We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Climatology Prof. Salby explains why the climate models are wrong. It's slightly technical for our handicapped challenged readers who can't do fairly simple math and is intended for a sophisticated audience, but the message is clear. (h/t Powerline)
He is not, of course, the first to note that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind temperature rises, but he makes a compelling presentation. (It begins in German but quickly switches to English.)
This is a serious man. "The models have no predictive skill."
So here we have a math-heavy technical talk that's openly anti-AGW and not a single comment from the Z-borg about all the fallacies in Salby's presentation? I'm disappointed. I guess the math was too hard for some to follow. (There were intermediate steps missing here and there---not surprising for a talk instead of a published article---but otherwise the case Salby presented seemed straightforward, comprehensive, and logical to me.)
Excellent exploration on measurement error and what are the issues with using aged samples. I recall asking this question to the Z team a while back to some hand waving about there being too many articles to explore this most fundamental question. Funny what you can uncover when you ask those simple, fundamental questions about data quality.
We have a saying at work - Follow the data. It has it's own story to tell. Torture the data (to fit your story) and it will make false confessions (to your peril). Also enjoyed the part about determining the significant terms for an equation for a model and the obvious statement that there is an initial guess (hypothesis), a math model is chosen to fit that hypothesis and if it doesn't predict well enough - all models are wrong, some are useful (statistical hypothesis refuted or lately in the warming models rsquared such crap you can see it graphically w/o running the test) it's time for a new guess. Or you can add another fudge factor and stick your head in the sand a while longer.
Agent Cooper the Z team had trouble in a post a while back with Archimedes' principal. Give them some time to digest. I hope they surprise me but so far they have set my expectations very low.
Gary the Z team actually brandished Archimedes Principal a few months back on this blog as if it would so stun this audience by referencing an actual principal that we would cower. Unfortunately for them (and at this time I thought they were one person- perhaps a student at a community college - so it's all the worse that this is supposedly a conferring group. Wow.) they so horribly botched it that I lost all respect for their technical abilities. In my world if a young person demonstrates lack of mastery of fundamentals there is no second chance, not even management (doubly so if smug about it). If they can't master something that basic, well all you have now is a parrot and not a very good one. Now they are incapable of following the math laid out on this video so they "need a transcript". Consistently disappointing.