Holy Skewed Temperature Samples, Batman!

Just because some call it “science” does not make it so:

Eighty-nine percent of official U.S. temperature measurement stations are corrupted by poor site selection that gives false warming signals, according to a new study  by meteorologist Anthony Watts.

According to the federal government’s own siting criteria, the corrupting influences at those stations create a margin of error larger than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century.

Eighty. Nine. Percent.

For those who don’t understand how embarrassing this is for the entire CO2-is-warming-the-planet theory, let me explain.

There are two key points here: the climate data itself is corrupted, and the climate models that use that data are unproven.

Climate Data is Corrupted

Computer models are the main support for the idea that CO2 warms the planet in the first place. There is no other evidence, to my knowledge, that supports CO2 as a primary driver for warming. These models are pretty much it. In fact, historical ice cores show the opposite, that CO2 is a symptom of warming, not a cause, and that the CO2 buildup lags the warming by about 800 years.

Those computer models, of course, need a bunch of historical data points as input in order to crunch the numbers and make predictions into the future.

Among the data they need, of course, is temperature data. And apparently, 89% of that data is basically garbage.

If the input data is garbage, then it doesn’t matter how great the rest of the modeling software is, the conclusions it presents are garbage too.

Climate Models are Unproven

And as it happens, the computer models used by the IPCC are suspect as well, because they haven’t published the source code so that it can be peer reviewed. Here’s why that is important.

I’ve worked in the software industry for over 25 years, most of that as a software developer. Computers are not magic. They can only do what the code they are running tells them to do. If that code has even minor errors in logic, the results are suspect.

To accept the conclusions of a software model that predicts the future, obviously you have no reality to compare the model’s conclusions with. So you need to have a “code review” by unbiased software developers who did not write that code, in order to check for logic errors, remove potential biases, ask questions like “why are you doing this here”, etc. It has to be examined, line by line, to see exactly what is going on in there, what inputs it is using, what it does with those inputs, the assumptions it makes about the effect of the different inputs, etc.

For all we know, a climate software model that hasn’t had a code review could be reading Ted Williams’ stats from baseball-reference.com and then saying “look, the planet is heating up!”. Who really knows? You can’t. Computer software is inherently secretive unless the source code is accessible to experts who can de-cipher it.

And until that code is available for the experts to examine, the models themselves are little more than a plaything.

What Science Does and Does Not Look Like

Yet, somehow, these playthings have been accepted as proof positive by the IPCC and the various governmental agencies the world over. They are untroubled by the lack of accountability on the part of the climate modelers.

That, my friends, is “advocacy”, not “science”.

So. The temperature samples are flawed, and so are the climate models that use the temperatures samples as input. Which means we have not just one, but two layers of obfuscation hampering our predictive ability regarding climate.

And according to the article above, the margin of error just from the bad sampling methodology alone is greater than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century. Let that soak in for a second.

We keep hearing about a “scientific consensus” that CO2 is warming the planet. What does all of the above that tell you about the “scientists” who formed that consensus? What does it tell you about the degree of confidence we can have in their conclusions?

Science isn’t about “consensus”. This ain’t American Idol.

Science is about proof, and facts, and using those facts to prove (or disprove) theories. Scientists are supposed to be their own worst critics, and turn every implicit assumption on it’s head, and try to disprove their own theory. The science itself must stand on its own, otherwise, it’s bad science, and deserves to be ignored.

Where is the skepticism, the sharing of ideas, the spirit of pushing knowledge forward for the good of all mankind?

Real scientists do not hide their methods and threaten their questioners. Real scientists welcome examination of their data and methods in a spirit of inquiry and the advancement of mankind.

But in today’s increasingly bizarre world, to question any of this is to risk being considered a lunatic. Supposedly, the sane people are the ones who believe in skewed samples and flawed models. How did that happen? It’s like Pope Benedict and Galileo all over again. As Pope John Paul said about that dark period of scientific history, “This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.” And so it seems to be happening again.

But as I must constantly remind myself, global warming isn’t about science, it’s about politics and using fear to scare us into supporting new taxes on our energy use and lifestyle.

And it is all based on the most ridiculous “science” one could possibly imagine: bad data feeding bad models. Now hand over your money!

I am always open to theories that are logically sensible and supported by evidence. And I invite anybody who disagrees with my points above to both (a) point me to a qualified review of any IPCC climate modeling source code, AND (b) disprove the conclusions of Anthony Watts regarding corrupted temperature samples. Real science requires that *all* of the steps along the way be correct. Every. Step.

Until such time, I’ll be disregarding all talk about warming the planet with CO2.

And I have to say I’m not wild about money-grubbing politicians and “scientists” using advocacy and obfuscation to deceive me into throwing money at them, on the pretense that it will fix a future problem for which there is no reliable supporting evidence.

Sorry, I’m not riding that train. Why would anybody?

Gosh. Thanks for that.

Hackers that break into secured computers systems as a favor are exactly like cops that break into your house just to prove how easily a criminal could do it.

How considerate of them!

Maybe they will soon offer a similar service to break into my car and spray bleach on my lawn, just to prove how easily somebody who actually meant harm could do those things.

But the fact that they are doing it as a favor, to point out what truly anti-social behavior could look like, potentially, if the perp was all mean and stuff, that is supposed to make it all better.

Right.

Yes, truly the world would be a much better place if we had more people breaking laws and invading people’s privacy and property in order to lecture all of us on how lucky we are that real criminals are not doing exactly the same thing.

Crisis averted!

Commence with the Twits. Um, I mean Tweets.

Twitter users who read my drivel here may want to “follow” me on Twitter.

People often make fun of social networking sites, and they often have many good reasons. I’m not sure any of us need excuses to spend even more time in front of a computer or on an iPhone, to replace even more of our face-to-face communication with the electronic kind.

But I’ve come to view Twitter as a new and improved way to blog, i.e., links to interesting stuff with pithy remarks, mixed in with some funny and biting commentary. You know, like the daily newspaper, only interesting.

And when you’re limited to a max of 140 characters, including a shortened link, now that is what I call pithy!

I’ve also added some WordPress widget on the sidebar with my Twitter feed. Feel the magic.

Or, don’t. Totally up to you.

Just don’t come crawling to me when you eventually sign up for Twitter, and decide to follow me then, and realize that you’ve been missing out on alot of fabulous tweets. ‘Cuz I’ll give you one of those “talk to the hand” moves. That’s just how I roll.

Best Use of Government Money EVER

Iranian protesters avoid censorship with Navy technology

Iranians seeking to share videos and other eyewitness accounts of the demonstrations that have roiled their country since disputed elections two weeks ago are using an Internet encryption program originally developed by and for the U.S. Navy.

Designed a decade ago to secure Internet communications between U.S. ships at sea, The Onion Router, or TOR, has become one of the most important proxies in Iran for gaining access to Web sites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.

The system of proxy servers that disguise a user’s Internet traffic is now operated by a nonprofit, the Tor Project, that is independent from the U.S. government and military and is used all over the world.

According to the Tor Project, connections to TOR have gone up by 600 percent since mass protests erupted after the June 12 vote, which gave a purported landslide victory to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“Over the past two weeks, we have seen a doubling to tripling of new client connections,” Andrew Lewman, executive director of the Tor Project, told The Washington Times Thursday. “We are up to a thousand new clients a day.”

Read the whole thing.

The Internet is good for lots of things. And, it has a downside or two, as well.

But the fact that it allows development of advanced technology like this, which can then be leveraged to fight oppression by freedom-seeking people, is the best part of all.

I supported Bush’s war in Iraq, because I knew that a primary goal was to establish freedom in the Middle East in order to put pressure on the oppressive governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia, in particular. Maybe, looking back, a project like this would have been just as effective, without the downsides of fighting a war. Iraq was considered the low-hanging fruit, although that assessment proved to be incorrect.

In any case, kudos to us for exporting technology to fight oppression. We do lots of things right, but rarely get any credit for doing anything right.

Via one of my newest daily reads, Danger Room.

Getting Wise Down Under

Good Beer and Demanding Evidence: Two Qualities to Admire in a Country

Australia, at least, is starting to ask serious questions about the “science” behind global warming. Heaven and Earth, a book by Ian Pilmer, is credited with starting that global warming backlash in Australia.

Quoting Rick Moran at the American Thinker piece linked just above:

Cap and trade is not about saving the planet. It is about enriching government at the expense of private industry. Obama expects that selling of carbon credits will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars that will finance his health insurance power grab and other schemes. They are not interested in the science. They are interested in the dollars.

And the American family – to the tune of at least $1300 in increased energy bills – will pay for it.

Exactly right. Same as it ever was.

Read the whole thing.

Our governments are lying to us and treating us like idiots while they prepare to forcibly take our money to pay for a “solution” that won’t work.

Putting aside for a moment all the highly-charged emotion about this … why would anybody want that?

Which line does CO2 get in to get it’s reputation back?

Another day, another debunking of CO2 as a driver of climate:

“Each successive cooling cycle has had an increase in the rate of CO2 growth over the previous warming cycle,indicating that there is no possible correlation of CO2 with global warming.” – How Many IPCC (and Other) Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?, icecap.us

Note that the data at the link doesn’t even allow a correlation model to be constructed, let alone a causation model.

It’s going to be pretty embarrassing to reel in all that talk about man-made global warming now, isn’t it? Especially since opportunistic politicians are trying to raise our taxes to pay for this non-existent risk?

There are so, so many really good reasons to completely ignore all this global warming hysteria, but the best one continues to be that there is no data to support it.

Trying to Care. Not Succeeding.

Yes, it’s been nearly a week since I updated this site.

No, I don’t really miss it.

The Internet is starting to **really** get on my nerves lately, quite frankly. In fact I have an essay I’ve been working on about all of that, and it’s 1600 freaking words.

The editor in me says “prune that thing down, moron.” The writer in me says “but there’s a lot of points to make here!”

Tune in tomorrow to see who wins!

Creating “Green” Jobs that Serve No Market? Good Plan!

Spain tried the “green jobs” thing:

“The U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about nine jobs lost for every four (green jobs) created,” Alvarez wrote in his 41-page study of Spain’s own green-job revolution.

“An examination of Europe’s experience” in trying to green the economy, which dates back to 1997, “reveals these policies to be terribly economically counterproductive.”

Oh. Well, I’m sure it will work much better for us: we’ve got a cool President. Economic markets bow at his feet!

Hmmm. Seems to me the Soviets tried this kind central planning to “create” jobs, and the end result was that they produced too many razor blades and not enough toilet paper.

But never mind all that. “Green” is the hot marketing trend right now. And we know how well economic markets always follow hot marketing trends!

Urban Heat Islands

Learn about them.

. . . . .

Back now?  Good.

From the above link, a quote about temperature stations:

Its all about location, location, location. And climate monitoring stations that are poorly sited and that have been overrun by urban growth clearly don’t give a pure signal for assesment of long term climate trends. This puts a real kink in the validity of the surface temperature data in GISS and HadCRUT and could go a long way towards explaining the divergence between satellite and surface temperatures in recent years.

This is what common sense looks like.  This is what science looks like.

BTW, if you’re not reading Watts Up With That, well … you’re just not happening.

No Way!

Um, Way

Next time you hear anybody — say, a man on the street, your neighbor, the President of the United States — trying to blame the current financial mess on the Bush administration, tell them to look at this post at the great Doug Ross @ Journal:  Meltdown.

In fact, maybe you should read it too.

“Facts:  We R Stubborn.”

And from reading Doug’s post, you’d almost think Congress was corrupt or something!  Srsly!  Crazy, huh?

“Scientists”, “Journalists”, and other Useful Idiots

Someday, when sanity again rules the Earth, some may look back on today as the most ridiculous time in the history of mankind.

Why is that, you ask?  Because lots of otherwise-smart people today waste their time arguing about Artic Sea ice.

“Oh, look!  it’s shrinking!  What are we going to do?”

Here’s what I do:  pour myself a nice cold Manhattan, and flip on the TV.

Blog Post Announcing a Break. Oops. Break’s Over!

So … I guess I took a week-long break last week. Didn’t really plan it, it just sort of happened.

Not sure why.  Maybe it’s because the news is b-o-r-i-n-g these days.  Oh, so a Democratic president is pushing through $800B worth of pork within 3 weeks of taking office?  And the media thinks this is a great idea?  And yet, polling tells us that the more people read about the “stimulus”, the less they like it?

Wow, sure couldn’t see that coming!

Or maybe it’s because I’ve been spending more time chilling in our living room, listening to my middle son Jacob play his new guitar.  We just bought him an Epiphone Les Paul “Special II”.  It’s amazing what you can get for $169 at Sam Ash these days.  I’ll post a pic later.

Now we just need a decent amp; the cheap 12 watt Kustom is not really cutting it.  He’s going to play at school next week, to audition for a talent show, with his friend Ethan; they’re going to play “Wanted Dead or Alive” by Bon Jovi.  Yes, our house sounds a lot like 1985 radio lately.

I’ve been very impressed with Jacob’s commitment to learning how to play.  He picks it up multiple times per day, and also plays our other guitars.   We have four of them now (2 electric, 2 acoustic).  We should start a string band.

Let’s see, what other reasons do I have for not blogging much?  I haven’t been surfing the ‘net as much either, for some of the same reasons.  And since blogging is primarily reactive, I don’t write as much, either.  Although, I have been writing for The Love of Sports, and had three pieces published lately: a lamentation about The Saga of Chief Illinwek, and a piece about Tiger Woods and his Dad, And the Son Becomes a Father, and a silly list of Top Twelve Fun Facts about the IFAF.  Please, click and read. Here’s my author page.

Plus, blogging is getting boring.  Yet again.   Let’s see, going back to the Spring of ‘03, this has to be, what, the 5th or 6th time I’ve gone through something like that?  Yeeesh.  I don’t know how people do it, day after day, year after year.  It’s like having your brains, and your life, sucked out through a Silly Straw.  In fact, this long 3 day weekend, I hardly touched a computer at all.  Didn’t really miss it, either.  That’ll change, though.

All I can say is, thank God above for Turner Classic Movies.

Oh, and BookTV, where over the weekend, I saw George Friedman, who wrote “America’s Secret War”, talk about his latest book “The Next Hundred Years”.  Which I ordered today, in fact.

All you folks out there who think you know what is going on in the world, because you listen dutifully to NPR or read the Washington Post?  Might want to read Friedman’s “America’s Secret War”.  You may find your world view altered slightly.  I’m just sayin’.

A Good Rule for Sportswriters: Stay Away from Politics. Or, Learn to Use a Search Engine. Either Way.

Hey, look! A sportswriter has stepped in it again, by writing about politics. Riffing on Bush, and slobbering all over Obama. Like we can’t already get *that* from the rest of the paper.

I’m starting to think sportswriters aren’t real well-informed.  Srsly!

Rick Telander, sportswriter, informs us that Obama is a Renaissance Man for the ages, and Bush is a drooling moron.

Plus, Obama plays pick-up basketball! How awesome is that? Coolest. President. Ever!

Mr. Telander knows what he’s talking about, too; seems Obama is a voracious reader, and has even read Telander’s Heaven is a Playground, a book about … pick-up basketball. Which means he is open-minded, and also great presidential material. Bask in the reflection of his awesomeness.

Bush, meanwhile, suffers from countless infirmities, such as not playing pick up basketball, and a “lack of inquisitiveness”.  The bad news for Telander:  Bush is a voracious reader too; he read 186 books in the last three years.

186 books.  That is a lot of frigging books.

Content Has Been De-Valued by the Internets®

And that is a major reason why the advertising model isn’t working any more for “the media”, whether it be newspapers, TV, movies, the music industry, book publishers, etc.

There. I’ve figured all this out now. You can all thank me by sending a check for $50 to … oh, wait, too late, I’ve published this on the damn Internets®! For free! What a moron.

Of course, I’m far from the first to dig deeply into all this, but I’ve been thinking about it alot the last few months. And as one who is trying to build a freelance writing career, I have to think about, and understand at a basic level, the concept of content and how it is delivered. What is the value of content in a market where “information wants to be free”?

And here’s what I’ve come up with. Content-producers like newspapers and TV networks are suppliers in an economic market, governed by the rules of economic markets. That content used to be more controlled, and therefore precious and rare, and so by definition, more valuable. Newspapers controlled what we read, and how much they allowed us to read. TV controlled the news that we saw, and how much of it we were allowed to see, and all the TV shows, and the stars that were on them, and the writers that wrote for them; and since there were only 3 networks, the supply was extremely limited compared to today’s 300 or more channels on satellite, cable, etc. Same for movies, music, books, etc.

All of these industries were in the business, whether they realized it or not, of restricting the availability of the content they provided, in order to prop up its value. And this is because rather than charging the end consumer for that content, they used ratings to drive ad revenue to fund the whole thing. And ratings depend on having just a few delivery channels, so that the audience doesn’t get too fragmented. Once you add hundreds more delivery channels, (or millions, in the case of the Internet), the whole model won’t work any more.

Suddenly, they had to compete with content providers who weren’t protecting revenue streams, all driven by the Internets®, and the audience became fragmented, and the bottom fell out.

They thought they were providing content, but as we’ve seen over the last few years, with the decline in movie viewership, TV ratings, newspaper circulation and ad rates, etc., providing content and relying on advertising to fund it is a suckers game when the market is saturated. So their business model relied on restricting content more than providing it.

Nice Job, Brave University Bureaucrats

The Internet claims another unfortunate victim.

Iowa football radio announcer Ed Podolak was canned due to some pictures posted on a blog. OK, technically he resigned, but we all know how this works: embarrassing stuff happens, and then the perp “resigns”. Wink, wink.

This is one way the Internet makes us all dumber. Sombody takes a picture, self-publishes it on the Internet, and suddenly it’s a CRISIS that must be managed by brave, anonymous bureaucrats.

And rather than show an ounce of courage or spine, they make the easy choice, under the illusion that it makes them look resolute and firm.

Instead, it looks weak and reactionary.

Congratulations, University of Iowa!

“University administrators: No molehill so small we can’t make a mountain out of it!”

Here are the notorious pictures. Judge for yourself.

Newsflash: fans who travel to bowl games like to party it up at night. Sometimes, flirting and salacious behavior is involved. True fact!

Are we now going to freak out about every time somebody gets caught acting a little wild and crazy on their own time? Really?

That’s an awfully low bar to clear. Everybody has cameras on their phones, and a way to either post the pics, or email them to somebody who will. The editorial process — “is there a compelling public interest here? ” — never really happens. And then the sh*t hits the fan, and people lose jobs.

All because they had both the audacity to live their life, and the misfortune of somebody snapping a pic of it.

We need to buck up a little bit here.

My $.02 anyway.