Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Does anyone mathematically proficient (no longer my case, I've been in banking too long) can take a look at that study (http://ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm-performance-in-uk-and-denmark) and check what kind of torture has been inflicted on that data to come from this:

to this:


  1. Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately, detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture for both the United Kingdom and Denmark with a significant decline in the average load factor of onshore wind farms adjusted for wind availability as they get older. An even more dramatic decline is observed for offshore wind farms in Denmark, but this may be a reflection of the immaturity of the technology.

  2. The study has used data on the monthly output of wind farms in the UK and Denmark reported under regulatory arrangements and schemes for subsidising renewable energy. Normalised age-performance curves have been estimated using standard statistical techniques which allow for differences between sites and over time in wind resources and other factors.

  3. The normalised load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalised load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalised load factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalised load factorscannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor.

  4. Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalised load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011. In addition, larger wind farms have systematically worse performance than smaller wind farms. Adjusted for age and wind availability the overall performance of wind farms in the UK has deteriorated markedly since the beginning of the century.


Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 07:56:06 AM EST
No need for math, the answer is easier then that.

Any assessment of the costs of wind power must rely heavily upon assumptions about the
average load factor that will be achieved by new wind installations over their lifetime. It is
standard practice to calculate average load factors by year and country for onshore and offshore
installations as shown in Table 1 (page 40).1 However, such estimates do not provide a
reliable statistical basis for assessing the future performance of wind farms in aggregate. Part
of the reason is that the amount of wind in any month or year is influenced by long term meteorological
cycles that have periods of many years, notably the North Atlantic Oscillation. In
addition, average load factors do not allow for changes in the composition of wind installations
by location, age, size and other factors.

So Table 1 is only included to be used as an example of the standard method that is contrasted against the author's method.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 12:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have only skimmed the report, but if it is wrong I don't think it is the math as such (always worth checking of course). Leaving the data, the assumptions of the model and the conclusions.

Here is some things I noted:

Data, offshore (p.22)

Evidence on the performance of Danish offshore installations is both restricted and so poor
that there may be concern that the results are affected by a small number of outliers. Still, the
sample contains a reasonable number of sites with at least 5 years of operating experience and
the decline in performance by age 5 is 38% unweighted and 26% capacity weighted.

So with more data another picture might emerge for offshore with the same analysis. I also note that on my quick read-through I haven't got a firm grasp on where exactly his data comes from.

In conclusions:

While the decline in the achieved performance of onshore wind turbines in Denmark is
much less than that for the UK or offshore, nonetheless the decline in expected output under
standardised wind conditions over 10 years is 10% unweighted and 13% capacity weighted.
These declines accelerate aſter age 10 so that the reductions in performance are 17% and 20%
respectively aſter 15 years. For UK onshore wind farms the reduction in performance due to
age is much worse at 27% unweighted and 69% capacity weighted by age 10.

Now, all machines age and I don't know expected lifetimes and such, so I don't know what one should expect. What I do find dramatic here is the difference between Denmark and UK. That does not look like a mature technology aging to me. So what is wrong with UK onshore wind?

Going through the model is kind of heavy lifting on the day before christmas, but if you need to hire in your agit-prop division you know where to reach me.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 03:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well a quick back of the envelope observation without looking at the data

Interesting that the Danish data is "restricted and poor" compared to the UK data, but the Danish data comes in a Zip file that is reported as 18Mb in size, whereas the UK data is only 3Mb now all other things being equal you'd expect the "restricted and poor " data to come out smaller than the good set, not six times the size. That thegood data is then split down into 4 seperate reporting countries only makes me more suspicious.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 04:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's because the Danish set contains both on- and off-shore data. It's only the off-shore data that's called "restricted and poor."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 11:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I found this bit suspicious:

wind speeds are usually the weighted average of what production actually is on a site, expressed as if the wind speed were constant (just like full load hours are pretending that the wind turbine is producing at full capacity over that period and nothing at all the rest of the time) an I've always found both measures highly confusing.

I'm pretty sure there's some suspicious recalculation taking place there, simply because it's an easy place to hide it...

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 06:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He has essentially the same criticisms you have, which is why he doesn't use those, and instead uses standard panel data analysis where he treats wind availability as an unobserved effect fixed in each time step.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2012 at 11:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tl;dr: He's seeing the effect of immature operators and mature technology. Onshore installations in Denmark, where operators are mature, show a performance decline with age which, though statistically significant, is perfectly acceptable.

Long version:
His statistical methods are perfectly standard for panel data analysis. The specification search is kind of sloppy, but his robustness checks seem thorough and come out fine, so I don't think that's a problem. Overall, I like his statistical methods and would probably use similar analysis myself.

The problems start to show up in the interpretation. The correct interpretation of his data is that:

  1. Onshore wind is a mature technology, with perfectly satisfying performance when operated by mature operators (performance degrades by only four percentage points, or 18 % (2.0 % annualized) over a ten-year period - this is not alarming).

  2. British onshore operators are not mature, as evidenced by their considerably steeper degradation of performance.

  3. Either offshore wind technology or the Danish offshore operators are immature. Since this study demonstrates a strong effect of operator experience it is not possible to discriminate between the two, as Denmark ceded leadership of offshore installation to Germany early in the present century.

  4. One worrying effect is that in the British data, capacity-weighted estimates display worse performance curves than unweighted estimates. This is a reverse of the expected effect (and indeed a reverse of the effect observed for both Danish on- and off-shore), and may indicate a major problem with British operators' management of large projects.

  5. The policy analysis is utter garbage on at least two levels: It displays either nearly complete ignorance or mendacious mischaracterization of the existing policy regime, and further bases policy recommendations on the assumption that both the technology and British operators are mature, and that there are therefore no further infant industry economies to harvest.

  6. The executive summary of the paper may be gainfully replaced by Figures 1, 10 and 14, which contain all the conclusions that are both interesting and accurate.

(Incidentally, nuke fans should take heed: Complicated technology depends on mature operators as well as mature technologies, and developing a mature operator and supply infrastructure takes decades.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 12:29:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for that analysis. Some additional fine tuning:
  • on item 3 - experience moved to the UK in the late 2000s, Germany will join as of next year when the first industrial scale projects are built there;

  • on item 3 again: sample for offshore is really small. Apart from what are really R&D facilities, there are 2 projects in the sample for any significant period of time: Horns Rev (160 MW, 2002) and Nysted (165 MW, 2003). Other large projects come online in 2009/2010 (Horns Rev 2, Rødsand). The 2 early projects had to go through major teething problems, but 50% of Nysted was sold last year to PensionDenmark so they obviously think of the project as a long term ongoing concern (and DONG, the operator, must have given them the relevant underlying data)

  • on item 4: I think large projects in the UK are mostly quite recent, so there may be a learning curve there as well, but the point is to be noted indeed.


Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 05:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I checked the British onshore numbers, and as with the Danish offshore, the decline indicated is not borne out by the numbers :

The normalised load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15.

If he is saying that, on average a park that starts at 24% will decline after 10 years to 15%, and after 15 years to 11% (which is what his rhetoric would lead us to believe), then that is clearly false.

If, on the other hand, he is saying that the average load factor for all farms at 1 year is 24%, and that the average for farms of 10 and 15 years are 15 and 11%, then that is something entirely different, which I don't believe is supported by the data either (having already caught him out on Danish offshore).

There is so much month to month variability in the onshore data that you would have to do statistics, what me not know how. But just squinting at the data is enough for me. He's a liar, and if you can explain how he comes up with this particular lie, I would be very interested.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 11:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not clear on precisely what he's doing wrong, but I think he might be using a static model where he should be using a dynamic one. When I do a quick and dirty run on what I think he did, I get autocorrelated residuals, which usually means that you've forgotten a lagged dependent variable in your specification.

I'm not totally clear in how that would give him the sort of results he's getting, but models with autocorrelated residuals take great delight in producing interesting and innovative forms of gibberish.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 08:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
tl;dr

Did the author provide any justification for using Statistics to Model and analyze dynamic, non-linear, phenomena subject to sensitivity to initial conditions (aka "wind")?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 01:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes: The aggregates are not.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 06:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By "aggregates" you mean "previously measured" ?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 at 12:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(well, first year calculus for arts students)

but I spend a certain amount of time looking for trends in data.

So I had a quick look at the raw data (the source Danish spreadsheet with numbers for individual turbines) and yeah, if you graph turbines over 15 years, you can see a clear decline trend.

Depending on the data you choose to look at, you can get something approaching the 20% (i.e. decline from 22% to 18% load factor) cited by ref.org.

Then I thought about the turbines which have 15-year time series. Sure enough, all of them are 600kw or less. The smaller (i.e. older) ones have higher decline rates, probably over 20% over 15 years. The larger machines have smaller decline rates.

Then of course, if you look at the classes of machines which don't yet have 15 years of service, the picture changes...

No surprises here. "Lying with data 101" covers it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 08:43:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If this is what no mathematical training looks like, I'm more challenged than I thought.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 08:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can find no basis at all for the alleged steep decline in Danish offshore wind capacity factor :

The rate of decline in performance is greatest for offshore installations in Denmark, with a fall from load factors of over 40% at ages 0 and 1 to less than 15% by at ages 9 and 10.

Using all the available data in the raw data source cited (I note that there are only two installations with more than ten years of history!), I get the following graph when I calculate load factors :


So let's see : those installations that had over 40% load factor at age 0 still have over 40%, however none of them have yet reached age 9 or 10. What's more, no Danish offshore installation has a load factor of less than 15%. The two oldest are at 20% and 32% respectively in 2011.

Come on Jake, can you find a way of excusing, or even explaining, the way he gets his takeaway quote?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 10:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's odd.

If he actually implemented the protocol he states he is implementing on that data, he should not get the results he does. He claims to be doing perfectly ordinary within estimator on fixed effects panel data modeling. That shouldn't turn a figure like the one you have into a figure like the one he gets.

Unless of course he tortured his model in a way that he should know (because it would trigger more than one of the several misspecification tests built into all modern econometric software packages) is wrong.

Good catch.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 11:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of these are small. Nysted (2003) and Horns Rev (2002) should have the biggest weighting, but while I recognise Horn Rev's name in the list, I don't see Nysted. Both, as far as I know, have good performance today (and, as I mentioned before, Nysted was sold recently 50% to a pension fund so they would have not done that if performance was declining...)

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 12:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A word on "methodology", i.e. wot I done.

From the source data (Excel file AnlaegProdTilNettet.xls alleged to come from the Danish energy web site), I filtered the offshore projects. The data is presented as production figures from individual turbines, but in reality it's clearly some sort of composite figure, as each machine of a given type in a given park has the same numbers. So I chose one line from each group. I've double checked, and in the source data, the projects aren't referenced by their habitual names, but the correspondances are clear with a bit of digging.

In the above graph :

  • Uoplyst = Vindeby
  • Ukendt = Tunø Knob
  • 2nd and 3rd Uoplyst = Middelgrunden
  • Horns Rev = Horns Rev
  • 2nd and 3rd Ukendt = Rønland 1
  • Hav = Samso
  • The last Uoplyst = Nysted

So this graph contains no aggregation or averaging of any kind, other than that of the source data, and represents capacity factor by year of all the pre-2009 Danish offshore parks.

I eat raw data for breakfast. Great bleeding chunks of it. But I'm a moralist, and I don't like to see data tortured. Clearly the above data must have suffered a great deal to get it to "confess" the trend that Hughes gets from it. Because the trend just isn't there.

There are too many British onshore projects to submit them to the same naive treatment, but from looking at the data, the story is the same.

It would be worth keeping an eye open for press take-up of this atrocity, in order to "set them straight". Better would be to pre-empt them of course...

A quick google shows that there hasn't been much take-up yet, though the FT has published an article, which I am composing a reply to.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 04:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 04:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You see clearly the years when the big farms had to deal with serial defects  - very early on at Horns Rev (where all the gearboxes had to be replaced within the first year or two), and after a few years at Nysted (where the gearbox problems were less publicized but did require large scale action with the same performance impact as on Horns Rev). Anf both are now performing at high levels (and have given their respective manufacturers, Vestas and Siemens, massive experience which they are now using profitably on their new turbine models)

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 10:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Notice also the strong inter-annual variation, which is normal and independent of machine performance.

Offshore wind technology is moving completely away from the standard technology represented by these statistics.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 12:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And Vindby and Tunø Knob are onshore projects which happen to be in water at the coast, though they were called pioneering offshore. Of course they have the best capacity factors possible onshore, but don't reach current offshore standards. They are meters offshore, if my memory hasn't rusted.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 at 12:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you check the report, he actually shows himself the lack of a clear trend in raw data for UK on-shore, too (page 24):



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 29th, 2012 at 06:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep. Teletubbie version: newer wind farms performed well and continue to do so; older ones performed more poorly and still do. Ergo: performance diminishes with age... hmm, isn't this what they call the 'ecological fallacy'? The confounder being the year of construction.

Why am I reminded of the patricide asking the court for clemency on the grounds of being an orphan?

by mustakissa on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 at 09:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

newer wind farms performed well and continue to do so; older ones performed more poorly and still do. Ergo: performance diminishes with age... hmm, isn't this what they call the 'ecological fallacy'? The confounder being the year of construction.

Makes a lot of sense...thanks.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 12:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What you have pointed at is standard when a new technology is introduced into the market.  The IBM 1401 solid state computer was a huge hit in the market, solving a number of major business problems, when it was introduced in 1959.  Five years later IBM introduced the System/360 a technically superior product to the 1401, yet the 1401 continued to sell until it was withdrawn in 1971.  Even after IBM no longer sold the 1401 the machines continued to adequately accomplish business tasks; I worked on a 1401 in 1976 (IIRC) programming new business tasks and extending functionality of existing programs.

Let me list a couple of things:

  1.  People invest in technology when the existing functionality meets their needs (or financial forecasting, financial ratios, cash flow analysis, & etc.) at a specific point in time.  

  2.  The GO/NO-GO decision to purchase technology at a point in time is made with the knowledge at that time.  (Like, duh.)  

  3.  It is doubtful the "superior" IBM System/360 would have been built if the "inferior" 1401 had failed in the market.

  4.  It doesn't matter if a "superior" machine is available latter when the "inferior" machine is meeting the needs, tasks, goals, financial return, etc. assigned at the time of the GO decision.

  5.  Both users and producers of technology climb a learning curve.  The users learn how to use the stuff better, the producers learn how to make the stuff better, and (ideally) they interact in a virtuous positive feedback to the benefit of both.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 12:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep. And once a wind park has been built, the electricity it produces is essentially (almost) free. No reason to take it down unless you're short of sites for new ones.
by mustakissa on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 02:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some of the oldest commercial WTs in the world were allowed to run up to 30 years before repowering began, with many reaching 25 years.

They were known as "cash cows."

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 02:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I could write a book on the stupidity of using information known at Time Stamp + 20 to poo-poo the return of tech installed at Time Stamp + 0.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 03:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A couple of past ET references to the Renewable Energy Foundation:

One

Two

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 11:53:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One more note (received by email):


"Professor", Hughes did some earlier work on how expensive the gas backup to wind was, which was published by that former Tory Chancellor's so called think tank. (I refuse to clutter up my mind with their names!)
It was extensively and conclusively debunked by Robert Gross of Imperial, who gave evidence to the relevant Parliamentary committee.
I commented on the FT. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2e0945e2-4a09-11e2-8002-00144feab49a.html#comment-3447592


Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 24th, 2012 at 12:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation. As deceptively named as the Renewable Energy Foundation. For Lawson's tink-tonk's links to a certain type of energy industry, see here.

For Hughes and Gross, see here on ET.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Dec 25th, 2012 at 03:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So we knew of him?

Then the analysis could have been shorter, as one could have disbandonded assumption of good faith and centered on where lies can be hidden.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Dec 25th, 2012 at 09:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't have an answer to Jerome's question: how do you get from the numbers in that table to the conclusions drawn by Hughes.

Or, as a well-defined subset of that question, I wish I had some sort of explanation for how you can get the assertion

The decline in the normalised load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15

from my graph (which contains all the relevant data : yes it's a very small data set for such a big conclusion.)

What I find particularly annoying is that initially, people here accepted his conclusions at face value and tried to find excuses for the dramatic declines he asserts.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 at 02:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
I still don't have an answer to Jerome's question: how do you get from the numbers in that table to the conclusions drawn by Hughes.

As JakeS appears to recognise the approach, but when trying to reconstruct it runs into errors, I would say that it was done by torturing econometrics software and ignoring errors. It would be interesting to know exactly how (ie what econometrics software, and how it was tortured) but if the possibilities are many I doubt it would be worth the effort.

eurogreen:

What I find particularly annoying is that initially, people here accepted his conclusions at face value and tried to find excuses for the dramatic declines he asserts.

I don't see why that would be annoying. Given a report that tries to obfuscate in a number of ways we each have different backgrounds that makes us react more strongly to different things. Assumption of good faith - which is helpful in understanding other perspectives - also applies until one is certain the author is a liar (which could be from the start if one remembers their history). So areas of the report outside what is noted as false is treated as assumed honest. The strenght of this community is the multitude of perspectives.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 at 04:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be interesting to know exactly how (ie what econometrics software, and how it was tortured) but if the possibilities are many I doubt it would be worth the effort.

According to the report, he uses Stata. I have neither training nor license for that, so I can't reproduce precisely what he did.

But, given the number of parameters he's fitting, my guess would be that he ran a simple model and then expanded the number of model parameters until he got a result he liked, and never bothered to check for misspecification.

At least that's how I would do it if I wanted to do cargo cult science for a belief tank: It produces a superficially plausible result and checking the methodology requires surgical reconstruction. Which means people who don't know better (I plead guilty) tend to take it at face value.

(As an aside, I did know that the author was a liar - I just stopped investigating when I'd found the easiest to detect lie.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 at 06:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I find particularly annoying is that initially, people here accepted his conclusions at face value and tried to find excuses for the dramatic declines he asserts.

What I find annoying is that I wasted several irreplacable minutes of my life taking this report somewhat seriously, until finding out that it was the handiwork of a well-known fraud.

After that, Jerome's question has no further interest. What remains of interest is making obvious also to the statistically non-proficient reader the dishonest wrongness of Hughes' conclusions.

by mustakissa on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 at 09:44:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, I should have made it clearer that the REF (which I flagged in the subject line of my initial comment) was an astroturf organization, and indeed, I was looking for debunking to fight the propaganda.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 12:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. What would be needed here would be something like Skeptical Science for climatology.

Actually it's amazing how omnivorous anti-science fraudsters are: tobacco, climate, wind power, radiation hazard... as long as there is a business model in it. Nigel Lawson's operation being a case in point.

by mustakissa on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 03:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series