Watergate Had Its Cover Up, Why Shouldn't Climategate?

Somewhere, behind closed doors, when the truth started to leak out in Climategate, a group of big wigs realized that they'd have to admit to something. They decided that they'd have to admit the most obvious problems with their so-called "science," so now they're conceding that the hockey-stick graph depicting the rise in global temperatures and threat regarding Himalayan glaciers are wrong.

But that's it. Everything else is kosher, right? We're good. Seriously, you can trust us.

So what have they really learned? Nothing. They knew that this garbage was false all along, and only now admit it because they have to do so. Do not expect a mea culpa. They don't think that you deserve one. They think that you're an idiot, and they're your knights in shining armor.

WSJ Opinion on Climategate

The WSJ published this opinion on Climategate. Either I read it while driving down a bumpy road, or I really was just nodding that much.

Climate Science, Irony, and the Root of All Evil

If you are not up to date on the row over unethical tactics and dishonest reporting of facts amongst the world's leading climate scientists, then you really won't get the context of this post. At Free Advice, Bob Murphy has done a splendid job of distilling the issue, so I suggest going there and checking out the "Climategate" posts of the last few weeks. You should, in fact, check Free Advice on a daily basis.

These climate scientists who blackmail editors, blacklist rivals, and fudge data must know now how the geocentrists felt in Galileo's wake.

The state was able to exert political pressure and force Galileo to retract his findings, for Galileo--by affirming Copernicus's proof of heliocentrism--had contradicted scientific and religious orthodoxy.

In exchange for his life, Galileo simply denied his "heretical" assertions--as if getting Galileo to take it back was the same as proving him wrong.

If the geocentrists had been so right in their view, shouldn't they have been able simply to contradict Galileo?

Of course they couldn't contradict him with anything resembling evidence, so they threatened him.

So the story goes. Now its the scientists who have the state's ear, and they're behaving as the Church did half a millenium ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By the way, Christopher Hitchens asserts that "Religion poisons everything." I've been picking my way through his book God Is Not Great, and--while I'm not yet ready to make anything resembling a critique--I can say that Hitchens's examples prove not that religion poisons everything, but that the coercive powers of a supposedly legitimate state poison everything. Religion is often used as an excuse--or as a cover, as Hitchens describes Milsovic's grab for territory in the 1990's--but that doesn't mean that religion is the issue.

The same is true in Ireland, Lebanon, Israel, etc. It's the existence and involvement of the state that corrupts and leads to widespread suffering.

It's actually quite obvious, when you look at it. It links all forms of tyranny: from your run-of-the-mill theocratic dictatorship (e.g. the Taliban) to an atheistic dictatorship (e.g. Communism).

Remove their ability to inflict violence, and the Taliban becomes an oddity not unlike the Amish. Take away a communist's access to coercive powers, and he becomes a disgruntled academic or something slightly worse.

The state is the most violent organization on the planet. Only it enables men to be cruel and tyrannical on a noteworthy scale.

Back to Galileo. If the Church hadn't had the state to act as its goon, then the worst that it could have done was excommunicate Galileo. While this might have emotionally devastated Galileo, it would not have harmed him physically.

But now it's the climate scientists who have the state's ear, and what they're trying to do in Copenhagen and elsewhere should alarm you. Once the Church of Climate Change has real political power behind it, you'll see what I mean.

Then again, you can just read some history. It's all happened before.

Just a Few Thoughts on the Climate Row Before I'm Off to Work

Last week, I found this on Bob Murphy's site, Free Advice. It wasn't the only or even original source for this issue, but it was where I started.

Then this.


In a nutshell, we're starting to glipse how baldly (and badly) these people lie and cheat their way into politics via so-called objective science.

This article says that scientists have "debunked" the theory of climate data manipulation, but they haven't debunked anything. They've denied it, sure, but that's not the same as debunking.

"Nobel" Gas That's Not Inert

So Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, even though his work has neither promoted nor secured world peace. In fact, Gore's plan for us would lead to widespread global poverty, to such an extent that tensions would almost certainly increase, making war between nations and civil wars much more likely if not extremely probable. Ladies and gentlemen, that's called irony.

On the other hand, if Gore can win a Nobel Peace Prize, then there's really nothing stopping me from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature--the award being based upon this blog, of course. Sure, this blog isn't really literature, but it's pretty clear that the Nobel crew doesn't really give a darn about truth or merit.

Click on the following link to read an interesting article that mentions, among other things, the potential and likely benefits of global warming.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

Global Warming: Rated "P-13" for Moderately Foul Language

Live Earth: musicians pool their talents to convince people to think, preach, and act counterintuitively to the truth.

It reminds me of the failed "Vote for Change" tour of musicians (e.g. Bruce Springsteen, John Mellancamp, etc.) who tried to convince us that John Kerry was a statesman.

Neither is true. It doesn't matter that Springsteen and Mellancamp are responsible for great lyrics like

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas lines of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run, ain't go nowhere to go (Springsteen)

or

Life goes on
Long after the thrill
Of livin' is gone. (Mellancamp)

They are musicians. They act like philosophers and they try desperately to speak like poets, but in the end they hold a guitar in one hand, a joint in the other, and talk as if recording a hit album was the equivalent of walking out of Plato's cave.

How many times do I have to say it? The earth has been warming naturally since the end of the Ice Age. Let's talk scientific facts. There was an Ice Age. Everything was really freaking cold. Tens of thousands of years ago--before factories, cars, etc.--the Earth started to warm. We have been warming ever since. These are freaking facts, and still these freaking (choose one) a. fascist b. communist c. retarded a-holes are running around like chicken little because data shows that the climate is warming.

No crap, Corky. If the climate wasn't warming, then my ass would be frozen on a glacier. Thanks for the info, dude.

I'm sorry for the use of such crass language, but I'm at the end of my wits here. Are people so freaking stupid that they follow this crap? The global warming 'tards say that we need to listen to them because it concerns the future for your children and grandchildren, etc.

I say this, if we do listen to you, then there's not much hope for our children and grandchildren, etc.

By the way, if anyone ever says "and et cetera," do me a favor and call them ignorant. the et in et cetera already means "and."
!

Global Warming is Junk Science

Pseudo-scientists and eco-nazis push the global warming argument because it is their best chance at getting attention and getting power. Sure, they are concerned about the environment. However, their particular kind of concern is not influenced by the truth. Whenever the truth stands in their way, they either ignore it or fabricate a story that the average Joe Blow idiot will buy because he paid attention to Jack Squat in even the most basic science classes.

The media plays right into these people's hands. First of all, the media is dominated by leftists who advocate state control of the means of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Second, it's a damn good story. The unspoken motto of the mass media is "If it bleeds, it leads." People tune in for shock and awe. What is more shocking and awe inspiring than armageddon? Therefore, the media shows only the side of the story that shocks and awes.

Not all scientists agree that human beings have caused global warming. Those who do receive fat pay checks from governments who wish for further research to help avoid the apocalypse. The fact that politicians like Al Gore are really the loudest of the bunch should be a clue that it is not a legitimate scientific matter.

What all scientists do agree on, however, is that over ten thousand years ago, the Earth's climate began to warm (which is why we are no longer in the Ice Age). This warming took place with no help from factories, coal plants, or SUV's. The long term trend is actually one of warming, not of stability.

Let's consider how pathetic really is the "Global Warming/Sky is Falling" argument. It really centers on circumstantial evidence: that temperatures in the past century were, on average, a little warmer than in the century before. Seriously, we're not talking about climate change really, we're talking about a change in a few degrees. Note also that the past century was not even the warmest of the last thousand years. This doesn't get mentioned because the truth doesn't matter to these people. At the very best, we have a weak correlation between rising CO2's and climate. It's very weak because, quite obviously, when the Ice Age ended, the Earth was warming just fine on its own with negligible human activity.

The real cornerstone of their argument is not science. It is fear. If you don't stop CO2 emissions, then the world will die! This form of persuasion fits into the same category as the following.

1.) If we abolish slavery, then black men will run rampant and rape white women (this was a very serious worry in the North and the South. It is also the reason why cocaine and other such drugs were abolished: fear that African American men would get high and rape white women).

2.) The Jews are parasites who are sucking the culture out of Germany especially and Western Civilization in general. They are behind Capitalism, for it allows them--as the capitalists--to seize power. They are behind Marxism, for it allows them--as the party elite--to seize power. Etc. If we don't take care of the Jews, then they'll take care of us!

3.) If we don't fight in Vietnam, then the communists will take over all of Asia and then the rest of the world, including us!

4.) If we don't invade Iraq, then Saddam will either deploy his massive arsenal of WMD's against Israel, Europe, and the United States, or he'll provide those WMD's to Al Quaida for the same purpose!

5.) If we don't stop all of these Irish immigrants from coming to the United States, they'll acquire citizenship, elect the Pope to the presidency, and establish a Roman Catholic state in place of our protestant (but secular) Republic!

That's right. I'm saying it. The global warming folks are of the same kin as the worst kind of tyrants that this world has ever seen. The most dangerous thing facing this society today is not global warming. It's the men and women who push the global warming agenda. They are my sworn enemies, and I spit upon them for taking me as a fool who will be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

A Polemic on Climate Change

For good God's sake, one of the first damn principles in science and philosophy that I learned was that correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, the Romans recognized the error of thinking post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

And yet, so many scientists claim that the cause of global warming (which is, I admit, apparently undeniable--at least in the short term) is the result of increased carbon gas emissions since the advent of the industrial revolution (c. late 1700's). However, logic tells us clearly that just because these two things correlate (somewhat--check the freaking records!), neither can be construed as the cause of the other, for it is equally probable that they are either both results of an altogether different cause (which, makes no sense at all--that a warming climate led to an increased burning of fossil fuels is quite absurd) or completely unrelated (very likely, but not very dramatic).

Ockham's Razor--a basic principle in so-called "modern science" (I use quotation marks because the idea is about 700 years old)--tells us to look to lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony/succinctness). Simply put, nearly one thousand years ago, William of Ockham pointed out that entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity). In layman's terms, this means that the most likely answer/cause is the answer/cause. Such reasoning is quite reasonable whenever solid, irrefutable evidence pointing toward a single answer/cause does not exist.

Knowing this, I ask you which is more likely:

That the climate has been steadily increasing since the Ice Age (thousands of years before the industrial revolution), and is therefore a natural occurrence, completely independent of human action; or that the Earth warmed naturally from the Ice Age but then stopped at some kind of arbitrary point and that human beings have managed to pushed the climate beyond that "naturally" arbitrary point?

Basically, it is irrefutable that the climate warmed thousands of years ago without human assistance. Those cavemen, while they might have been able to use Geico.com, produced as a whole over several millennia, fewer "greenhouse gasses" then I do after a trip to White Castle. So it is established that the Earth can warm on its own.

Considering Ockham's contribution, then, it is far more likely that the Earth is simply continuing what it started ten thousand years ago with only brief respites.

Let's not forget the motivation behind the Chicken Little's who cry that the sky is falling.

Some are politicians (e.g. Al Gore) who can use such fear to catapult themselves to the pinnacles of power. Many are egotists who are so pathetically lonely that they must use such fear to make themselves seem important. Still others have their eyes set on the money that keeps pouring in from ignorantly desperate governments who lack the wisdom to just say "No." Perhaps more insidious is the fact that many socialists who advocate a command economy have seized upon the issue in order to gain control over the modes of production and consumption.

But let us not forget that demagogues lead their people to Hell. Egotists care for no one but themselves. The greedy will do anything for money. And the socialists will sacrifice the lives of millions to see their collectivist schemes enacted. You don't believe me? Study the histories of the Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

They tell us that it is likely that humans are causing global warming. However, with a complete lack of knowledge about what causes the climate to increase naturally, anything is a likely candidate. Imagine a room full of one thousand people. The room is dark. No one can see. A murder is committed. The lights return. Every person there is equally likely a suspect.

While the industrial revolution was underway in Great Britain and the United States, Ludwig von Beethoven composed his 9th Symphony, famous for its "Ode to Joy." Ever since it was first performed, it has been performed constantly. It correlates to the supposed advent of global warming.

Another factor that most people don't consider is that human beings could not come close to recording accurate temperatures until the early 1700's. Since the Earth has been around far longer than that, these so-called scientists are claiming that a mere 300 years (out of millions and millions of total years) is enough to establish supposedly "normal" climate patterns. You should not have to think long to see this as nonsensical. 300 years is not even one half of 1,000 years, and recorded history far exceeds 2,000 years. In a nutshell, 300 years is a completely insufficient sample. Add to this the fact that the climate has gradually warmed on its own since the Ice Age, and you can see even more problems with the "Sky is Falling" camp.

Still another point to consider is that whenever a major volcanic eruption occurs, the Earth (quite naturally) deposits far more "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than man has ever produced in all of history. Check the data on Mount Pinatubo's 1991 eruption for actual evidence to this point.

If nature itself can outdo man's entire repertoire in a single volcanic eruption, who's the more likely culprit in global warming?

Remember, I'm not saying that overall temperatures have not increased since they've been recorded. What I'm saying is that there is no proof that humans have caused this increase, and that such a claim is baseless. Conjecture is not evidence. Possibility is not evidence. If it were, then every person in Dallas on November 22, 1963 could be a "likely" suspect in President Kennedy's assassination (for the record, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. Read Case Closed by Gerald Posner if you wish to disagree).

The Mexicans are Coming! Addendum

I can't believe that I let this point slip past me.

So the Mexicans are swarming into the United States and bringing with them steady 98.6° body temperatures (which will naturally warm the surface temperature) along with their picante-fueled methane anal emissions (a greenhouse gas of the worst kind).

This I established.

What I omitted was to observe how the Mexicans are moving north, and that they'll keep moving north. Eventually, they'll move into Canada. Now you see the problem, don't you? The polar ice caps are in Canada! Seriously, see for yourself what happens when you turn your freezer up to 98.6°, add some tortillas, frijoles, and Pace (it's made in San Antonio--not like that other stuff that's made in New York City).

Good God Almighty! I entered this into my computer model, and it looks like the world will end somewhere in the spring of 2011: probably on Cinco de Mayo (because nature abhors a vacuum but loves irony).

The Mexicans are Coming!

There's something pathetic and ignorant about those on the latest crisis bandwagon: immigrants are ruining this country!

I just finished putting in some data to a computer model. Holy crap, I just realized that the human body's average temperature is 98.6.° Since this body temperature remains constant throughout the year, it won't be long until the 98.6° round-the-clock body-heat emitted from all these millions of Mexican immigrants begins to affect the climate here in the United States. That's right: Mexicans are causing global warming!

What makes it even worse is that they are consuming more and more picante sauce. Rather than settle for a nice, mild pico de gallo, they're going strait for the hot stuff. These spicy farts contain copious amounts of methane gas--a substance which, I have been told, is "more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2" (source: see the comment made to my global warming argument). That's right folks, we're talking about a Mex-ane catastrophe on the horizon.

The evidence is really overwhelming.

Think about it. Mexico's really hot, especially when compared to, say, Minnesota. What, other than latitude, is the major difference between Minnesota and Mexico? Mexico has lots of Mexicans. As these Mexicans pour into Texas, they'll heat everything up with their body heat and picante-methane emissions. Soon, Texas will be uninhabitable. Once they've ruined Texas, it's on to Oklahoma, then Kansas and Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa, and outward in all directions.

It will become even worse once they penetrate Utah. Once there, the Mexican custom of large families will collide with the Mormon tradition of polygamy. Oh my God, it's like the perfect storm. Now, José will have twelve kids with twelve wives. (that's 144 kids) They'll start knocking on people's doors, dressed up in Chachiruleado suits, trying to sell us chiclets while asking if we'd heard the good news brought by the prophet Joseph Smith.


And now I tire of this. I just hope that the xenophobes feel adequately mocked and grateful that their progenitors crossed the Atlantic at least a hundred years ago and not the Rio Grande today.

Global Warming For Idiots

So the Earth's climate is on the rise. The problem is the cause and effect attitude taken by so many. In logic, the error is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). What makes this error even more egregious is that we're not even talking about the climate change as an "after this."

Consider: the argument is that CO2 emissions have risen dramatically in the last 200 years and exponentially in the last hundred. During this period, there have been measured increases in the global temperature. The trend toward warming is not, however, in dispute. What's in dispute is that it has occurred "after" the increased levels of CO2, and is therefore the result of increased CO2 levels. This is how people see the global warming issue: that the climate was steady until factories and automobiles started spewing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that the climate has been warming ever since.

By Tuesday, even my five-year-old daughter should be able to find the flaw in this. That's when she's going to see Ice Age 2. The main conflict in this movie is the rapid warming of the Earth and the ensuing consequences. Think about it. The climate has been warming for close to 20,000 years.

Here's the problem with our CO2 (cause) and global warming (effect) scenario. 20,000 years BEFORE factories and automobiles produced mass quantities of CO2, back when "heavy industry" meant some fat guy fashioning arrowheads made out of stone, the Earth's climate warmed all on its own.

Scientists have long supported Occam's Razor when distinguishing between causes: the simplest explanation is the most likely. Now, given that the Earth's temperature has been warming for over 20.000 years and humans have been producing mass-quantities of CO2 for only 200 or so years, which is the more likely reason why temperatures today are a little bit higher than they were when they were first measured over a century ago: natural or human causation? The answer, of course, is that the most likely cause for global warming now is the same cause for global warming 20,000 years ago. When someone says that X is caused by Y, he should make sure that X came after Y. Otherwise, something else had to be the cause.

But there's something about human causation that many people like. For one, the belief in human causation will spur governments to force people to change their modes of transportation and production. Statists love this. It's a great way, actually, to convince people that the government should manage industry (if they don't, presumably, we'll all die). Environmentalists don't care if it's a lie, so long as it results in more and more regulations on industry. Viewed in this light, the present ado over global warming is a combination of ignorance and error (the whole cause and effect thing), and a conspiracy of statists and environmentalists whose arguments are so lacking in validity that they must resort to lies and scare tactics.