Garbage In, Etc.

Back in the Blogging Dark Ages, when I was still a Junior Blogger, my first online argument came with Steve Appell (I think) from none other than Scientific American  magazine.

I blogged that the data underlying the climate scare was suspect, whereupon he came after me and asked whether I had a degree in climatology.  I replied in the negative, of course, but added that while lacking in that august qualification that my argument was not against the weather, but the data collected thereof — and when it came to predictive modeling, I very much knew what I was talking about, having been a statistician and data analyst pretty much all my working life, and that some of the models I’d been involved in were fantastically accurate — up to 95% accuracy.

Of course, the weather models then (and now) extant were completely hopeless  — not one had ever come close to predicting any kind of reality — and the principle reason was because the data collection methodology was clearly flawed, as the weather / climate measurement station locations had become unrepresentative.

So here we come to today, and nothing has changed — in fact, things have got worse:

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022) – A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and  uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

It’s like putting a thermometer in your home to measure the ambient temperature, and then when you buy a wood stove and install it right next to the thermometer, not moving the measuring device to another part of the room.

I’d suggest incompetence, but when the flaws are so obviously designed to support a political theory (which is what modern-day climate “science” has become), we can only call it malfeasance.  As with all things of this nature, the solution is self-evident:

Quote Of The Day

From Hugo Gurdon:

“We’re now able, with our dazzling technology, to look billions of light years from the surface of our planet all the way to the rim of outer space and to peer back as far as the beginning of the universe. But here on Earth, we blind ourselves with ideology and cannot see what’s staring us in the face.”

Most concise takedown of the Green Tyranny I’ve seen to date.

Wrong Target

We all know that the eco-loons are bereft of wit (in the old fashioned sense — i.e. they’re clueless), but this little game surely takes the Golden Moron Award of 2022 (amidst, it should be said, strong competition from the Biden Maladministration):

The 10th stage of the Tour de France was halted for 10 minutes on Tuesday after half a dozen climate activists tried to stop riders on the road before being pulled out by police and a senior organisers’ official.

Look, I don’t agree with anything these fuckwits are doing, but at least I can see the logic behind blocking a motorway, if you are all about stopping Big Oil or whatever.

But blocking a bicycle race?  Where’s the eco-harm in that?

I know, I know;  it’s all about the publicity and has nothing to so with logic.

What I want to know is:  what’s going to happen in 989 days?

Actually, never mind.  Whatever they say will happen then, won’t.  Especially if they’re relying on climate “models” for their Doomsday prediction.

Bullshit Spreaders

In the headline to this post, I can make a wee suggestion for change:

NPR Spreads Misinformation About Climate Change and Models (Again)

Actually, you could put it as “NPR Spreads Misinformation About _________ (Again)” or even just  “NPR Spreads Misinformation (Again)” if you want to go for brevity.

However, let me not spoil your enjoyment of the article itself, which is brimful of all sorts of anti- Green / Net Zero / glueball wormening or whatever the Watermelons are calling it nowadays.  A taste:

Since climate is an average of weather in a region over the span of 30 years, right away attempting to attribute individual storms to climate change is unscientific at best. Attribution research has been widely criticized for its inability to be repeated through testing, falsified, or measured in the real world—all necessary characteristics of science—and for the fact that predictions made by the models are based on emission scenarios that don’t match real world emission data, and are, in some instances, impossible.

All that, and so much more.  Read it, and chuckle.