Hiding the decline again

Richard Muller is the latest “scientist” to attempt to pass off another an AGW/CC fraud:

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic released a study of global temperatures that intended to set the record straight on controversial data collected by the East Anglia Project, NASA, and other organizations that have acted as advocates for action based on anthropogenic global warming. Professor Richard Muller put together a graph of the data that supposedly showed warming from 1800 (roughly the beginning of the Industrial Era in Europe) through 1975, and then a steeper rise in temperatures that appears unstopped. When this data was released, newspapers and other media proclaimed it the end of AGW skepticism and demanded capitulation from the “deniers.”…

A closer look at the data and a Daily Mail interview with one of Muller’s team shows that the chart hides the fact that no warming has occurred in the last 11 years, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 13 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “inconvenient truth”:

First, let’s look at the top chart. A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world. What we end up with is a 30-year spike that also includes a few years of reduced industrial output, starting in the stagnating 1970s where oil production also got restricted thanks to onerous government policies and trade wars.

In climate terms, a 30-year spike is as significant as a surprisingly warm afternoon in late October. Man, I wish we were going to have one of those today.

But then look what happens in the past 11 years in the bottom chart. Despite the fact that the world’s nations continue to spew CO2 with no significant decline (except perhaps in the Great Recession period of 2008-9), the temperature record is remarkably stable. In fact, it looks similar to the period between 1945 and 1970 on the top chart. If global temperature increases really correlated directly to CO2 emissions, we wouldn’t see this at all; we’d see ever-escalating rates of increase in global temperatures, which is exactly what the AGW climate models predicted at the turn of the century. They were proven wrong.

And in fact, Curry explains that the failure of those models finally has some scientists going back to the drawing board….

And what of Muller? When confronted by the Daily Mail about the data from the past 11 years, he denied that temperatures had plateaued, and then admitted that the data shows exactly that.

And yet the unthinking, unquestioning science fetishists still wonder why rational observers are deeply skeptical when scientists seeking huge quantities of money and global fame, and demanding massive societal change on the basis of what provides them with the aforementioned money and fame, are repeatedly caught out faking and misrepresenting the data.

The CO2 model is obviously wrong. It has completely failed as a predictive model. And, as I have been saying for years, global warming isn’t even taking place and hasn’t been for longer than I have been posting on this blog.

Richard Muller may have once been a climate skeptic, (his biography suggests he is either lying or being misrepresented by others), but if so, the evidence suggests that he was not so much convinced by the data as corrupted by the benefits of jumping aboard the AGW/CC gravy train. The increasingly inescapable conclusion, based on this and the increasing reports of scientific fraud, is that science should be considered intrinsically unreliable until it is successfully applied and is considered engineering.

And speaking of hiding the decline, Muller’s fellow-in-fraud, Michael “hockey stick” Mann appears to be losing his battle to hide the data:

“Discredited global warming scientist, Michael Mann, sees his last-ditch efforts to hide data fall apart as legal experts reveal a mountain of legal precedents against him. In his recent papers (filed on September 2, 2011) Mann claims ‘academic freedom’ and ‘proprietary materials’ as his defense. But legal experts who have since reviewed Mann’s submission to the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Va., say they are so full of holes they are doomed to fail.”

These “scientists” are all about the science and expanding human knowledge, aren’t they! Let’s revisit a few of my favorite global warming quotes, shall we?

1. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

2. “Yes, it is quite probable that global warming has a significant anthropogenic component. About as probable as the idea that HIV causes AIDS, species diversity is driven by evolutionary processes, and that the world is round.” – PZ Myers

3. RT: Is global warming a threat to the human species?

Richard Dawkins: Yes.

4. “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. – American Physical Society

5. “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” – American Association for the Advancement of Science

6. The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. – The Geological Society of America

7. “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” – U.S. National Academy of Sciences

8. Do you consider teaching someone about global warming, ozone holes, or ongoing extinctions, all established facts about our natural world, to be indoctrination?” – PZ Myers

Established facts… established scientific facts are indeed indoctrination. This means that we have no choice but to conclude that the definition of “established scientific fact” is sufficiently broad to include outright fiction and that appeals to “scientific consensus” possess no more legitimacy than appeals to reality TV.

The three levels of science

The fundamental flaw in the common, but erroneous idea that science is an intrinsically superior form of obtaining knowledge is that it relies upon the same human element that various other forms of knowledge do. Notice that the amount of detected scientific fraud appears to be increasing as electronic communications provide greater access to non-scientists, and that even in this case, where the whistleblowing was done by scientists, it was not done as part of the scientific process.

Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands in September after three junior researchers reported that they suspected scientific misconduct in a study that claimed eating meat made people more aggressive. Soon after being confronted with the accusations, Stapel reportedly told university officials that some of his papers contained falsified data. The university launched an investigation, as did the University of Groningen and the University of Amsterdam, where Stapel had worked previously. The Tilburg commission today released an interim report (in Dutch), which includes preliminary results from all three investigations. The investigators found “several dozens of publications” in which fictitious data has been used. Fourteen of the 21 Ph.D. theses Stapel supervised are also tainted, the committee concluded.

Stapel issued a statement today in which he apologizes to his colleagues and says he “failed as a scientist” and is ashamed of his actions. He has cooperated to an extent by identifying papers with suspect data, according to university officials. The investigation by the three universities is ongoing and should ultimately investigate more than 150 papers that Stapel has published since 2004, including a paper earlier this year in Science on the influence of a messy environment on prejudice. “People are in shock,” says Gerben van Kleef, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, who did not work directly with Stapel. “Everybody wonders how this could have happened and at this proportion.”

Stapel’s work encompassed a broad range of attention-catching topics, including the influence of power on moral thinking and the reaction of psychologists to a plagiarism scandal. The committee, which interviewed dozens of Stapel’s former students, postdoctoral researchers, co-authors, and colleagues, found that Stapel alone was responsible for the fraud. The panel reported that he would discuss in detail experimental designs, including drafting questionnaires, and would then claim to conduct the experiments at high schools and universities with which he had special arrangements. The experiments, however, never took place, the universities concluded. Stapel made up the data sets, which he then gave the student or collaborator for analysis, investigators allege. In other instances, the report says, he told colleagues that he had an old data set lying around that he hadn’t yet had a chance to analyze. When Stapel did conduct actual experiments, the committee found evidence that he manipulated the results.

Many of Stapel’s students graduated without having ever run an experiment, the report says. Stapel told them that their time was better spent analyzing data and writing. The commission writes that Stapel was “lord of the data” in his collaborations. It says colleagues or students who asked to see raw data were given excuses or even threatened and insulted.

Now, keep in mind that science fetishists often claim that science is intrinsically superior because scientific evidence theoretically can be replicated. But this argument is fundamentally flawed; no one argues that eyewitness testimony that theoretically could be confirmed by physical evidence is intrinsically superior to eyewitness evidence that cannot be independently confirmed in the absence of actually bothering to verify the testimony.

Clearly, a bright line needs to be delineated between scientific evidence that has been independently replicated by experiment, scientific evidence that could be independently replicated but has not been, and scientific evidence that cannot be independently replicated by experiment. And furthermore, it is necessary to stop giving the latter two types of scientific evidence, or more properly, potential scientific evidence, the same level of credence that is given to actual scientific evidence that has been reliably and independently replicated.

And why might that be?

The New York Times contemplates the mystery of how a Goldmanite – and former governor of New Jersey – could be responsible for one of the biggest bankruptcies in U.S. history:

He was from Goldman Sachs.

That is the refrain you hear over and over again when MF Global insiders try to explain why they went along with Jon Corzine’s risky trades — the same ones that caused a crisis of confidence at the firm and, ultimately, its bankruptcy on Monday….

Being a former Goldmanite has long been considered the ultimate calling card. But, in some cases, it has proved to be a liability: A series of blunders by former senior Goldman executives raises questions about whether Goldman’s secret sauce can actually be exported. Think John Thain. Or Robert Rubin. Or J. Chris Flowers.

Let’s consider the possible explanations why there is a pattern of success at Goldman Sachs and failure elsewhere:

1. There is some sort of magic in the Goldman water cooler that permits these financial wunderkinder to outperform the rest of the financial markets.

2. There is a wise old Asian janitor, seemingly ageless, living in the basement of the Goldman building whose cryptic utterings are interpreted and applied by the Goldman executives, leading to astoundingly good results.

3. Goldman leverages its oversized influence in the federal government to secure government policies that ensure it reliable profits.

I don’t know about you, but my money is on number two. I picked up an East Asian Studies major in college and studied Japanese in Tokyo on the off-chance that I might have the opportunity to speak to him one day.

Speaking of Europe’s “democratic deficit”

Europe’s leaders are “horrified” that the Greeks might be permitted a voice in their own destiny:

Greek prime minister George Papandreou horrified other EU leaders by announcing that he will ask voters to approve a deal struck last week that would see 50 per cent of the country’s debts written off – but harsh austerity measures imposed for years to come. A ‘no’ vote would prove catastrophic for the EU and could prompt a disorderly default on the country’s debts and an exit from the euro.

Of course, as Iceland has already proven, a ‘no’ vote would be much, much better for the people of Greece themselves. Bad for the parasitical bankers and the EU elite, to be sure, but why should that be any concern of the Greek people?

Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament, puts it in context:

I wish I could convey the sheer writhing horror that George Papanderou’s referendum proposal has provoked in Brussels. Eurocrats instinctively dislike referendums. They feel that their work is too important and complicated to be vulnerable to the prejudices of hoi polloi (or, to be truly pretentious about it, vulnerable to the των πολλων prejudices – for once, the Greek phrase seems apposite).

A referendum at any time would be regarded by European leaders as irresponsible. But a referendum when the euro is teetering on the brink is seen as the height of ingratitude, selfishness and recklessness.

Ingratitude… for what, one wonders?

That sums it up

A quote from a Denver Broncos fan: “Tebow needs to switch to tight end, fullback or safety. Great kid, awesome person, horrible NFL QB.”

I like Tebow and admire the way he has handled his fame and success, but after watching his two starts this year, I have no problem stating that he simply cannot play quarterback in the NFL. I respect willpower and a hard work ethic as much as anyone, but watching Tebow try to play quarterback is like watching a guy who runs a 14-second 100 meter dash try to play wide receiver or a guy who weighs 220 pounds try to play offensive lineman. It would take a literal miracle for him to even reach the “competent starter” level, forget All-Pro, much less Super Bowl-winning superstar. If Richard Dawkins followed NFL football, he would readily admit that Tim Tebow becoming an All-Pro quarterback and leading Denver to victory in the Super Bowl would qualify as proof of the existence of the Christian God.

None of this is Tebow’s fault. He didn’t ask to be drafted in the first round. No one, not even his worst critics, have so much as hinted at any failure to work hard. But he has the complete lack of package at the position: weak arm, slow wind-up, inability to read defenses, and inability to go through his progressions and find the open receiver. (Okay, perhaps not quite complete, I doubt his Wonderlic score is in the single digits.) The difference between watching Cam Newton and Christian Ponder – both rookies – and then watching Tebow, in his second year, rendered the conclusion unavoidable. That is not an NFL quarterback.

I have no doubt Tebow will be extraordinarily successful at something. But it won’t be as an NFL quarterback. It’s not a question of overcoming doubts, it’s a question of overcoming undeniable facts.

A boomer confesses

They are the Worst Generation:

A few years ago, an American author wrote a book about the men and women who endured the Depression and then fought in World War II. He testified to their courage, vision and resilience by calling his book The Greatest Generation. If anyone attempted to name their children — those born between about 1945 and 1965 — the so-called Baby-Boomers, they might consider calling them The Worst Generation.

It is now received wisdom that today’s young people may be the first generation in modern history to expect to be poorer than their parents.

Earlier this month, a report suggested the young will be 25 per cent worse off than their parents when they reach the age of 65 — the so-called ‘baby bust’ generation, having accumulated £400,000 less by the time they retire. This may not be entirely their parents’ fault. But we should certainly take a good share of the blame….

We had become not merely the luckiest but also the most selfish generation in history.

The remarkable thing is that this is coming from a British baby boomer, and the British boomers weren’t as ludicrously obnoxious as their American counterparts. Now, there is no need for the boomers to start complaining that Not All Boomers Are Like That. In the context of speaking about AN ENTIRE FREAKING GENERATION it is well understood by everyone that NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERFECTLY FITS THE OBSERVED GENERATIONAL MODEL. But that doesn’t change the facts. That doesn’t change the experience of most Generation X and Y individuals with their parents and grandparents and the behavioral patterns that they have observed.

Speaking of grandparents, another thing I’ve noticed about Baby Boomers is that many of them, (again, not all), are almost nonexistent as far as their grandchildren are concerned. Far fewer of them behave in the hands-on, heavily involved, take-them-out-for-ice-cream-on-Saturday with their grandchildren manner that nearly all the grandparents of me and my friends did. They’re too busy going to Starbucks or shopping or playing tourist somewhere. I would pity the grandchildren of the baby boomers, if it weren’t for the likelihood that their grandparents would prove to be an awful influence on them.

But the evil solipsism of baby boomers can probably be seen most clearly in this quote from Slashdot concerning the student loan debacle. “In response to students burying their obligations in court during the 1970s, anti-default provisions were imposed to make it almost impossible to shed student loans in bankruptcy.” In other words, baby boomers took out student loans – in many cases to avoid Vietnam – defaulted on them, then passed a law to ensure that future generations would not be able to do the same. And their student loan debts were far smaller and far less onerous than the ones facing those who have graduated in the 2000s.

The most contemptible thing about the boomers is that they collectively never grew out of their absurd and childish narcissism. They never recovered from their sense of self-importance, and to the extent that they changed the world, they changed it for the worse. Now, I don’t believe the state of the world is entirely their fault, but I am certain that they will not be part of the solution… unless it involves Paxman’s suggestion of compulsory euthanasia.

WND column

R.I.P. European Democracy, 1945-2011

Being for the most part historically illiterate, few intellectuals are prepared to admit that modern representative democracy and the basic concept of individual rights are 18th century phenomena that were the byproducts of a Christian society. They prefer to attribute both institutions to the Enlightenment, despite the fact that it was the Enlightenment that led directly to the revolutionary horrors of the French revolution and it is the Enlightenment that presently serves as the inspiration for the anti-democratic authoritarian bureaucracy of the European Union.

VPFL Week 8

99 Moundsview Meerkats (5-2-0)
60 Cranberry Rhyneauxs (2-5-0)

99 Greenfield Grizzlies (5-2-0)
62 Green Reverends (3-3-1)

52 Bailout Banksters (4-2-1)
41 RR Redbeards (2-4-1)

70 Bane Sidhe (3-4-0)
49 MS Swamp Spartans (3-4-0)

73 GroverBeach Quixotes (3-4-0)
49 Macau Marauders (3-3-1)

And the Old School triumphed over all. It was a bit of a pity to leave DeMarco Murray’s big day sitting on the bench, but when Arian Foster goes for 28, who needs another 253 yards rushing. I’d given up Week 8 for lost before the season even started, as four of my starters are on bye weeks this week, but thanks to some solid pickups, I should be all right if Christian Ponder can manage to throw for 200+2 against a weak Carolina passing defense in the absence of Aaron Rodgers.

As always, this is your open NFL thread. In addition to discovering if the Vikings have a real quarterback, it will be certainly interesting to see how the Christian survives the Lions.

Thomas Friedman blows a whistle

It’s interesting to see that even some stalwart liberal Democrats are beginning to see that this isn’t a Democrat-Republican problem:

Many Egyptians were convinced that they lived in a deeply unjust society where the game had been rigged by the Mubarak family and its crony capitalists. Egypt shows what happens when a country adopts free-market capitalism without developing real rule of law and institutions.

But, then, what happened to us? Our financial industry has grown so large and rich it has corrupted our real institutions through political donations. As Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, bluntly said in a 2009 radio interview, despite having caused this crisis, these same financial firms “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they, frankly, own the place.”

Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery. One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street.

I came up with a better term for the evil alliance between Washington and Wall Street in the column that will run tomorrow. The Washington-Wall Street Axis of Oligarchy is the real enemy of both the Tea Party Republicans and the Occupy Wall Street Democrats. And both the TP and OWS will have to give up their delusion of Republicans/Democrats good, Democrats/Republicans bad before anything positive is even possible.

I am nearly certain it is too late for any curative measures already. The contraction is already well underway, while risis and collapse appears to be guaranteed. The only serious question is when it will occur in an unmistakable manner. But even if that is the case, it’s still worthwhile helping people understand the true source of the trouble.

The secret of Herman Cain

Steve Sailer ponders the conundrum of Herman Cain’s mysterious appeal to Republican voters:

How can some random corporate executive emerge from nowhere? It’s almost as mysterious as how some random state legislator / part time law school lecturer can rise to the White House in a few years. Maybe Cain and Obama have something in common? It’s crazy to think that, I know, but there’s something about the two of them that seems similar. But what could it be?

Well, they both said “The Godfather” was their favorite movie. Which makes me wonder. Shouldn’t it be at least a little troubling that an individual who really, really likes a movie about corruption and the violent acquisition of power wants to be president? I mean, would you feel comfortable voting for someone who said his favorite movie was Saw, especially if he went into great detail explaining why Saw 3 was his particular favorite in the series?

Okay, I would probably be tempted to vote for such a candidate on that basis alone. But to return to the subject, it would appear that most Americans are far more concerned about obtaining a get-out-of-racism free card than they are about the economy. Still, it’s not Cain’s appealing blackness that is the problem, it is his banksterism, which like his blackness, is in excess of Obama’s.

As for Romney, a Mormon isn’t going to win. Southern Christians don’t vote for cultists. They may not vote for Obama either, but they’ll certainly be willing stay home even if it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVER again.