Saturday, December 05, 2009

Obama Supporters Get A Taste of Reality

Now the hard core Obama supporters like Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank are reduced to defending Obama from his erstwhile supporters on the far left.

And thus I address myself to the members of the far left:

According to Milbank, you guys are just being unrealistic. You have made Obama out to be something that he never was. You thought that he'd advance your far left wing agenda, but he never said he'd do that. Of course, he led you on with his high sounding rhetoric and all, but you should have seen how empty of content all of that was. So, when he does not close GITMO, when he keeps detainees detained, when he continues wire tapping, when he drops the public option, when he puts more troops in the war you have no right to be surprised.

In the final analysis, says Milbank, he's just another politician, and he's all about expediency, calculation, and vanity, like any other politician.

Didn't you know that?

So, how do those bus tires taste, suckers?

Friday, December 04, 2009

Fudging Numbers at NASA GISS?

Hansen's data set at NASA GISS is used by all of the other surface temperature labs in the world, and it represents most of the surface temperature station measurements available.

Over the years Steve McIntyre has been able to show how the folks at NASA GISS have been altering the temperature data set. The effect of this is to make more recent times appear to be warmer. They apply "corrections" of older data which makes the weather in the past look cooler. They do it to one grid at a time on an ad hoc basis, so that much of the older record has been altered. The "corrections" of older temps are always in the same direction, downward, which makes the recent temps look higher. They will not make the protocol used to make these corrections public or even explain why they are done.

In addition, up to 30% of the temperature records are simply made up to fill gaps in the raw data. This is done using some sort of interpolation protocol the nature of which they will not make public.

No, there is no concievable legitimate reason to alter the older data once it has been collected and entered in the data set. In any case, the effect of the successive "corrections", made over the years, is to make it possible for Hansen to make the claim that the climate is warmer now than ever before.

Previously, Steve McIntyre was able to point out an error in the GISS data set that, when corrected, made 1937 the hottest year on record. But more of Hansen's corrections were made, and 1937 subsequently fell to second place.

The CRU has done the same thing in successive IPCC reports. They referred to this in their emails as getting rid of the 1940's blip.

Anyone who has followed Hansen's public pronouncements on this issue, such as his recent condemnation of Copenhagen as not being enough to correct global warming, such as his call for riots in the streets over global warming, would not doubt that he is capable of falsifying the data in support of his political agenda.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Global Warming Establishment's Gotterdammerung

RE: Gleaned from emails leaked by a hacker from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

All in all it's pretty damning. This is a world of True Believers with a Manichean mind set and a predetermined political agenda coming straight out of the left. Either you're with them or you are a skeptic, and if you're a skeptic your facts don't matter your good faith doesn't matter your arguments don't matter your logic doesn't matter. You are to be ignored, proscribed, rebuked, mocked, excluded and ridiculed out of hand with no real examination of the merits of anything you have to offer. On multiple occasions these people moved to have scientists they regard as skeptics removed from jobs, journal editorial boards, grant review boards, and conference boards leaving only those people they regard as "predictable" in charge of the whole field even as they insist, in a hellish conflict of interest, that only those published in peer reviewed journals are worthy of acknowledgment.

They have flouted the law regarding release of information on multiple occasions, apparently to conceal the weaknesses in their data and methods. In all other scientific fields it is axiomatic that scientists be completely forthcoming in sharing details of their data and methods with interested parties. Only in climate science, it appears, is it accepted among the leading lights of the field that concealing data and methods is acceptable.

And there is plenty, plenty of evidence that data is being falsified and willfully misrepresented. Too much evidence for the usual suspects to go on being willfully blind about it.

Two points I have to stand in awe about:

One is the way in which one guy, a statistician untrained in climate science, has kept this whole group of supposedly brilliant scientists buffaloed, as is reflected in these emails, and that guy is Steve McIntyre.

The other is the fact that these are the dumbest smart people on the planet. I can't recall how many times it's been hammered into me about how you never put anything in an email that you don't want to be made public.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Keeping It In Perspective

No Movement Away From Conservatism

Despite all the crowing about how the Republican Party is dead and so on, a recent Pew poll shows that since the election self identified Republicans and Democrats have declined as a percentage of voters, Democrats down by 6% and Republicans down by 4%, and independents have increased. In terms of policy preference, there is no consistent movement away from either conservatism or liberalism.

As for opinions about Iraq, support for the US presence there has not changed in 3 years of polling, but opinions of how well things are going there have improved by 10 to 30 points.

Amtrak and GM

Many proponents of the creation of Amtrak in 1971 insisted that Amtrak would be self sustaining in a few years and that government involvement in the enterprise would be temporary. Critics thought that public interest in rail transportation would dwindle to the point that Amtrak would be dismantled. Neither scenario came true. Instead, public support and use of passenger rail was significant but not great enough to sustain the enterprise without government funding.

What has this got to do with GM? Simply that if GM doesn't pick up and become very competitive right off the bat and free itself of government ownership it's likely to befall Amtrak's fate as one of the living dead corporations. As it stands its more like a government institution than a car company. It has 90,000 employees and pays a million people various benefits. The manufactoring is a tiny commerical branch of a giant welfare institution. It's no wonder the government took it under its wing.