Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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:

Occasional Series