This time, it’s in New Zealand:
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…. But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result.
Worldwide fears? More like worldwide conclusions. I’m not at all surprised. The strong probability is that it has ALL been more or less faked, so the more closely the climate data is examined, the more likely it is that some amount of fraud is going to be detected. This is why no “scientific consensus” that does not involve genuinely observable and replicable science should ever be considered science. Today’s scientists held a position of public respect that relied on the successes of their predecessors but they have been shown to be unworthy of it with their stupid and shabby attempts to pass of non-science as science.
Science is not, and never will be, “what scientists happen to believe now”. That’s merely opinion, and often it’s not even informed, educated, or honest opinion.
Incredibly, the snake-oil salesmen are still trying to sell their con job to the public: “Tuesday’s report said no credible science supports an alternative hypothesis for the warming trend. Each year this decade has been among the top 10 warmest years since instrumental records began, the scientists said. ‘The science is quite decisive,’ said Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University. ‘There is a very robust consensus about the reality of climate change and the need to confront it quickly.'”
That, by the way, is the very Michael Mann who created the “hockey stick” fraud. And unless instrumental records only began ten years ago, each year this decade has NOT been among the top ten warmest years on record. The hottest ten years according NASA’s GISS are:
It’s no myster why fewer and fewer people are bothering to contribute:
The research found that in the first three months of this year the English-language version of the site suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period last year. Such contributing editors are vital to the integrity of Wikipedia, which relies on volunteers to create pages and check facts.
The study, conducted by Felipe Ortega at Libresoft, a research group at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, analysed the editing history of more than three million active Wikipedia contributors in ten different languages.
They’re all being driven off by a small cabal of privileged editors who camp on sites and attempt to push their left-wing ideological agenda. From what I’ve seen on the transformation of the page about me over time, they appear to be mostly college students who have plenty of time on their hands and a complete inability to understand the either the concept of objectivity or an encyclopedia.
Look at the difference between the page for Sam Harris and my page, for example. My page is little more than an attack on my views and attempts to minimize anything that might be viewed as positive, whereas Harris’s resembles a defense lawyer attempting to exonerate his client. The part about “conversational intolerance” is hilarious. On my page, for example, it’s very telling that the editors go out of their way to inform people about certain members of my family and not others, even though the positive story was a much bigger one in the global media than the negative story. Of course, it’s not at all Sam’s fault that his defenders are overly enthusiastic propagandists, but the difference between the two pages is indicative of the intrinsically flawed nature of Wikipedia and its uselessness with regards to anything even remotely controversial.
Steveo reviews RGD on Amazon:
Nagging doubts about the economy? You can either trust those same bought & paid for priestly economists that the government trots out every day or you can read Vox Day’s book, “The Return of the Great Depression” and find out what’s in store.
On a tangential note, the FDIC is now reporting what I was saying six months ago. The DIF is insolvent and the reserve ratio is officially negative. Based on their third-quarter figures, actual losses are still exceeding estimated losses, but by a ratio closer to 1.5 than the 1.95 reported in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. I suspect the reason for this declining ratio is not due to the assets of the banks that failed in the third quarter being in better shape, but because the recognition of actual losses to the FDIC are being delayed through the increasing use of loss-share agreements with the banks taking over the assets of the failed banks.
As bad as they are, the hacked CRU emails are actually turning out to be less damning than the comments made by the unfortunate programmer who was saddled with the responsibility for trying to transform the morass of data collected by the climatologists into something that was actually coherent and usable.
This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:
AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).
For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.
For 1996 to 2002:
1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;
2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;
3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);
4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;
5. add to gridded data from step 3.
This should approximate the correction needed.
Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …
Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).
They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.
22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.
This kind of thing is as fascinating as a soap opera, but I want to know how it comes out. Near the bottom of the file, I find:
I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.
The file peters out, no conclusions. I hope they find this poor guy, and he didn’t hang himself in his rooms or something, because this file is a summary of three years of trying to get this data working. Unsuccessfully. I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work. It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.
The appearance of these comments is particularly interesting in how it shows that the so-called “scientists” involved in the Great Global Warming Scam are not only committing blatant scientific fraud, they’re technologically incompetent to boot. Compare this fiasco with the emulator scene, where old and outdated software from decades ago, which is almost surely more complex than mere temperature data sets, is reliably supported by each new generation of hardware… at zero cost to the taxpayer or anyone else! The AGW/CC “scientists” are contemptible on several levels; only the completely clueless or totally corrupt would permit these dishonest bumblers any input whatsoever on globally significant matters of climate, economy, or government.
Or are they just that predictable?
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 0.7 percent. The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.5 percent (see “Revisions” on page 3).
You may recall my warning that the 3.5 percent figure in the Advance report would be revised downward on the day it was published. Now, according to the BEA’s newly revised estimate, only 1.3 percent of GDP growth was NOT provided by Cash for Clunkers. So, if you consider the even larger stimulus provided by the $8k housing credit, which is not separately accounted for, it is quite obvious that economic activity is still contracting even if the GDP statistic is not. This won’t be the last revision for 3Q09… and I’m not talking about the scheduled third report, formerly known as the Final one, either.
UPDATE – And in the “Why I should never be allowed on the radio” category, we have tonight’s performance on a national show. I explained how the economic pain of a contraction shouldn’t be confused with the actual cause of the problem by using the analogy of a sexually transmitted disease. Halfway through, I stopped and said “Okay, that’s probably a terrible analogy.” The host concurred and said that he preferred to compare a contraction to chemo. In retrospect, I don’t think that actually works as well, however, because the salient point is that the damage is actually done during the good times and the resulting pain is merely the natural consequence of the damage.
Atheists and evolutionists should keep this quote in mind the next time they wish to make an appeal to what an overwhelming majority of scientists believe:
The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the global warming is real and the result of human activity, but a vocal majority maintains that the science is not proven.
It’s not clear whether the journalist meant to write “minority” in referring to scientists or if he is referring to the majority of the non-scientific public, since either interpretation would be correct. Regardless, if anthropogenic global warming is subsequently proven to be real, then those who believe there is no God or believe in evolution by natural selection can quite reasonably argue that the opinion of the unscientific masses on the matter should be at least somewhat influenced by the opinion of the self-appointed scientific elite. If, however, it is subsquently proven to be false, any attempt to argue that the unscientific masses should pay any attention whatsoever to the latest way the winds of scientific consensus are blowing can and should be ridiculed.
That’s the ideal covered/uncovered ratio. It is science:
Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up. However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse…. The study, published in the journal Behaviour, found that the most popular women combined the 40 per cent rule with tight clothing and provocative dancing. The 15 per cent that combined all three criteria were approached by 40 men each.
That sounds reasonable enough. I tend to prefer something more on the order of 65 percent visible myself, but then, I’m not as easily threatened by the thought of competition as most men are. And, of course, it also depends upon the shape of that which is being exposed to the light; there are terrible forms better suited to mad Lovecraftian visions than night clubs that no man wants to see uncovered.
And it’s good that the researchers picked up on the tight thing. I am still amazed that women in the early 90s thought the baggy grunge look worked for any of them. You’d think they would have noticed that the man who popularized it married Courtney Love. All that oversized and baggy clothes do is make a woman look fat and insecure, even when she isn’t.
A paleontologist and global warming activist openly admits That Which Was Not Supposed To Ever Be Mentioned:
We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.
No, really? In other words, ah, the science isn’t exactly, um, settled. It actually is pointing in, well, precisely the opposite direction from what we’ve been saying all along. Which, of course, is what skeptics have been pointing out from the start.
Lord Monckton is characteristically forthright on the matter: The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures…. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years…. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
The reality is that you don’t actually need to know very much about science to detect scientific fraud. I would go so far as to argue that non-scientists will tend to be better at noticing scientific fraud than scientists, for what should be the obvious reason that scientists tend to possess a lower level of people skills than the average individual. This means that scientific con men tend to be rather clumsy and obvious compared to the non-scientific variety in in the act and the subsequent excuse-making, and it’s only because their fellow scientists are also so clueless about people that they are able to get away with as much as they do.
Of course, if you expect your science BS detector to work, it helps a great deal to not have your sense of identity ensconced in romantic notions of the sanctity of science and the inherently pure intentions of scientists.
In case you weren’t already convinced that ESPN has gone mad with its market power:
ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons is serving an ESPN-imposed two-week suspension from Twitter, Steve Krakauer writes. ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King wrote a blog post on ESPN.com explaining the suspension, saying it was in reference to a recent Simmons tweet regarding WEEI. “We have internal guidelines designed to inform how we discuss the topic of sports media,” King writes. “These guidelines are important us, because they help maintain the credibility with which ESPN operates. No one knows the guidelines better than Bill Simmons, and he customarily works within these standards. . . . Regardless of the provocation, Bill’s communication regarding WEEI fell short of those standards. So we’ve taken appropriate measures.”
I wonder how long it will be before Simmons tells ESPN to take a hike. I suspect the suspension would have involved more than a two-week ban from Twitter if they weren’t afraid of his reaction. By the way, I should probably mention that WND hasn’t suspended me from Facebook, I just don’t find social networking as amenable as blogging.
The funny thing, beyond the intrinsic humor of someone being suspended from Twitter, is that you didn’t even have to click on the Instapundit link – “ESPN COLUMNIST SUSPENDED FROM TWITTER” – to know that it had to be Simmons.
Chuck Norris gives a thumbs up to RGD:
Thanks to Ron Paul and others, last Thursday a House panel decided to audit the Federal Reserve, finally providing some accountability to this financial runaway train that doles out billions to whomever it pleases. Even with this mandatory audit, however, the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations will still need to be reined in. I recommend two insightful and strategic books toward that goal: Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” and Vox Day’s “The Return of the Great Depression.”
On a tangential note, there is no theory of evolution. There is only a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.