|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Pretty hilarious:
This time, it's bound to be right. But when did the scientific method become: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Copenhagen climate conference: Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record. A new forecast for 2010 predicted it will be almost 1F (0.6C) higher than the long term average of 57F (14C) across the globe as a result of natural weather patterns and global warming.... However skeptics point out that the Met Office said 2007 would be the warmest on record, but it was not in the top five.
A "new forecast"? One that unexpectedly predicts record heat, no less? How very timely! I have little doubt that there was a "scientific" debate at Met Office that went something like this:
Scientist #1: "We need to do something to distract the press from that $%*#($% Jones and his leaked emails."
Scientist #2: "Well, the PR boffins said they have almost two thousand signatures on the integrity statement."
Scientist #3: (sarcastically) "Yeah, $*%"&*($# brilliant! 'You think we're fabricating the data already, so we're going to throw more data you won't believe at you.'"
Scientist #1: "Nine out of ten scientists believe that scientists have integrity... hmmmm, that wasn't the best idea."
Scientist #2: "Well, they did the falling polar bears... yeah, we really need a new PR agency."
Scientist #1: "So, what do we do?"
Scientist #3: "We tell them that next year is going to be the Ecopolypse. Hell on Earth. The hottest on record. If they're not scared any more, then we need to crank it up to eleven. New York under water. Polar bears stalking the streets of London. Artic beach vacations."
Scientist #2: "But models say that it's going to be relatively cool!"
Scientist #3: "So what? When have our models ever been right? Our climate models suck so completely that Tiger hit on them at the last British Open. It's a no-lose proposition. Sure, we'll probably get it wrong and then we'll have to hope the media will cover our asses. But they've been solid on the CRU leak, and if we get it right, we're @*%#(%^* gold!"
Scientist #1: "Actually, if I run Mike's Nature trick on the latest GISS numbers, it could be 0.2F hotter next year."
Scientist #3: "&*%* that 0.2F! We need one whole $*%$&(#$*%&$*% degree. It's got to be simple enough that every idiot dumb enough to take this $*%! literally will do a linear extrapolation and panic when they realize that in a century, it will be 100 degrees hotter!"
Scientist #2: "You really think we can get away with it?"
Scientist #3: "Why not? We did in 2007."
| | |
| akidreborn's xanga turns rated R, thanks to Barack Obama. From BigGovernment:
Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN. He was paid $273,573.96 as its executive director in 2007. Jennings was the keynote speaker at the 2000 GLSEN conference. ... In March 2000 the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) organization of Massachusetts held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a “ youth only, ages 14-21″ session that offered lessons in “fisting” a dangerous sexual practice. During the same workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?” The unbelievable audio clip is posted here. Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” was the keynote speaker at the GLSEN/Boston Conference at Tufts University in 2000. High school students at the conference learned about fisting and watersports from the GLSEN activists. Jennings is seen here holding the conference program. (Via Mass Resistance) Unfortunately for GLSEN, undercover journalists with Mass Resistance recorded these outrageous sessions at Tufts University. The audio was later leaked to a local radio station. This created such an uproar that GLSEN leaders were forced to apologize for their disgusting behavior.
Despite the controversy, Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings and his GLSEN organization did nothing to clean up their act. In fact in 2001 activists handed out “fisting kits” to the children and teachers who attended the GLSEN conference. But that’s not all. The children who attended Kevin Jennnings’ 2005 GLSEN Conference also left with their own “Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century”. This book exposes the young teens to–
Rimming – Fisting – Water Sports (Pi$$ Play) – Toys
It’s what every teen needs to know… 
And in case any of the teens got bored, GLSEN was also kind enough to include a list of the local gay bars in the booklet distributed to high school students. 
Because of his excellent work with children Kevin Jennings was promoted by Barack Obama to be his Safe Schools Czar. Today he’s running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education. Do you feel safe now? There’s more to come. Barack Obama to GOP: "Stop trying to frighten the American people."
Barack... it's you.
It's you.
| | |
| Oh dear Saint Darwin of the Galapagos, the comments on this thread are priceless.
e.g. "One of my favorite things about the Neo-Conservatives and their fellow travelers the POMOCONS is that they were obviously sprung as if by Immaculate Perception, more adult than the rest of the world and always ready to employ another round of democracy at gunpoint, as if any people, no matter their location, have ever enjoyed an invading country’s bastards over their very own homegrown ones."
another:
The Eight Beatitudes of Carl Scott for moral and political responsibility: Blessed are the Military-Industrial Empires, for they will be morally serious.
Blessed are the surge-makers, for they shall cause us to forget the initial invasion.
Blessed are Germans, for with them democracy shall never be secularized, socialized, and guilt-ridden.
Blessed are the Japanese, for they shall reap the plenty of far flung U.S. military presences.
| | |
| Though he is not my namesake, I nevertheless feel bad for Albert Gore, a fellow Albert who is having a very bad month. It seems that the most influential science behind global warming is a gigantic scam, the "greatest scientific scandal of our age." Here's the UK Telegraph:
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick" [graph that purported to show global warming], he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU....
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
From the Environmental editor of the UK Times:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years....
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. And the belated NYTimes (h/t Vox):
“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.
What emails, you ask? The ones that say stuff like this:
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!
...
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
...
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions—he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
So much for objective global warming "science." Well, I guess the bright side is that at least there's enough material here for a new movie by Al Gore, maybe a techno-thriller or something. I'd watch it if it got good reviews in Rotten Tomatoes! Maybe.
[Updated]
Jon Stewart's weighed in: "Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented."
Jon Stewart is absolutely right that global warming could be happening (except for the past decade where temperatures have been stagnant despite rising global CO2 generation). There's just no evidence for it; I hope real scientists--rather than these incompetent charlatans--can find out what the truth is.
| | |
| "Modern atheists try to test God by their own moral and logical standards, and they think they are very, very clever. They are more evangelical than they know: Humanity’s trial of God is one of the central episodes of the Passion Narrative." - Leithart
| | |
|
|
