Social Sharing block
Now I don’t mean to brag, but I make a mean filet mignon... usually. The preparation always involves a good soaking in my secret marinade recipe (McCormick’s and red wine) then grilling on the BBQ turned up to its “ludicrous” setting. So why the occasional extra char in the char-broil?
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
Two reasons. One, because the tool I use to measure cooking time is none other than my own seat-o’-the-pants internal clock, which seems to have an intermittent calibration issue not covered by warranty; and two, I don’t use a thermometer at all.
If I were a professional chef, then a top-grade, instant-read, digital thermometer and the know-how to interpret the temperature readings would be imperative. As a weekend warrior, I should at least use a food thermometer and a decent cookbook. But I don’t. And who cares, other than my poor wife, who is then forced to forage for her evening’s nutrition?
This casual attitude does not work so well when applied to more serious metrological concerns. There are more important issues that deal with temperature measurements and their interpretation. One of these is climate change.
…
Comments
Climategate myth
You quote old, preliminary press coverage of the so-called Climategate scandal. Your readers might like to follow up after some analysis: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/climategate. Science should always allow for questioning, and should be able to answer objections or improve its methodology. However, your commentary smacks of the stuff intended to create FUD in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Reminds me of the articles that the tobacco companies funded to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific evidence that smoking has many negative effects on health.
The world's greatest scam
What "consensus" ? The consensus of a bunch of politicians ? Yes, politics is based on concensus, science is not.
The temperature record for the past 100 years is very poor and has been subject to much manipulation. In reality, when urban heat island effect, selective removal of stations, and data scamming have been removed, there probably has been around 0.4 degree C warming on average, if an average temperature has any meaning. Most importantly there is not a shred of actual evidence that any of this has been caused by man. In fact the rate of man's CO2 output increased 1200% after 1945, but warming has not increased. Even Dr Jones, the man responsible for the IPCC's data admits there has been no warming for the past 15 years.
Scam? Not So Much...
Consensus is one of the cornerstones of science. This is not, however, the same consensus used in politics or everyday life. Instead, it is a consensus derived from data and reproduction of experiments that an idea--a hypothesis--is correct. It is the expression of scientists that a hypothesis is (a) scientifically testable and falsifiable and (b) that it has not been falsified. Scientists no longer argue over the validity of Newton's hypothesis on the gravitation force because there is broad consensus that the hypothesis is correct (as far as it goes). Likewise, scientists no longer argue over the geocentric model of the universe because there is broad consensus--derived from data and mathematical analysis--that the hypothesis is false. This is a much weaker form of consensus than we are used to thinking about in politics and everyday life.
Dr. Jones's statement is rather more nuanced than you make out. He was asked if he agreed that there has been no warming since 1945, and he responded "yes, but only just." He went on to state that there has been a clear trend toward warming, that, given the variation since 1945, the difference does not exceed a 95% confidence level, and that from other lines of evidence he is "100% confident that the climate has warmed."
Removal of stations is done to compensate mainly for excessive increases in recorded temperatures. Adding the removed stations back in would result in a larger estimate for mean temperature.
"Data scamming" is a rather vague charge, but you might read one of the half-dozen independent investigations into "climategate," all of which found no evidence of the manipulations that critics accused the CRU of. The only criticisms resulting from those investigations revolved around openness and the general failure to release raw data.
The urban heat island effect is fully accounted for in models; the scientists who you accuse of being so clever as to manipulate data are not so stupid as to ignore that. In fact, urban temperature trends and rural temperature trends show exactly the same pattern of increase, offset by a relatively small amount.
Your Article
Great article. The presentation of global warming data is an excellent demonstration of the necessity of objectivity in science. Lack of objectivity results in poor science. Whenever scientists adjust the data with inadequate explanation, the data become questionable and the conclusions drawn from the data are even more questionable. Questionble conclusions are not only unacceptable, they may result in damage.
While I believe that we human beings impact our environment, I am still skeptical regarding the level of impact. I need objective science to help me understand topics such as global warming -- there seems to be less and less of the objective science available.
Keep up the good work!
Metrology in the Hot Seat
Just go back to sleep, children. There's nothing to be frightened about and there never will be.
It's about profit, not the climate
Excellent article. Evaluating the measurement system is a cornerstone of data collection and analysis. One of the first steps in any scientific investigation is GR&R of the measurement system. If the measurement system is questionable, then so is all the data and analysis that follows. Garbage in = garbage out.
I think everyone knows that the global warming debate is more about politics than it is about science. If you want to understand what's really driving the agenda - follow the money. Carbon trading in Europe is big business and the Chicago carbon exchange almost got off the ground. There's a lot of money invested in global warming and the investors are not going to let those pesky facts get in the way of cashing in.
"Follow the money"
It cuts both ways...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html
ExxonMobile and other special interests who have deep pockets and who are deeply invested in the status quo are also known to be funding skeptics, deniers and PR organizations in an effort to prevent action that could mitigate the impact of climate change.
So now I get political opinions in my Quality Digest email?
Why are the editors of Quality Digest taking sides on this political hot potato issue? Day's article is clearly one-sided with respect to climate change and veers far off the subject of metrology. Comparing measurements in a controlled lab environment chamber to uncontrolled field weather station measurements is silly. Even data collected in highly controlled conditions can have problems, but field data is particularly problematic. Since no measurement data is perfectly accurate, a more interesting and relevant lesson from the climate change debate would be how to cope with the data problems in objective ways. For instance, Richard Muller of BEST explained clearly in his March 31, 2011 Congressional
testimony that the analysis of the "poor" quality weather station data showed it was "virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations."
Missing The Point?
Interesting responses; to say the least. My personal takeaway...research conducted on controversial subjects inevitably brings out distractors who will attempt to discount the analysis and conclusions of that research so as to have others disregard it. I did not sense that the author was taking a personal stance on global warming. To me, he was using this subject to point out that, regardless of what you are studying; if you want to use your research to affect change, your research needs to be as valid and bullet-proof as possible. Otherwise, you open the door for those who would discount it.
The use of questionable data gather methods, of intentional data manipulation, of pre-determining what will be considered "value-added" information, and the tailoring of conclusions; as Quality professionals, aren't we supposed to bring these things to light when we encounter them? No matter how just the cause, poor methods are poor methods. Great article!
Where's the evidence ?
Are there any alarmists here who are brave enough to attempt to answer the central question:
What is the evidence that man has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ?
The IPCC has none. Perhaps an alarmist can help out ?
Learning from best practices
I am sure that we would all like to see cross-fertilization of best
practices in science and quality, particularly given that most of such fertilization has historically been from science to quality, but not the other way around. Mr. Day's cautions and
recommendations should be well-received.
Unfortunately, the critique based on best-practices is couched in a
framework of unsupported accuations (e.g. that data is deleted) and verifiably false statements (e.g. the
gross mis-characterization of actions leading up to "climategate"). I read Quality Digest to learn best practices that I can apply in my
work and daily life. This article held great promise for me as an
application of metrology best practices to a challenging real-world
application, but I am left dissatisfied with the limited take-away and
misinformation.
I look forward to the next installment, with the hope that there will be a greater focus on what is currently practiced in the climate science community, the gap between current practice and best practices, and the challenge of implementing best practices with so much data coming into so many different organizations from so many different sources.
Not being an expert in metrology, I would also be interested in a similar comparison of current practice at the LHC and best practices, given, for instance, that data is necessarily deleted and the recent dust-up over pre-publication results indicating faster-than-light travel times for neutrinos.
Skeptical scientists look at the data...
I came across this day-old news by chance today.
The Berkeley-based group of AGW-skeptical scientists, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, is releasing the results of their two-year study. The Wall Street Journal published a summary by the study's leader:
http://is.gd/mg2iEV
Add new comment