"Global Warming" SCAM - A Further Look
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Posted 2009-11-21 12:29
by Karl Denninger
in Corruption
Ignore this thread
"Global Warming" SCAM - A Further Look
 

Ok, having spent a fair bit of tme sifting through the files referenced in my original Ticker on this subject, I have some additional observations.

Please note - in my "past life" I ran an ISP, and am a qualified expert in these matters.  I write spam filtering software commercially and have since 1995, being the author of the first ISP-centered spam interdiction package.  As such when it comes to issues like Internet mail transport I can easily speak to what is supposed to be present - and what is not.

Further, I want to note that my interest in this has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying claim - "Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?"  Rather, my interest in this is whether or not the alleged scientific process has been followed - or subverted.

There is one axiom that I believe we can all agree on:

The climate is always in flux - that is, it is always changing.  It has done so over the millions of years in the past, and will in the millions of years in the future.

Science is the process by which we take a question and:

  • Form a hypothesis.

  • Design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

  • Perform the experiment and collect the data thus generated.

  • Analyze the resulting data.

  • Form a conclusion from the data thus collected.

That's "The Scientific Method."

To the extent that method is corrupted on purpose one does not have science.  To the extent that it is corrupted out of necessity (e.g. missing data that one requires, and thus one "guesses") this is accepted provided one discloses one's guess and how it was derived - that is, provided there is no material concealment.

In the "Big Science World" the check and balance on concealment - and outright fraud - is peer review and post-publication duplication.  To be able to duplicate the results claimed, however, the algorithms, code, methods and data sets must be made publicly available so that anyone who desires to do so can validate the claimed experimental results. 

In the spirit of science, I will note that I fully expect others to try to validate (or dispute) my observations below.  As such you can find the original archive at Wikileaks should you decide you would like to do so, and I encourage all other independent investigation.

Now, on to the observations, after spending an evening and morning with the data (and no, I haven't gone through it all yet - there's a hell of a lot here folks.) 

There are apparently 1073 emails, each with a sequence number but those numbers are not sequential.  That is, there are a lot of sequence numbers missing.  However, the dates in the files appear to be ordinal (that is, increasing from earliest to latest) with the last entry being November 12th of this year.

This strongly implies this is a partial data set intercept of email from some point.  The same person does not appear as a "to" or "from" in each email (although there is a lot of commonality), which belies the general idea that this was someone's "saved storage" - at least at first blush.

The intercept, wherever it happened, does not appear to have been done at the system or transport level.  Specifically, the "Received:" and "Message-ID:" lines that are part of all internet-transported email are missing.  This strongly implies that wherever these emails came from, they were saved/stored by one or more user(s) and were not an automated process that was maintaining archival (or forensic) logs.

The emails themselves, however, look authentic.  That is, the formatting is consistent with character mode operation in many of the messages (Unix) and Windows or MAC format programs in others.  The quoting is consistent - and correct for the time period in question.  Attachments are missing, again implying that this is someone's "saved copy" and NOT from a system-level stream.  The early emails contain a fairly significant number of messages that are consistent with the user being on a character-mode terminal (e.g. ELM, MUTT or similar on a Unix system), including the quoting and line formatting.  The message content shift toward "desktop email programs" - that is, appearing to be more and more programs such as Eudora, Thunderbird, Outlook and the like is also apparent as time goes on.

My conclusions on the email data set itself are that this is very likely to be either (1) someone's "private email" storage of things they wanted to save, or (2) it was a working directory of someone who was in the process of putting forward a response to an FOI request or internal inquiry of some sort.  The messages are not the entire email stream to or from any specific set of users, but rather are a set selected in some fashion - either by the person saving them as "important" or by someone collating messages for the purpose of responding to some sort of request.  The majority of the messages themselves are what appear to be ordinary and reasonable discourse between scientists and researchers with an occasional "revealing glance" at the various defensive (and offensive!) approaches to those who question their premise and conclusions.  Wikileaks concurs with the latter assessment.

In short, I see nothing in that data set that implies that the messages have been tampered with, but there is also no reasonable way to prove their provenance as the necessary information to do so (routing and message-id information) is missing.  A well-place FOI request should resolve that problem, if anyone is particularly interested in doing so.

The data sets included in the archive are also interesting.  Again, a reasonably-detailed look through them shows nothing implying that they have been tampered with, and they include data and computer code (source program code) from a wide variety of time periods.  It appears authentic.

Comments within, however, disclose an extraordinary amount of extrapolation and "curve fitting" - that is, fitting data to produce desired results, not the other way around as it should be that appears to have been going on in the process of so-called "analysis."  Worse, there are plenty of comments that make clear that the researchers are literally making things up as they go along - much of the data sets are claimed to be incomplete, inaccurate in terms of their time frames .vs. what is claimed in the headers and titles, and containing junk values.

There is some real trouble here, in that if you're not sure what you've got (that is, you're not sure what the data is!) or worse, you're knowingly missing pieces that you need to perform an analysis, what are you "analyzing"? 

Worse, there are comments in the files that make clear that there are observations that are outside of what has been published - and worse, some of those observations are ten times outside the alleged "resolution" of claimed results.  Uh, that's a major problem, and goes back to what I have repeatedly said about so-called "climate science" for a very long time, specifically (from Musings):

It is, however, entirely possible that we will find that indeed man is responsible for some of the warming that is taking place, but that this contribution is extremely small - say, 5%. That is, if the global temperature is due to rise by 10 degrees F in the next 100 years, we are responsible for only 0.5F of that rise! Thus, were we to completely cut off CO2 emissions, we'd STILL see a 9.5F rise in temperature. Obviously, if this is the case, then the data does not support taking any sort of drastic action at this time.

The problem with the current political-speak coming from these so-called "scientists" is that it contains no real data and no ranges of uncertainty on their alleged measurements.

That's not science folks - its politics - and we must, as a nation and people, refuse to be cowed by bald claims without the presence of facts behind them.

I have long argued that the major problem with so-called "published papers" on global warming is that it is rare to see find measurement uncertainties reported in the alleged findings, and competing studies have cited wildly different values for the same thing (e.g. atmospheric CO2 emitted by man per year.)

I believe we can now deduce why those uncertainties are missing - they are not being carried through the computational process as is required for any scientific calculation and this omission is in fact intentional.

This is, quite literally, first-semester college physics (or chemistry, or any other "hard" science.)  If you turn in an answer to the question "How long is that ruler?" that reads "12 inches" you get a zero.

The scientist says "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch", reflecting the limits of his measurement.  The carrying through of uncertainties is essential to hard science, as only from that process can one compute the statistical bands of probability that the result reported is actually the result in the real world.

Uncertainties in measurement are additive - that is, if I measure two rulers and each is reported as "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch" then the total length of the two rulers is 24 inches +/- 0.2 inch - because it is possible that both errors were on the same side.

When one performs complex mathematical functions on input data uncertainties must also be carried through the mathematical functions. Without that we know nothing about the quality of the result - it is entirely possible, given data with enough noise in it, to produce what looks like a perfectly valid answer but have it be absolute trash and of no value at all.

The only way to know if that is possible is for all measurements to be reported with their uncertainties attached, and for all uncertainties to be carried through all computational processes.

It is quite clear, from the data sets I have looked at, that this is simply not being done.  Instead computations are being "fudged" to fit data to expected previously claimed results and/or data sets simply discarded or modified that do not fit with either previously-published numbers or desired outcomes.  Here's just one example from the comments in the files:

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

This, by the way, is exactly the (intentional) "error" that was made by the "ratings agencies" and banks when it came to securitized debt that had "less than fully-verified income and assets" as a component.  Uncertainties on the reported income and assets were never determined from experimental sampling and carried through the computational process.  If they had been then the outcomes that we have actually seen would have been predicted within the range of possible outcomes for this debt.  Instead, the issued securities were rated "AAA" because the agencies did not apply an uncertainty to each of the alleged reported numbers.  That's what happens when you ignore the scientific method - you put garbage into a computation, you get garbage back out and it is impossible for an outside observer to detect that you did so because you refuse to give him the uncertainties associated with your claimed "measurements"!

Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people's trash.  But trash in produces trash out, and if you can't successfully defend the statistical integrity of the data going into your computational models you have nothing.

This leaves me with one final question: since we have emails now apparently documenting an attempt to "paper over" temperature decreases in recent years, and we also have claims of "lost" data, one wonders - was the data really lost, or was it intentionally deleted or withheld from other researchers who asked for it, as providing it would show that measurement uncertainties were not carried through computationally - and if they were, the claimed results in the so-called "peer reviewed" paper would be impossible to validate?

Without hard proof of whatever answer is propounded to that question we as the people of this planet must insist on a full stop for all purported "climate amelioration" efforts, as there is every possibility that the entirety of this so-called science in fact proves exactly nothing, except that the so-called "researchers" have added much CO2 to the atmosphere producing the electricity required to power their computers!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and from the released set of data that proof is, quite simply, not present and accounted for.

Discussion below (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player





Blogtalk 3:30 CT Mondays
Items To Look At


Discuss The Capital Markets along with daily technical analysis with our Gold Donor program.

Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker

Links and Blogroll
Our policy on reciprocal links: Send us an email with your information and why you think your blog or news site would make a good addition - in most cases reciprocal link requests will be granted.
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out
Ticker Classics.

Visit the forum to discuss this and other investing-related topics; see the FAQ on the forum for information about Gold Donor status including access to our technical analysis video server.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Leads on stories of current economic and political interest are always welcome. Our fax tip line is 850-897-9364; please include contact information with your transmission.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 12  First123456789Last
User Info "Global Warming" SCAM - A Further Look in forum [Market-Ticker]
Truthseeker
Posts: 8479
Incept: 2007-10-07
Silver A True American Patriot!
NorCal
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Terrific follow-up to your original Ticker on this topic. Puts a lot of "flesh on the bone" that will answer doubts for many. Thanks for this. I'll send it around to the entire list of folks who got the first one.

----------
"...But people better realize that the worst-case scenario could actually happen.9/11 happened. This can happen. An economic 9/11, the likes of which we've never seen." Gerald Celente
Karefree
Posts: 1700
Incept: 2008-10-15
Green
Nor Cal
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
+1 what Truthseeker said. A very important ticker, Genesis... well done.

K.

----------
Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"
Imaboomerdropout
Posts: 305
Incept: 2009-09-13
Green
NY
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Gee, do you think this will stop Obummer from signing away our National Sovereignty next month? Yeah right.
Drhooves
Posts: 614
Incept: 2008-01-09
Green
Central IL - "the land of crooks and windbags"
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Interesting "forensic" analysis of the emails. Now I can better understand why some of my customers are interested in making sure that their email data and the backups are REALLY deleted and unrecoverable from disk and tape.

There's tons of dough at stake....

Money corrupts scientific method, early and often.

----------
Gen says "it" is coming because:

"Balance sheets have two sides!"......and
"You can't count a single dollar twice!"
Xanares
Posts: 2595
Incept: 2008-11-10
Green
Between Sicily and Tunisia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
" data sets most be made publicly available "

Great ticker - I reached the same concl. Scientists my ass.. they are kids competing for grand pa's money.
1lumpsum
Posts: 2292
Incept: 2008-02-01
Green

Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl's just a shill for Big Math.
Tienkou
Posts: 4225
Incept: 2007-09-09
Green
Connecticut
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This has become a religion and will be very hard to stop.
But it must be stopped.

Global warming is a certainty merely looking at we know is the life cycle of the sun......

The real tradegy is that we know our planet will die but have yet to take the needed steps to find a new home.

----------
Barack Hussein Obama - The last President of the First American Revolution.
The US Congress has abdicated its role as a governing body.

The most dangerous man is the one with nothing left to lose. Our government is making more of them everyday.
Hafiz
Posts: 149
Incept: 2008-02-05

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Point is, climate change may be real, but it may be too complex for anyone to get good data. So they faked it for the benefit of the big players like Goldman to have a new bubble called cap'n trade, while sticking us with the bill. That doesn't invalidate real environmental awareness, of course. It just shows how slimy the Big Boys are and to what lengths they will go to coopt anything that will make them a profit and to achieve their wet dream of a New World Order...
Dramsey
Posts: 79
Incept: 2009-03-16

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, I generally agree with your article but you put forward a statement that was just assertion - that if there was a 10 degree rise, we'd only be responsible for 0.5 of it. I think you meant it as an example but from the wording someone might take you literally.

The real problem is that we do not know what percent of warming is caused by human activity. Maybe it's as low as 5% but maybe it's 30% or 50%. As you noted, the real answer to that requires application of real science, which appears to have been missing. So the reality is that we just don't know.

There are a few facts though that I would point out to folks before they dismiss everything about climate change. First is that there is a known global warming trend that has been going on for about 12000 years, slowly and steadily. That's what an interglacial period is - a warming trend. During an interglacial period, sea levels rise. Heck, you can see Roman and Greek ports made of stone that are now underwater several feet if you go on a tour to see such things.

The second fact is that by current scientific estimates of coal, oil, and natural gas, humans have burned, in the last 300 years, almost 50% of the recoverable fossil fuels out there. Now that may change if more reserves are found but reserve discoveries have been declining, despite advances in technology since about 1963. And it's a big decline. So we're probably pretty close to that 50% range one way or another. By burning that fossil fuel we've released back into the air all the carbon that was that was sequestered by Nature in the form of fossil fuels over a period of about 300 million years. That's not all the carbon but it's still a heck of a lot to release in just 300 years.

The third fact to watch out for is that climate change can occur abruptly. Ice cores and other data from other ice ages show that an ice age can start in as few as 5 years and usually not longer than 50 years, unlike the centuries hypothesis that was prevalent throughout most of the 20th century. And all those abrupt changes in the past happened without homo sapiens even existing yet. Climate change can occur like a single drop of water hitting a spinning top - it's a small forcing agent but it topples the entire system that was previously stable. Again, the problem we have is that scientists just do not know where the tipping points are despite big pronouncements from those same scientists.

I happen to agree with one of your earlier statements that there is just no way for 7 billion people to turn the current civilization fast enough to change things even if humans are a significant part of the process. Therefore the correct response is to simply begin preparing for climate change. People in hurricane prone areas like Florida (where you live) and Texas (where I live) have seen insurance prices rise near the coasts. That's a market response to climate change that sends the message to people to stop building here and move somewhat further inland if you can. If we ever get a real free market back and climate changes, the market will help to tell us by increasing prices.

Also, while per capita emissions are lower than the US, China has surpassed the US as the largest emitter of CO2. Any CO2 solution, even if we tried, has to include China as well as the US. If China won't get on board, there's not going to be a unified response so there might as well be no response. Of course the pollution article you posted shows that China emits not just CO2 but all sorts of other noxious garbage as well. China is an ecological disaster in progress.

My personal assessment of climate data that I've seen is as follows:
1. There is a definite identifiable warming trend occurring.
2. There is inadequate data to really conclude humans are the primary cause, though without data we just cannot say yes or no here, so I keep an open mind.
3. Climate change, while real, has been hijacked by certain political special interests to push a particular agenda.

Finally, here's an observation about climate change that reveals some of the difficulties here - for the last 10 years global temperatures are flat, after we take out El Nino effects (up a tiny bit with El Nino). So no apparent "global" warming. But above the Arctic Circle, average temperatures are up a whopping 3 degrees centigrade. That is countered by slightly colder average temperatures in some parts of North America and really much colder temperatures on the high Asian continental shelf. What happened in Asia? The jet stream shifted as the Arctic warmed, removing a source of warm air that used to warm that area. That's an actual example of climate change occurring. Did we cause it? We just don't know. But it is occurring.

I think it is important for people to separate the reality of climate change from the political agenda of certain persons and groups. Just because an issue has been hijacked does not mean it is a phony issue. It just means someone thinks they can use it to their own political ends.

The two questions we need to ask, in my opinion, are:
1. Is human activity causing an appreciable percentage of climate change or not?
2. Regardless of the answer to the above, is there anything humans can do to maintain a climate that is good for humans? (Obviously, for example, we wouldn't want another ice age with 7 billion people around because we'd shortly be a whole lot less than 7 billion people.)

And in the end, good ticker, Karl. Thanks for the observations and analysis of the email record. They are appreciated.

Trades50
Posts: 4218
Incept: 2007-10-30
Silver
Land of Tax and Spend
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If this information had not been released there would have been another attempt to resurrect Cap & Trade.

Time to take down this website.

Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer
July 2009 Federal Policy Edition
Cap-and-trade systems have quickly surfaced as the focus of climate policy discussions across the country. President Obama has made it clear that establishing a bold cap-and-trade program is a priority. The House of Representatives recently passes the American Clean Energy and Security Act H.R. 2454 (Waxman-Markey), and the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act was recently introduced in the Senate..

If we create the right kind of system, Sightline's cap and trade primer argues, we can not only get off the fossil-fuels roller coaster, but speed the transition to a clean energy economy that puts the interest of people before interests of polluters.

Sightline's Cap and Trade 101 explains what cap and trade is, how it works, and how it can protect families across the country. The primer also highlights current action in Congress and provides the framework to size up climate bills to ensure they're effective, efficient, and fair.

Included in Cap and Trade 101:
What is Cap and Trade?

In short, the “cap” is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and “trade” means that companies may swap among themselves the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases.

Cap and trade commits us to responsible limits on global warming emissions and gradually steps down those limits over time. Setting commonsense rules, cap and trade sparks the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible

http://www.sightline.org/research/energy....

----------
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Skeptic
Posts: 140
Incept: 2008-03-04

Spain
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl wrote..
"In short, I see nothing in that data set that implies that the messages have been tampered with, but there is also no reasonable way to prove their provenance as the necessary information to do so (routing and message-id information) is missing. A well-place FOI request should resolve that problem, if anyone is particularly interested in doing so."


You'd be lucky. They seem to think that they are exempt from that law with anybody who isn't 'on side'

from Email file 1182255717.txt

Quote:
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
<snip>
"Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil


UEA = University of East Anglia in the UK, where Prof. Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU (Climatic Research Unit) is based

Reason: Typo
Tienkou
Posts: 4225
Incept: 2007-09-09
Green
Connecticut
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Article in regards to the hack.

Quote:

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate
Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming

By David Stringer, Associated Press Writer
On 2:02 pm EST, Saturday November 21, 2009
Buzz up! 0 Print
LONDON (AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online -- stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials -- including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon -- regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

The scientist's use of the word "trick" has been seized on by skeptics -- who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre -- a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change -- wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.

Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hackers-le....

----------
Barack Hussein Obama - The last President of the First American Revolution.
The US Congress has abdicated its role as a governing body.

The most dangerous man is the one with nothing left to lose. Our government is making more of them everyday.
Icanhasbailout
Posts: 9939
Incept: 2009-03-10
Green A True American Patriot!
Imaginationland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Wow, I was having that exact same conversation about scientific method just the other day.

What I found is that people who believe in AGW have absolutely no understanding of scientific method, they cannot even begin to discuss it intelligently - they simply don't know what it is or why it is important. Instead, they worship the authority of what they allege to be science in a manner indistinguishable from religion.

We're dealing with an apocalyptic cult here, there's no other way to describe it.

----------
Lemonaid
Posts: 9881
Incept: 2008-01-20
Green
Metro Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
...and Government is acting as High Priest

----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
Schwantz
Posts: 5820
Incept: 2007-11-12
Green
Toronto
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You can't test a global warming hypothesis and therefore it's not science. That's the first thing everyone should realize.

People often mistake data analysis and mathematical modeling as science. It's not. Conclusions derived from these kinds of exercises, including Karl's analysis, are pure conjecture or speculation (but ones perhaps with relatively assignable odds ratios, I would also argue). That also goes for the 'weight' of 'scientific evidence' behind the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

Personally I prefer to focus on smog and energy security as the real issues. Burning fossil fuels for energy is just plain stupid, and you don't need a climate change hypothesis to understand that.

----------
When the system is corrupt absolutely you must seek representation by those who are absolutely incorruptible.

Lemonaid
Posts: 9881
Incept: 2008-01-20
Green
Metro Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Schwatz has it correct, the minute you start carrying through statistical error on every bit of climate data collected you figure out extremely quickly you've just wasted your time.

It can't be done. Period.

----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises

1lumpsum
Posts: 2292
Incept: 2008-02-01
Green

Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." — Joseph Goebbels
Jhonab
Posts: 301
Incept: 2009-03-24
Green
Denmark
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Schwantz -

that is the point: there is no way to test the hypothesis, hence no way to falsify the thesis, therefore it can never qualify as science in the first place.

The 'science being settled' simply meant that IPCC members had reached 'consensus' on the issue, and how do you falsify a consensus?

1lumpsum
Posts: 2292
Incept: 2008-02-01
Green

Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Is conspiracy to delete/destroy files associated with a FOI request not a crime?

". You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."


From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Uppity_peasant
Posts: 3121
Incept: 2009-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Jhonab wrote: "that is the point: there is no way to test the hypothesis, hence no way to falsify the thesis, therefore it can never qualify as science in the first place. The 'science being settled' simply meant that IPCC members had reached 'consensus' on the issue, and how do you falsify a consensus?"

This is the point. Cutting a giant check to "fix" a problem that may or MAY NOT need fixing and pretending that it's "science" to the peasants that you're stealing the money from at the point of the government's gun is leech****ery at best, and criminal conspiracy & more at worst.

----------
====
If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Green

Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
inline

----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
Tat668
Posts: 2240
Incept: 2007-09-09
Gold A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I think that the Global Warming profiteers know that the end for that line is near and is shifting to global dimming or any other end of the civilized world scenario for their next shill.

----------
"Patience grasshoppers.... but your time to eat the bugs is coming......."- KD 9-1-2009

"This marks the beginning of the end."- Barack Obama 2-26-09
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Green

Banned
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl wrote..
There are apparently 1073 emails, each with a sequence number but those numbers are not sequential. That is, there are a lot of sequence numbers missing. ... This strongly implies this is a partial data set intercept of email from some point.
While some stuff has been erased (they talk about that), most of the rest of the missing numbers are probably junked spam mail and other not-worth-saving things like we all get.

----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
Soros
Posts: 3119
Incept: 2007-08-31

La La Land
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List

----------
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 12  First123456789Last