November 20th, 2009

#1819: Climatology != science

Hacked e-mails apparently reveal global warming fraud.
Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause."

According to the Australian Investigate magazine, the 62 megabyte Zip file with documents, e-mail exchanges and other information from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit apparently was posted by an unidentified hacker on a Russian web server.

One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

"And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."
Remember: if you have to play tricks to make the numbers come out right, you're not doing science.

* * *

"Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out", says the headline of this Spiegel piece, but it's really not all that difficult to figure out if you consider the sunspot data. "Climatologists" don't consider the sun (and its variability) an important factor in global climate.

Michelle Malkin on the same story.

* * *

The Anchoress assumes that the "stagnation" of global warming will be attributed to Kyoto and the recession. WTF, these guys have already shown us that they don't care about real data, and the press certainly treats everything they say as gospel, so expect that to become the party line in 2-5 years.

* * *

Speaking of the sun, it really appears to be starting up now: we've had three sunspots in the last 10 days, which is more than the entire preceding month. I'm betting that the extended minimum is drawing to a close now, though it's going like the sun is suddenly going to sprout dozens of freckles; expect the sunspot count to slowly ramp up over the next couple of years.

* * *

There's also been a lot of meteor activity in the past couple of weeks. A huge fireball exploded over Colorado, with an approximate force of 1 kiloton of TNT (2,000,000 lbs!). It turned night to noon for a moment, too.

This evening I saw a fireball: it was headed approximately west, bright green, with a terminal explosion. It was bright enough that I saw it from the corner of my eye first, and it lasted long enough that I had time to turn and watch the end of it.

Seems as if there's been quite a bit of large meteor activity lately--"large" in this context meaning on the order of inches in diameter--and I can't help but wonder why that is?

* * *

Don't make me laugh! Obama says "there is a chance" he might not run in 2012. Yeah, sure! There's also a "chance" that I'll win the PowerBall jackpot.

But it's not the way to bet.

* * *

How does gold selling at $6,300 per ounce grab you?[In the 1960s] the price rose to levels that matched the US dollar monetary base (it reached 140pc at the peak). If that were to occur today after Ben Bernanke’s go at the printing press, gold would have to reach $6,300 an ounce. The US owns 263 [million] ounces of gold while the Fed’s monetary base is $1.7 trillion. Simple equation.</blockquote>It would also mean $20 Big Macs and gas at $25 per gallon, you know, but what the hell....

* * *

Well, Smallville is over for the year; new eps resume January 22.

* * *

I've got to comment on FlashForward a bit.

Okay, so that doctor who was going to commit suicide just as the flash-forward happened--Bryce?--his flash forward was about meeting a Japanese woman.

The Japanese woman turns out to be named "Keiko", and that's what I'm taking exception to. American show has a Japanese woman in it, chances are her name is "Keiko"--I've seen it and seen it, and I've just about had it with the overuse of the name.


* * *

Today I got a long-delayed haircut. And it was, shall we say, "interesting".

The woman who cut my hair was from Bosnia or some other crotobaltislavonian country, and when I told her that I wanted my sideburns cut back to my hairline, she took out the clippers and began close-cropping behind my ear. She obviously didn't understand what I had meant.

The end result is that she had to layer my hair with the clipper, doing a type of haircut which I have never had before: long on top, very short around the back and sides. It's not an unpopular cut, but it's not what I was originally after when I went for a haircut.

That's not to say I'm upset about it; it's not a crew cut or anythihng. It looks fine, and that's all I really care about. WTF, with it this short I won't have to have another hair cut for six months or more.

It's just not what I was expecting, is all.

Anyway, I'm not angry about it. I think the woman thought I was, but I gave her about a 20% tip ($13 haircut, I tip $3, $2.60 would be 20%) so maybe that made her feel better, and maybe it just confused her. I do know that it's not hard for me to make people think I'm really angry, even when I'm smiling, so WTF.

I'm going to be saving a bit on shampoo for a while, though. The hair on the back of my head is about 1/2" at its longest. It's not a crew cut, but it's close; and on top it's longer, around 2" or so.

We'll see how I like it.