Thursday 24 September 2009

Mis-Communicating The Science - How can we do it better?

We all know so-called "science" coming from political organizations like NASA is a pack of lies. So to help the public we need to mis-communicate such "science". Ie tough to be kind.

Yet the issues involved in science mis-communication are complex and often seem intractable. We've seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (State Of Fear, The Great Global Warming Swindle) and which won't ( is a tricky call.

I spend many a night thinking how better to mis-communicate the science. It is a big problem that can't simply be solved by throwing another Heartland Institute Climate Conference as much as we all love them.

No we almost need to rethink our strategy and given Blog Science's track record of daring the impossible and generally winning that dare, I guess we are the ones to do it.

The Problem

The problem is that the liberal public have an ill-founded regard for socio-organizations like NASA and the NOAA. We have the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine but surprisingly few people have heard of it.

To mis-communicate the science better we need to dilute these organizations. So far we've relied on deriding their people while promoting ours, a strategy that if in geometric form would surely look like a Wedge.

Thinking Inside the Box

If you take "thinking outside the box" to it's logical conclusion you realize all the best ideas must be inside the box where no-one expects. And why do people assume everyday thinking is constrained by a box anyway? Why not a sphere or a pyramid or even a 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube? These are some of the questions we dare to ask.

Suggestions For Remedying the problem

Here are some suggestions I have been sent for how we can better mis-communicate the science. I appeal to everyone to come up with more suggestions and add them in the comments. 

The first suggestion I received was from a warmist going by the name of "tim". The actual suggestion was over a paragraph long and so I have had to remove quite a few words to conserve space while maintaining the meaning:

"One method would involve you guys actually publishing arguments to something you might have heard of called "Peer Review" rather than blogs ... I ... am ... [a] liars [(sic)]"

Well first "tim", thanks for your suggestion but may I suggest that you first read up on what peer review actually is before criticizing Blog Science? In fact don't bother, reading up is always a waste of time when I can tell you. "peer review" (it's lower case not capitalized) means your work is paraded up and down in front of a panel of UN appointed bureaucrats who won't even look at it if it doesn't suggest higher taxes and an end to the US economy. Also "tim", as a warmist you didn't provide your full name and home address in accordance with my Blog Respect Policy. You've overstepped the mark and so I am giving you a 2 week ban from this Blog. I hope you will spend the time wisely reconsidering your worldview, although I expect you will squander it.

Remember that unlike warmist sites such as "realclimate" and "rabbet run" I never ban people except when I do. Therefore manmade global warming must be a myth.

Anyway with that administration work out of the way lets move on to a far better suggestion  from young 33 year old Sarah from Alaska (no not that Sarah, wrong age and besides that Sarah would never use such a crude word as "erect"):

"Why not erect mock organizations shadowing the ones environmentalists depend on? I propose they be named identically but for a preceding 'non' to signify our disgust at their views. For example we would set up the NNSIDC, the 'Non-National Snow and Ice Data Center' and NNOAA, the 'Non-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'"

That's a great suggestion Sarah! You have thought it all through really hard and deserve a pat on the head. 

Several of my male readers however will probably pick up on a few problems with this suggestion. I am afraid that simply putting the word "non" in front of the names of organizations couldn't possibly convince anyone. It's certainly not the kind of behavior skeptics could be seen engaging in. For one thing who would fund such a campaign? Certainly not Big Oil who have reputations to uphold.

The next thoughtful suggestion comes from Terrance Jones who scrapes together a "living" in the UK, a vassal of Socialist Europe:

"Can we not get some young conservative blokes to infiltrate academia, work their way to the top and finally take it down from the inside?"

This is certainty a good idea but I am afraid the attrition rate may be too high. If those professors are good at one thing (they aren't) it's indoctrinating youth and educating them stupid.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can better miscommunicate the science? What do you think? Send me your wild thoughts in the comments below.

Monday 21 September 2009

Climate Modeling. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Pacman or GISS Model E? There is an analogy in there somewhere. Perhaps the ghosts are auditors and Pacman is a so-called "scientist" chasing and feeding off government funding grants. The big dots are IPCC award dinners.

As a Blogger I am uniquely placed to independently audit the role and application of computers in climate science. My expertize goes further though. I put together my home computer network with very little help from so-called IT "professionals" . I am fluent in the HTML programming language and have used the Ebay auctioning World Wide Web Internet Site on a number of occasions. I have also personally defeated the Chessmaster 3000. So I am a self-taught computer expert, sure, but enough of my CV, what about the wisdom I can offer you the reader?

A Brief Introduction to Fundamentals of the Computer (AKA Computer Science)

What is a computer? A computer is a tool. I am a lot like a computer; I can read fonts, perform arithmetic, etc. But computers don't understand politics or emotions. They can't understand when they are being misused by the UN to raise taxes for example. At least not yet, my knowledge of computers and futurology leads me to believe that by 2020 most computers will simply refuse to process false data.

So what does GIGO mean? It means "Garbage in Garbage out". To summarize a very complex and advanced concept, GIGO means if you feed bad numbers into the computer you will get bad numbers coming out. You can only get good output out if you put good input in. And if you put fiddled numbers into a computer what do you get out? Temperature records and so-called "climate models". Warmists rely on this quirk of computers to fabricate their false results.

For this reason computers should be used sparingly in science. By science I am of course referring to Real Science, not the modern "mainstream" corrupt version. Real science is universally recognized to involve real world experiments which anyone can understand. The kind that involve big instruments with straight forward names that do straight forward things. For example a thermometer, a telescope, a drill, an axe. From Newton to Galileo to Ernst Beck, real scientific progress has been made by scientists without resorting to computers to do their thinking for them. The use of computers in science is only justified in a few select cases:

  • To control scientific instruments (eg control a big telescope, display the output of a thermometer, activate an axe)

  • Drawing graphs of raw data (eg Excel, but this program can also be misused to "adjust" data)

  • Blogging (eg Blogspot, Wordpress)

Warmists however will tell you that computers can be used to prove things, that computers have mind of their own and "think" up new ideas and analyze existing ones. This is a strawman and completely wrong. Here are some things computers should not be used for:

  • Adjusting data.

  • Performing arithmetic. This is just lazy and introduces the possibility of something in computer science called User Error. The correct method is to write all your working out on paper, or if you must - use a calculator. This also helps with auditing.

  • Modeling. Computers cannot analyze ideas, it is folly to think the human mind is less capable than a machine in this regard.

Three Reasons Why Climate Cannot be Modeled

  1. Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory says the climate cannot be modeled unless the behavior of butterflies is taken into account (or anything of a similar size). As climate models cannot even take the behavior of entire countries into account, the whole concept of climate modelling is falsified by Chaos Theory. 

  2. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If we cannot even be certain where one particle is, how can we be certain of the position of clouds?

  3. Another reason that climate cannot be modeled is that the climate is just too complex for man to even comprehend, although admittedly I have come very close on a number of occasions.
The History of Climate Models

The early 1980s
In the early 1980s, cutting edge research on computer programming languages such as COBOL and FORTRAIN convinced researchers that virtual worlds could be simulated in computer code. "Computer modeling", as it later became known, would become the basis of a thriving video game industry providing entertainment (I use that word loosely) for kids. Some of the children weaned on video games would inevitably grow up to become the next generation of socialists and so it was only a matter of time until the technology was against us to raise taxes and damage the economy of the free world. The chosen method of the time was to use environmental issues as a proxy for the Soviet agenda [1]

The late 1980s
First to the plate was a little known environmental activist named James Hansen. A NASA employee at the time, Hansen wrote a video simulation of climate to claim an ice age was imminent. This claim subsequently melted as the real world confounded such simplistic notions by embarking on a natural warming cycle caused entirely by the Sun (not co2). In an effort to cover this up, environmentalists turned instead to apocalyptic claims that the warming was not natural and would wipe out life on Earth. The IPCC was born.

The early 1990s
The early 1990s saw a new computer operating system known as Linux emerge in the Soviet Union. It's goal was nothing short of establishing communism as the basis of software engineering by insisting that software should be free. Linux was launched in early 1991 to socialist acclaim, but thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union and to a counter-attack by Microsoft's launch of Windows 3.1 in 1992, Linux never became a popular operating system. Once again the communist ideology was shown to fail in a Free Market system.

Linux still exists to this day, largely under the socialist inspired codename "Red hat". This operating system is used primarily today as a software piracy platform used by hackers drawn by it's promise of free source codes and lack of digital rights management. But it's secondary role is as a necessary prop for climate modeling.

It is perhaps possible that Climate Models using a certified Microsoft Windows Vista operating system would be largely immune to the figure-fiddling, number-fudging, adjustment-making of so-called "scientists". I don't know the intricacies of particular operating systems and their digital rights management support, but I do know that in the early 1990s a new wave of socialist "scientist" was fashioned in the dying embers of the Soviet Union. The dawn of the so-called "climate modeler". Working under the glare of socialist environmental organizations and with abundant funding from the British Government [1] these "climate modelers" would claim that computers proved warming was caused by man and more taxes were needed to stop it. Meanwhile the globe was warming. Slight warming since the 70s was being caused entirely by SOI and ENSO (not co2).

The early 2000s
Even though Hansen's earlier 1988 prediction was of global cooling, he nevertheless put in a contingency plan - a Y2K bug which would go off in the year 2000 and result in 1998 to be the warmest year in history. Despite this attempt the ruse was spotted by Blog Scientists and a forced correction was made so that the actual warmest year on record is now 1934. Meanwhile the modest warming since the 70s caused entirely by GCR induced cloud changes (not co2) suddenly ended. Around the same time the politician "Al" "Gore" flew onto the scene in his jumbo jet with his "documentary", An Inconvenient "Truth".

The Sorry State Of Climate Modeling Today

Climate modeling today is in flux. The IPCC climate model has been falsified dozens of times. Let me unleash some words: Water, air, earth, wind, clouds, waves, ice, tides, sand, snow, grass, north, south, east, west, biological reproduction, earthquakes. It is not clear which, if any of these words are included in the so-called "climate models" and yet all of them are part of our Earth and therefore part of our climate. If I don't know what models contain how can we trust them to correctly predict future climate?

My Demands

  1. I hereby demand the IPCC rewrite it's climate model in a modern programming language such as Visual Basic or Java Script for auditing purposes.

  2. I hereby demand all data files held on IPCC computers are released immediately to wordpress and blogspot so they can be directly accessed by Blog Scientists.

If my demands are not met I may be forced to obtain this data through Freedom of Information requests and YouTube Takedowns.


Tuesday 15 September 2009


This is the first entry of a glossary I will be compiling in response to the so-called "RealClimate" "Comprehensive climate glossary"

RealClimate is an alarmist website headed by an interesting picture of a giant orange sun warming the Earth. But look closely and you will see giant chimneys the size of small planets looming over the Earth's atmosphere. No such planet sized chimneys actually exist as far as we know (NASA confirms this), so such an image paints a false reality

I advise anyone with a nervous disposition to avoid reading the RealClimate "climate glossary". I myself have a stout heart but nevertheless I almost choked on my breakfast when I read the first entry on Aerosols and stumbled across the alarming word "anthropogenic" which had been recklessly placed in the midst of an otherwise harmless sentence. To think that children might innocently stumble across such material.

Realclimate describe an Aerosol as "A collection of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 ┬Ám and residing in the atmosphere for at least several hours. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin."

But just how do they know these airborne solids stay in the atmosphere for "at least several hours"? If you spray a can of deodorant in a fair sized locker room and come back just 30 minutes later the smell will have gone. This is a real world experiment and one which I have performed.

With such flaws in mind I decided to write a corrected climate glossary with up to date Blog Science definitions. The first entry is..


sometimes referred to as Natural Cycles

A Cycle is a kind of quasi-mystical non-explanation for climate events unfolding around us which we can invoke to explain away any climate change as natural. 

If glaciers are melting, sea ice is declining, temperature is going up and sea level is increasing, well that's just part of a Natural Cycle out of the last ice age and of course we expected that to happen. If the opposite happens and it starts getting colder, glaciers and sea ice start growing, sea ice starts increasing and sea level is dropping, well that's also expected because a Natural Cycle moves in mysterious ways.

Cycles can also be used to predict the future. If the climate is warming it's almost certainly going to cool soon and if it's cooling there is almost certainly going to be a devastating ice age down the line and we should prepare for it by reducing taxes. 

Cycles keep us on our toes and put a few dozen nails in the coffin of manmade global warming at the same time. Some cycles have names, for example PDO, AMO, the unstoppable 1500-year cycle [1] (which recently stopped), the carbon cycle, the accelerating Heartland Climate Conference cycle, and so on. Other cycles remain unknown. It's these invisible unknown cycles that we can blame for climate change when all else fails.

I remember when we marveled at our ignorance of nature and didn't pretend to try to understand it all. Those were the good old days when men would respect Cycles in nature. So-called "scientists" in their lavish towering laboratories made of fine ivory could learn a thing or two about climate from fishermen and farmers who live by Natural Cycles. These are Real People living in the Real World with Real Jobs and Real Concerns about taxes.

Anyway I am rambling now. So concludes the glossary entry for cycles.


Saturday 12 September 2009

Respect Policy

My last paper recieved a few comments, one querying the Respect Policy of this blog:

"I assume that Inferno's policy is similar to that of Professor Watts..

Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles and no name get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion. "

Well I am not familar with this Professor Watts and in fact my respect policy is even stronger than the above. This goes for warmists only, skeptics already have by respect.

It's important to remember that in Blog Science your name is as important, if not more important, than your arguments. If there's a problem with your identity there's automatically going to be a way for me to dismiss your argument.

Problems with your identity might include:
  1. Working for or being in someway associated with "acedemia" in which case you are just trying to defend your funding stream.
  2. Having a so-called "degree" (same as above)
  3. Having a name that sound a bit liberal (French names, etc), ie you are hoping for a return to communism.
This is why I need to know your identity in order to be sure you aren't hiding any such skeletons. Additionally use of "cryptic handles" may imply association with the Climatati or other such nefarious underground organizations.

So I demand warmists not only use their full and real name on this blog if they want respect, but also that they provide the full names of their immediate family. Don't worry I won't use this information for anything other than digging up dirt on them and their families in order to discredit their arguments.

As a plus side by using your real full name your posts will become permanently recorded into the google search engine, meaning past, present and future aquaintances will all be able to google your name and see everything you do online in your free time without you knowing. Who on earth could have a problem with that?

Skeptics are handled a little differently. You don't need to use your real name, but if you do and have any associations with acedemia this increases your respect.

Friday 11 September 2009

Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

August 2009 Arctic Sea Ice data is just in and it's another nail in the coffin of AGW. Ice is just refusing to melt and continues the pattern of severe growth of recent years. Are we headed into another Ice Age?

Please send this to your senators and congressmen so they will have true information to base decisions on. Perhaps just as they are about to pass some Death Taxes they will see this graph and realize "hang on a second! we're being lied to!"


In the comments section someone asks "I'm not a scientist. could you explain why the chart is tilted at an angle? Also, does the blue line show that median(?) ice extent has declined by 2 million sq km since 1978?"

I have just done what the alarmists do and defined a base-line (the grey horizontal line). Alarmists always choose flat base-lines, but they never reference a paper from a statistics journal to justify this choice ("climate science" is sloppy like this).

I decided to use a sloped base-line instead, in which case the graph must be tilted at an angle to align it correctly. The blue line is heading upwards relative to the baseline so this data cannot possibly be interpretted as a "decline" in sea ice.

Remember to apply your blog science skills and question everything. Question, for example, the conventional "wisdom" that says y-axes must go vertically and x-axes horizonally.Why should time go horizontally and extent go vertically? Remember that actual ice extent is a measure of the horizontal spread of sea ice, so in many respects by making the Y-axis more horizontal I have displayed the data in a more correct manner than so-called "phd scientists" do.

Thursday 10 September 2009

Where's the warming?

Where is the warming? I have truth aligned the above graph in complex ways that you might not understand.

Let me explain

The warmists use something called an "anomaly" on the Y-axis, an arbitary choice, but one which I decided to follow. However the alarmists only plot a Y-axis range of about 2 degrees C wheras I plotted the full 20 degrees of temperature range on the Y-axis. This is more typical of the daily temperature cycle and so more realistic.

I used the hadcrut surface record rather than rely on one of the suspiciously "adjusted" and biased satellite records. I also avoided drawing the plot in red as that assigns unnecessary weight and significance to it.

Looks very flat doesn't it? Where's the warming. Is there any? I can't tell. We might never know. Doubt.

How Alarmists Fake Graphs

So how do alarmists exaggerate upward trends at the end of graphs? Well they scale down the Y-axis to a ridiculous level. Let me show you the same trick they apply elsewhere. Below I have plotted global population as an alarmist might plot it:

Notice the apparent hockey-stick shape? The alarming upward curve at the end? This is the population "explosion" graph that alarmists go on and on about.

But here is the same data which I have truthed aligned using blog science principles:

Where's the alarming population rise now?

Remember that lower population is far worse than higher population. Higher population has always been associated with prosperity whereas lower population is associated with black plague and maunder minimums and the Thames freezing over.

Relevant Links:

Image 9: