Where do they find these morons at?
I apologize for forcing NASA to do this 15 years ago, via my evil retroactive witchcraft.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
Recent Comments
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Jack the Insider on Doubling Energy Costs
- Conrad Ziefle on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
- Francis Barnett on Doubling Energy Costs
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "THE CLINGERS".
The world has not reached peak morons yet, therefore, there are more morons now than at any other time in history.
They produce them in our universities:
1. Reality is observed. E.g., Albert Einstein & Francis W. Aston:
E = mc^2 !
2. Reality is calculated. E.g., von Weizsacker’s:
Nuclear binding energy equation !
The ending of WWII illustrates the advantages of (1) over (2).
I do not know that Joseph Stalin was involved, but there is no doubt that academic textbooks of stellar and nuclear physics were immediately falsified after WWII:
1. The internal compositions of stars were mostly iron (Fe) in 1945; They all became mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946.
2. Albert Einstein’s and Francis Aston’s valid equations for nuclear stability were replaced with Carl von Weizsacker’s invalid nuclear binding energy equation, that exaggerates proton-proton repulsion and hides neutron-neutron repulsion, the powerful source of energy that . . .
Powers the whole cosmosfrom cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars, galaxies and the ever expanding universe!
I do not know that Stalin himself was involved in the strange coincidence.
You’re a very bad man Steven Goddard. Or maybe that should be John and his fellow sociopaths and misanthropes (check your Funk and Wagnalls on that one!) at NOAA and NASA GISS …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN29X2HCKpU
.
Even other notable skeptics say that asserting that NASA is fudging data is completely false….
Name just one…………
I had the same reaction Latitude! I love the way they just make stuff up, including temperatures.
So, averaging raw data constitutes an incredible amount of statistical manipulation, to the point of being nearly evil levels of mistruth [sic], but a really complicated system that requires multiple explanations is completely trustworthy and should be inherently accepted as truthful?
Got it.
I like this graphic. In fact I have shared it with some of my warmist friends, but a bit more labeling would make it more transparent to the casual/non-technical reader. Not like you have anything else to do, of course.
Just what is a “notable skeptic” in the eyes of a CAGW proponent?
Methinks in that context, the proper definition of “notable skeptic” is interchangeable with the definition of “useful idiot”. Just my opinion tho.
The simple fact is that no longer is such a thing as objective truth held to be valid. By throwing it out, all sorts of manipulation of raw data (observations) to fit them to a ‘theory’ beome possible. Theories no longer fit the facts…the facts are fudged to fit the ‘theories’ (very loose definition of theory…most of this stuff doesn’t even really qualify as hypothesis…it’s more of a WAG).
When I was in school and learning science, raw data (observations) trumped extrapolated data, always. Yes, you had to allow for error and make sure that what you were actually seeing was something that made sense (sanity checking).
Exposing The Truth Is The New Evil Statistical Manipulation.
Your eyes are lying to you dammit, listen to me!
Wait, wait, wait – let me get this straight; downloading and plotting data is “statistical manipulation…”? And displaying the data results in “nearly evil levels of mistruth…”
Well. I conclude that Nearly Evil = Bad To The Bone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7VsoxT_FUY&feature=kp
That is one mean composition there gregole … +1
IPCC defines climate as weather averaged over 30 years.
but only after “appropriate adjustments” have been made to the original raw data, or course
And why is it that it is a “really complicated system”? Can one really extract a true signal from such a dog’s breakfast of temperature data or is complexity expressly designed into the system simply to achieve the age old aphorism “bullshit baffles brains”? Hey, just read the harryreadme notes from the climategate release for a flavour of the quality of their coding. And whether you agree or not with the need for multiple and massive adjustments to the raw data, it still does not explain the egregious change to GISS from 1999 to 2000 as shown by Steven. Was there some momentous discovery of massive errors in 1999 data or methods that was corrected in 2000? And how is it that no matter how many examples are shown of tampering of the data for individual locations (Iceland etc.), the Moshers and the Zekes still hold that the global temperature reconstructions are all good.
The Geek Peter Gleick and others of the Chicken Little Brigade have called the climate debate a “war.” And like warriors they have gone into community after community and taken the raw data and manipulated it to make it hotter now, and colder then. In every case they make it hotter now, and colder then. Always. Of course this is obvious bs. You’d think they would be smarter and have at least a couple of token cases where they made it hotter then, and colder now. But apparently they don’t got the IQs for that.
Notable skeptics like Richard Muller?
yeah, just like Richard Muller. He’s the reason I prefer to call myself a “denier” instead of a “skeptic”
Once again, I will post the link to the Harry readme file discovered in the Climategate documents. John and anyone else who thinks that NOAA, CRU or others know what they’re doing needs to read this to see why the “complications” turn the raw data into utter garbage.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
The “Harry-read-me” file reads like the memoir of a programmer who has died and gone to hades. I have never met a CAGW cultist who was either aware of it or who was willing to read it.
“17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative!…”
What a mess.
Settled Science. Sure.
Good grief…had I submitted something like that back when I was taking various programming classes in college I would have probably failed. Mess doesn’t even begin to describe that steaming pile of bovine fecal matter.
You really need to control your power! 😉
Looks like John has become a “denier” too, his problem being to “debunk” raw statistical data. Still waiting for that.