For future reference

Atheists and evolutionists should keep this quote in mind the next time they wish to make an appeal to what an overwhelming majority of scientists believe:

The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the global warming is real and the result of human activity, but a vocal majority maintains that the science is not proven.

It’s not clear whether the journalist meant to write “minority” in referring to scientists or if he is referring to the majority of the non-scientific public, since either interpretation would be correct. Regardless, if anthropogenic global warming is subsequently proven to be real, then those who believe there is no God or believe in evolution by natural selection can quite reasonably argue that the opinion of the unscientific masses on the matter should be at least somewhat influenced by the opinion of the self-appointed scientific elite. If, however, it is subsquently proven to be false, any attempt to argue that the unscientific masses should pay any attention whatsoever to the latest way the winds of scientific consensus are blowing can and should be ridiculed.

60 percent and make it tight

That’s the ideal covered/uncovered ratio. It is science:

Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up. However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse…. The study, published in the journal Behaviour, found that the most popular women combined the 40 per cent rule with tight clothing and provocative dancing. The 15 per cent that combined all three criteria were approached by 40 men each.

That sounds reasonable enough. I tend to prefer something more on the order of 65 percent visible myself, but then, I’m not as easily threatened by the thought of competition as most men are. And, of course, it also depends upon the shape of that which is being exposed to the light; there are terrible forms better suited to mad Lovecraftian visions than night clubs that no man wants to see uncovered.

And it’s good that the researchers picked up on the tight thing. I am still amazed that women in the early 90s thought the baggy grunge look worked for any of them. You’d think they would have noticed that the man who popularized it married Courtney Love. All that oversized and baggy clothes do is make a woman look fat and insecure, even when she isn’t.

The great backpedal begins

A paleontologist and global warming activist openly admits That Which Was Not Supposed To Ever Be Mentioned:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

No, really? In other words, ah, the science isn’t exactly, um, settled. It actually is pointing in, well, precisely the opposite direction from what we’ve been saying all along. Which, of course, is what skeptics have been pointing out from the start.

Lord Monckton is characteristically forthright on the matter: The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures…. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years…. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

The reality is that you don’t actually need to know very much about science to detect scientific fraud. I would go so far as to argue that non-scientists will tend to be better at noticing scientific fraud than scientists, for what should be the obvious reason that scientists tend to possess a lower level of people skills than the average individual. This means that scientific con men tend to be rather clumsy and obvious compared to the non-scientific variety in in the act and the subsequent excuse-making, and it’s only because their fellow scientists are also so clueless about people that they are able to get away with as much as they do.

Of course, if you expect your science BS detector to work, it helps a great deal to not have your sense of identity ensconced in romantic notions of the sanctity of science and the inherently pure intentions of scientists.

The Sports Guy suspended… from Twitter

In case you weren’t already convinced that ESPN has gone mad with its market power:

ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons is serving an ESPN-imposed two-week suspension from Twitter, Steve Krakauer writes. ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King wrote a blog post on ESPN.com explaining the suspension, saying it was in reference to a recent Simmons tweet regarding WEEI. “We have internal guidelines designed to inform how we discuss the topic of sports media,” King writes. “These guidelines are important us, because they help maintain the credibility with which ESPN operates. No one knows the guidelines better than Bill Simmons, and he customarily works within these standards. . . . Regardless of the provocation, Bill’s communication regarding WEEI fell short of those standards. So we’ve taken appropriate measures.”

I wonder how long it will be before Simmons tells ESPN to take a hike. I suspect the suspension would have involved more than a two-week ban from Twitter if they weren’t afraid of his reaction. By the way, I should probably mention that WND hasn’t suspended me from Facebook, I just don’t find social networking as amenable as blogging.

The funny thing, beyond the intrinsic humor of someone being suspended from Twitter, is that you didn’t even have to click on the Instapundit link – “ESPN COLUMNIST SUSPENDED FROM TWITTER” – to know that it had to be Simmons.

The ultimate endorsement

Chuck Norris gives a thumbs up to RGD:

Thanks to Ron Paul and others, last Thursday a House panel decided to audit the Federal Reserve, finally providing some accountability to this financial runaway train that doles out billions to whomever it pleases. Even with this mandatory audit, however, the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations will still need to be reined in. I recommend two insightful and strategic books toward that goal: Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” and Vox Day’s “The Return of the Great Depression.”

On a tangential note, there is no theory of evolution. There is only a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

WND column

The Great Global Warming Fraud

I have an old T-shirt that I used to wear from time to time during my techno days with Psykosonik. Eric Bloodaxe of the Legion of Doom created it in honor of the “Hacking for Jesus” tour, complete with a listing of ISP addresses that were supposedly hacked during the LOD’s Internet World Tour of 1991. But last week, an anonymous hacker achieved a feat that will long be lionized by computer pirates, libertarians and genuine scientists alike, as he broke into the Climate Research Unit’s computers, copied 172 megs of data, and then released it into the digital wild.

Information wants to be free. And this information desperately needed to be freed.

UPDATE – In England, the CRU expose is now being described as “the greatest scandal in modern science“.

VPFL Week 10

102 Burns Redbeards (3-7)
39 Valders Valkyries (4-6)

72 Judean Front (8-2)
63 Masonville Marauders (5-5)

91 Winston Reverends (5-5)
72 Black Mouth Curs (4-6)

75 Bane Silvers (5-5)
61 Alamo City Spartans (7-3)

52 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-6)
42 Mounds View Meerkats (5-5)

The Meerkats are struggling with the collapse of the NYG defense, so I traded Greg Jennings to Greenfield for Steve Slayton and Larry Johnson. Yes, it’s a desperation move. The big mistake of the season so far? Picking up Mario Manningham when his fellow Giant Steve Smith was available. That one blunder cost me two games so far. Here’s hoping Burns exhausted its point potential for the year last week, and that the Vikes simply put in a solid, workmanlike performance, don’t get anyone hurt, and put the Seahawks away by the end of the third quarter.

VP-AFL

126.25 South Plains Storm (4-6)
112.00 Supernaut’s Jihad (4-6)

93.45 Hetero Frito Pie (5-5)
66.20 Lambs (2-8)

107.15 Lesbian Dorito Night (8-2)
75.15 COS Paper Tigers (3-7)

127.65 Cranberry Bogs (5-5)
79.00 The Thunder (6-4)

106.15 Brave Sir Robins (7-3)
72.85 Village Valkyries (6-4)

The cost of centralization

Daniel Hannan explains:

According to the Commissioner for Enterprise, Gunther Verheugen, the benefits of the single market are worth around 180 billion euros a year, while the cost of complying with Brussels rules is 600 billion euros. In other words, by its own admission, the EU costs more than it’s worth.

Keep that in mind the next time someone tries to pitch you on an “economies of scale” argument for centralizing power. If it involves bureaucracies rather than economic activity, you can rest assured that the costs of the centralization will run 3x the purported savings.

“Mission-oriented” global warming science

Well, the most recent AGW/CC unmasking certainly shows how the behavior of those pushing the great scientific fraud is nicely described by Michael Shermer’s concept of Darwin’s Dictum. Here’s a searchable archive of the infamous AGW/CC-related emails written by the con artists calling themselves “scientists” at the Climate Research Unit. As usual, the blogosphere is proving itself to be miles ahead of the mainstream media, who are still trying to ignore the giant woolly mammoth in the bathroom. There’s all sorts of stuff like this:

“I’ve got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989 paper, you will see that Jacoby “cherry-picked” the 10 “most temperature-sensitive” sites from 36 studied. I’ve done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other 26 sites have not been archived. I’ve written to Climatic Change to get them to intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his research is “mission-oriented” and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a “few good” series.

Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp� series, so essential to MBH98. I’ve seen a chronology using the new data, which looks completely different from the old data (which is a hockey stick). I’ve asked for the new data, but Jacoby-d’Arrigo have refused it saying that the old data is “better” for showing temperature increases. Need I comment? I’ve repeatedly asked for the exact location of the Gasp� site for nearly 9 months now (I was going to privately fund a re-sampling program, but Jacoby, Cook and others have refused to disclose the location.) Need I comment?”