No one wants to know, but as it rained all day today I had one work call, streetviewed for hours (one old no through road discovered, same as 20 others I already have), cleared lots of old messages and replied to comments, and did another piece for Youtube as well as watching lots of videos there. I'll get the food tomorrow now, it wasn't urgent and more something to do than needed although it soon will be. I hope I can get hold of the new UFO magazine tomorrow as due out, I have to phone a few shops first as no idea who has it locally, and get the other shopping done wherever I do if I can. I don't mind one day in a week but more than that you run out of material as you'd expect. I'll also be interested to see what the earwax drops do as I've never needed them before. It is the little things...
I get regular Herberts dropping in telling me science has already established global warming is man made so why do I tell people it isn't, as I doubt any of them are the very people who invented the story then they are being used to divide and rule as they are doing their dirty work for them. On the surface it looks fine, except that is hasn't happened, which is always a problem but one they have convinced the majority of the lowbrows isn't important, but then you find they fix their figures in every possible way, just like an internet dating site or Nigerian CV. Al Gore has taken the 417 scam and made it the biggest story ever told.
DEAR SIR
I WRITE TO YOU IN THE POWER OF JESUS AS A FELLOW BELIEVER, MY FATHER WAS THE OWNER OF A MAJOR OIL COMPANY AND LEFT $1.2 BILLION DOLLARS IN CARBON CREDITS BUT HAVE BEEN HELD IN TRUST UNTIL THEY CAN BE RELEASED TO A SAFE COUNTRY. I AM UNABLE TO CLAIM THEM MYSELF DUE TO A CIVIL WAR AND REQUIRE AN HONEST BELIEVER IN GOD TO HELP ME. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO DEPOSIT THIS SUM IN YOUR ACCOUNT AS YOU ARE IN A COUNTRY AUTHORISED WITH MY PERMISSION TO HOLD SAID FUNDS, AND FOR YOUR KINDNESS AND TROUBLE WILL BE SHARING 5% OF THE CARBON CREDITS FOR USE IN CHARITY AND WELFARE OF OTHERS.
I TRUST YOU ARE CONTENT WITH THIS ARRANGEMENT AND WILL SEND ME AT SOONEST NOTICE
1) YOUR BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS
2) YOUR REGISTERED EMAIL ADDRESS
3) YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER
4) A PASSWORD I CAN USE TO VERIFY THESE DETAILS FOR MY OWN ENQUIRIES
AS SOON AS I RECEIVE SAID DETAILS I WILL ARRANGE TO FORWARD $1.2BILLION DOLLARS INTO THE NAMED ACCOUNT AND WILL BE IN CONTACT AS TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NEXT.
YOURS IN CHRIST, REV. Dr ALBERT GORE
Yes, it's that obvious to many people, but unlike the genuine (or actually fraudulent) article only a small percentage DON'T fall for this one. If the Africans would like a greater hit rate I expect they'll rename their messages to include carbon credits and will multiply the positive responses many times over. It's like being the only sober one at a party of drunks.
I'd have even less to do without the global warming research, and the recent fightback where they've thrown all sorts of equations at us appearing to sew up their story just made it more of a quest rather than simply patiently repeating it's garbage as they can't prove it. That is true, but the smokescreen they've provided to appear genuine, and like smoke hide the fact it's not happening any more than would be expected from er, climate changing, needs to be blown away and see the empty boxes they're covering up with expensive goods like a mock auction. Nearly everyone falls for them once but never again when they turn out to be worthless, this is one big hustle and when they've taken it as far as it can go before falling temperatures force them to stop we'll all be living like savages.
Meanwhile I hope my own life becomes more occupied with useful activities and let the climate look after itself as it always has and always will. It seems commonsense has been handed out very selectively. And will the lost sheep ever find it?
Showing posts with label climategate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climategate. Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
How they do the warming trick
I think I'm getting there. The official figures say double CO2 from around 300ppm to 600ppm and you'll get a 1'C rise, then subject to positive feedback which could be as high as 6.5' at the top estimate. On paper the first figure would work as is the same as filling a greenhouse with CO2 and doubling it, and then extending that to the atmosphere. They even added that every other factor is irrelevant as the CO2 automatically raises the temperature by an exact base figure per amount increase.
This is a pretty clear equation even I have trouble disputing. But as I could see from such a simple (and purely hypothetical mental wank by statisticians and climatologists) formula so much more had been assumed I had to look into it further. Not being qualified in any area beyond O level, although I took (and passed) one maths/stats unit at degree level, I was no better at deciphering the following studies than anyone else, but had to try.
What I found may well explain how they can start (as the devil does) with 90% truth and then hide a lie in it. They have to have a base of fact or there's nothing to get confidence, and then when everyone is convinced they can extend the good stuff to cover basically whatever they like. This is done in two very clever ways, adjusting data and reducing uncertainty. I can't see that a graph is created from smoothing, selecting or rebasing but statisticians can. Some have even gone to the effort of pointing it out to help people like me who can't do it. Three so far have explained how the hockey stick, the holy grail of Al Gore and the IPCC, is created by all such methods, and universally ignored by anyone in charge for obvious reasons.
The hockey stick is created from three sets of data. Proxy data until 1860, adding thermometers till 1979 and then mainly satellite. The IPCC even admit the earliest data was partial and needed to be filled in (how do they manage that then?) meaning the error margin was far wider, but narrows up by the sharp rise in 1980. So they explain the coexistence of such methods, but however you look at it there's still this almost vertical line at the end. So uncertainty can no longer be used as a way to rebut it as according to the red satellite part it simply isn't uncertain and that is all higher than the last millenium.
But get a degree in maths and it all looks different, as they rebased it. I'll admit here I don't know what that means, except that they start the mean at a point away from the beginning, in this case around where it begins to rise. Further they have adjusted or smoothed the data in this and nearly every other graph of ice and sea levels as well as temperature to make it look exactly the same way, with ice falling (although the raw data which is available shows otherwise) and sea level rising (although many measurements show it is now virtually static). It seems that they can (and do) adjust every graph they create without question as besides their own no one can tell. Therefore the emails at CRU admitting they refuse (and continue to do so) to release the raw data behind the hockey stick means without raw data you can't do the before and after and see how they got it to change.
But someone else has been caught out, New Zealand's national climate people have got a hockey stick of their own, and when raw data was put in the angle dropped by about 75%. This is currently under trial and the results should follow soon. But it's a wonderful example and if proven to have cheated then ought to represent how the tricks are always done. Like the magicians who are exposed on TV, once you know it's no longer clever or an illusion, it's just someone fiddling the data.
So I think now people are finding ways to figure out how so many graphs rise in 1980 and most peak right now (highly in dispute) then if you remove the adjustments they ought to fall back by the same amount. So they start with good physics (the truth) and hide a lie in it (the adjustment).
Part two is known and a lot easier for anyone to follow. The levels of uncertainty are so great that it may be beyond a measurable significance whatever the IPCC say. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic magazine shows how they underestimated their uncertainty by about a factor of 10, making any predictions meaningless (as they all are in an open system). Star movements are fairly fixed so predictable for millions of years, but climate movements are not predictable beyond a rough cyclic framework. But if doubling CO2 raises base levels by 1'C then you can factor in feedback mechanisms to see how that will increase. What? Can you really? As man has never pumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere there's no history there at all. Nothing to go on. So we have the present (0.7'C rise in 150 years, quite typical coming out of a cold spell) and the future ( between 0.5-6.5'C by 2100).
This has become like the Lord's Prayer to warmists, as if thy kingdom come, thy warm be done. But it assumes the IPCC can actually predict climate boundaries within a reliable measure. Where's their track record for this? They haven't got one- it's never been done. But who thinks about that when thinking about the first psalm 'We've got to protect our unborn grandchildren'. That's fear and primal survival. Forget maths, stats and any other science, this is raw fear data. Pure emotion with no space left for any thought or science at all.
There are more and more detectives unravelling the tricks built into graphs worldwide, and besides Michael Shermer the logic behind the uncertainty is for anyone who looks to see. You can see the New Zealand trick here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
The hockey stick summary is here, linked to a book-length PDF
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
Thanks to James Delingpole for those two.
Here's the analysis of the uncertainty.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Crime relies on being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Fraud always involves an element of truth, if well made enough will hide the lies until at least after the money is long gone, sometimes forever. How anyone can read these articles alone and not have some doubt is truly a test of their mental power.
This is a pretty clear equation even I have trouble disputing. But as I could see from such a simple (and purely hypothetical mental wank by statisticians and climatologists) formula so much more had been assumed I had to look into it further. Not being qualified in any area beyond O level, although I took (and passed) one maths/stats unit at degree level, I was no better at deciphering the following studies than anyone else, but had to try.
What I found may well explain how they can start (as the devil does) with 90% truth and then hide a lie in it. They have to have a base of fact or there's nothing to get confidence, and then when everyone is convinced they can extend the good stuff to cover basically whatever they like. This is done in two very clever ways, adjusting data and reducing uncertainty. I can't see that a graph is created from smoothing, selecting or rebasing but statisticians can. Some have even gone to the effort of pointing it out to help people like me who can't do it. Three so far have explained how the hockey stick, the holy grail of Al Gore and the IPCC, is created by all such methods, and universally ignored by anyone in charge for obvious reasons.
The hockey stick is created from three sets of data. Proxy data until 1860, adding thermometers till 1979 and then mainly satellite. The IPCC even admit the earliest data was partial and needed to be filled in (how do they manage that then?) meaning the error margin was far wider, but narrows up by the sharp rise in 1980. So they explain the coexistence of such methods, but however you look at it there's still this almost vertical line at the end. So uncertainty can no longer be used as a way to rebut it as according to the red satellite part it simply isn't uncertain and that is all higher than the last millenium.
But get a degree in maths and it all looks different, as they rebased it. I'll admit here I don't know what that means, except that they start the mean at a point away from the beginning, in this case around where it begins to rise. Further they have adjusted or smoothed the data in this and nearly every other graph of ice and sea levels as well as temperature to make it look exactly the same way, with ice falling (although the raw data which is available shows otherwise) and sea level rising (although many measurements show it is now virtually static). It seems that they can (and do) adjust every graph they create without question as besides their own no one can tell. Therefore the emails at CRU admitting they refuse (and continue to do so) to release the raw data behind the hockey stick means without raw data you can't do the before and after and see how they got it to change.
But someone else has been caught out, New Zealand's national climate people have got a hockey stick of their own, and when raw data was put in the angle dropped by about 75%. This is currently under trial and the results should follow soon. But it's a wonderful example and if proven to have cheated then ought to represent how the tricks are always done. Like the magicians who are exposed on TV, once you know it's no longer clever or an illusion, it's just someone fiddling the data.
So I think now people are finding ways to figure out how so many graphs rise in 1980 and most peak right now (highly in dispute) then if you remove the adjustments they ought to fall back by the same amount. So they start with good physics (the truth) and hide a lie in it (the adjustment).
Part two is known and a lot easier for anyone to follow. The levels of uncertainty are so great that it may be beyond a measurable significance whatever the IPCC say. Michael Shermer of the Skeptic magazine shows how they underestimated their uncertainty by about a factor of 10, making any predictions meaningless (as they all are in an open system). Star movements are fairly fixed so predictable for millions of years, but climate movements are not predictable beyond a rough cyclic framework. But if doubling CO2 raises base levels by 1'C then you can factor in feedback mechanisms to see how that will increase. What? Can you really? As man has never pumped extra CO2 in the atmosphere there's no history there at all. Nothing to go on. So we have the present (0.7'C rise in 150 years, quite typical coming out of a cold spell) and the future ( between 0.5-6.5'C by 2100).
This has become like the Lord's Prayer to warmists, as if thy kingdom come, thy warm be done. But it assumes the IPCC can actually predict climate boundaries within a reliable measure. Where's their track record for this? They haven't got one- it's never been done. But who thinks about that when thinking about the first psalm 'We've got to protect our unborn grandchildren'. That's fear and primal survival. Forget maths, stats and any other science, this is raw fear data. Pure emotion with no space left for any thought or science at all.
There are more and more detectives unravelling the tricks built into graphs worldwide, and besides Michael Shermer the logic behind the uncertainty is for anyone who looks to see. You can see the New Zealand trick here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
The hockey stick summary is here, linked to a book-length PDF
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
Thanks to James Delingpole for those two.
Here's the analysis of the uncertainty.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Crime relies on being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Fraud always involves an element of truth, if well made enough will hide the lies until at least after the money is long gone, sometimes forever. How anyone can read these articles alone and not have some doubt is truly a test of their mental power.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Holes in one or bogies?
Another day passes and will discover tomorrow if another very rare sign is indeed in existence. Other than that it's no business as usual, but all will be fine if tomorrow is a success. Every now and then I see something fall into place where it should be, like the string of emails in today's paper demonstrating how the crooks at the university of East Anglia who removed tree ring data and the high temperatures already experienced around 1100 as it would 'seriously water down the message'. No shit Sherlock. Justice to be seen to be done at last? We will see.
No other plans besides taking the car radio in to be robbed and more sorting at late grandma's house this week. I think a few miracles probably have happened recently, most of all the red triangle sign finally turning up last week. I didn't search for it (well I did but wasn't visible online so couldn't actually find it that way) and someone just happened to see it on a route they'd always used as I raised the subject. Getting the climategate emails is something of a miracle as although anyone who looks can find the alternative (ie honest) climate figures no one dared print them till they were proved to be the true ones this way. Now Tiger Woods' marketing career is down the toilet he ought to be brought in to handle the global warming crisis. In a few weeks they'd be paying the money back in our bank accounts with apologies.
On the infidelity front I am struggling on the whys of anyone doing it. I have always settled for onw woman when no others were better. Now if no others are better and I've actually got the one who is better then why would I want anyone else as well? Answers on a postcard please. It's like getting bored with your house and wanting to live in different ones a couple of days a week. I know it's common but seriously weird. Now if one woman is good in one way but not others that's a reason to wait for one who isn't, but maybe some people are impatient, or just plain stupid.
I am running out of material but little else to do with the two boring snooker players about to outbore each other on TV in a minute when Ding Junhui wins again as if anyone actually cares. Having watched the snooker since Pot Black in the early 70s things have changed a lot and not for the better. Making them play round the world means most retire at 40 and you lose every decent player once you get used to them, apart from the once boring Steve Davis.
Not a lot else to report, I have my sweets and chocolates for the next couple of weeks but have to ration them, the gym was closed when I got there, which happens randomly especially on Sundays and basically a few quid down the toilet as I can't make it up another day in the week. The usual reason in the past (since they got this manager) was 'there weren't enough people there'. If that was a valid excuse Ireland would have been closed years ago. Goodnight.
No other plans besides taking the car radio in to be robbed and more sorting at late grandma's house this week. I think a few miracles probably have happened recently, most of all the red triangle sign finally turning up last week. I didn't search for it (well I did but wasn't visible online so couldn't actually find it that way) and someone just happened to see it on a route they'd always used as I raised the subject. Getting the climategate emails is something of a miracle as although anyone who looks can find the alternative (ie honest) climate figures no one dared print them till they were proved to be the true ones this way. Now Tiger Woods' marketing career is down the toilet he ought to be brought in to handle the global warming crisis. In a few weeks they'd be paying the money back in our bank accounts with apologies.
On the infidelity front I am struggling on the whys of anyone doing it. I have always settled for onw woman when no others were better. Now if no others are better and I've actually got the one who is better then why would I want anyone else as well? Answers on a postcard please. It's like getting bored with your house and wanting to live in different ones a couple of days a week. I know it's common but seriously weird. Now if one woman is good in one way but not others that's a reason to wait for one who isn't, but maybe some people are impatient, or just plain stupid.
I am running out of material but little else to do with the two boring snooker players about to outbore each other on TV in a minute when Ding Junhui wins again as if anyone actually cares. Having watched the snooker since Pot Black in the early 70s things have changed a lot and not for the better. Making them play round the world means most retire at 40 and you lose every decent player once you get used to them, apart from the once boring Steve Davis.
Not a lot else to report, I have my sweets and chocolates for the next couple of weeks but have to ration them, the gym was closed when I got there, which happens randomly especially on Sundays and basically a few quid down the toilet as I can't make it up another day in the week. The usual reason in the past (since they got this manager) was 'there weren't enough people there'. If that was a valid excuse Ireland would have been closed years ago. Goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
