No need to worry; I'll be going back tomorrow morning. It's just that call volume was so low today they sent 40 people home from the morning shift, and when I clocked in at 1:30 I was getting a call about every three minutes. The first round of trimming took place about 4:30 and I was one of the trimees.
Sunday and Monday, my number of calls handled suffered, because a) low call volume and b) idiots making my calls longer than they needed to be (looking at you, Ms. Starbucks-corporate-manager) which means my efficiency score took a kick in the tender spot--it was 77% and change today. Yeesh.
So I'll use my evening to accomplish a few chores around the bunker that I've been putting off, and then relaxing thereafter.
* * *
The usual Arse Technica apologia for the adjustering and fiddleation of climate data to fit the AGW premise explains that it must be done.
Well, of course it "must" be done. If it wasn't done, the data might show that warming hasn't happened for years.
It has, in fact, gotten to the point that 1997 is no longer a particularly hot year any longer. 1997 was the all-time hottest year on record, but to make each successive year the hottest year evah they've had to trim 1997 down to size. The result is to reduce the 1997 data by some three and a half degrees, because otherwise the data might show that temperatures hit a peak in 1997 and have either remained stable or declined since then. And we absolutely cannot have that because CO2 concentrations have risen steadily in the same time frame.
The Arse Technica article goes on to discuss all the techniques applied to the data to make it more accurate, but I have to wonder: if the adjusterations made to the data are meant to make it more accurate, how then does the data end up showing a perfectly monotonic trend? When you're measuring a chaotic system like the climate, real data series are not monotonic; there should be bumps and wiggles--in short, the temperature should go down sometimes, only it never does.
Unless you adjuster them out.
I especially like the chart which describes the new versus old corrections to the data. It very nicely overlays the old corrections with the new ones; this is supposed to demonstrate that the new corrections are largley the same as the old ones, which implies that they're not policially motivated. What the chart does not make plain, of course, is whether or not the adjustments are cumulative; if they are, it means that the 2010 data has been adjusted upward by about a degree, and the 1910 data has been adjusted down by about a degree...thus exaggerating a warming trend which may or may not exist in the raw data.
For some perspective, the experimental discovery of the Higgs boson—made possible by billions of dollars of government funding—wasn’t followed by subpoenas for researchers’ e-mails. And that update was slightly more significant than a barely perceptible revision of a chart.That's because the guys working the Higgs problem didn't have to worry about losing their grants if the Higgs didn't exist. Climatologists, on the other hand, depend on global warming research for their jobs.
And by the way, half a degree of adjustment is hardly "barely perceptible" when we're talking about an overall global anomaly of a degree or so. Only in climatology is a 50% adjustment considered "barely perceptible"; in real science that's called "making shit up."
"Scientists aren’t inventing global warming through adjustments." The hell they're not.
* * *
Here's an important memo to the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton needs to be indicted.
* * *
The other day, on my way to work, I saw a big car trailer advertising a business centered on Mustang and Ford performance vehicles.
...being pulled by a Dodge truck. Way to go, guys. *rolleyes*