The dumbest global warming story below claimed a 1000 year storm surge as proof of sea level rise and global warming. We already established that sea level isn’t rising there, but there is another problem.
The world has over 200,000 miles of shoreline. If we broke that up into 10 mile sections, there are 20,000 of them. The odds of any one of them having a 1,000 year storm surge during any given year are 1,000 to 1. That means that we would expect about 20 of them per year somewhere on the planet, or one every 2-3 weeks.
The one in the article referred to a storm occurred ten years ago, so we can multiply by 10 to get the decadal frequency. We expect to see about two hundred “1,000 year” storm surges per decade.
Alarmists scour the planet for statistically meaningless events, and then present them to the faithful congregation as proof that witches really are destroying the Earth.
This is totally OT, but I need help. I was having a discussion in a WUWT thread where someone indicated that the Climategate e-mails didn’t show major undermining of the peer-review process. Clearly there’s the quote about “redefining” the peer-review process, but the person I’m discussing with apparently didn’t mean the IPCC report, but papers. I remember some e-mails talking about putting pressure on an editor or something like that…anyone remember which specific e-mails those were? Also, weren’t there other e-mails showing peer-review collusion?
I would search further myself, but not much time right now.
Thanks,
-Scott
Scott, you’re right, and as I recall, an editor lost his job because of the collusion. Sadly, like you, I’m a bit pressed for time…….. I’ll do a quick search, but I think climateaudit covered it.
Thanks a lot James…good info.
-Scott
Ask, and you shall receive.
This should get you started…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
and more detailed e-mails,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/
Scott, on the noconsensus link, find, “1106322460.txt:”….. read down where they discuss getting Saiers “ousted”.
Then go here, http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/18/reply-to-ritson/ and see where the gang was successful.
lol, damnit Scott!!!! I’m suppose to be working!
Go here for the whole Saiers thing.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=saiers
Haha, thanks again.
I’ll look over this stuff and try to present a nice summary, but now it looks like Phil has changed it to the Wegman report being a larger ethical violation because it was a direct influence on policy.
-Scott
Groan…… not that again……. the “he’s a copier-off-of so it doesn’t count!”— even though it was a report to Congress and scholastic standards of plagiarism don’t apply to such.
OTOH, when they move the goal posts, that usually means they know they’ve lost the current discussion.
Scott, can you post your summary here when complete?
Well, to be fair, he wasn’t the original antagonist and jumped in. He’s right that the plagiarism is wrong…but he basically made it seem like I agreed with it, LOL. Total switch of the argument there, especially since I’d already stated in my first post that I didn’t.
I did a quick write up to address the comments…short on time, so it was basic. Thanks for your help…been a long time since I read Climategate stuff.
-Scott
Glacierman – my summary of the argument or do you want what I posted at WUWT? The WUWT post would be hard to understand since there’s a lot of quoting and such.
-Scott
Just your summary. What thread is this being discussed on at WUWT?
Easiest to just read it for yourself.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/#comment-662044
That’s the link to the original comment by Rob. Other people countered several of the early things he said. My problem was with this:
Does he seriously think that this is the “most blantant” violation of ethics and scientific conduct in the last 8 years?
-Scott
Soon and Baliunas controversy?
DeepClmate is deep alright, but not quite in the what he thinks he is.
“Alarmists scour the planet for statistically meaningless events, and then present them to the faithful congregation as proof that witches really are destroying the Earth.”
Monty Python… the difference between a duck and a witch… early IPCC meeting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
I think the cartoon here:
http://www.xkcd.com/882/
makes the point well.
It does botch it though in the newspaper report. The media never say “5% chance of coincidence” (nor do scientists really). Nor would the media even say “95% confidence”…at least not often (at least scientists usually do that).
-Scott
Steve
I have defended you on other blogs.
Be careful. I don’t think your division by time period is statistically valid. There’s a separate PDF for each year (time division). Your arithmetic fails, I’m afraid.
When appropriate, spatial division is equivalent to temporal division.
Purely for clarity.