Climategate II

A good bit of satire from Mr. Stewart. Too bad the science was treated as satire.

">

Climategate

Remember the "tech bubble" or the "housing bubble? If so, keep those in mind when you you say out the following words out loud, "global warming bubble".

Bubbles occur when there is speculation in the marketplace. Essentially, the market gets ahead of the product and demand outstrips supply.

The conventional wisdom was that the prices of technology stocks would continue up unabated. The conventional wisdom was that housing prices would always continue to rise. Looking backwards at the tech and housing bubbles it seems impossible that we missed the warning signs. So is the case with the global warming bubble.

I am not going to waste any time discussing the motives of the individuals and institutions which are critical in this unwinding tale. But stand assured that Johnson's First Law will be invoked: It is always about money.

There will be plenty of stories which will focus on the individuals. Rather, I am interested in the process by which the global warming became a "fact" and the data which created that "fact."

Much ado about the global warming bubble was created by a handful of scientists who have manipulated data and models which have resulted in scenarios where terrible things happen.

While I don't know anything about climate science, I do know a great deal about crunching data. I know for a fact that if you give me enough data points that I can, with selective processing, prove virtually any point. As they say, "Liars figure."

I have direct personal experience developing computer models. I have directed the development of two software models approved by the Navy for use of use. In each case, the model included a software representation of the physical world. The process in creating the models required strict adherence to systems engineering principles and the development of systems engineering artifacts which provide the framework within which the models will operate. Examples of those artifacts include: Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), Program Management Plan (PMP), Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Configuration Management Plan (CMP).

Critical in the model development is the Verification, Validation and Accredidation (VV&A) process which concludes with the determination of the model is a suitable representation AND, itemizes those areas or weaknesses in the model which any decision maker should be made aware. It is not a blanket approval, or disapproval. This is a critical difference between the models which I have developed and those which have been developed by the climate scientists - there is no disclosure of the weakness of their models.

My processes seem to differ significantly from those used by the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Center. The Center used a series of peer reviews to accredit the models and reports related to global warming. Absent from the peer review process is any one individual or institution whose job it is to be skeptical. In fact, it appears that the peer reviews of the Center's key climatic documents were accomplished with those who agreed with the authors. Far from being skeptics, the peer reviewers were closely aligned with the authors. (Note: The Center actually deleted data which was contrary to their "sky is falling" position in their calculations. I'll write more about their apparent cooking of the data in a future post.)

Another big difference: I have a government agency with which I work, whose duty is to be the professional skeptic and to challenge my systems engineering process as well as my data. Their presence ensures that I am not bending the data one way or the other as I seek a software solution within cost, schedule and performance. They keep me honest. The climate scientist have no analog for this watchdog.

My entire software development process is an open book to those who review my software development program. The professional skeptics, in fact, can hire a second set of systems engineers to audit my processes to ensure to their satisfaction that my systems engineering process is valid and my results are reliable.

The data from the Center has, until recently liberated, been a well-kept secret. While the emails and certain documents seem to provides some understanding of their internal process, it does not provide the raw data and meta data which are essential for independent review and authentication.

Politics aside, there are a number of key actions which should be taken by the scientific community to re-establish their position as revealers of truth. As Dr. Judy Curry notes two areas requiring immediate remediation in a recent posting to the Climate Audit blog:

"Transparency. Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why. This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased."

"Climate tribalism. Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups."

Bottom line: We may have seen the beginning of the end of the Global Warming Bubble. The lack of scientific methods and consistent systems engineering principles render the opinions of the "sky is falling" scientific crowd as void. In the end, the actions of the global warming actors may dwarf the fraud of Bernard Madoff.

Healthcare Reform and the Second Continental Congress

The Speaker of the House is the representative of arguably the most liberal congressional district of these United States and is, perhaps, emblematic of the problems with the healthcare bill as it is currently crafted. Far from being post-partisan, the Speaker is the most partisan of those pushing the healthcare debate. The primary issue is that the Speaker is having a one-sided dialog with those who agree with her: Republican input and concerns have been uniformly rejected in favor of an FDR inspired solution to nationalize healthcare.

Under President Bush there was much complaining about the war policy. In truth, Bush would have benefited from a wider set of views as the nation prepared for war. In much the same way now, the Speaker is pushing a bill which is so partisan so as to be intolerable for even the most liberal country-club Republicans.

The difference between the Bush and Obama policy regarding Iraq and Afghanistan is very small. In fact: there are more troops on the ground now then there were under Bush. Bush's policy has been vindicated by Obama's actions.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding healthcare could not be more stark: the Republicans favor an open market approach and the Democrats favor a governmental approach. It really is that simple. The Republican approach would tend to maintain the status quo and the Democrat will significantly increase the position of the federal government.

I was in Philadelphia this weekend and walked through Independence Hall and considered the arguments between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists which took place during the second Continental Congress. Standing in the room in which Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Franklin crafted the shape of our nation it didn't take long to come to the conclusion that we have gone far astray.

The second Convention created the framework for our nation and established the three branches of our government. Even among the most fervent Federalists there was an appreciation for the limitation of government.

The shouting over the healthcare program is no where near completed. The Senate has yet to approve its version and then there is Conference Committee- where the real sausage making takes place.

Bottom Line: In much the same way the Bush's one-sided war policy paved the way for the movement of independent's to Obama, the healthcare (lack of) debate will move Independents away from Democrats in 2012.

Is an MBA Worth the Money?

A recent edition of The Economist magazine rated the top business schools. My b-school, the University of Maryland came in 51st in the world behind the other likely suspects within the U.S. such as UC Berkley, MIT, Harvard, Wharton, Northwestern and University of Chicago.

It got me to thinking about the financial and time commitment necessary to obtain an MBA - particularly in this age of a depressed economy and an increasing dissatisfaction with profit at all costs.

CNBC did a quick study comparing the costs of a b-school education at a top 10 university (sorry this did not include UMD) in 1998 and again in 2008. They then compared the earning differential which came as a result of the MBA.

"...it would now take almost 2.5 years at the increased salary to cover b-school costs vs. 1 year ten years ago. Taking into account opportunity cost (i.e., lost salary during business school), the total cost today grows to ~$242 thousand vs. $149 thousand a decade ago. Again, based on the incremental salary gains, a current MBA would need 6.3 years to pay back the total cost of a Top 10 MBA vs. a 2.9 year payback a decade ago."

So the break-even point for an MBA today is 6.3 years as compared with 2.9 years only a decade ago. That is a disturbing trend.

What this would seem to indicate is that an MBA is still worth the money, but it is a better investment at a younger age. It was always thus, but the 6.3 year pay-off would seem to indicate that anyone over 45 think twice about investing $85k to $125k for an MBA at a prestigious school.

As a program manager I am often in the position of needing to manage expectations of the stakeholders to whom I support and to whom I report. Managing expectations involves providing realistic expectations between myself and my stakeholders and forever being honest. I wonder sometimes about the honesty of the b-schools as they seek out students to fill their classrooms.

Recently I received a note from UMD offering a $5,000 bounty to alumnus who direct a b-school candidate to College Park. At first I thought that was a new way for the school to recruit and after some consideration I have developed a distaste for the idea.

I enjoyed my time at UMD and have recommended prospective students to UMD without any fee. The idea of paying a bounty to direct b-school candidates to UMD creates the wrong set of incentives for me and for other prospective students. Let's say that I recommend someone to UMD: does that person believe that I am being honest with my recommendation, or does he/she think that I am merely setting myself up for a payday?

Bottom Line: My MBA from UMD was worth every penny and has opened multiple doors for me. I would hate to think that I might have gone to another school just because an alumnus was paid a bonus for recruiting me.

Hostile Work Environment is No Laughing Matter for Letterman

Growing up in the 1960's I was a fan of the Dick Van Dyke show. The show was a SITCOM situated in New York around a team of comedy writers which featured Dick Van Dyke, Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie. It turns out that the show misrepresented women's role in comedy writing. It turns out female comedy writers for television are non-existent with not a single female writer working on the staff of any of the late-night staffs.

The current issue of Vanity Fair magazine contains a damning indictment of the work environment for CBS's "Late Show with David Letterman". Former Letterman writer, Nell Scovell notes:

"Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let’s address the pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no."

She also says that she isn't going to sue Mr. Letterman which seems oddly generous for someone who was wronged professionally.

Bottom line: It will be interesting to see how CBS handles the coming fiasco.