SuperDuperFreakonomics

Global warming - Solved.

I recently discovered a book which finally puts manmade global warming to bed in a coffin and then nails the lid firmly shut. It's called SuperFreakonomics and it's written by Top Men who are bravely attempting to solve the world's problems through the medium of selling books. My worldview was immediately challenged by the image of an exploding apple on the cover. Most people would never expect an apple to actually explode like that. In many ways this book has all the qualities of Blog Science. It's almost like a blog written on paper with comments disabled.

The most important problem they solve is how to stick it to warmists. The solution they provide is to point out that even if co2 was a problem, we can solve that problem without raising taxes. All it would take is a smoke machine attached to a funnel. All the smoke would then be funneled up into the sky where it would block sunlight and offset any global warming. Oh and just to stick it to the warmists more, it turns out the best place in the world to put such a smoke machine is on top of scenically mined Alberta oil sands - so those will definitely need to be mined ASAP.

Any guess as to why the IPCC reports don't have a chapter on smoking the warming out of the atmosphere? Is it because smoke pipes, even long ones, cannot be taxed?

How did these SuperFreakonomics geniuses come up with such an off-the-wall solution to mythical global warming? I suspect they did so by ignoring the peer reviewed literature on the matter. This would enable them to successfully open their minds to wild possibilities and conclusions unconstrained by so-called "experts".

So congratulation to the Super Freakonomics guys, but they shouldn't get too cocky! Given my importance in the area of Blog Science I am very suprised they didn't contact me before publication. It's hard to imagine they haven't heard of this blog so what were they thinking? I wonder if they were inspired by my idea of using catapults to throw co2 into the stratosphere where it would become mixed with the ether of space?

Public service announcement: The liberals will want you to put your clocks back an hour this week. Please delay doing so as long as possible, we need to save as much daylight as possible this Hale winter.

Scientists admit the Sun is the only factor in climate - no need to raise taxes afterall!

A lone bird worries about the coming maunder minimum.

Breaking news from last year just in. Russian Scientists, known to be one of most credible types of scientist, have discovered that the Sun dominates the climate and published the following PDF to the Blog Review Process. As is typical with the Blog Review Process, it gets flagged through as a superb piece of science.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

I was stunned and amazed to hear this news. To think we are privileged to live in 2009 AD, the most important year so far in climate science - the year in which a Russian scientist finally proved we don't need more taxes.

This is not merely a relatively unknown scientist publishing a PDF full of rehashed ideas. No this is a groundbreaking moment. Galileo and Einstein have finally been superseded. 

When I saw Figure 6 I literally spat coffee all over the keyboard I was so impressed. Lines all draw in parallel fashion with timelines and numbers. Very impressive. Concerns the amount of ice I believe. Ice has gone up since 2007 and the Sun has gone down. Cannot be a coincidence. Just cannot!

Not only does he put a final nail in the coffin of Alarmism, but he also sounds the alarm that we are descending into a catastrophic cold period.

The Yamal Fraud - I Have Found It

One of the most disquieting images ever presented at Denial Depot. If you are afraid of harrowing diagrams look away now.

I thought I better do a post about Yamel before the bandwagon skips town, so here it is.

What are the technical details of the Yamel issue? Simply put it doesn't matter, the devils in the details and he'll just utterly baffle us given half the chance. What's important is that Yamal is yet another nail in the coffin of AGW that can be cast into the faces of the believers.

Summary of Yamal

Team Science tried to "reconstruct" the past 1000 years of temperature by producing what is known as the Spaghetti graph, so named because it depends entirely on using fossilized Siberian spaghetti plants as a proxy for temperature. First of all temperature has been a well known unit of measurement in science for decades now, so I have no idea why Team Science thought they could even get away with re-constructing it from scratch. But anyway, it didn't take long for Blog Science to uncover the spaghetti graph to be a lie. Pasta and it's derivatives are not good proxies for temperature after all, as any good Blog Scientist could have told so-called "scientists" in the first place - Detailed Experiments have been done.

Fraud?

Yes this incident created a fantastic opening to allege Fraud.

But as far as I know I am the only Blog Scientist to have actually located and put a date to this fraud. I produced the opening diagram above by taking the fraudulent "Spaghetti graph" and overlaying a Good Reconstruction free of fraud over the top. Logically then the fraud must lie in the difference and I have circled that difference. It turns out the fraud is located in a small area just before 1000AD, about when the Vikings invaded Communist Greenland. This is possibly the earliest documented evidence of AGW fraud and I found it first.

Analysis

The difference between fraud and no fraud turns out to be about 0.4 degrees C ('C' means Cold, sometimes spoken in latin, 'Celcius'). No wonder Team Science wanted to utterly and completely annihilate this 0.4 degrees C. That 0.4C is the make or break of man-made global warming. Think about it, if temperature was 0.4C warmer than thought 1000 years ago, then how could the 3C alleged warming from man-made global warming over the next 100 years have any effect whatsoever?

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 (desoggybog.com) 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.

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.

[1] http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/conspiracy-20080524.gif