Headlines
MAIG Cooridinators Paid as City Employees
Robin Gibbs Dead
Donna Summer - Dead at 63
Vidal Sassoon assumes room temperature
A final grand but sad salute to US space supremacy
Dick Clark - who's got him?
Only in Wisconsin: Drunk 80 Year Old Hits Beer Truck
Anybody have Mike Wallace?
As the ClimateGate Turns….
This comes as no surprise. Phil Jones, the esteemed (and by “esteemed”, I mean a steaming pile of pig offal) director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, is stepping down:
Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
He is stepping down temporarily only. Hard to give up power when one has cultivated it for so long, isn’t it?
Perhaps the whole concept of showing one’s work was simply too much for him….
UPDATE: Looks like Penn State will be conducting an investigation into ClimateGate. Insert smirk here.
Climategate vs the search engines
There’s been a lot of talk about Google seemingly trying to hide climategate search results. You can read more about this at Soylent Green.
I’d posted an over there illustrating what I’d found searching google (that image is under the fold). Some people began talking about Bing, Microsoft’s new search engine.
I’m certainly no fan of Microsoft but they clearly win this round.
Prove it
I ran across a discussion yesterday regarding Sean Hannity saying that this year was cooler than any year in recent history. The initial discussion started by essentially calling Hannity a liar and a moron because “the science was clear”. The obvious first response to this was, “Yes, but your science is flawed and corrupt.” I’m not going to bother linking to the discussion directly as I don’t think it is really relevant. The very same type of discussion can be found pretty much anywhere you look.
So currently, here is where we stand: We have two separate (known) incidences of intentional fraud coupled (or caused by) corrupt or just plain shitty original datasets. Pretty much all of the AGW studies have one aspect in common: they all refuse to “show their work”.
Studies have shown that too much text is boring and people tend to skim over it without reading. Adding images is said to help focus the reader.
I’m going to show my work. Currently, 100% of the known studies “proving” AGW theories have been shown to be corrupt (both the Hadley CRU and New Zealand studies). What these studies have in common, aside from “proving” AGW, is that they refused to release their original data or methodologies. So, lets apply what we now know to the rest of the AGW studies. We can hypothesize, based on our current data, that studies that refuse to release their initial data or their methodologies used to arrive at their conclusions are frauds and/or corrupt. All of our currently available data shows this to be fact.
I’ve made my hypothesis, revealed the data I used in my experiments, and explained my conclusion. So if there’s anyone out there that would like to “prove my theory wrong”, you actually have an opportunity to do just that. However, I also require that you follow these simple rules of science when you attempt to prove it.
So, the answer to AGW followers is simple: Prove it. Nope, sorry you cannot go grabbing more studies and graphs where the initial data and methodologies have been kept secret as I’ve just proved that those are fraudulent.
I’m a drunken redneck with a high school education able to put this together within minutes of climbing out of bed and I’ve still not yet had my coffee. Science really isn’t that fucking hard.
Scrubbed CRU Data Hacked, Recovered And Released
For the two or three people that haven’t seen this:
CBullitt has it at Soylent Green:
Remember when England’s CRU scrubbed all its temp data in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOIA requests? I, like many, concluded they did so because the data supported Steve and not their Mann-Briffa, hockey stick Thermageddon scenarios requiring Waxman-Markey type “Solutions.” I likened the whole affair to the plot of a spy novel, with moles and secrets.
Science is dead but it ain’t AGW that killed it. Science was dead way before AGW. These days the only areas doing real science is space exploration and pharmaceutical research. That seems to be the only areas where the scientists doing research don’t already have an answer they’re supposed to be proving/disproving.
We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
From The Register via Small Dead Animals:
The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia -- permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
Isn’t that fucking convenient?
The Science is Settled
Most likely, this summer’s Gulf dead zone will blanket about 7,980 square miles, roughly the same size as last year’s zone, Scavia said. That would put the years 2009, 2008 and 2001 in a virtual tie for second place on the list of the largest Gulf dead zones.
The 3,000 square miles is one of the smallest measurements of the zone since measurements began in 1985, according to a graph in a news release sent from a research vessel in the Gulf. Only those in 1987, 1988 and 2000 were smaller.
You know, honestly, at some point we’re going to have to realize that most of these “scientists” don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Stolen from: SDA
Loading ...
