Damned Skeptic

Screw PG&E and their Smartmeter too!

2011-11-22T19:45:00.000-08:00

Today's mail brought a pamphlet from PG&E about the Smartmeter. The pamphlet struck me as a too repetitive waste of paper, but it did remind me that I wanted to see if the Smartmeter installed here earlier this year was finally connected to the internet. The online account had already been created, so I assumed I would just be able to log on and take a look. Instead I got a page saying PG&E had changed stuff, so I'd have to agree to new Terms of Use. And I suppose to demonstrate what they think of the peons forced to deal with them, the first part of the Terms of Use tells those unfortunates that they better check the Terms of Use regularly because if you agree now and continue to use the site you are also agreeing to any future changes.

Using the PG&E approach to contracts, I suggest that everyone pay their power bills by check with an agreement on the back that states that by cashing this check PG&E agrees to future changes. Next payment then states that PG&E will continue to provide service for no charge.

Who is monitoring CFL disposal?

2011-11-02T08:50:00.000-07:00

The title of this post was this morning's predawn obsessive thought, and since I was unfortunately wide awake, I decided to see what I could find on the internet. Not much is the short answer. Sure, there are plenty of webpages that tell us to dispose of CFLs properly, but the assumption seems to be that recycling at a designated site constitutes proper disposal which is an assumption I question. The local Home Depot has a trash can type container with some plastic bags next to it, and last time I recycled some CFLs the container was full and some people had not used the plastic bags. The likelihood that some bulbs get broken seems high to me which would mean that mercury is getting released into the air in that store exposing customers and employees to mercury vapors. Should we assume that this seemingly inadequate start gets better as the bulbs make their way to the processing center, that the Home Depot employees and other transporters are trained correctly?

What pisses me off is the dumbass "environmentalist" CFL mercury apologists. Like some guy who calls himself Mr. Green and answers questions at the Sierra Club site. His response to someone concerned about children breaking a fluorescent bulb included saying that if the EPA cleanup instructions seem scary it's because they are being extremely cautious and conservative. I wonder if Mr. Green will be spearheading the Sierra Club campaign for a less cautious and conservative EPA. He also suggests an effective deterrent is a sufficiently menacing warning for the children. That must be a new Club approach too. No need to keep that poison out of the house, just frighten the kids. At least Mr. Green did not suggest using cilantro and chlorella to remove mercury from the body like the genius at Californians Against Waste did.

The Sierra Club site search that led me to Mr. Green also led to CFL guidelines that briefly address the collection issue. I was glad to see that they recognize the problem, but I hope this wasn't the current guidelines because it is not up to date.

Occupy Oakland claims Scott Olsen hit by police projectile, but where's the evidence?

2011-10-28T03:08:00.000-07:00

I'm not surprised that Occupy Oakland jumped at the propaganda opportunity provided by Scott Olsen's injury, but I would hope that there are a few people who noticed that it's a claim unsupported by evidence. And, despite the "proof" posted on Youtube, no one saw what struck him. Is there even circumsantial evidence? I read somewhere that tear gas projectiles can be fired with enough force to do serious injury, but is there evidence that police used that kind of projectile? The claim that I saw repeated the most though was that it was a rubber bullet, so now all someone needs to do to make this a plausible claim is to show that the police used them and that Olsen's injury is consistent with them. Or perhaps his injury is consistent with being hit by a rock or bottle most likely thrown by someone in the crowd?

Discovery channel peddles more nonsense with Alaskan Monster Hunt

2011-07-22T08:16:00.000-07:00

Once again the gullible are treated to a brief out of focus glimpse of sea monsters. Can't any of these people use a camera, and where's the rest of the footage? Why is it that all the audience sees is some guys oohing and aahing and telling us what they think they see? If they're seeing what we're seeing then there's not much to get excited about.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) - Guilty by association?

2011-04-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

In a Feb. 12, 2011 post at Skeptic's Corner, Jer made the following argument:

-BEST is part of Novim
-Novim appears to be very much into Geo-Engineering
-Novim Executive Director Michael Ditmore believes AGW "...is not something to be determined through study of the temperature records but rather an established fact in need of immediate control."

Therefor BEST has an agenda.

Jer doesn't say what BEST's agenda is, but I presume the implication is that by being associated with Novim and Mr. Ditmore BEST will produce a biased study that adheres to Novim and Mr. Ditmore's beliefs.

Jer follows up his argument with three updates. The first indicates that Novim is privately funded "...mostly by individuals and their foundations in the Santa Barbara area." The second update says "At least part of the funding for the project comes from an outfit called The Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research which interesting enough comes from Bill Gates money."

I assume that the reader is supposed to draw something from the information in the first two updates. Unfortunately Jer gives no indication why those associations should be important, and I have no idea.

The third update starts with a statement that Mr. Ditmore recently filed for bankruptcy protection and is on the advisory board of Urgent VC, and once again the reader is on his/her own as to why either of those is important.

The last part of the third update questions why the Novim web site doesn't mention that Jason Blackstock, "...the lead writer of their paper on geo-engineering...", is also a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governace Innovation (CIGI). Not mentioning Mr. Blackstock's connection to CIGI is somehow even more significant because Mr. Blackstock was the CIGI coordinator at COP-15. This is followed by a quote from Mr. Blackstock about geo-engineering. All of which leads Jer to the conclusion that despite claiming not to advocate a policy Novim has "...a very strong position and back an agenda." I presume that once again the reader is supposed to draw the conclusion that the BEST study will be biased in favor of Novim's position and agenda.

Dr. Richard Muller & Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study

2011-04-17T17:43:00.000-07:00

I rarely read anything about global warming anymore, but this story caught my attention when I read a post at Skepticblog by Donald Prothero titled "Global Warming Skeptic Changes His Tune - By Doing the Science Himself". That post probably wouldn't have interested me much either except that I recognized the name of the supposed global warming skeptic, Richard Muller. A few years ago I had come across his "Physics for Future Presidents" web page, and though I didn't know much about his position on global warming, I wouldn't have labeled him a skeptic. Anyway, it was enough to get me interested, so I read Dr. Muller's written testimony to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. I didn't think Prothero's post accurately reflected Dr. Muller's testimony.

In quoting Muller's testimony, Mr. Prothero doesn't link directly to the written testimony; instead Mr. Prothero links to and pastes text from Good Environment. But he doesn't even paste the text as it was at Good Environment, so sentences that were in different paragraphs and sections appear to be one paragraph. Since it's what is being left out that makes his conclusion misleading, I don't know if it's more misleading to combine sentences that way, but it seems an odd way to do it.

What's misleading is to write that the analysis of the data tracked NOAA, GISS and HadCRU without mentioning these caveats about the data in Muller's testimony:
(Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth curve, in black, does not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.)

The Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the reduction of systematic bias.

I think it would have been just as accurate (or inaccurate) to write, "Noted AGW scientist surprised by preliminary results - questions why uncorrected data closely matches adjusted data of NOAA, GISS and HadCRU."

Thankful I'm a vegetarian...

2010-11-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

because I don't have to try to convince my brother to properly thaw out his frozen turkey or explain why I don't want a piece of the improperly thawed turkey after it's cooked. A while ago he put a frozen turkey in a large pot filled with water and for some reason I started wondering what the reason for this was, so I asked my brother why he put it in water. He said that was what the package instructions said to do. I was in the kitchen at the time, and I noticed that the turkey wasn't completely submerged because the pot was too small. I asked him if it was supposed to be submerged and he said yes. It struck me as kind of funny that, while he didn't know why the turkey should be submerged in water to defrost, he hadn't actually followed the instructions, so I laughed and said that he must not have taken the instructions seriously. Since he wasn't really paying much attention to what I was saying he mumbled something about the pot not being big enough and he was going to do something or other which I didn't catch at all.

Still wondering, I did a google search. Submerging has to do with keeping down the temperature of the turkey to prevent bacteria growth as it defrosts though none of the sites I clicked on gave a thorough explanation. They did all agree that the turkey should be submerged and the water should be changed every half hour. Neither of those is happening with my brother's turkey which I suppose means that the outside of the turkey might reach 40 or more degrees allowing bacteria to begin growing. Now I wonder how much of a potential problem this is since the turkey is going to be cooked. I suppose under-cooking could pose a problem, but handling the uncooked turkey then touching other food seems like the biggest danger.

Where are the skeptics?

2010-07-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

I'm referring not to the so-called climate skeptics, but instead to the people who consider themselves part of a skeptical movement. The people who love to say "What is the evidence?" when it comes to bigfoot, 9/11 conspiracies, ghosts and any number of other claims, but not when it comes to global warming. Is debunking the latest medium or some other paranormal nonsense keeping them too busy to pay much attention to the exaggerations and poor evidence that accompany a topic that directly impacts our lives, or is it that many wear the same blinders as believers in the paranormal when it comes to global warming? It seems to me that many skeptics either don't ask the critical questions or don't hold global warming claims to the same standard that they hold other claims.

Anderegg et al. study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences no help in search for AGW consensus

2010-07-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

A quick reminder that what I'm trying to find is evidence for the claim that some unknown majority of climate scientists believe a specific AGW hypothesis. Whatever other problems Anderegg et al. may have, the study doesn't claim to answer the above question. The authors state, "Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers." What they say their study doesn't infer is what I'm trying to find, and I can only surmise that since the authors don't cite a comprehensive, representative study they didn't find one.

David Brin opines on skeptics, deniers & AGW consensus at Skeptic magazine

2010-06-17T12:25:00.000-07:00

I wonder if anyone else found it strange that after David Brin's "Climate Skeptic" gets done admitting things to prove she is not a "Climate Denier", she becomes a he that "...feels like a smart guy..." who is "...generally pretty well-educated and good in his own field." Gender confusion aside, I wouldn't want to be a Brin approved skeptic because s/he reminded me of those sappy characters that populated certain kid's books and magazines during my childhood. If you know who Goofus & Gallant are then you know what I mean.

Mr. Brin's supporting evidence for AGW consensus consists of his anecdotal experience with "...about a dozen top atmosphere experts..." and the fact that former IPCC co-chair James McCarthy thinks that only 5 of the top 1000 climate experts disagree that the increase in greenhouse gases is primarily anthropogenic and "...is the cause of an increase in global temperatures." I suppose that settles it then unless of course you're one of those pesky deniers that's going to start asking annoying questions like where did that figure come from, who are these experts and what qualifies them as an expert. A Climate Skeptic would admit that s/he doesn't know any climate experts, so s/he will defer to those who do like Mr. Brin and Mr. McCarthy.

Searching for evidence of global warming consensus at Skeptical Inquirer

2010-04-12T14:03:00.000-07:00

In writing about the Center for Inquiry's Credibility Project study on the United States Senate Minority Report on Global Warming in the September/October 2009 Skeptical Inquirer, Stuart Jordan, one of the the Credibility Project authors, wrote that their research "...included name, education, summary of publications in the refereed literature based on the better-known climate science and solar physics journals, current institutional affiliations, and professional identifications." It seems fair to apply that research standard to Dr. Jordan's claim that "[t]here is no doubt that a large majority of the scientific research community thinks global-warming-driven climate change is due primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gases." Unfortunately, like many who make statements about global warming consensus, Dr. Jordan presents no evidence to support his claim, so unlike the Senate Minority Report there is no way to apply his standard to his claim.

I think I'll to leave it to Dr. Jordan and the Credibility Project to determine the credibility of the claim made by David Morrison in the March/April 2010 issue of Skeptical Inquirer that endorsement of IPCC findings by the "national academies of science in all of the industrialized countries...represents a strong scientific agreement...". But I have a feeling that their desire for inquiry doesn't extend to beliefs they share.

"Green" marketing

2010-03-26T11:47:00.000-07:00

I laughed when I read the article in the NY Times about problems with the Energy Star program. What would have surprised me is reading that the program was designed to rigorously test products. The government is not much different from the private sector when it comes to green marketing - lots of hype, not much reality. Marketers know that people are suckers, so the claims change with the times. Now products are energy efficient or environmentally friendly though you would be hard pressed to substantiate the claims.

The marketing push for compact fluorescent lights (CFL) is a good example. We were told about how energy efficient they are, and that they really aren't so expensive because they save on energy costs and last a long time. The info about them containing mercury, the special procedures for cleaning up a broken one, the poor quality of some bulbs, the flickering and hum of some bulbs, the limitations of use, and having to recycle them because of the mercury was somehow glossed over. Lots of people ended up with an expensive, crappy, toxic bulb that they maybe knew not to throw away but didn't know where to recycle. As for claims of being better for the environment, I doubt that anyone did life cycle studies of these bulbs. Left up to the consumer, no amount of green marketing hype would have made CFLs the bulb of choice over inexpensive, reliable incandescent bulbs. But governments around the world are banning incandescent bulbs, so consumers will not have a choice.

My approach is just not to believe any green marketing claims. I put those claims in the same probably not tested category with herbal remedies and dietary supplements. If you're paying more for a product because it's "green", you're probably getting taken.

Global warming consensus continues to elude

2010-03-10T12:40:00.000-08:00

In renewing my search for the elusive scientific consensus on AGW, I did a Google search using the word consensus and the terms "global warming" or "climate change". Google's first choice was Wikipedia. Not a reputable source, but it sometimes provides usable references. Unfortunately the "Climate change consensus" page led only to newspaper articles, statements without support or info I've already seen.

There were some surveys that I hadn't seen on the Wikipedia "Scientific opinion on climate change" page. Bray and von Storch did another survey in 2008 which, while interesting, is not much help on AGW scientific consensus. The survey had a 18.2% response rate with a total 373 responses, but there is no way to determine how many of those responses were from experts in the field, or even what defines an expert in the field.

Another survey cited was done by Harris for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, but no link to the survey was provided. A link to the STATS page leads to an article about the survey which says "...Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science." The STATS page doesn't say how many responded or why being a member of one of these associations qualified respondents as climate scientists. A cited article in U.S. News & World Report about the Harris poll reported that "Only 41 percent of the geophysicists and meteorologists in this survey said they were directly involved in any aspect of global climate science" and "72 percent of those polled said they had "never" or "almost never" published articles or books on climate change."

The most informative survey cited (#93 incorrectly attached to next survey) on this Wikipedia page was by Stewart, Mumpower and Reagan-Cirincione (1992). What made this survey so informative was not the results of the survey, but the discussion of the problems and biases in surveys. When I read what some people write about surveys I wonder if they have any idea that surveys can be misleading or biased.

An important distinction should be made between what I'll call expert scientific consensus and the consensus of the scientific community. Just being a member of the scientific community, however loosely or rigidly that is defined, doesn't make a scientist an expert on climate. I'm still looking for the standards that make someone an expert on climate and therefore qualified to be part of the expert consensus, but scientists who claim no expert knowledge are certainly not part of the expert consensus.

If we could harness "green" energy hype...

2010-03-09T10:41:00.000-08:00

our power problems would be over. The hype surrounding Bloom Energy and it's Bloom box would surely be enough to power the whole state of California for a long while. Not only did 60 Minutes run a story on them, but among the dignitaries at the launch were Governor Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell and big shots from eBay, Google and Walmart. Much congratulating ensued.

Bloom Energy isn't the only firm working on energy from fuel cells, so why all the attention? Might it have something to do with the fact that venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins which backed Google and eBay is also backing Bloom Energy? Colin Powell sits on the board of directors of Bloom Energy and is a partner at Kleiner Perkins. Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google and partner at Kleiner Perkins. Can't hurt to have those kind of high powered connections.

Since the energy produced by the Bloom box costs more than power from the grid, I'm sure most people could guess what's helped grease the way for companies to install them. If you guessed government subsidy, well so did everyone else. That's right the U.S. taxpayer is helping out, but unlike Kleiner Perkins, taxpayers won't see any return on their investment should the Bloom box actually work as marketed.

Smart meter, stupid customer?

2010-03-04T06:11:00.000-08:00

Are Californians really so dim witted that they won't see through the ridiculous positive spin marketing that the power companies are putting out about smart meters? I looked at the smart meter web pages for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE), Pacific Gas & Electric (PGE) and Southern California Edison (SCE). Here are some common themes.

Save money:
If you don't know that turning down, turning off or unplugging will save you money then how is a smart meter going to help? SCE puts it a little differently with "Pricing Plans That Work For You" which I assume is something like PGE's "SmartRate™ Summer Pricing Plan".

Save energy:
They actually mean reduce energy use, and once again, if you don't know that turning down, turning off or unplugging will reduce power consumption then a smart meter isn't likely to help.

Help the environment:
You don't need a smart meter for this either. Just reduce your power usage.

If you don't need a smart meter to save money, energy or the environment then what is its purpose. Smart meters now allow power companies to apply the higher price rate of peak summer power to those using it rather than spread it out to all customers. The idea is that the increased price will be an incentive for people to reduce power usage during peak hours. How much of an incentive it is will depend on personality and income level. The less money you have the more concerned you're likely to be while wealthier people may not care at all. Plus, if the economy ever recovers, salary demands may increase to meet the increased power costs thus undermining the incentive.

If the power company doesn't like your power usage you'll probably get nagged by some "friendly" customer service rep who will, as SCE wrote, "...recommend energy and money savings programs to customers." That's something to look forward to. And if the incentive plan doesn't work, I'm sure the smart meter will allow the power company to shut you down. It won't be rolling blackouts like before, and living near a hospital or airport won't save you anymore either. Smart meters may be a way of defusing the political danger of power outages by putting pressure on people to lower their power usage. The bottom line seems to be that California has no intention of increasing capacity to meet demand. The State hopes to reduce demand to meet capacity.

Smart meters are also going to mean a loss of jobs. According to Sunil Sharan writing in The Washington Post 28,000 meter reading jobs will be lost in the next five years.

This doesn't mean I oppose smart meters. Not that it would matter if I did since it isn't voluntary. I just want the real story not some marketing attempt to create a positive picture in hopes that customers don't think too much about it. I don't mind that the price of power can be assigned to individual homes with a smart meter, but I also recognize that there are other issues involved.

The search for AGW consensus

2010-03-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

The following three links were given to me by Nacreous in a comment at The Rogues Gallery blog.

The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change (Bray & Storch)
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Doran & Zimmerman)
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I had originally intended to write something on each of the above, but decided it's not worth the effort. One of the three (Bray & Storch) questions whether there is consensus, and it is the actual study. The other two are articles about the studies by the authors, and they claim there is consensus. Oreskes analyzed abstracts while the other two polled scientists. I found all three lacking.

In search of global warming consensus

2010-02-24T21:43:00.000-08:00

When discussing or writing about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) some people make the claim that their position reflects the scientific consensus on the subject, but I wonder if it's a claim that can be substantiated. What I've decided to do is post my thoughts when I see a claim of consensus and when possible ask the person for supporting evidence.

I was going to wait to see if my comment at The Rogues Gallery got a response, but since it's been in moderation for hours, I don't feel like waiting any longer. While Jay Novella makes it clear he thinks there is a consensus, the focus of the blog is why he trusts scientific consensus and a study on why people accept or reject scientific data. On Jan. 22nd in Neurologica, another New England Skeptical Society blog, Steven Novella also states his trust in scientific consensus and says that there seems to be AWG. Like his brother Jay, he neither gives evidence for the consensus claim nor does he tell the reader exactly what the consensus opinion is.

Is there anything particularly meaningful about any of this so far? Not really. One or both of the Novella brothers may have previously gone into detail about evidence for the consensus and what the consensus opinion is. All it means is that if you don't know more about the Novella brothers consensus claim then there is no way to know if it is justified. And even if you believe there is a consensus you can only assume that their consensus and your consensus are the same.

Update: Thursday Feb. 25
It hit me as I was trying to fall asleep that I might have missed something in the Neurologica blog, and after rereading it, I think I did. Steven Novella wrote,"The claim of AGW scientists is that when you control for all known trends and fluctuations in climate, there is an extra warming trend of about 1.5 degrees C in the last century. This trend cannot be accounted for by any natural process, but can potentially be accounted for by forcing from greenhouse gases." Given the context, I assume he's saying this is a consensus claim and as such provides a possible point of agreement for other consensus proponents.