I’m sure Phil Jones will need to be notified right away that this paper on HadCRUT4 was never actually published.
Justin Templer writes on Twitter and provides screencaps:
Meet @ForecastFacts campaign manager and degreed environmentalist @emilyrsouthard clueless about HadCRUT
From her Twitter feed
and then later, there was this gem:
While some people might agree, I don’t think it means what she thinks it means. How embarrassing.
Who is Emily Southard? Her Linked in profile says:
These are the sorts of low information activists that are bullying weathercasters and TV meteorologists into saying what the activists want them to say about climate.
Be sure to tell you own local TV weathercaster or meteorologist to watch out for these folks, since they are obviously clueless.
What got her going? Did a Skeptic quote the HADcrut data? And did she need a quick way to refute their argument?
After rolling around laughing at Tisdale’s comment, “Let there be crackpots,” I sat back and thought about all the dumb mistakes I myself have made, in my time. Mercy and pity crept into my thoughts.
When in my teens I used to be a sidekick for some of the most dangerous “father figures” you can imagine. (Sort of like the the little yappy dog prancing along beside the big bulldog “Spike” in old Warner Brothers cartoons.) They advised me to do dumb things and take dumb stands, and I did what they said, seeking approval.
Perhaps “Moveon.org is the “Spike,” and this person is the little sidekick.
The real test is: Can this person learn?
Guessing she had to find a way to “disprove” the “world hasn’t warmed since ____ according to HadCRUT” claim.
The thing people forget when considering IQ scores is that IQ 100 is the population average – there are many, many people below IQ 100… 🙂
Does not truth and fact trump the other option eventually?
Just saying,,,,,,,,,,
@JoeSquawk is Joe Kernen, who is one of the co-hosts of CNBC’s early morning show Squawk Box. He has had the temerity recently to express skepticism about AGW on air. The Moveon crowd has targeted him for their “isolate and ridicule” approach. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hang in there Joe.
Mating season for social media Twits means navigating by IFR– not aviation’s Instrument Flight Rules but those of Move.On’s Invisible Flying Rabbits.
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.”
Studied climate science; just discovered HadCRUT for the first time. Oh dear…
It is well known that if a academic discipline has the word “science” as part of its name, then it is *NOT* a science. Those are the disciplines that suffer from “science envy,” wishing for, but never achieving the rigor, trustworthiness, and cachet of actual science. For example: political science, social science, climate science, environmental science, etc. Indeed, if one replaces the word “science” with the word “advocacy” the names become accurate: political advocacy, social advocacy, climate advocacy, environmental advocacy, etc.
Disciplines that are actually sciences have names like: physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, medicine, limnology, astronomy, geology, etc. While the absence of the word “science” in the name does not guarantee that the discipline reliably practices science (e.g. astrology, economics), the presence of the word “science” in the name is a guarantee that the discipline does not reliably practice science.
Whatever it is that she did study, it does not seem to have included studying the difference between “there” and “their”.
Sorry. First thing that comes to mind to me is: Computer Science
Definitely a science.
Your can get an Environmental Studies degree for $58,780/year. The science option for the degree may produce graduates that are trainable. I’m not sure about the social science option. Most of the course description is touchy-feely stuff with no backbone. The degree and course descriptions don’t sound very promising for anything but turning out environmental activists. This young lady sounds like she did well in saving the planet and wasn’t around much that gave her any science or engineering tools to do that. I’ve hired a number of environmental degree types over the years. The good ones only take a year or so of intense training to be useful. I don’t think this young lady would do well in the “real” environmental world.
Dear Emily fills the role described below.
The most dangerous people in the world, are people who “mean well” (do gooders). Unfortunately they have no concept of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. This law says that well meaning actions, not thought through, can have quite different and disastrous consequences.
Emilys’ CV makes her perfect for the role.
I firmly believe that a lack of immediate negative consequences for foolish actions have developed this lack of common sense evident in so many.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:58 pm
It is well known that if a academic discipline has the word “science” as part of its name, then it is *NOT* a science.
Reminds me of a quote in Scientific American from the 70s (when it still did report some science)
“Computer Science is to science what plumbing is to hydrodynamics”
This is the tweet that makes me mad “@JoeSquawk and if ur not part of the solution or accurate reporting, @CNBC should reconsider your employment.” Typical Alinsky tactics just like GeneDoc said.
@Bill_W -\
As the holder of an MBA along with a PhD in another field, I must differ with the thought that business is a worthless subject. Because business fails quickly if it falls for the sort of irrationality that is killing science and the humanities, theories analogous to CAGW don’t hold up for very long, because their proponents soon crash and burn. That is at least some constraint on academic madness. In business, you have to get it right or you’re out of business (crony capitalists, like der Fuehrer’s bedmates, may look like they are “getting it right,” but fraud and larceny are not business but an entirely different kind of discipline).
If you follow Ms. Southard’s twitter feed upward, you’ll find a link to this SkepticalScience article by Kevin C:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hadcrut4_analysis_and_critique.html
“However in the course of examining the data for these articles I have come across a number of features which are of interest in understanding the data and do not seem to have been widely reported. Some of these features are (at least to me) rather unexpected. Note however that this material is the result of a few months of spare-time effort, and has not been subject to the scrutiny of peer-review, and so should be treated as tentative. It is likely that at least some of it is wrong. Constructive criticism and pointers to any previous similar work I have missed are welcome.”
Give her an “F” for reading comprehension.
That she had to Google what HadCRUT was is indeed precious.
That she thought it was some crazy denier idea was also precious.
Yeah, ‘Environmental Science/Climate Science’… “scientists all agree this is warming, and warming at an alarming rate, so let’s talk about how to solve this”, “here’s how CO2 warms, with this handy dandy PowerPoint explaining it”. Read peer reviewed papers that disagree? Review said papers? No. Take a math class or stats 100 class? Maybe. Apply statistical methods to data in her field? No. She probably just did problem sets and take a final. Welcome to LAS undergrad.
Well, the syllogism she is using must be pretty simple.
Peer reviewed consensus science indicates dangerous warming.
HadCRUT 4 does not show significant warming for the last 16 years.
———————————-
Therefore HadCRUT 4 is not peer reviewed.
Including one more premise, namely “HadCRUT 4 is peer reviewed” only makes the whole damned logical construct inconsistent, what is good for nothing but feeding the merchants of doubt.
Facts should never be checked anyway, but forecasted. Sounds good?
Re: tgorn
> Sorry. First thing that comes to mind to me is: Computer Science
> Definitely a science.
As somebody who has a Computer Science degree I would have to disagree. There was a maths requirement but not a statistics one. Laboratory and experimental work didn’t exist – it was writing code. There is no form of observational measurement, analysis and conclusions to be drawn.
Computer Science is more of a technical degree than a science degree
Perhaps a big list of climate related studies which are not really peer reviewed ie: where studies get special treatment due to journal members adding their names to dodgy studies to get them published, ‘communicated’ papers, ‘pal review’ where sympathetic journal members shepherd papers into publication by using sympathetic reviewers, etc.
Some so called studies should never have been published, and would never have made it without ‘special treatment’ from unethical helpers.
Friendly Fire. Warmunist movement in chaos. Lack of warming showing in their own datasets leads to collateral damage. The general is gone. Carry on warmunists.
TerryS says:
July 12, 2013 at 12:08 am
“Re: tgorn
> Sorry. First thing that comes to mind to me is: Computer Science
> Definitely a science.
As somebody who has a Computer Science degree I would have to disagree. There was a maths requirement but not a statistics one.”
Maybe in your computer science degree.
JohnB says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm
…. They’re clueless ’cause they don’t check out WUWT, CA, B-H, JoNova, NFC,…
Aren’t you s’posed to know your enemy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not in this case. If they have no competing agenda and a few brain cells to rub together they would probably end up as skeptics if they read and study those sites. That is why we have loony lew and co. cooking up idiotic studies showing skeptics are nuts.
Much much better to tell your adoring disciples we are dens of inequity, post a few twisted out of recognition tidbits from the sites to trash at their paid for sites and then feed them talking points to spew in the
General Propaganda OutletsMSM.Remember the whole idea is to CONTROL information so the general population is ignorant and unthinking.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you…
….then it pretty much stays at laughing to be honest if this is the kind of razor sharp intellect we’re up against.
I’m still getting my head around the fact that Greenpeace were so willingly lackadaisical with the facts yesterday that they willingly lied to all of their would be supporters regarding the design inspiration behind the Shard – and worse, a lie so easily checked within 10 seconds on Google.
Awesome.
Typical. If something doesn’t agree with the “facts” that you “know”, it must therefore be a big-oil funded lie.
Wasn’t moveon created to keep George W. Bush from winning a second term? Isn’t their entire reason to exist moot? Can you imagine actually telling anyone you’re associated with moveon? To quote Bill Engvall, it’s a good thing you can’t actually die from embarrassment… there’d be teenage girls dying every time they were in public with their dads.
And to bring the rant full circle, I don’t have a degree, and am constantly having to explain everything, from the most basic to the most complex, about computers and programming to twits with degrees. True story: I once had to explain the concept of a “for” loop in C to a 20-something that had a degree in programming… sigh.