No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, November 30, 2009
What justification?
While busily procrastinating getting our living room ready for Christmas, I've been going through my morning news, editorials and letters to the editor. I am finding myself increasingly frustrated and perplexed in the fall out - or lack of it - of the leaked Hadley CRU documents.
First off, there's still surprisingly little coverage in the media. Had this sort of scandal emerged from the "other side," the headlines would've been screaming about it. Instead, there's hardly anything. A few columnists, like Lorrie Goldstein, are writing about it. If it weren't for Tom Nelson's blog, with his diligent posting of stories from all over, I'd be finding far less.
A few other main stream papers are finally writing about it, and some of them really blow my mind. They are actually justifying the actions of these CRU "scientists." A number of letter writers and commentors also try to excuse and justify this incredibly unscientific behaviour by the CRU. How? How can someone look at the leaked data and not realize that it calls into doubt everything about AGW theory? It's not just the CRU that screwed up. Similar problems are being revealed in New Zealand, and those following the data over the last few years know that the US data is woefully corrupted.
There is no excuse or justification for this sort of shoddy science and deliberate manipulation of information. What we should be doing is putting all proposals to "fight climate change" on hold. All current programs should also be stopped. A thorough, independant investigation needs to be done, not only into the CRU, but all major climate data organizations. We can't be pushing for global action based on bad information. To continue to do so would be stupid and irresponsible.
First off, there's still surprisingly little coverage in the media. Had this sort of scandal emerged from the "other side," the headlines would've been screaming about it. Instead, there's hardly anything. A few columnists, like Lorrie Goldstein, are writing about it. If it weren't for Tom Nelson's blog, with his diligent posting of stories from all over, I'd be finding far less.
A few other main stream papers are finally writing about it, and some of them really blow my mind. They are actually justifying the actions of these CRU "scientists." A number of letter writers and commentors also try to excuse and justify this incredibly unscientific behaviour by the CRU. How? How can someone look at the leaked data and not realize that it calls into doubt everything about AGW theory? It's not just the CRU that screwed up. Similar problems are being revealed in New Zealand, and those following the data over the last few years know that the US data is woefully corrupted.
There is no excuse or justification for this sort of shoddy science and deliberate manipulation of information. What we should be doing is putting all proposals to "fight climate change" on hold. All current programs should also be stopped. A thorough, independant investigation needs to be done, not only into the CRU, but all major climate data organizations. We can't be pushing for global action based on bad information. To continue to do so would be stupid and irresponsible.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
A good read...
I just wanted to call attention to this excellent opinion piece from Lorrie Goldstein.
Why 'climategate' won't stop greens
Let's see if I get this right. The emails and code released show that the so-called scientists who's data CONTRIBUTED to the IPCC reports was fudged, massaged, falsified, while they discussed ways to hide information they didn't agree with (because they just *knew* AGW was really happening, even if the data showed it wasn't), thereby calling to question anything the IPCC and alarmist have ever said... but the IPCC and the alarmists are used to "prove" that AGW is real.
Uhm... yeah.
Maybe they should lie down for a bit until the fever passes, 'cause that sort of twisted "logic" has got to hurt the brain.
While I'm at it, here's another excellent read from Steve Janke.
Yes, it is what they want. Many have even said so rather bluntly.
Funny how skeptics of AGW have been called deniers and equated to Holocaust deniers who should be put to trail and jailed. Who are the deniers now? Deniers of reality, that is.
Why 'climategate' won't stop greens
It's been fascinating to read some of the letters to the editors some papers have been publishing in reponse to pieces like this. Certain papers simply didn't print any that agreed - and I know they got them - but those that disagreed. Talk about head in the sand responses! After shooting the messanger (you're not a climate scientist! How dare you diss [fill name of alarmist person or organization here]?) to chastising the paper for publishing the piece at all, many then went on to talk about concensus and the IPCC as proof that AGW is really happening, and the writers are evil for disagreeing.
The problem, however, is those who hijacked science to predict a looming Armageddon unless we do exactly as they say, have already done their damage.
The moment they convinced politicians the way to avert the End of Days was to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the unholy alliance of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green was forged.
Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.
What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.
Let's see if I get this right. The emails and code released show that the so-called scientists who's data CONTRIBUTED to the IPCC reports was fudged, massaged, falsified, while they discussed ways to hide information they didn't agree with (because they just *knew* AGW was really happening, even if the data showed it wasn't), thereby calling to question anything the IPCC and alarmist have ever said... but the IPCC and the alarmists are used to "prove" that AGW is real.
Uhm... yeah.
Maybe they should lie down for a bit until the fever passes, 'cause that sort of twisted "logic" has got to hurt the brain.
While I'm at it, here's another excellent read from Steve Janke.
So what does this have to do with scientists and climate change? Scientists are supposed to be the purist expression of realists. For them, it is all about the data. The data is never right or wrong in a moral sense, it simply is. What the data shows can't be denied. Anidealist will gladly ignore or denigrate data that conflicts with his ideal view of the universe, but a scientist does not have that luxury.
A proper scientist does not believe in man-made global warming. It is a theory that may or may not be supported by evidence. If not, it is rejected. It is as simple as that.
For believers in man-made global warming, the ideal universe is one in which global warming is real, and is attributable to Western industrial activity. From that ideal state flows the ideal solution -- massive de-industrialization of the West and a subsequent reduction of wealth and influence. From that follows a crash in the standard of living, culminating in dramatic depopulation.
Don't be naive. This is what global warming idealists want to happen.
Yes, it is what they want. Many have even said so rather bluntly.
Funny how skeptics of AGW have been called deniers and equated to Holocaust deniers who should be put to trail and jailed. Who are the deniers now? Deniers of reality, that is.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Can it be more frivolous?
This takes the cake when it comes to frivolous lawsuits! (h/t)
Sure, take the oil companies to court! They will then have to prove we humans really are causing global warming (in light of the Hadley CRU data, it would be pretty easy for the defense to prove we're not).
Assuming there's such a thing as an unbiased court anymore.
Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 07-60756 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2009): The plaintiffs filed a diversity suit seeking only damages against numerous defendant petro-chemical companies. The panel summarizes:
"The plaintiffs, residents and owners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court against the named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other states but are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States
caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming, viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them. The plaintiffs' putative class action asserts claims for compensatory and punitive damages based on Mississippi common-law actions
of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy."
Sure, take the oil companies to court! They will then have to prove we humans really are causing global warming (in light of the Hadley CRU data, it would be pretty easy for the defense to prove we're not).
Assuming there's such a thing as an unbiased court anymore.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Loaded
After reading a post over at Dr. Roy's Thoughts, I followed a link to a Liberal Poll. I didn't answer it, as they want me to put in my name, postal code and email, and I don't want any political party to have those. We somehow got on the NDP mail list as it is. Not only have I been getting NDP "ten percenters" regularly since we moved, but so has my husband - and the woman who lived here before us! Yup. I get three Layton ten percenters, every time they get sent out.
Check out the loaded questions on the Liberal site, though. After a misleading blurb using the phrase "Reform-Conservatives" (because they just have to dig up the ghosts of those scary old Reformers), the first two questions are yes/no choices.
Strange. That's not at all how I understood things. Equal pay for work of equal value, sure, but as a woman who's been home with the kids for more than 16 years, with a couple of forays into the world of employment in the last few years, I certainly don't expect to walk into the same wage as men who've been doing the job longer than I have, just because I'm a woman. I expect to have to earn my way up, just like anyone else.
Not that either has anything to do with women's equality in the first place.
Then they ask:
(Cut and paste problem - it should just read "Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals" by itself, but Blogger won't let me edit out the repeated question. I don't have the time or energy to fuss with it, so there it is...)
Again, they use the term "Reform-Conservative."
To the Libs making this poll: the Reform party doesn't exist any more. The hard line Reformers didn't like the merger and don't support the Conservative Party of Canada all that much. They think the CPC is too... wait for it... Liberal.
Now explain to me: how can you phrase a question so dishonestly and misleadingly - and make it a question about trust?
No, I don't trust the Libs. I trust Ignatieff even less. Of all our current political leaders, I trust Harper the most. Which really isn't much of a compliment, considering how little I think of the other leaders. Layton is so slimey, he gives me the creeps. May is off her rocker, but at least she seems genuine. Ignatieff is a nobody who thinks his status makes him a somebody. I don't like everything the CPC is doing, but they're a whole heck of a lot better than the alternative.
I honestly wish the Liberals would get their act together and be an effective opposition. Our parliamentary system needs that. Instead, they're so busy trying to get themselves back into office (with the other opposition parties goading them all the way), it's crippling Parliament. We don't need any more faux scandals and knee jerk opposition to anything or everything, including the stuff you guys actually wanted in the first place. ie: complaining about lack of stimulous money in one breath, then berating the gov. for our debt the next. Hello... you guys were the ones threatening to topple the gov. with a coalition supposedly because of the lack of stimulus funding!
We need you all to get your butts in gear, get to work and quit playing games, because those games are costing us regular folks (you know... the ones you want voting for you) a lot.
Check out the loaded questions on the Liberal site, though. After a misleading blurb using the phrase "Reform-Conservatives" (because they just have to dig up the ghosts of those scary old Reformers), the first two questions are yes/no choices.
1. Are the Harper Reform-Conservatives right to oppose pay equity for women?
Strange. That's not at all how I understood things. Equal pay for work of equal value, sure, but as a woman who's been home with the kids for more than 16 years, with a couple of forays into the world of employment in the last few years, I certainly don't expect to walk into the same wage as men who've been doing the job longer than I have, just because I'm a woman. I expect to have to earn my way up, just like anyone else.
2. Do you agree with Stephen Harper that those supporting women's equality are “left-wing fringe groups”?
Another loaded question. Most "women's groups" are indeed "left-wing fringe groups." Therefore, their supporters are most likely to be extreme lefties and modern feminists (not to be confused with the feminists that actualy got us the vote and equal rights). So there are left-wing fringe groups, and there are their supporters. The supporters and the groups are different entities.Not that either has anything to do with women's equality in the first place.
Then they ask:
3. Who do you trust more to advocate for the rights of women in Canada and abroad?
(Cut and paste problem - it should just read "Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals" by itself, but Blogger won't let me edit out the repeated question. I don't have the time or energy to fuss with it, so there it is...)
Again, they use the term "Reform-Conservative."
To the Libs making this poll: the Reform party doesn't exist any more. The hard line Reformers didn't like the merger and don't support the Conservative Party of Canada all that much. They think the CPC is too... wait for it... Liberal.
Now explain to me: how can you phrase a question so dishonestly and misleadingly - and make it a question about trust?
No, I don't trust the Libs. I trust Ignatieff even less. Of all our current political leaders, I trust Harper the most. Which really isn't much of a compliment, considering how little I think of the other leaders. Layton is so slimey, he gives me the creeps. May is off her rocker, but at least she seems genuine. Ignatieff is a nobody who thinks his status makes him a somebody. I don't like everything the CPC is doing, but they're a whole heck of a lot better than the alternative.
I honestly wish the Liberals would get their act together and be an effective opposition. Our parliamentary system needs that. Instead, they're so busy trying to get themselves back into office (with the other opposition parties goading them all the way), it's crippling Parliament. We don't need any more faux scandals and knee jerk opposition to anything or everything, including the stuff you guys actually wanted in the first place. ie: complaining about lack of stimulous money in one breath, then berating the gov. for our debt the next. Hello... you guys were the ones threatening to topple the gov. with a coalition supposedly because of the lack of stimulus funding!
We need you all to get your butts in gear, get to work and quit playing games, because those games are costing us regular folks (you know... the ones you want voting for you) a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)