Archive for November, 2009

No twentieth century warming:

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

The Strata-sphere has found that surface temperature measurements fail to show twentieth century global warming. The raw CRU data released in Climategate shows that surface temperature readings measure the first half of the last century (1900-1960) as warm or warmer than it is today.

John Pittman has found some interesting science in the Climategate emails: The treeline is an sensitive treemometer, since it is very sharply defined, a few kilometers broad.  Trees grow, just barely, south of the treeline, they entirely fail to grow north of the treeline.  During the Medieval climatic optimum 750-1450 trees grew north of the present day treeline, indicating that the medieval climatic optimum was warmer than today in the north.  During the past century, 1897 to present, there has been no movement in the treeline, indicating no twentieth century warming in the north,none.

Global sea ice area has also remained constant since it has been observed, from 1978 to the present.

Nullius in Verba

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

In the past, I ridiculed the Royal Society for backing away from “Nullius in Verba” in its efforts to accommodate postmodern science – however, I recently learned that the president of the Royal Society, Bob May, that was responsible for retranslating that into something more politically correct and respectful of the consensus of the synod, is no longer president of the Royal society – which may have something to do with the the Royal Society eventually finding its testicles

Checking the Royal Society website I find that the old translation, “take no one’s word for it”, which had mysteriously disappeared from the website, has mysteriously returned.

Despite this, and despite demanding that Warmists provide evidence rather than assertion, the Royal Society under its new leadership has continued to pressure private organizations to defund those who doubt the consensus of the Synod on global warming as it did under the old leadership.  That it demands that evidence be presented by one side is rather less impressive if it continues to object to the other side also presenting evidence.

Climategate 2

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

The climategate letters, programs, and datafiles show a systematic and repetitious pattern of hiding and falsifying inconvenient data, cherry picking, self deception, and replacing peer review with theological review of the holy synod.  It is worth examining particular incidents from this sorry story in detail.

When considering one particular such incident, you should keep in mind that each such incident is not an isolated bad apple.  Rather, the climate gate emails and data reveal that it is all like this, every paper, every publication, every claim.  Every single climate warming paper, every single piece of climate warming evidence, every graph.  Official science is not science, but theology, theology concocted to impose on us a theocratic state, which state will deny us the ability to make our living in an ‘unsustainable’ way, ‘unsustainable’, being code for impious, just as ‘legitimate peer review’ (scare quotes in original email) is code for illegitimate peer review, and ‘corrected’ data (scare quotes in original source code) is code for falsified data.

climategate 1

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

“Hide the decline”

In this scandal, we see antiscientific attitudes of the IPCC, the big government branch of the big science conspiracy Hadley CRU, a coalition of big government and big science to take control of your life, with the intent of preventing you from making a living in an “unsustainable” way. And if the earth cannot support so many people “sustainably”, that is your problem, not their problem.

The men revealed by the emails knew what the truth must be, no matter what the evidence might show.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment …the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

and if the data is surely wrong, then the wrong data must be hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden lest climate skeptics misuse it.

or better than hidden, wrong data must be corrected, replaced by the values known to the the truth, so that the data showed the real truth, lest people be confused by mere observations:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC

I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have

Phil Jones to Tom Wigley:

Keep quiet about both issues.

Tom Wigley replied.

The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

But nonetheless did indeed keep quiet.

Uses ‘corrected’ MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.

Scare quotes around ‘corrected’ in original source code.

And what, you may ask, were the corrections. That too is available in the source code. Now while comments, intended for humans, may well be involve nuance, ambiguity, and disagreement as to the meaning, computers do what they are told. And what the computer source code told the computer to do was lie

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

Mann asks Briffa to make his data agree with that of Mann

everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.

>> … dilutes the message rather significantly …

They perceived those who did not accept the real truth (regardless of what the data might show) as enemies of the earth, not to mention enemies of their grant applications,

I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. to donate me a little cash … so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases.

Such enemies of the earth and the truth must be kept out of science, to preserve the truth and save the earth from its enemies. ‘Legitimate peer review’ (scare quotes in original) must stop such inconvenient and potentially misleading data from being published.
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’

Against Libertarian Imperialism

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

Faré on Distributed Republic criticizes the Rothbardians for supporting the enemies of their country.

Many libertarians, after Rothbard, start from the correct assumption that one’s government is one’s first and most direct enemy, to the conclusion that one should always side with the enemies of one’s current oppressor.

Rothbardians are wrong in supporting our enemies and the government is right to do something about them, the trouble is that the government is not very effectual or successful in doing something about them, while at the same time forbidding private citizens from acting.

Imperialism is not libertarian, colonialism can be.

Obviously I want the US to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our enemies to lose – which issue Rothbardians seem alarmingly confused about. But we are having problems in Dar al-Islam, and have alway had similar problems for a thousand years, due to diseconomies of scale in the application of force. The Rothbardians are wrong in that we really do need to kill people and break stuff but governments are not in fact very good at killing enough people and breaking enough stuff. Our past successes in this thousand year war have always involved meeting centralized state violence with centralized state violence, and decentralized non state and micro state violence with decentralized privatized and semi privatized violence. Centralized violence against the likes of the Taliban will work no better than centralized violence did against the Barbary pirates or the Saracens.

Imperialism worked and was good for everyone when the East India company was robbing the natives, for the Company was a colonialist. It became a disaster when the British government took over the East India Company and tried to do good to the natives from afar.

A big central government is bad at building local roads, and it is bad at providing law and justice. To the extent that good old fashioned Cecil Rhodes imperialism substituted competent civilized white stationary bandits for ignorant primitive and savage native stationary bandits, it was a huge improvement. Instead of being robbed by vicious cannibal rapists, the natives were robbed by people who mostly upheld private property rights, freedom of trade, and organized the building of roads. To the extent that imperialism substitutes distant do gooder bureaucrats in a foreign capital city for local primitive and savage stationary bandits, it is a disaster. It is better to be ruled by a local illiterate cannibal rapist despot than a Harvard educated bureaucrat located in Washington.

One of the best of the old imperialists, a man who was on the transition from brigand to bureaucrat, was Sir Stamford Raffles, a man who was willing to turn a city into a desert, and who rewarded troops by permitting them to ravage a city, a man who on a clerk’s salary somehow mysteriously had gold enough to buy princes by the dozen and support armies on the march. He a spy who charmed people while arranging their deaths, and a brigand. Everyone loved him, and thought what a kind and gentle ruler he was. When he was replaced by men who were wholly bureaucrats efficiently representing the will of London, men who did not enrich themselves to any extraordinary extent, no one liked his replacements.

Rhodes and Raffles were better for those they ruled than London bureaucrats nor has governmental military action served Christendom sufficiently well in the war with Dar al Islam.  We never got anywhere in the war with the Barbary pirates till the French started settling their lands. Until the colonialists arrived,  the Barbary pirates would just surrender, then promptly unsurrender.

The peace of Vasvár in 1664 depressingly resembled the innumerable “peace” agreements that Israel has made.

Our installation of Karzai depressingly resembles Charlemagne’s assistance to Ibn al Arubi.  When Israel removed the settlers from Gaza, rockets followed.  Therefore, when the settlers were there, they were preventing rockets.

This post has been corrected: The earlier version was overly critical of Faré.

Nailing the coffin lid shut on warmist alarmism

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Constantinople has summarized the debate for me in private email. People in authority are reading the blogs, and acting on them, but we are seeing the warming alarmists making the “just one sexed up graph” argument – similar to the argument that Uri Keller only bent some spoons with his hands, but all the other spoons he bent with is mind shows he really is magical, and Chomsky only made up some citations, but hey, what about all his other citations.  After all, everyone knows that the ice is melting, the polar bears are drowning, that the North West passage never opened before, that we are seeing unprecedented hurricanes, the seas are rising, and so on and so forth.  What does one sexed up graph matter?

In its more sophisticated and rational form, this argument is the argument that even if peer review fails now and again and allows the occasional sexed up graph through, it still mostly works, which argument we see coming from Hansen and Tyler Cowen, and will soon see from government officials around the world.  “OK,” they will say, “even if the peer review process is imperfect, nonetheless, the scientific consensus …”

My impression is that my paper ended the debate on Chomsky, not because many people read it, though many people did, but because a few people that mattered read it.  I went through Chomsky’s most egregious publication line by line and examined every single citation, and every single citation was at best misleading, at worst a lie. Until someone did that fisking, it remained possible to argue that people were unfairly jumping on Chomsky for a few innocent mistakes and exaggerations here and there, similar to the mistakes and exaggerations that all of us make from time to time.  After I fisked him, then and only then did that argument finally go away, after hanging around for forty years and surviving numberless rebuttals.

The equivalent for warmist alarmism will be to go through every single warmist article published in one particular high prestige journal such as Nature in one particular subject area such climate of the last millennium and show that each and every one of them was sexed up, that none of them provided the data that it is a scientists job to provide, that for lack of that observational and algorithmic data none of them should have passed peer review, and that the  journal ignored all legitimate criticisms of these egregious papers over the relevant period.

Steve McIntyre has done the necessary work, and lots more goodies are coming out of the Hadley CRU readme file, confirming from inside what Steve proved from outside, but it needs to be organized and structured into a single cohesive hyperlinked document.

The killer argument is that

  1. Freedom of information inquiries were stonewalled.
  2. That they were stonewalled because the graphs of doom were all pulled out of someone’s @%$#, and freedom of information inquiries would have revealed this, would have revealed the readme file of the Hadley CRU files.
  3. That peer review is a lie, for real peer review would have demanded the data supposedly underlying the graphs of doom, and the method of calculation, which the readme file reveals to have been pulled out of someone’s @%$#.
  4. That because peer review is a lie, everything is a lie – that peer reviewers did not slip up once in a while, but systematically gave a free pass to theologically correct papers, and systematically rejected theologically incorrect papers

To prove that peer review is a lie, we have to not merely produce a few particular failures of peer review, not “just one sexed up graph”, but rather we have to do a complete cover of all papers on one topic in one maximally prestigious journal in one period – which fisking very few people will read in its entirety, but the fisking has to be written, which is a lot of work.

The point of the fisking has to be not that the elimination of the medieval climatic optimum was fraudulent, but that a maximally prestigious journal was complicit in the fraud.  We have to take down, not just one powerful academic like Chomsky, but one powerful journal that helped empower them, one journal prestigious enough to stand for all journals, one topic important enough to stand for all topics.  We have to utterly discredit the core institutions of science, because these institutions have been corrupted and used as a lever with which to destroy science, technological society, capitalism, and western civilization.

To address the argument that even though peer review slips up every now and then, it basically works for the most part, we have to provide a clear example of it not working, have to show not just that it passed one sexed up graph, but that for one journal and one topic, peer review passed only sexed up graphs and rejected all desexed graphs, that it was synod review for theological conformity with the holy doctrine of the synod, not genuine peer review.

It was a lot of work to do the fisking of Chomsky.  It will be a lot more work to do the fisking of a high prestige journal, though most of the hard work has been done by Steve McIntyre, but the needed information is dispersed over a vast blog, and has to properly converted into one hypertext document with one argument, one conclusion, and links to all supporting information – that conclusion being that science was destroyed in a political and religious effort to remake western civilization into a scientifically, economically and technologically stagnant greenie theocracy that would only be capable of supporting a “sustainable” human population far smaller than our present population.  If we push for any less grandiose conclusion, we lose the argument.

Bishop Hill’s list of interesting Hadley CRU files

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

Bishop Hill has a list of Hadley CRU files he finds particularly interesting.  They are mostly good stuff but have zero overlap with the files I find particularly interesting.  It is going to take a while to digest sixty two megabytes.  It will be some time before we realize what of this revelation truly matters.

To me, the relevant question is not whether global warming true, but whether alarmists been practicing science or religion.  These files answer that question decisively, for when challenged, the focus of their thoughts, what is uppermost in their minds, is not so much “what do these facts imply”, but rather, “how do we defeat the heretic”.

A first look at the internal climate emails

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

Rather than reading for data that discredits particular erroneous results, a task that Steve and his crew can do much better than I can, I study the papers to reveal evil and madness, to reveal the cause of error, rather than specific particular errors.

The Anthropogenic Global Warmers know in advance the results of peer review that is not yet done.  They also know in advance what the decisions of the environmental protection agency will be:

I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on

Like psychotic, they mistake their own voices for the external validation of their ideas that it purports to be.  Simultaneously, however, they know that such peer review is not legitimate:

Michael E. Mann:

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere.

Which quote marks suggest a conscious awareness that any peer review that they control is illegitimate, and therefore that peer review at Climate Research is legitimate and at the time of this email, 2003 March, was the only journal with legitimate peer review.  They circulate a copy of Freitas’ defense of the Climate Research Peer Review process, and only discuss only how to destroy the journal, its editors, and those who produced unacceptable peer review results, not what is wrong with his defense, a silence that implicitly concedes the truth of Freitas’ defense, and their awareness of the truth of that defense.  In discussing how to destroy these people, rather than rebut Freitas’ account of Climate Research peer review, they must know they are discussing how to ensure that ‘peer review’ is review for theological correctness, rather than empirical validity.

In contemplating their response to the Soon & Baliunas paper they did not consider replying in the pages of the same journal, the normal scientific procedure, despite naming various editors which they assume to be in their own pocket, which deviation from normal science implies an awareness that their reply could not survive legitimate peer review, only ‘legitimate’ peer review – implies awareness of evil.

By 2007 however, they no longer show confidence that peer review will produce predetermined results – there numerous journals whose peer review is no longer ‘legitimate’, among them “Energy and Environment”, and they cease to discuss destroying those responsible in ways that display confidence that they will succeed.

When they cherry pick statistics:

since ca. Nov 2008, satellite data was removed from the analysis, and was called v3b, but the methodology is essentially the same as in the paper.  The reason was that there was a residual cold bias in the satellite data. This caused problems for users concerned with rankings.

It is because they know what the results must be, therefore data that fails to support the predetermined result must be wrong.  They sincerely believe they are practicing real science, and they do not sincerely believe they are practicing real science.

I had come to feel that the days of science and mathematics had ended, that science and mathematics had largely become like high art, a multitude of little government funded fiefdoms in which each specialty was controlled by a little incestuous group that approved each other’s grants and was indifferent to external reality, unwanted facts and internal consistency.  On the evidence of these emails, that is indeed the state of affairs, but contrary to my expectations, does not go unchallenged.

Global warming fraud goes public

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

An unknown person posted a large amount of internal files from allegedly from CRU, which huge collection has become known as
The Hadley CRU file set To understand all this stuff, you need to know lots of climate science. I have only just started to go through this huge pile.

The original ftp server dropped the file (being stolen material and so on and so forth) and all those old links no longer work, but now the file is in bittorrent. The bittorrent link works with if you have installed a bittorrent client that support magnet links – magnet links being a highly decentralized way of publishing large files that does not expose any one server, router, or domain name to political pressure or possible reprisal, and prevents the illicit substitution of a changed file for the intended file.  The file you get, will be the file I intend, which is not always the case with ftp or http links to politically sensitive data.  The file is also available by http at such places as Megaupload, but pardon my paranoia, I don’t trust what they might do under pressure.

There is much preliminary analysis and discussion of this great pile of data

We can be pretty sure these files are genuine, since they explain the “science” behind some otherwise inexplicable published graphs that supposedly show the world warming up. These graphs are constructed pseudo scientifically. Rather than simply being pulled out of someone’s @%$#, they are constructed of numbers that reflect actual observations, but not observations of the quantity on the title bar of the graph.

Everyone is having lots of fun with this remark by Phil Jones:

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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The decline to which Phil Jones refers is not the recent global temperature decline, which may well result from more accurate and more global methods of measuring temperature, which are therefore increasingly difficult to plausibly “correct”, but rather the failure of supposed temperature proxies to correspond to data supposedly derived from weather stations – the proxies are declining, so Phil Jones replaces the last few decades of the proxy, with the result that the last few decades of the graph for global temperature supposedly derived from the proxy agrees perfectly with the graph for global temperatures supposedly derived from weather stations, concealing the fact that there is no evidence that the proxy is in fact a proxy for temperature – indeed no evidence that either graph corresponds to global temperatures.  Thus what is being fraudulently manufactured is not warming, but rather fraudulent agreement between various measures that supposedly measure warming.

The material seems psychologically genuine – they show conscious fraud that still retains much of the characteristics of self deception and unconscious cherry picking of data that it originated in.

There are just too many of these emails to be easily forged – you try writing many megabytes of text in the style of several well known people. Phil Jones has admitted them to be real, and is trying to spin some of his more embarrassing remarks, thereby drawing even more attention to them.

The cause of the crisis 4-3

Friday, November 20th, 2009

In the cause of the crisis, I addressed fraudulent ratings.

Bill draws my attention to a report on securitized loans issued by the New York Fed in which they examine the somewhat surprising ratings given to New Century Financial:

You might consider blogging this absolutely hilarious paper from a couple of people at the New York Fed. The good stuff starts on page 14, where we learn about a typical pool of securitized mortgages originated by New Century Financial. There were about 3900 mortgages in the pool (made in 2006), and the pool had the following characteristics:

  • more than half are cash-out loans
  • 83% have FICO scores below 660
  • average (average!!) total debt service to income is 41%
  • 88% are hybrid ARMs with payment adjustment in 2-3 years
  • typical adjustment 25 to 40 % increase in payment
  • adjustment is bigger if rates rise
  • half (!!!) the loans are “stated income,” i.e. liar loans

Page 15 tells us that of the Alt A loans in the New Century pool in 2006, five out of six were “low doc” (liar) loans, and two out of five had additional silent mortgages – that is to say, not only was the borrower income not truthfully revealed, but the extent to which the property was likely to be underwater not truthfully revealed.

Incredibly, 79% of the tranches in this dog were rated (by both Moody’s and S&P) AAA. How are the people who asked for and gave that rating not in jail? To be clear, AAA means really, really, US gvt treasuries safe.

Clearly, the people and institutions buying these securities were trusting the ratings agencies — nobody smart who read, digested, understood, and thought about that prospectus ever bought any of these (except as a regulatory dodge).

The conclusion of the paper is also really funny in an arch, extreme understatement kind of way.

On page 61:

Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann claims that the Ohio state pension funds have been defrauded by the rating agencies. […] To his mind, the seemingly cozy relationship between ratings agencies and investment banks like Bear Stearns only heightens the appearance of impropriety.

In this section, we review the extent to which investors rely on rating agencies, focusing on the case of this Ohio pension fund, drawing upon on public disclosures of the fund.

They then find that the Ohio pension fund invested heavily in the kind of subprime crap that they examined.

In the end they optimistically conclude:

Our view is that the rating of securities secured by subprime mortgage loans by credit rating agencies has been flawed. There is no question that there will be some painful consequences, but we think that the rating process can be fixed along the lines suggested in the text above.

No doubt it can be fixed along the lines suggested, but from the fact that the ratings agencies have not been prosecuted, and their regulators have not been fired, it seems unlikely that it will be fixed.

Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a bunch of prosecutions about mortgage fraud. It is hard to explain financial scams to twelve men too stupid to evade jury duty, but a major reason for the failure of prosecutions so far is that the Attorney General has been prosecuting minnows, the minnows blame the sharks, and were he to prosecute the sharks, the sharks would doubtless blame the regulators – who, strange to report, still have their jobs.