics.

Mar 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

One expects a more objective and sober assessment of empirical facts and research

As others also commented, that was the first thing that came to my mind. I'm afraid we have come to expect the complete opposite from "climate scientists".

Mar 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

> Is there a national statistics organisation?

Yes: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

Mar 27, 2013 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Terry, as far as I can see there is no way to report someone to the ONS.

They don't have any teeth, so to speak.

Mar 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Hed

I suspect that Hoskins and Smith are the scientific experts that Nurse is going to put Lawson in touch with.

Mar 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenternTropywins

The appropriate body to as about use of official statistics,which these are probably not, is the Statistics Authority headed by Andrew Dilnott.
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/

Mar 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermikep

Climate Science™ has many unique features.

One of them is that one of the principal measures used to assess a newly-produced climate model is how close its results are to results from previous climate models.

This an instance of climate scientists confusing models with reality. It is also an instance of Climate Science Groupthink in operation.

Mar 27, 2013 at 5:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

The ONS analyses data for government. So it will provide information on consumer trends, crime rates, population etc. The analyse of temperature data for trends etc. is the type of thing that the ONS could be doing.

Last year it produced a report on the environmental impact of UK economic activity. What it should also produce is a report on the economic impact of UK environmental policy.

Mar 27, 2013 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

I think the appropriate body to test these so-called statistics is the criminal court.

It has been mooted that a case corporate manslaughter be brought against DECC (or perhaps the CCC) because of those who have died this winter from the consequences of fuel poverty.

Mar 27, 2013 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon

The views of Brian Hoskins and Steve Smith might have some worth if they were not part of the problem. Beam them in as independent even-minded scientists giving their assessment and their words might be worth listening to.

As it is they are just peddling the same old same old.

Mar 27, 2013 at 7:00 PM | Registered Commenterretireddave

Martin A

Modellers have for many years now suffered from the delusion that they are modelling something real, in fact they come to think that the model is reality and what you see out of the window is an illusion that should conform to that reality.

I guess you have had a generation of scientists now schooled by Prof.Sir Brian Hoskins and others that CO2 is a major driver of the Earth's climate and that we know enough to model that climate with a big machine.

Modellers have even suggested that the data is wrong because it doesn't fit the model and the theory.

As we have said before, what Richard Feynman would have made of this bastardisation of science we can only speculate.

Simon

Yes I don't think it beyond reality to see that a few politicians and scientists may end up in prison in years to come - like Italian Earthquake scientists did.

Mar 27, 2013 at 7:26 PM | Registered Commenterretireddave

retireddave,

"As we have said before, what Richard Feynman would have made of this bastardisation of science we can only speculate."

Let me presume to guess,

"These guys just don't know what they are doing. They aren't scientists, they haven't found anything out".

Mar 28, 2013 at 12:32 AM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

Sceptics have to admit that rising CO2 levels do have some strange effects. They seem to have turned Sir Professor Brian Hoskins into an American, judging by his spelling (I don't know what nationality Dr Steve Smith is).

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins on behalf of the committee, with assistance from Dr Steve Smith, science advisor to the committee, state that “like all scientists we take a skeptical stance, testing each assertion against the evidence.

This is a pretty trivial point but if a British university professor doesn't even notice that he spelt skeptical the American way I wonder how thoroughly he thought about the rest of his criticisms of the newspaper article?

Mar 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC)

It is jointly sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government.

How in God's name can this be remotely described as independent?

Mar 28, 2013 at 3:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterYertizz

Hoskins and Smith say that the last 15 years of global annual average temperature (land and ocean), which shows no warming, is unimportant.
=========
US NAAO says otherwise. 15 years is sufficient to call the models into question. At least that was what they said until we went 15 years.

"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

Mar 29, 2013 at 2:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

Hoskins and Smith say ,,
==========
How is that these so called experts, who should be presenting a balanced view, don't mention NAAO's own conclusion on climate models and 15 years? Is it possible they don't know, which if that is the case they are far from expert. Or if they did know and chose to say 15 years was unimportant in spite of NAAO then they are not providing honest service for money.

Mar 29, 2013 at 2:56 AM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

I find David Whitehouse's commentary a bit too lightweight given the many openings offered by Hoskins and Smith.
There are profound theoretical objections to the methodology employed by Foster and Rahmstorf to show that warming is continuing unabated. This paper should never have been published, and it is absurd for Hoskins to rely on it to bolster his argument. You do not need a grounding in theoretical stats to understand the simple and compelling demonstration of the conceptual error in F&R exposed in the short series of recent articles in Troy's Scratchpad. It seems that Whitehouse has not been following.
Equally the response to Hoskins's puerile attempts to defend the reliability of GCM's lacked punch in my view. There are valid ways of generating statistics for forecast skill, but Whitehouse failed to kill the bull here.
Finally, i think it is unfortunate that Whitehouse did not bite the bullet and cite the numerous recent papers supporting the contribution of multidecadal oscillations to the temperature series. And explain the implications for estimates of climate sensitivity made without accounting for such.

Mar 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul_K

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>