December 5, 2013

“Smoking Gun That NCDC Temperature Adjustments Are A Complete Fraud”

Despite the settled science and all, which is a check on “complete frauds,” apparently.  Besides, what does this so-called data — dry, uncaring, oblivious to emotionalism and anecdotal implication as it is — have to do with the moral rectitude of protecting this glorious orb from the inhabitants who evolved upon it, like parasites, as a way to kill it off with their noxious exhalation?

Answer:  nothing.

The fact of the matter is, if the earth can’t take care of itself from the parasites it’s been unable to prevent from evolving in an effort to destroy it, then clearly what’s needed is for those parasites to do the noble thing and kill themselves off for the sake of the planet that gave them life.

Science without the tendentious arguments of scientists is nothing more than number-crunching and theory-testing.  And how boring is that — particularly when as an alternative you can get politically involved and draw all sorts of grants from those who like what it is you’re willing to peddle?

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:11am
10 comments | Trackback

Comments (10)

  1. Who dares unsettle the science!?

  2. Qui bono?

    Always the first question, me hearties.

  3. Do not fuck with the raw data.

    Also: the raw data doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. See: urban heat island.

  4. Fict nicht mit der klimatmench

  5. Can’t recall where I saw it, but a recent analysis of the “scientific consensus” (a meaningless phrase if ever there was one) on anthropogenic climate change stated that, if you ask an individual scientist if they saw any conclusive evidence supporting the Alarmists position in their area of expertise, the answer would usually be “No, but I have heard that people working in other areas have such evidence.”

    In other words, this “consensus” is manufactured on nothing more substantial than hearsay.

    But then, since I can’t recall, or therefore link to, that piece, then this post is hearsay as well. So we’re even, right?

  6. Do not fuck with the raw data.

    Instead, adjust it upwards to compensate for urban heat islands, and then make sure the raw data accidentally gets deleted.

    Oh, no, I don’t mean YOU, East Anglia.

  7. There are people who deny that the data is in fact deleted.

    I know what name I’d use for such people.

  8. Related: do not fuck with Santa.

  9. I was told there would be no math. Also, it’s well established that math is intrinsically RAAAAACIST!

  10. “As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice—there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community. To discover how scientific revolutions are effected, we shall therefore have to examine not only the impact of nature and of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists.” (emphasis added)

    Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

    Substitute “consensus” for “revolution,” and “selection/adjustment/modeling/interpretation of data” for “paradigm choice.” The political analogy was never more fitting than it is today.

Leave a Reply