My kind of Denier

We get folks looking at the statistical methods used and finding them badly designed and poorly used. “Broken” comes to mind. I took it on myself to look into GIStemp (as I am a computer programmer who knows FORTRAN and after saying for 6 months “someone ought to look at it” decided “I am someone”.) What I found was a nightmare of crummy code and questionable methods. A complete lack of any kind of ‘test suite’ or ‘benchmark testing’ code. A level of amateurish code and testing methodology that would have caused me to stop the product from shipping in my shops. (I have managed software production commercially including software that got 4 patents and was used in production.) Eventually that lead to examination of the GHCN data set directly where even worse issues were found. chiefio at jo nova’s

Chiefio gets exactly why I have been a skeptic for years. Go read the whole thing.


3 thoughts on “My kind of Denier

  1. John says:

    Interesting post, but I am really struck by three points.

    First, in what I read it always seems to be the people I am discussing with that seem to want to pull in politics. For example:

    “I am sick to death of these communist-loving, global governance anti-humanity assholes trying to shove their climate change quackery down our throats.” (


    “John: It isn’t about science, never was – it’s about global power politics using science as camouflage and using compromising scientists to promote a global environmental hysteria that will propel global taxing and wealth/power transfer agenda. ” (

    The second is that there is no mention of the physics involved in AGW. Our fundamental understanding of the physics indicates that adding CO2 should result in a warming. How much we can argue about, but I have yet (in my 12 years of following this topic) seen anything to cast doubt on the physics.

    Third, the whole statistics is wrong thing seems to have been done away with by Richard Muller.


    • jaycurrie says:

      Sorry to take so long to moderate John. In principle, once you have been approved you should be able to post at will.

      I liked Chiefios take largely because he has run the stats and looked at the code. Much of the CAGW line simply fails on the stats and code.

      The sad fact is, John, that the stats and code being used to scare us all into windmills and solar panels is not very sound. It is sub-engineering level and not at all the sort of thing you should base any sort of policy upon.

      Which you know as well as I do.

      • John says:

        Hi Jay: Read the Muller article. Keep in mind Muller is / was firmly in the doubting camp. But as a good scientist he did his own analysis and is standing by the results even though they are not what he expected.

        To quote Muller:

        When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: