Thursday, November 26, 2009

Global Warming is man-made. With erasers and computers

Some more Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change scientists may have been naughty.

Here's the latest update in the Tree Ring Circus (Mark Steyn's term):

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

Wow. Hotter than a whore in church. Hot enough to make you return things that you didn't steal. Hotter than the hinges of hell. Hotter than two bears fighting in a forest fire. Hotter than two cats in one pair of long johns. Hotter than a two dollar pistol on Georgia asphalt. Hotter than the Presbyterian hell for dead babies. It looks hot.

But what happens when you look at the raw numbers, before the guys in the white lab coats massage them to weed out politically incorrect readings ? It doesn't look as hot. In fact, the trendline looks erratic and random. Surely not hot enough to give the Hopers and Changers near-control of the rest of the economy.

I've been wrong about this ever since I started blogging, having always acknowledged that there have been wild swings in earth's temperature but denying that those swings were caused by man. Well, the swings recorded in the first chart were man-made, weren't they? Man caused the earth's recorded temperature to increase by using erasers and hitting the "delete" key on their computers, not by running factories or driving SUV's.

I apologize for my earlier hardheadedness. Man does indeed cause Global Warming. Men with doctorates, mostly.

Here's Robert Tracinski, at Real Clear Politics:

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

If you haven't read Ayn Rand's novella "Anthem" yet, now is a great time to do so. You can read it standing in the aisle at Barnes & Noble in about 30 minutes. One of the great moments in the book comes when you realize that the government in the story won't allow the hero to supply everyone with his new discovery - the light bulb. Why not? Because it would endanger the livelihood of the candlemakers.

It sounds so ridiculous doesn't it? But we're getting so close. Imagine all those ridiculous Green Jobs slowly circling the drain, about to disappear forever unless somebody does something to preserve the ongoing farce.

Obama is going to Copenhagen soon, to help re-invent the flat tire. The Fix is in.


Cedric Katesby said...

A press release?
You think that global warming is a hoax because of release?
That's silly.
Any jackass can issue a press release.
The Discovery Institute does it all the time.
Who gives a damn?

Take a second to read what the scientist actually said.
He doesn't mince his words.

"There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”

“But you’ll be providing all that shortly?”

“Well, we’re not going to run around in circles just because somebody has put out a press release. We will continue to put out what is reasonable to provide.”

“Wouldn’t it be important –“


“…for people to see the comparison studies between both sites?”

“Look, we’re talking about scientific studies here. I’ve told you we’ll put out information about Wellington. Basically it’s not up to us to justify ourselves to a whole lot of people that come out with truly unfounded allegations. We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff and I can’t have my staff running around in circles over something which is not a justified allegation. The fact that the Climate Science Coalition are making allegations about my staff who have the utmost integrity really really pisses me off.

“That’s all I’ve got to say to you now – [click]”

Dr David Wratt sounds like he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

This is what is going to happen.
1)The Deniers will not work through the scientific process.
2)The allegations will, however, float around on the Denialosphere for decades to come.

A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.’ But, eventually, truth gets booted and spurred, and the lie gets a good licking.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

From Col. David Mortimer, via Instapundit....

You know, when you consider that “We’re Saving The Planet” is the biggest power/money grabbing scam since “We’re Saving Your Souls,” whoever leaked/released those e-mails and such is kind of like the modern scientific equivalent of Martin Luther. This person/persons may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God.

Classical rent-seeking behavior. Nothing more than that. No conspiracy, no secret cabals. Just a bunch of guys wanting a raise.

Cedric Katesby said...

Allen, think about what you've done.
This is so very wrong of you.

Some think-tank releases release.
Not research.
No actual work involved.
Nothing scientific going on.


Why are you rewarding these people with free publicity?

Can't you see this is exactly what they want?

We don't do science by press release. We do it by trial, error, and publishing. If you can't get your amazing challenge to the orthodoxy published, its not because "They" are silencing you, its because you don't have the data. If you are right - and you may well be! - then doing the due diligence is your responsibility.

Why are you giving those blusterers a free lunch?
What ever happened to an honest days pay for an honest days work?

Before you go giving them the free publicity they need to survive, how about you demand that they work up a little sweat and enter the scientific arena?

No conspiracy, no secret cabals. Just a bunch of guys wanting a raise.

There is no "bunch of guys".
We're talking about every single scientific community on the planet.
NASA is only one out of dozens of scientific communities and yet even that's solitary entity is not a "bunch of guys" in anybody's language.

A "bunch of guys" is you, me and the local cricket club having a few beers together at my place on Saturday.
The overwhelming majority of scientists on planet Earth is not a "bunch of guys".

Break it down for me.
Break it down for your readers.
Break it down for yourself.
Perhaps then you will realise how impossible it all is.
How do millions of scientists all over the world get raises by falsifying data covering multiple, different, independent lines of evidence...and...(AND!!!) make sure that their data doesn't screw up some other guy's fudged data?

What about the filthy rich scientists that do science because they love it?
Why don't they spill the beans?
How are they silenced?
Assassins? Flouride in the water?

What about the scientists that do science because they think it's important in and of itself?
How are they silenced?
Hypnosis? Chem-trails?

What about the scientists that have just finished grad school and happens to be die-hard libertarians? Or think that Al Gore is fat?
1950's Maoist propoganda tapes?
Subliminal messages planted in TV commercials?

What about the scientist who wants to destroy at any cost the career of his more famous collegue because the other guy stole his girlfriend?
Mind rays from satellites? Mystic runes engraved on the lab hard-drives?

You are indulging in wishful thinking. You have nothing concrete. You can't even coherently puzzle out your own conspiracy notion in a step-by-step manner to yourself.

Inventing motives plucked from your own fantasy to explain the "why" is the easy part.
A glib assertion're finished.

The tricky part is spelling out the "how".

So, how is it done?
Reveal all.
Don't spare any details.
Break it down.
Step-by-shocking step.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"So, how is it done?
Reveal all.
Don't spare any details.
Break it down.
Step-by-shocking step.

Are these scientists included in your "millions" of warmistas?

Cedric Katesby said...

You too have no idea how this conspiracy is supposed to operate.
Thats why you can't say anything useful.

Linking to crackpot wierdness does not help your credibility.

Try engaging a little.
How does the
What are the practical nuts and bolts of the operation?

Break it down into logical straightforward steps without sounding like a crazy person.
Good luck with that.

Yes, this will come as a shock to you but there's actually more that a couple of scientists out there.

Add them up for yourself.
The American Geophysical Union alone claims more than 50,000 members.
Scientists from every corner of the globe.
No scientific community on the planet thinks that global warming is a hoax.
Not one.

Ah, sweet reality.

Cedric Katesby said...

Let's have a little more info on the press release.

"The author of the press release and the “research project” into NZ’s long term temperature record is blogger Richard Treadgold, not unknown to readers of Hot Topic. Unfortunately for him, and for the credibility of any of the members of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, Treadgold’s approach to the issue is ignorant, his results meaningless, and he can have no excuse for not knowing he was wrong. Worse, Treadgold, Dunleavy and the rest of the NZ CSC seem determined to smear NZ’s best-known and most respected climatologist, Jim Salinger (who did much of the early work on NZ’s temperature record), based on little more than straightforward lies."

Press releases.
Just for the record, I don't think anybody should get their science from a press release issued by people who do no work.
Leave that to creationists and the Discovery Institute.
They just lurrrv press releases.
Ordinary people get duped by their press releases all the time.

Getting your science from NASA is a much better idea.
NASA rocks.

Pogo said...

OK, now we get it. All scientists who don't buy into the warmista religion are "crackpot" heretics. Even when their conclusions are based actual science as in the work linked by the Greek (bet you didn't read it:o). All the press releases from the warmista prostitutes and the IPCC are however gospel. What's not to like? Everyone "knows" the vote is unanimous. Game over. You simply cannot lose.

Anonymous said...

All the press releases from the warmista prostitutes and the IPCC are however gospel.

It's not the press releases.
It's the work behind it.

Science is not a religion.
Science works in a different way.
There is no "gospel".
NASA are not warmista prostitutes.
They are some of America's best scientists.
Have you ever bothered to listen to them?
Evidently not.
Your loss.

Can anybody piece together how the global community of scientists is pulling off the hoax of the century?
Anybody? Somebody?

(...crickets chirping...)

Deniers have no quality control on their sources of information.
They will sink to any depths, scrap any barrel, lap up any lie to prop up their belief system.
Fact-checking is an alien concept to them.

Abandon the press releases, blog articles written by semi-retired dermatologists or refrigerator repairmen, and anonymous scrawls on toilet doors.
That's not how smart people get their science.

Raise your standards.
Find out about peer-review.
Demand lots of it.
Demand a MOUNTAIN of it.

For the non-scientist, there's plenty of hi-quality, popularised science sources to help educate the public.

Educated people who don't want to be flim-flammed must be very careful where they get their information from.
Otherwise, any astroturf think-tank with vested interests can just feed you what you want to hear.
Get your science from science sources.
NASA is a good start.

Cedric Katesby said...

The previous post is mine.
Forgot to do the Name/Url" thingy.
Apologies for any confusion.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Get your science from science sources....

Here's my favorite analysis of the science sources, and they're STILL going through the computer code, excerpting the funny parts.

For your amusement:

Also, people have been trying to get info from one of your favorite science sources for about three years....

We've had numerous debates over the past couple of years about whose point of view more closely resembles a religion.
More and more, these Climaquiddick incidents remind me of Wycliffe and Tyndale releasing the bible to the public with no church editing, interpretation, of spin-doctoring.
(Of course, the church did a post-morten martyrdom of Wycliffe and gutted Tyndale.)
Those in power hate it, hate it, hate it when the little guys get to look inside the magic books.

Follow the CEI lawsuit. If they couldn't make the numbers work in East Anglia, they can't make them work in Houston. Or wherever the NASA rectal thermometer is located. If NASA's data is embarrasing, they'll be reluctant to release it.

(Ahem....) They're reluctant to release it.

There is no conspiracy. There is no master plan for world domination. They just want raises, grants, guaranteed funding, and influence.

Global Cooling didn't work. Global Warming was too risky. Now it's Climate Change. That covers all the bases nicely, doesn't it?

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

OK Cedric we'll forgive you for the "name/Url thingy" boo boo. After all you doubtless acquired your comment composition skills from a "true science" source. No need to "apologize". Most of us living in the real world (as opposed to the warmista cathedral) deduced it was you.

I do have a question for you however: How is a "peer review" to be conducted on a computer model when the "scientist" refuses to reveal the garbage er "data" he fed the computer to any other scientists except his co-religionists e.g. those who rely on government or Tides Foundation stipends?

Another suggestion: During the next lunch break from your job cleaning the unisex rest rooms at NASA go through the PDF file in my previous link and give us a "peer review". Sorry the tired and irrelevant dismissive cliche "crackpot weirdness" won't do. You may learn more science than from reading the scrawlings inside the stalls. Also, your incessant repetition of warmista dogmas such as "settled science (an oxymoron by the way), consensus, crackpots, deniers etc." simply isn't cutting it any more.

Cedric Katesby said...

(Hmm. Some kind of bug makes it difficult to post. I'll try a two-parter)

Follow the CEI lawsuit.

Who are the CEI?
Have you ever asked yourself who is paying their bills?

There was a time when you were not so trusting.
Remember this?

I'm reasonably sure that "The Science and Public Policy Institute" is a think tank funded by business interests...

Do some digging. You won't like what you will find.

This is a song they have played before.
It's a publicity stunt.
Ever wonder where they got that fanciful number of "30,000" scientists?
I do.

They're reluctant to release it.

So, this is evidence of...the conspiracy?

They just want raises, grants, guaranteed funding, and influence.

Yes, yes, yes.
We all know about the "Why".

Yet you have given zero information on the "How".
How are they getting away with their misdeeds?
Can't you even give us a hypothetical musing that would sound vaguely plausible?

"Most conspiracists obsess on gathering evidence. They watch videos over and over, study floor plans and forensic reports, plot trajectories and lines of sight, read and compare testimonies of witnesses endlessly, post youtube videos explaining byzantine timelines and event sequences. Their obsession with documenting evidence is almost pathological. Indeed there is a process to validating a conspiracy.

Yet the Deniers toss out a few anecdotes and move on. Why?

The most obvious reason would be that it can’t be done. Any critical examination of the evidence naturally causes the whole premise to fall apart. As I will discuss below the whole idea is absurd. In fact it is probable that the authors of the theories know them to be nonsense so they are not going to waste their time looking for evidence that they know does not exist.

More importantly, from their perspective it isn’t necessary, not for it’s intended purpose. What is a conspiracy theory for? and who is the audience? If your purpose is to stop or destroy the conspiracy then you must expose it to the public and the appropriate authorities. If your intended audience does not require convincing and the purpose is merely to sow confusion then evidence and facts are unnecessary.

The audience for the Denier conspiracy theories do not require evidence. As has been demonstrated over and over the Deniers accept the most outrageous nonsense as fact on the basis of hearsay."

Cedric Katesby said...

(Ok, part two)

Global Warming was too risky. Now it's Climate Change.

(...bangs head against wall...)

We've been here before several times. How many more times do you need to be posted this link?
You are sowing doubt and confusion where none need to exist.

Global Cooling didn't work.

Which reminds me...

About the whole 70's Ice Age Myth P.R.A.T.T point.

July 31
I really am going to try to find a little more info on Global Cooling and the next ice age.

August 17 2008
And please don't think I've dropped our earlier conversation about AGW. Am still working on it.

Sept 7 2008
I'm still working on the Cedric thing from way back when.
I've found references to a guy who researched peer reviewed Climate Change projects from the 1970's. Out of 87 researchers, 27 said we'd have cooling or no change at all. 40 said warming.
I just have to get to the TCU library to track it down.

I appreciate the fact that you posted the video on the subject but when will you make the final judgement call?
I urge you to read the PDF file available on the Internet titled "The Myth Of The 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". It's short and readable.
Will you finally declare that the 70's Ice Age P.R.A.T.T is truely dead and buried...or not?
You gave me your word quite a while ago.
So how about it?