Climategate – the pre-prequel
by m ( 42 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Guest Post, Science at November 29th, 2009 - 7:30 pm
| Guest post by our very own: Snork!
|
|
The further you dig, the more signs there are that this seminal event (climategate) was inevitable for a long time coming. I was just reading Eisenhower’s famous farewell address. This is, of course, famous for the bit taken out of all context about the “military-industrial complex”. The entire address can be found here.
After he talks about the military industrial complex, which was not a warning about capitalism, but a warning about crony capitalism, he goes on to say:
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
This was delivered in 1961. President Eisenhower foresaw this train wreck that was to occur 48 years later. He warned us.
-snork
|
► Hot Links
Tags: climategate, snork
This entry was posted
on Sunday, November 29th, 2009 at 19:30 and is filed under Blogmocracy, Guest Post, Science.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.
Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.
We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.
Play nice!
Firstysecondythird….
second!
I can’t believe the nasty atmosphere and humourless climate at LGF. The more this AGW debate goes on the more CJ loses it. So many posts sneered at and trashed. Thank you guys for providing a better place to go.
He certainly did!
Thanks for this post, Snork!
Wow, Ike really nailed it.
In Copenhagen in 1995, at the so-called Social Summit, there were huge demonstrations organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings – from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don’t expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences. The West thought that it had won the Cold War in 1990. They were wrong. The Marxist left just went underground ,completed their infiltrated the institutions and governments of the West, begun in the 1970s, and emerged as a governing elite. No H – bombs were needed as the red tide flowed over the democracies of the West, and began ‘white-anting’ the very foundations of democracy from within.
We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine. It started differently.
The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas — the scare of global famine, the population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes — that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods. Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and — without waiting for its confirmation — started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.
Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won’t carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences). I don’t see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future… We should not deceive ourselves. A cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a “market solution.” This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don’t think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new Fabian leftist utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: so called salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.
Damn typos!
infiltrated = infiltration of
reposting this from lower thread
‘Botch after botch after botch’
Leaked ‘climategate’ documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science
The file — 274 pages long — describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.
The computer coding, along with the programmer’s apparently unsuccessful efforts to complete the project, involve data that are the foundation of the study of climate change — recordings from hundreds of weather stations around the world of temperature and precipitation measurements from 1901 to 2006, sun/cloud computer simulations, and the like.
PRESUMABLY PRECISE
These presumably precise data are the backbone of climate science
As you read the programmer’s comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says
“But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless …” (Page 17)
- “It’s botch after botch after botch.” (18)
- “The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the network died … no explanation from anyone, I hope it’s not a return to last year’s troubles … This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.” (31)
- “Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.” (37)
- “… this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!” (45)
- “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)
- “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)
- “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)
- “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ‘supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)
- “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)
- “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)
read the whole thing
An apt description of LGF, from CJ himself:
brownpaperkid wrote:
I seriously can’t understand why any sane person would visit LGF. The atmosphere is caustic, nasty and evil and when I chance my arm and drop in for a quick look at who is trashing whom, I emerge exhausted by the venom, and feel like I need a shower!
@ rain of lead:
so when all else fails…..make shit up!
@ Aussie Infidel:
But will the new Aristocrats of the Oligarchy let us poor peons have a vote???
repost from bottom of last thread:
I was finally able to put a finger on what bothers me most reading LGF nowadays-it is the sheer level of contempt shown for anything conservative, the guilt-by-association brush used to smear anyone who no longer buys leftist talking points. The twisting of information to support talking points. Reading it produces the same feelings as having a political discussion with a rabid liberal who ignores any information that contradicts him/ her and then personally attacks you for having a different point of view.
The old LGF was not like that. I keep wondering if:
1) Charles sold the blog and someone else is actually “Charles” now.
2) Charles fell and hit his head during a ride.
3) Charles had a conservative significant other who broke his heart.
4) Charles has a moonbat significant other currently.
I know I must be nutty as squirrel shit for even visiting LGF but it’s like watching a slow motion wreck. You just can’t seem to tear your eyes off it!
nite all
@ rain of lead:
This one sums it all up:
lobo91 wrote:
Charles will now be forced to think evil thoughts about you, maybe even send a faithful troutburgler after you…
@ rain of lead:
And yet liberals – who believe in AGW – are adamant that torture should not be used to get a the truth.
Google “Climategate”: 12,800,000 hits
That’s up 1,800,000 since yesterday.
Not going away.
Opiliofact™.
OT: If this was discussed on Blogmocracy earlier, I missed it. Congrats to Switzerland on banning additional minarets:
Swiss Approve Constitutional Ban on Mosque Minarets
doriangrey wrote:
Only until they can complete their machinations. Then they will have both the technology and the regulations in place to prevent a roll back of their nefarious plans.
Best make the most of your vote whilst you still have it. I feel some serious vote stacking in the wind! The Democrats are just getting into their stride stacking votes with folks that have been dead for years and illegals whom will vote for the party that allows them unopposed access to the tax base.
The Left can’t breed enough votes (because they kill off their replacements through abortion) so it has to import its future support base from elsewhere. THAT’S why the US borders remain open!
@ Overlook:
How about if, instead of closing Gitmo, we use it to hold the rat bastards who were behind this scam?
I’ll volunteer to go down there and waterboard them myself.
@ Opilio:
LGF will go away before Climategate does.
Opilio wrote:
Charles probably looks like the ROTC idiot (Kevin Bacon) at the end of Aminal House right now yelling All is well…
@ doriangrey:
@ lobo91:
I do think that there should be a special place for scientists who cook the books. Bring back the stocks so we can throw rotten eggs at them. How about a public stripping of their doctorates. Their scrolls should be ripped up, their mortarboards stomped upon.
@ Overlook:
Their lab coats burned and their hybrids/bicycles crushed…
Has there been any response yet from Ludwigvanquixote yet?
Has the “peer review” stalwart entered the fray? Has he told anyone to “look at the data”?
Overlook wrote:
I got Ludwigvanquixote’s Peer-Review right here…
@ doriangrey:
…emphatically their hybrids crushed!
Ludwigs custodians took away his laptop. http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/facilities/crpc/facility.htm
From Powerline…see the bolded section
The scientific method isn’t what it used to be
Share Post PrintNovember 29, 2009 Posted by Paul at 8:59 PM
I confess to being less of a “global warming skeptic” than I believe my fellow Power Liners, John and Scott, are. But I become pretty skeptical pretty quickly when I read that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) – the ones whose email correspondence reveals less than a solid commitment to honesty in science – have admitted that much of the raw data upon which their conclusions regarding global warming over the past 150 years are based was thrown out by the CRU. They claim that the documents were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Without the underlying data, other scientists cannot check the work that gives rise to the CRU’s findings of a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. As the Times of London points out, these findings “are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.”
In the law, the discovery of this sort of intentional document destruction would quite likely give rise to some form of “adverse inference instruction,” wherein the judge would instruct or encourage the jury to assume that the discarded evidence was harmful to the case of the party that destroyed it. I might be hesitant to apply this logic to the world of scientific inquiry were it not for the fact that the CRU scientists have demonstrated as little regard for honest adjudication of their position as your run-of-the-mill spoliator of evidence.
To be sure, the current head of the CRU was not in charge when the data were thrown away in the 1980s. Moreover, climate change was not such a heavily politicized issue in those days.
Still, Roger Pielke, the Colorado professor who asked for the records, is quite correct when he says that the CRU is basically insisting that we trust it, a demand that’s inconsistent with the scientific method for resolving debates.
One need not be a hard-core global warming skeptic to question whether we should alter the way we live in response to predictions based on findings that cannot be checked because the raw data was intentionally destroyed by the outfit that made the findings.
@ livefreeor die:
I think it was the case that he was always a little lefty, except for the 9/11 wake up call. After that, he probably vacilated for awhile, trying to be open minded, but as the threat of Islam faded (from memory, anyway) collaborating with the commenters who largely disagreed with him, especially on religion & evolution, began to bother him more and more, and he would no longer look past differences for the sake of collaboration against Jihad. Hence so many posts on other topics.
I believe that the global warming flip-flop came as he fought against creationism, and since Warming is where he felt the balance of scientists lie, he sided with them full tilt to give the creationists one less angle from which to “attack” science–well, from which to do it on his blog, anyway.
Of course, this Inquisitor for the high church of scientists fails to understand that forcing something to be actually demonstrated to have reliable predictive powers is not an attack, but support of science. In the same way that a buisiness might dislike its competitors but everyone benefits from competition in the free enterprise system.
@ Eliana:
The Swiss have always been fiercely independent and have attempted to maintain neutrality throughout their country’s existence. They are also a fairly homogeneous society, so it is not a surprise they would take a stand like this. Someone has to push back, maybe this is a good sign.
@ AZfederalist:
Yes – I think it’s a very good sign that the Swiss has changed their constitution to prevent additional minarets from being built!!
Minarets in particular are intrusive to western societies. They blast their calls to prayer so that everyone in the area ends up hearing it.
There’s no excuse for it in the age of cell phones and watches with alarms.
I’m happy that the Swiss pushed back!
@ Aussie Infidel:
One of the things that was great about LGF back during its heyday was the community feeling. Whether it was Realwest, Reaganite, Sarah D, or litterally doezens of others, there was always someone there that I couol dtalk to that actually cared about me. And I am just one example. We had the prayer list, we had each other. That is gone from there now. When I scan the comments, it is all back-biting and viciousness. You come away with the impression that none of those people like each other (except Jimmah and Iceweasel).
The community isn’t gone. We’ve just moved elsewhere.
Hi kids, wait till you all see the post I have coming up in 4 minutes…
@ Eliana:
Wow Cato gets it! He’s the voice of reason over at the cesspool!
* 0
* down
* up
* report
re: #438 Dark_Falcon
I get it and I’m not against existing zoning laws blocking construction of a minaret. But what the Swiss did was a blanket ban. Such an act will likely be taken by Muslims as a slap across the face and that is not a good thing. Al Qaeda will use this to recruit and raise money.
Al Qaeda uses the existence of Mickey Mouse to recruit and raise money.
And personally, I think it’s about time someone gave Muslim arrogance a slap across the face.
@ Rodan:
Cool!
Minarets are noise pollution!
Who would accept the idea of people building rock music towers all over a city so that they could blast rock music all over the area three times per day?
It’s intrusive and we can’t live our lives in fear that if we hurt their feelings then they will suicide bomb us for it. If Muslims in general are this barbaric, then additional steps should be taken against them in western countries.
It also shows that even Switzerland worries about becoming an Islamic state (and that they know that this is the Muslim intention).
We can’t sink into the abyss of Muslim dictatorships all over the west without a fight – and the fight is definitely going to tick them off! We have to fight them anyway!
@ Opilio:
Currently at: Results 1 – 10 of about 13,600,000
Nilla wrote:
Oddly, when you do the search from http://www.google.com, you still only get 12,800,000. When you search from http://www.google.ca, you get 13,700,000.
Hmmmmmmmm.
@ Opilio:
If I run a search by highlighting “climategate” in firefox, it returns 13,600,000. If I run a straight search from google.com, it returns 13,500,000.
Seems a bit odd….