People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

How Were So Many So Wrong?

Most every climate scientist on the planet believed in the theory that the globe was warming and humans were causing it to do so. How is it they all got it so wrong?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the fundamental structure of those now-infamous computer models that predicted warming where none is occurring.  And possibly - probably? - where none had been occurring.

Bruce Thompson, writing in The American Thinker, provides a chart that shows the positioning of temperature gathering sites around the globe.  Notice anything odd about the grid pattern - or total lack thereof - of the data gathering stations? (click on the image to enlarge it):

As Thompson puts it: "Note that for practical purposes the continents of South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica are missing. And we haven't even touched on the 70% of the earth's surface covered by oceans."

That last point is significant because there are scientists (lone Betta fishes in a sea of schooling anchovies) who postulate that the warming that may have occurred in the last decade can be attributed to changing ocean currents.  Shouldn't those currents then be carefully monitored? 

In any case, it's now fairly certain that the reason so many scientists bought into the now-discredited theory of global warming is because the raw data they were being fed by a small handful of government data-gathering institutions wasn't capturing a reasonable snapshot of the earth's temperatures at any given point in time.  There were too many holes.  Too many flaws.

And we all know what assumptions based on false data will lead to (for some reason then-Presidents Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's convictions that Saddam Hussein most assuredly had WMD come to mind).

Could this be the reason so many got it so wrong?  Seems like a reasonable explanation.  But then not all the data are in, so ...

Who Owns America?

Increasingly, according to Veronique de Rugy, it's not Americans:

Something to ponder:

"Until the 1970s ... foreigners owned less than 5 percent of our debt. Today, they own roughly 50 percent. That share is increasing ..."

What if those foreigners call in their notes? Can China's central bank do to the USA what Hitler, with all his military might, failed to do in World War II?

I don't even want to contemplate the possibility.

Chart courtesy of Veronique de Rugy.

Truer Words Were Never Written

With regard to all those "scientists" who perpetuated - and thrived off of - the myth that was global warming theory, from Peter Berkowitz:

"The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies."

Has it always been this way? Had we simply been wild-eyed dupes when it came to science and objectivity? One must wonder.  And recalibrate.

In any case, this must change.

From "Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen," Wall Street Journal:
[T]he peer review process violates a fundamental principle of fairness. We don't allow judges to be parties to a controversy they are adjudicating, and don't permit athletes to umpire games in which they are playing. In both cases the concern is that their interest in the outcome will bias their judgment and corrupt their integrity. So why should we expect scholars, especially operating under the cloak of anonymity, to fairly and honorably evaluate the work of allies and rivals?

Some university presses exacerbate the problem. Harvard University Press tells a reviewer the name of a book manuscript's author but withholds the reviewer's identity from the author. It would be hard to design a system that provided reviewers more opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.

Harvard Press assumes that its editors will detect and avoid conflicts of interest. But if reviewers are in the same scholarly field as, or in a field related to that of, the author—and why would they be asked for an evaluation if they weren't?—then the reviewer will always have a conflict of interest.

Then there is the abuse of confidentiality and the overreliance on arguments from authority in hiring, promotion and tenure decisions. Owing to the premium the academy places on specialization, most university departments today contain several fields, and within them several subfields. Thus departmental colleagues are regularly asked to evaluate scholarly work in which they have little more expertise than the man or woman on the street.

Often unable to form independent professional judgments—but unwilling to recuse themselves from important personnel decisions—faculty members routinely rely on confidential letters of evaluation from scholars at other universities. Once again, these letters are written—and solicited—by scholars who are irreducibly interested parties.

There are no easy fixes to this state of affairs. Worse, our universities don't recognize they have a problem. [link]
That's how the "scientific community" was able to so easily reach consensus on global warming.  All voices that were allowed to be heard were of a set.  Opposing points of view were stifled.  Or, worse, attacked and ostracized.

The global warming emperor had no clothes.  And too many climate scientists didn't care.  Worse, they reveled in the nakedness of the whole thing.

Now their entire profession is discredited and all data and analysis that come from it are to be considered suspect.

They've earned that reputation.  Now let them live with it.

Shameful. Typical.

Never let it be said that the Associated Press is not to be lumped in with the rest of the despicable mainstream media conglomerate.  The "reporters" therefore are as biased as any in the business.

Case in point:
Texas Social Studies Curriculum Vote Bring Out Worst in AP Bias, Labeling
By Tom Blumer, newsBusters

April Castro and the headline writers at the supposedly "objective" Associated Press are obviously not pleased with changes the Texas State Board of Education made to the Lone Star State's social studies curriculum.

Castro's report makes almost no attempt to hide her clear disdain. She made references to a "far-right faction" (a "faction" that happened to constitute a two-thirds majority!) and "ultraconservatives," while uniformly describing leftists as mere Democrats, and generally came across as a sore loser in solidarity with the poor, outvoted libs.

You'll also see in the excerpt that follows that the story's headline is disgracefully over the top:

Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences

Austin, Texas — A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

"We have been about conservatism versus liberalism," said Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas, explaining her vote against the standards. "We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

.... Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects this week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics. Hostilities flared and prompted a walkout Thursday by one of the board's most prominent Democrats, Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, who accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" curriculum standards.

By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.

Castro should have been asking why the items described in the excerpt, plus the following cited by the AP writer in unexcerpted paragraphs, haven't been in the social studies curriculum all along ... [link]
Read the whole thing.

There is no rational person on earth who can legitimately argue that this "reporter" is a reporter and not an advocate for liberal social and political positions.

Let this be another lesson - the mainstream news media are not to be trusted for news. Ever.