"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Do you like your health plan?

Too bad, you won’t be able to keep it. Many of you may be thinking but Obama has said if we like our current health plan it will not be taken away, and the administration along with its allies have criticized anyone who has tried to say otherwise.

Unfortunately, Obama’s promises always have expiration dates.

Both the Senate and the House health bills slash a significant part of my employer’s health plan — the Health Flexible Spending Account — restricting them to $2500 and restricting what they can used for.

That single change in my health plan (and my wife’s) will cause our family to pay a couple thousand dollars more each year in income taxes, and yet my FSA might still cause my employer’s plan to trigger the 40% Senate tax on Cadillac plans (I don’t know enough about the full cost of our plans to know).

[…] (source)

Anyone brave enough to trust Obama to veto a healthcare bill that still retains these features?

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, December 21, 2009

Are we no longer a nation of laws?

For those of us who have been paying attention, that question may have been answered with a “no we are not” some time ago. How could it get any worse than the racial and political games of Eric Holder’s reign at the Dept. of Justice, to point out just one aspect of the Obama administration? Unfortunately, it can get worse. If the following is true, the loss of liberties and prosperity threatened by Obama’s version of health care “reform” will be much more difficult to overturn, and the manner in which this is being attempted cares little for precedent or parliamentary procedure.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

That’s right, take over one sixth of the American economy, do so by hyper partisan votes, buying votes with favors inserted into the bill, and then require a super majority to overturn it.

The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medical Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels. (source)

Get that? One of the worst aspects of the bill is being made more difficult to rescind. Be sure to read the entire post at, there is more, including a transcript wherein it is noted that this rule/procedure change that requires a super majority will not itself require that to be passed.

Before this was noticed there was talk of State nullification of this mess. It has happened before in our history, this disaster provides another reason for States to move forward on such legislation. You can learn more here, which includes a map of the current state of play.

States nullifying the most damaging elements of the law would be a better step to take than jumping to seceding or worse yet, revolution by arms rather than votes. But with this administration, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the side of increasing government control of our lives, and doing so with questionable methods (to put it politely), there is no telling where all this may end.

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Climategate, from Russia with love edition

If the following is true, it may be more explosive than the already damaging email and data leak that has shown manipulation of data, buggy and “fudged” programming and partisan distortion of the peer review process. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has leveled charges that the Hadley Centre manipulated temperature data from Russia.

The following is alleged:

Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included…


On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.


IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.


The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

See here for more details and links to other commentary.

A guest post at Watts Up With That? notes how serious the claim of tampering could be:

This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate.  Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets. (source)

The IEA study used all the stations available and the results were 1.4 degrees Celsius of warming since 1870 rather than the larger 2.0 degrees Celsius warming used in official reports by the IPCC. While that is a significant difference, if one were to adjust for the urban heat island affect, or leave out urban stations all together, the level of warming would be even less.

The state of these claims is rather up in the air at the moment because we do not have the raw, unadjusted data to compare to what is presented by the IEA. And that is part of the problem. The leading scientists have for some time resisted releasing data, programs and methods and yet have expected us to just trust them. But then how many people were informed of their hiding data and refusing to respond to FOI requests? If you only received your news from the MSM, you probably heard nothing of these long simmering controversies.

We have long had enough reason to distrust the science. With this new series of allegations, even if eventually proven to be in error, it is demonstrated again that there is a need for full disclosure. Without it a breeding ground for conspiracies and speculation is created. With trillions in economic activity being toyed with, we must be certain of what the truths are regarding the global temperature trend and the actual extent of man’s impact on it. It is far past time for these scientists to expect anyone to accept what they say merely because they say “trust us”.


Previous posts:

CRU Climategate continues
More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies
More on that CRU email and data hack
Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!
Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

CRU Climategate continues

The first thing everyone discussed was the content of the emails. It turns out that may not be the worst aspect of what has been discovered.

To review, we have enough from the emails to see that FOI requests were resisted to the point of rather destroying data than comply, emails related to FOI requests were deleted, scientific journals that did not follow the dogma were threatened and the overall claim that the science is settled is far from true. These actions are bad enough for the scientific method, where independent replication and falsification are central to the process. However, the zip file released to the internet contained more than just those emails.

While the emails revealed a great deal, the data that was freed also included programming code that was used to process the various temperature and proxy databases. Within that code were comments left by a programmer who worked for about three years attempting to fix the program.

Bishop Hill has a continuously updated list of the comments and summarizes them.

The code

Watts Up With That? has a post with all the comments in raw fashion.

Climategate: hide the decline – codified

One reason is quite clear as to why this climate team did not want to release its code. It is incredibly buggy as can be seen from the programmer’s frustration and confusion. The temperature databases being used are also very problematic.

With regard to the scientific process, the program used to create the temperature plots is needed by others to ensure that the methodology produces dependable and accurate results. It is sad enough that the program is so clearly sub par, but it appears this was well known, hence the hapless programmer having to try and fix it. Yet despite the known problems, the world at large was kept unaware of the issues and new temperature reconstructions were produced.

If this climate team had always been open with it’s data and programs, as it should have been, these problems could have been taken care of quite early. That is the scientific method after all.

Also hidden from the world were some of the scientists noting concerns with the data and some doubts in the certainty of the AGW conclusions in their emails. In fact, some of what they said echoed criticisms from ClimateAudit and other skeptics. But all we heard from the lamestream media and these climate study groups and various AGW proponents and evangelizers was that the science was settled.

Sadly, despite the many criticisms from global warming skeptics being affirmed, there may be too much pride and prestige at stake on the “science” side and too much political power at stake on the political side for the AGW proponents to stop themselves. With trillions of dollars of economic activity in numerous countries threatened because of the view that AGW is settled science, will they ever admit publicly that AGW can not be considered settled when it is based on such shoddy programming work and incomplete, undocumented databases?

That question remains to be answered. While we are waiting, another story is breaking about how AGW proponents/scientists may have treated the raw temperature data in New Zealand, conveniently showing rising temperatures where hardly any existed.

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

[…] (source, be sure to read it all for graphs and further commentary)

The AGW proponents and evangelizers claim skeptics are only pseudo or non-science. With more proof being revealed of improper methods, corrupt data, undermining of peer-review and other actions that completely ignore and contradict the scientific method, such critics would do well to pull the log out of their own eyes before imagining splinters in eyes of everyone that disagrees with them.


NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] has responded to the accusation of altering data. Unfortunately the explanation brings up more questions. They are still refusing to release data on all the stations, including only one with their justification for altering temperature data.

Reeling from claims that it has massaged data to show a 150 year warming trend where there isn't one, NIWA's chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report, issued a news release stating adjustments had been made to compensate for changes in sensor locations over the years.

While such an adjustment is valid, it needs to be fully explained so other scientists can test the reasonableness of the adjustment.

Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.

[…] (source, thanks to Ace’s blog)

Be sure to read it all to understand why the explanation leads to more questions.

A small snippet from Ace’s blog summarizes the NIWA’s response.

“I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not so much a pattern of climate as of obfuscation”


Previous posts:

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies
More on that CRU email and data hack
Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!
Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, November 22, 2009

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies

The Climate Research Unit emails number around 1000. As people search the online archive or their own copy of the released data, more detail on the inner workings of this group come to light.

I’m going to first direct readers to the Ace of Spades blog. Gabriel brings together several PowerLine posts about this matter with brief summaries. a brief intro:

John Hinderaker at PowerLine have been doing a great job digging through the emails leaked from the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

[…] (source, be sure to follow the links to Powerline for the full details.)

The other climate warming goodies are several online resources covering the overall debate on AGW. Some I have mentioned or linked to before but I thought readers would be helped by mentioning them again. Of course you can find even more by perusing their blogrolls.

Watts Up With That?

Lucia - Blackboard

the Air Vent

Bishop Hill – This blog covers other issues as well but the author is recognized as being quite adept at writing on the global warming issues under debate in a way that is accessible to the average person. He now has a book coming out called The Hockey Stick Illusion.

Finally, I recently ran across climate skeptic which brings up some good points about the global warming controversy.

[…] I often make a wager with my audiences. I will bet them that unless they are regular readers of the science-based climate sites, I can tell them something absolutely fundamental about global warming theory they have never heard. What I tell them is this:

Man-made global warming theory is not one theory but in fact two totally separate theories chained together. These two theories are:

  1. Man-made greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, acting alone will warm the planet [between] 1.0 and 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
  2. The Earth’s climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks, such that the warming from Greenhouse gasses alone is amplified 3-5 or more times. Most of the warming in catastrophic forecasts comes from this second effect, not directly from greenhouse gas warming.

This is not some Iird skeptic’s fantasy. This two-part description of catastrophic global warming theory is right out of the latest IPCC report. Most of the warming in the report’s forecasts actually results from the theory of positive feedback in #2, not from greenhouse gasses directly.

One of the most confusing issues for average people watching the climate debate is how one side can argue so adamantly that the science is “settled” and the other can argue just the opposite. The explanation lies in large part with this two-part theory. There is a high degree of consensus around proposition1, even among skeptics. I may disagree that the warming is 0.8C or 1.2C, but few on the science end of the debate would argue that CO2 has no effect on warming. When people say “the science is settled” they generally want to talk about proposition 1 and avoid discussion of proposition 2.

That is because proposition 2 is far from settled. […] (source)

It may be that good and honest people currently on opposite sides of the debate are actually talking past each other due to confusion over these two points.

I’ll end this post by asking a question of those who are following this story. Do you know people who do not follow blogs and/or only watch Lamestream Media? Hopefully you will be talking to them about this unfolding story, emailing the various blog posts you find with good information and/or posting on whatever social website you and they use.

The point being, we obviously cannot rely on the Lamestream Media to inform people. With Cap and Trade still a possibility in the Senate, we need to maintain pressure and ensure that important information such as this is not ignored.


Previous posts:

More on that CRU email and data hack

Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!

Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, November 21, 2009

More on that CRU email and data hack

I covered the server hack of the Climate Research Unit in my previous post. There are some issues that have been raised since then and a resource that is now available on the internet for those wanting to dig into this more.

The (slim?) prospects of a RICO investigation are discussed in preliminary form at

For some time. several individuals have asked why we don’t just initiate suit against the obviously dishonest tactics and claims by the global warming industry under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). This law commissions “private attorneys general” to pursue violations on their own, in essence as proxies for the state.

I have explained with intermittent impatience that just serially lying or exaggerating to deceive are not on their face  RICO “predicate” offenses. There must be three instances of a certain type of enumerated behavior over ten years to constitute a pattern in violation of RICO.

I have received an email from someone who has much appropriate training and experience and which causes me to revisit the issue. […] (source)

Along with that, Michelle Malkin makes the important point:

First things first: The alleged hackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That said: The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home. (source)

But it may be that the outrageous actions of some of the more extreme in the environmental movement may have the unintended consequences of protecting the hacker(s). A comment at Michelle Malkin’s blog makes that connection.

I say turnabout is fair play. James Hansen flew to England to help get six Greenpeace climate change activists cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station. “It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a ‘lawful excuse’ defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.”


If a “lawful excuse” defence can work for climate change hooligans, why not for these hackers/whisleblowers? The only damage they did was to expose the truth and reveal data paid for by public funds (assuming the files were not doctored, of course.) (full comment text here)

There is a searchable database of the over 1000 alleged emails online now.

Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable (thanks to What’s Up With That?)

The Bishop Hill blog has a readable summary of some of the emails.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number. (source)

How many of the usual suspect media outlets have covered this?


Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions

Choose your language:
Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese
Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: