Climate change: is there anything it can’t do? Impoverish nations, cause global pandemics, turn women into hookers. My horseflop radar has been redlining for the last five years or so over climate change, but this just puts it over the top. If you work hard enough at it, you can tie anything to climate change. It’s like we’re playing one big, stupid game of six degrees of separation with globalclimatewarmingchange or whatever its being called this week.
This is not science, people, it is religious and political propaganda. And you’re a tool if you fall for it.
One thing both sides agree on–the actual change is about one degree F in the last 150 years. (The latest data has a change of 0.0 degrees F over the last hundred years) NOTHING that has happened can be legitimately linked to climate change.
ALL the danger resides in computer models that have never come close to reflecting reality (actual temperatures recorded). Unless you live in that computer world, you are not now, nor have you ever been in danger. Nor will you ever be. In a second I’m going to take away all their college degrees and rip them up. I swear I am.
Flesh trade in the Philippines? Due to climate change? And Thailand I hear. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with sex tourism – planeloads of Japanese (and many, many others) sex tourists to that country. Then again all those men may be the victims of climate change – hot begets hot.
How about a carbon tax on hookers and johns – ya hear that Algore – cha-ching!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472084,00.html
Somewhere else I’ve got a link from one little snarky reseearcher who has compiled about 600 different issues regarding global warming, many of them contradictory.
Oysters going bad, wine going sour in Australia, and fish changing genders and attacking swimmers are just the beginning.
If only this horribly slow piece of junk computer of mine would search properly….
George — Shouldn’t that just be a VAT?
Wakefield — Not only are we going to have to have the neighbors for dinner, there won’t be any beer to wash them down with.
Value Added Tax on the sex trade?
That means, if the analogy from how it’s used in Europe holds, that at each juncture of the production process you add a surcharge. It’s a nasty way to tax people and hides itself deeply embedded in the final listed price.
So for 25 “dollah” for “bump bump” vs., say, 10 bucks for just “yum yum yu”, know that the meter is ticking from the time you enter one of those huts and consult Mr. Tippy the Trojan form your back pocket, to when you’re zipping up and pay the madam?
Also:
Not only are we going to have to have the neighbors for dinner, there won’t be any beer to wash them down with.
That’s ugly in itself, but in high society the worst thing that might happen is that lack of production due to carbon abatement means you won’t have any extra forks for the salad bowl (a real no-no) even assuming you bribe someone for leafy greens as a side death to the new Chinese delicacy of HuMan Beef, and adding worse insult the lack of electricity for cooling means all the utensils are warm and there’s no ice. Another dining faux pas at the country club.
a side death
..side dish…geez.
Though, in this case it’s about the same either way…
“HuMan Beef”
Wakefield, you kill me!
(That was a figurative observation about my appreciation of your humor, not a menu suggestion.)
Cathy:
When I was a little tyke in some long forgotten age, my parents took me to a Chinese place and on the menu I saw “HUNAN” Meat offered. With the N, of course.
But just learning to read, I asked my mother (rest her bedraggled soul from us 5 kids):
“They don’t really cut people up back there in the kitchen and cook them, do they, Mom?”
I can’t find my shoes sometimes, and if my arse were not attached I think I’d lose that too. But some things just get burned in the brain for as long as it functions. I’ll never forget that day that scared the bejeebies out of me.
Cathy,
“Shouldn’t that just be a VAT?”
Only if tax credit offsets for purchases of products “made in the Philippines” or “using natural resources” apply.
The computers over at the UKs Climate Research Unit at Hadley, England was hacked into and the records released onto the internet. The director of the facility, Dr. Phil Jones, has a major proponent for AGW and his reports have been a key support to the IPCCs analysis and predictions.
The
file that was dumped onto the internet was large, about 61 megabytes, and so far appears to be legitimate.
As an example:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
It is disappointing to hear researchers speak of tricks being used to play with the data and hide declines. I am not sure what it all means, but it would appear not all the ‘science’ has been presented in a faithful and honest manner.
The event has been creating quite a stir among the AGW skeptics.
Here again is the link.
Or if that does not work for me, you can use the address directly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Maybe the world will finally stop worshipping “science.”
Nick, just how damning do you think this exposure really is?
Hacked, Nick?
Or WHISTLEBLOWN from an insider after getting some concerned hackles raised about this peers.
The commentary from some in the know seems to indicate a true hack job would be very difficult.
Equipment failure, or an inside job more likely?
If real. We don’t know yet.
Dr. Jones says the CRU system was hacked, but the discussion on the skeptics side believes more likely it was an inside job. There are a lot of technos in the skeptic crowd, and they have been examining the information closely to try to determine if it is the actual article or is it an elaborate hoax through which the skeptics are being set up to be discredited. So far it looks legit.
The response from the alarmists is:
“So what? How does this change the science? CO2 will still absorb and trap radiation, CO2 levels continue to rise – we still expect this to make the planet heat up, to our great peril.”
…missing the fact that the general public has taken their assertions largely on faith, and that our faith in the alarmists has been greatly undermined. The information made available also demonstrates the “Deniers” are not the crack-pots the alarmists have made them out to be, but reasonable people whom the alarmists have tried to keep away from their data and away from the peer review process. Or at least thast is how Dr. Jones and his compatriots at the CRU have acted.
I believe it is very damning, but whether or not it will slow the AL Gore avalanche of mis-informed public opinion is hard to say.
Let’s hope so.
Already, the ubiquitous “-gate” suffix is in use, rendering this to-do as “Climategate” (even in the UK, I see).
How about we conservatives insist upon calling it “Climatequiddick?”
Climatequiddick?
Good stuff, Ilion.
As long as that assumed drowning is from paperwork and crappola and not melting icebergs…
Well, you know, the Warm-mongers have been assuring us for years that we’d all soon be under water unless we turned over our economies and our lives to them.
Just to be sure here:
Keep in mind this is WAY premature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?scp=1&sq=hacked%20emails&st=cse
I finally got around to reading the whole article beyond the excerpts over coffee a few moments ago:
Seems that the world “trick” was used colloquically as in “method” of making the data more readable, not necessarily an intentional misrepresentation of the numbers, though at this level that’s certainly possible.
The situation IS now confirmed as real for the hacking part, but as the issue of collusions and misrepresentations?
That’s…well…..trickier…
J. Patrick Michaels and some others might be calling this a “mushroom cloud” even more than a “smoking gun”, but to be honest the evidence of that is looking thin so far.
As it was explained in the article over at the NYT by the interviewees who plainly admit they got hacked, (paraphrasing from memory) “Newton was an ass, but he was also right”, meaning that while some of the email commentary was disparaging of the skeptics, this is not the same as saying the the AGW proponents theories and therefore wrong.
Let me get this straight. The science boys over at Hadley CRU basically explained to the journalists of the New York Times:
“We’re all assholes here, but we’re still right!”
What else would you expect assholes to say? Don’t they always say stuff like that? Admittedly the second statement confirms the first, but that does little to buttress their argument on global warming.
However, it was very helpful of the NYT to explain to us all that there is nothing to worry about, everything is just as it was before, the world is overheating and will explode in a giant ball of methane, and the time for thinking is over.
It is not the theories we were wondering about, Wakefield. It was the certainty by which they were held, and the predictive value they entailed. The data. How has the data been handled. What opportunity was allowed for the information to be reviewed? Based on the certainty of these theories, the plan is to take down the economy of the entire free world, transfer large amounts of wealth from the industrial nations to the thug dictators of the third world, and manage this wealth transfer with Honest John down at the good old UN, thereby saving the polar bear. And by the way, the time for discussion is over.
It’s great to take comfort in the knowledge that being an ass does not necessarily mean that you are wrong. Perhaps Barrack can get some mileage from that in two or three years.
Buy the way Wakefield, pulling a trick has other meanings too. Still not sure which one is in play here.
Nick.
So far that seems to be the gist in the response.
“We’re jerks, but we’re professional jerks who unlike the majority of “denialists” operate in the hallowed marble halls of SCIENCE, and our tricks were just to shore up how the graphs appear to the unknowing laymen to make the pretty colors look better on paper, and were just provisional adjustments to make the lines look neat and really don’t effect the bottom line, etc.”
Of course, you realize I’m allowing for the benefit of the very shadow of doubt here at the moment just to be fair and to be magnanimous in the spirit, even if temporarily suspending common sense.
However, I’ve always said in other forums if not here (and so now, no time like the present, eh?) that even IF there is no problem with the current computer modeling from men admittedly better than myself on such Climatic Things, the solution is NOT what is generally pitched–more government intervention and management of the economy on an internationalist scale.
Yeah–we got some “new” ethics here in science, where as wacko Stephen Schneider once said (paraphrasing) it’s time to make up scary stories and oversimplify the situation, and that all of us (in the Movement) have to decide the right balance between the truth and EFFECTIVENESS.
Truer admission not spoken since then.
One wonders, Nick:
With all the emphasis that just HAPPENS to be what the international socialists wanted in the way of govenment micromanagement of the economy, that the greens don’t go for nuclear power as the rock through the greenhouse window IF this were a true emergency?
I hate to sound conspiratorial, and Lord knows that makes me look like Glenn Beck hopping all over the studio drawing and scribbling things on chalkboards about the “interconnections” and “big pictures” of things when you’re forced to stand back and watch him toss plastic frogs into boiling water and make people crap their knickers, etc.
But…..
Could it be the handy retort from them is that the “emegency” status of all this warming means they have a virtual green light (so to speak, and pun intended) to FUDGE the data??
Or, more likely, the data so fudged is not about “solving” a damned thing, in the common use of the word “solve”, but rather is about CONTROL.
I noted recently to another blog that it is the suspicion of some that this is just continuation of previous notions that fell flat and need new life in the Marxian notions of internationalist control. What better way these days than to proclaim man himself–or his production–is a threat to the very Ecosphere?
In the past, the Socialists told us that socialism would outpace and outproduce the West’s capitalism and that capitalism would lead us all to the poorhouse.
The opposite took place, and it was socialism that led people–whole societies–to beggary other than the ruling elite, and to virtual serfdom.
When their promises of whipping the West fell flat, they now turn to the strategy of telling us that capitalism is evil for another reason entirely.
Could it be, Nick, that these jackals have finally grown wise enough to comprehend that they can now project into the future their notions of what will happen under advanced Euro-socialism, and seek to soften us up by expecting and thus getting less in the name of Mother Earth?
Well… yes.
I put a couple of thoughts down on the NYT article you link to at this cool new blog.
For real!!
Wakefield, the geek meisters (no offense Ilion) are taking it down to the code instruction, and found evidence of mucking the works
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder.
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Anthony’s commentary:
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
The New York Times can reassure us all it wants that the world is melting. The fact of the matter is the climate record has not been cooperating with the computer model projections.
It’s a maddening world.
(By the way, over 1,500 hits on Anthony’s post at Watts Up With That about the Climate Research Unit computer record dump).
Oops. I short changed Anthony.
1,500 comments on the CRU warp core breach.
180,000 hits to his site that day.
Chicks dig science.
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/trailer/Trailer-EmergingScience/Trailer-EmergingScience.html
‘Geek’ doesn’t offend me.
Besides, my ‘geek-quotient’ is very low.
Not only a maddening world, Nick. But a really plastic and phony world as well…
Good work, Nick.
I’m not going to have time to piddle with those numbers, and am certainly not enough of the geek zone (yet) to crunch it down quickly. I’ll have to look also at the comeback on all this.
But if, after 100 other things going on get done, and I decide to blog about this whole bruha, do you mind terribly that I use your input for this?
I think you have a good start on the heavy legwork here….
(lol)
Of course. Steal away whatever you find helpful.