Egypt’s Mubarak resigns as leader!

mubarak Some good news for a change. Well done chaps! Now, how about that dictatorship we’re propping up in Saudi Arabia?

I didn’t actually do anything useful in all this (other than copy-editing the wikipedia article, I’m sure that boosted their revolutionary fervour) but I was rooting for them.

Brian was more useful.

On a lighter note: don’t try this at home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEjiw1VcPGU

Refs

* Egypt’s Mubarak resigns as leader (BBC)

Nah, don’t believe it

all_seeing_eye_dollar_pyramid-normal Science (the mag, not the concept) sez:

Science is driven by data. New technologies… blah… publishers, including Science, have increasingly assumed more responsibility for ensuring that data are archived and available after publication… blah… Science’s policy for some time has been that “all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science” (see www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/)… blah… Science is extending our data access requirement listed above to include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data

Well, jolly good. I look forward to them insisting the full code for HadCM3 / HadGEM / whatever is published before accepting any GCM papers using them (which, amusingly, will now include all the papers doing the increasingly fashionable “multi-model” studies using the widely available AR4 data archives).

Come to think of it, it would also prevent S+C (but not RSS?) ever publishing in Science.

[Update: meanwhile, Werner Kraus, not content with being a tosser has decided that he is an idiot -W]

Refs

* One of James / Jules’s posts pushing the appropriate model journalGeoscientific Model Development.
* Eli comments on Nature’s policy, which is more nuanced.
* Devil in the details Nature 470, 305-306 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/470305b To ensure their results are reproducible, analysts should show their workings – nice Nature article on Genomics trubbles, h/t NB.
Continue reading “Nah, don’t believe it”

Are the wackos wacko enough?

Harvey Korman and Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles A while ago I reported Watching the Deniers say that “There will be no US Congressional investigation into “Climategate”: or how global warming sceptics got duped” and commented that Even the wackos aren’t really wacko enough to take on the science. But! Maybe I’m wrong. Science says:

The House of Representatives science committee’s panel on basic research and education plans to hold hearings on climate change to present more views on the topic, says its new chair, freshman Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL).

Mel Brooks is very clearly a wacko, because he is dumb enough to try and take on The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus, and it is fairly clear from the Science piece that he has spent too long talking to S+C in Huntsville.

Anyway, we can hope that Popcorn Time isn’t too far away.
Continue reading “Are the wackos wacko enough?”

Go Judy

I gave up watching the Curry train-wreck a while ago, but someone pushed this gem my way, and I can’t resist:

When I make a public statement about what a scientist does or does not know, I make a point of actually reading what that scientist has to say on the subject, rather than what other people say about that scientist on blogs [1]

Curry doesn’t even really read her own papers let alone have a clue about anyone else’s.

Link dump: Safecracking for the computer scientist will repay your time, if such things interest you.

Refs

* Judy Curry continues her crazy aunt act – Eli in October 2010.
* [1] RealClimate comment by Curry.

Porky Pearce

WarWithTheNewts-BantamA1292 I suppose I could have made him a tosser, but I decided the the traditional rhyming slang was better.

Fred Pearce seems to have made a bit of a career out of being rubbish recently, but has now stooped to just making things up (or, just possibly, that good old journo standby, being so clueless as to what you’re talking about that your paraphrases are so inaccurate as to descend into lies).

Anyway, Pearce’s current lies [Update: as DC notes, the Newt updated its page on 2011/02/07, but without apology. Whether that means Pearce accepts his error or has been bludgeoned by the Editors, we don’t know at this stage] are in the Newt Scientist where he says the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. Gavin, of course, said no such thing. In fact, what he said was:

My decision not to accept the invitation to this meeting was based entirely on the organiser’s initial diagnosis of the cause of the ‘conflict’ in the climate change debate. I quote from their introductory letter: At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments. The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion. Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.

(ref Eli I think). This is, of course, yet more fall-out from the silly workshop that Werner Kraus made such a prat of himself over.

If Pearce wasn’t entirely and utterly clueless, he’d have read RC, viz Unsettled Science.

And… if you haven’t been part of the climate wars, you might wonder why exactly any of this matters. But “the science is settled” has been one of the mantras used almost exclusively by climate denialists as a term of insult for those actually doing science (Pearce is fully aware of all this back story, of course. He isn’t using the phrase accidentally or carelessly). It is a feeble attempt at a double bind: is the science settled? ha ha, then you can’t be a scientist because real science is never settled. Is the science not settled? Oh great, then we don’t need to do anything until it is. The answer, of course, is that we know now (and indeed have for years) enough about the science to know that the world is warming now due to human activity, and will be warming more into the future from more anthro stuff.

A number of people (hello folks!) have pointed this out in the Newt comments, but as far as I can see there is no correction to the original article. In fact, this feels like one of those things that may get vanished, so I’d better go take a copy.

Not strictly relevant here, but yet another candidate for the tosser list is Lord Carlise, one more booster of the terrorism threat. Well, its his job. Monckton isn’t much better but Gareth has fun with him.

Refs

* That Ol’ Devil Rabett
* Things Break too.
* Deltoid has a nice round-up
* Bart quotes me, which is always a good way to get a link in return.
* Post Normal Meltdown in Lisbon, part 1 – highly recommended.

William elsewhere: Existence

People don’t talk about me much, so I’ll point you at ocham.blogspot.com. It is even kind, in parts, but the problem he points out – the difficulty of maintaining an article like [[Existence]] – is quite genuine. I’m currently hacking through various “esoteric” bits of wikipedia removing cruft (I even started [[Gurdjieff Foundation]]), and Existence was but one minor victim of my ghastly surgery. I don’t agree with “Ockham” – my attitude is that maths doesn’t really belong in an article that is predominantly philosophy, but I don’t care enough on that subject to argue hard.
Continue reading “William elsewhere: Existence”