JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps

One of the main arguments from the IPCC is that essentially, we can’t explain temperature changes any other way than with carbon forcings. This is matched with impressive pink and blue graphs that pose as evidence that carbon is responsible for all the recent warming.

This is argumentum ad ignorantiam — essentially they say: we don’t know what else could have caused that warming, so it must be carbon. It’s a flawed assumption.

It’s easy to create impressive graphs, especially if you actively ignore other possible causes, like for example, changes in cloud cover and solar magnetic effects.

1.

2.

3.

4.

(Addendum: Since the Skeptics Handbook came out we now know that actually they did care about that warm blip in the 1940′s that the models can’t explain. But instead of changing the models, they changed the data. Thanks to ClimateGate for that insight.)

5.

Error bars make the graph look more official. (On a graph based entirely on a logical error, what meaning does an “error bar” have?)

6. Add the key…

Thus, using data you already had, and a stab at the unknown, you can make it appear your models are accurate AND that carbon is the cause. Sure the modellers are using real carbon levels and physical calculations, but they assume carbon is responsible for the warming.

Thus it’s circular reasoning: decide that carbon is a problem; see its “effect” in this graph; declare carbon must be a problem, and rejoice, the models create what we fed them to start with. The Marvel!

(It’s too easy, and politicians fall for it. Then they give us more money to do more “modelling”.)

Page 12

These graphs are very important.

This page is dedicated specifically to Minister Penny Wong in The Australian Government.

When Senator Fielding met Penny Wong in 2009, she waved the IPCC pink-and-blue graphs in the air and repeatedly referred to them as “evidence”, and saying words to the effect  “How do I make policy based on this evidence?”

Can someone please email this page to her so that she can understand why this type of graph is most definitely not evidence?

All of the “unknowns” in the graphs are assumed to be carbon. The IPCC does not take solar magnetic effects into account; the models assume cloud-cover doesn’t drive the climate, in their simulations, the climate drives clouds; they can’t predict ENSO events, the same models that produce these graphs predict that the world would have been cooler in medieval times (which it wasn’t). These models also predict the band of air 10km above the tropics will warm much faster than the ground (but it doesn’t, there is no hot spot). In other words, it’s not just that the graphs above are wrong because they make assumptions that are unproven, these graphs are wrong because the evidence shows that they are wrong. The models that produce them are deeply flawed. The assumptions they are based on are wrong, because most of the predictions that follow from these assumptions have been empirically shown to be wrong.

Furthermore models are never evidence, they are theory. “Evidence” means empirical observations from the real world. Models are just a glorified version of a string of calculations that could be done by someone on their high-school calculator (though it may take a few hundred years). You may remember from high school exams, that just because you held a hot Hewlett Packard  HP-25C, that didn’t guarantee you always got the right answer.

The IPCC is doing a very clever PR campaign with top marketing techniques and a near infinite budget (of other people’s money).  They are playing politicians for patsies.

But the politicians don’t have to be “played”, they can choose to hear both sides of the story.


TURN THE PAGES (Links in red will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 + 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This is Page 12 of The Skeptics Handbook II, a 20 page PDF.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)
How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps, 9.3 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y9znuuf

43 comments to How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    I am new to the controversy and have been using many of the sites linked to yours to learn, so I do not know the answer to this question. Has the IPCC, CRU or any of the other proponents even tried to account for the effects of other factors on the climate (like Clouds, solar cycles, etc.)? If I am understanding your EZ Graph here, they have not. They have only tried to relate the absolute temperature change to one factor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernie

    HI JO
    HAVE FOLLOWED THE DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING SUPPOSED AWG WITH GREAT FASCINATION.USED TO BE A “CAUTIOUS SCEPTIC”-MEANING THAT I THOUGHT MAYBE THE AWG AGENDA SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.EVEN SO I HAD BEEN A REGULAT VISITOR TO “CO2 SCIENCE”,WHICH IS FULL OF EVIDENCE THAT CASTS DOUBT ON AWG
    AFTER CLIMATGATE AND FINDING YOUR EXCELLENT SITE AND OTHERS,I AM NOW CONVINCED AWG IS A FRAUD ROOTED IN POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
    GREAT JOB–KEEP IT UP!
    BERNIE D. M.D.
    P.S.CAME ACROSS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE RE:HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC “CONSENSUS”:
    http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    good stuff joanne. thank you. keep up the good work.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nicklase and ClimateGate_RT, Mark Smith. Mark Smith said: How to create a global warming crisis graph in 6 simple steps http://cli.gs/UyqYqp [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Great work Joanne. The graphics give a good visualization of the issue. I also share your view of the argument from ignorance. It keeps popping up in Nature Magazine, IPCC, and elsewhere, and I have written about it on my web site, http://www.socratesparadox.com.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    It is all very sad!

    I worked for a time, as a scientific programmer modelling electronic circuits.

    The math was reasonably well understood, but was a little too complex to be managed on a slide-rule.

    However, when we compared the outputs from our models with empirical observations, we invariably found situations where the models deviated from the measurements. This was usually met with a mixture of frustration and excitement. Frustration, in that we did not have the “clean” predictive tool that we wanted. But also excitement, because the variance gave us another area for research – there was something happening in the electronics that we didn’t understand – or our physical observations were somehow flawed – or (perish the thought) our models were wrong.

    It is all very sad, because the standing joke at the time was always, “Damn, the bl**dy data is wrong, AGAIN. I thought I had fixed that.”

    The other standing joke was, “You told me to choose a number and double it. I guess I chose the wrong number, eh?”

    C’mon, computer modellers don’t get to go out much …

    It is also very sad because the physics underlying climatic changes is by no means as well understood, or as simple, as the laws applying to electronic engineering.

    Climate science is a new field, and the people working in it can probably only explain about 20% of what is going on in conceptual terms, and have math that can model that proportion in about half of the cases they can talk about. But they have become celebrities – centre stage in the IPCC – having to strut their stuff under the lights. And they get loads of grant money for doing so. Oh, and they have to be right, as well! “Damn, the bl**dy data is wrong, AGAIN!” …

    But ya’know, at the end of the day, I am happy because my HP-32S trumps Joanne’s HP-25C.

    (And yes, I still have my old slide-rule)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    PhilJourdan # 1

    Firstly, let me congratulate you on being a first-responder. Some of us have been trying to get to the top of the list for ages. :-)

    To answer your question, the group of researchers who advise the IPCC (which is no more than a bureaucracy) have built their science around the work of Hansen et al, and the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. It is all to do with trying to correlate the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere with a mythical, calculated, average global temperature.

    There are other researchers, who are studying the effects of solar cycles and cosmic rays on the Earth’s atmosphere, cloud formation, etc., but they do not form part of the gravy-train that flows from giving advice to the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Rereke Whaakaro:

    There are other researchers, who are studying the effects of solar cycles and cosmic rays on the Earth’s atmosphere, cloud formation, etc., but they do not form part of the gravy-train that flows from giving advice to the IPCC.

    So does that mean the IPCC report (and the supporting reports therein) have not factored in anything but CO2 to account for the warming? It would seem that they would at least address them, if then negate them, but in my reading I have not seen them mentioned in the same document (outside of the non-official documents such at the ones on this site).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    PhilJourdan # 8

    … does that mean the IPCC report (and the supporting reports therein) have not factored in anything but CO2 to account for the warming?

    Solar effects have not been totally ignored by the AGW scientists. After all, the sun is ultimately the source of all of our energy. And while they acknowledge that the sun has a number of cycles of activity that are more or less predictable, and they accept that these cycles may have some affect on the upper atmosphere, they also strenuously argue that such variations have little correlation with the observed “world climate model”, and so only have a minimal impact in the lower troposphere, which is where most of the weather action is.

    At the end of the day, the IPCC accepts (or rejects) the professional opinion of its’ appointed “experts”. Solar activity has in the past, I believe, been presented to the IPCC as a contributing factor, but failed to gain a consensus from other scientific “experts”, who actively opposed it. It is really all about the money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Hi Jo,

    You left out the most important point before step one that the temperature data itself has been manipulated to give a rise in the first place. Deliberately reducing heating in the 1940′s and increasing heating in the post 60′s.

    Not to mention the elimination of the Medieval warm period.

    Now we hear that NASA’s GISS has selectively reduced the number of temperature sensing posts by 75% taking out all of the cold temperature points or moving them to warmer sites such as airports.

    Add this to the method for filling in the gaps by applying temerature data out upto 1200 km.

    So if the data set is rubbish everything after it is rubbish.

    I would add another graph to highlight this especially given we are being feed the rubbish we have the warmest decade in history.

    Keep up the great work

    Scott


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DHMO

    Good stuff Joanne but what the hell does an old HP 25c RPN calculator have to do with it? These were last made in 1978. On another matter I have recently read more of Christopher Booker’s “Scared To Death”. In the context of Climategate I found it quite depressing. The many scares in it that the perpetrators have got away with. They create a scare using very poor science for which great acclaim is received. The government and media defend them against all comers and it is never exposed. Taking lead out of petrol is a good example this is on one study by one researcher consequently disproved but it did not matter. It means cars are less efficient and produce more CO2. This support for bad science is common not just in climate. I have interest in the aboriginal question. In the literature Australia’s reputation is the worst of the worst. Hitler, Pol Pott, Stalin, Ede Armin etc., saints compared to our early settlers! Reason; poor science supported by politics and media. Very depressing, maybe eugenics was correct the human race is descending into stupidity and superstition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DHMO

    Oops should have read whole article dead right the HP 25c sorry.

    [ I was just looking for an image of a well recognized calculator. The HP-25 was one of the first programmable ones, so it seemed appropriate. If you click on the image you can see it up close! I was impressed, it captured that 70's look so well... But as you've guessed, the point was that we could emulate a climate model with a bunch of calculators and pieces of paper. If someone calculated the size of your house, but someone else measured it, we'd call the measurements empirical, but not the "calculation". This is probably obvious to you, but I seem to have to keep explaining why climate simulations are not the climate... I'm just searching for ways to make it "concrete" :-) --JN ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Seen on Elders with Andrew Denton this week, Helen Thomas
    said near the end of the interview,
    “The dynamic of propaganda after the fear card has been played”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Jo,
    I only discovered your blog recently. You do a good job of cutting though the BS straight to the point. Long may it continue!

    A colleague has developed a lovely way of putting temperature trends on a map. It gives a new way of looking at cooling and warming trends that you might find interesting: http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/01/mapping-global-warming.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Joanne:

    You conclude by saying;

    “But the politicians don’t have to be “played”, they can choose to hear both sides of the story.”

    True, and here in the UK some have started to try to understand.

    The following is a copy of the cover note I have sent to a UK Parliamentary Select Committee that has decided to investigate Climategate: its investigation is announced at
    http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

    Richard

    *********

    Dear Members of the Science and Technology Committee:

    Please find the attached copy with Appendices of my Submission to your “Investigation of the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)”.

    I will post a hard copy to you as your press release announces is required.

    My Declaration of Interests is implicit in my submission: i.e.
    (a) I resent having had a scientific paper blocked from publication by nefarious method
    and
    (b) one of the emails hacked (?) from the CRU was from me and it demonstrates that I complained about the ‘blocking’.

    However, my “Interests” are trivial in comparison to the importance of the substantive point of my submission: viz.

    The email demonstrates that 6 years ago the self-titled ‘Team’ knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

    Regards

    Richard S Courtney

    88 Longfield
    Falmouth
    Cornwall
    TR11 4SL
    United Kingdom


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Jo, send a Skeptics Handbook to both Senator Sue Boyce and Senator Judith Troeth…. There is enough controversy with AGW now, that they may take a surreptitious look at it during a quiet moment;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt.B

    After reading this article, the article on the CSIRO’s change of thoughts about climate changes’ influence on the droughts of eastern Australia and the meeting between Stephen Fielding and Penny Wong it just goes to show that politicians (those particularly in the Labor Party) don’t know everything about climate change and this is very dangerous because they are the ones trying to make policy on this subject. Another example was when news came out that Australia had warmed 0.9 degrees in the past decade the Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett attacked Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott by saying that climate change was a real issue.
    Well climate change is a real issue but Mr. Garrett just because there is a rise in temperature doesn’t mean that carbon was the culprit.
    I admire Tony Abbott’s plan to try and fix the Murray-Darling river system. Instead of the Labor Party focusing on the environmental issues in Australia such as drought and the Murray-Darling River they merely class it as effects of climate change simply ignoring the the agricultural impacts and deterioration of vegetation it has on the Murray and focus on the ‘global problem’. They believe that by cutting carbon emissons with a scheme that will be a detriment to the Australian Economy but not try to limit water usage by farmers based on this major river system those particularly in southern Queensland.

    Matt.B


    Report this

    00

  • #
    intrepid_wanders

    Rereke,

    I am very impressed on your understanding of this modeling field (I usually call it the “freak-show” by nature) but you have been properly educated to this “model is fact” ridiculousness. The problem that I have always seen is the variants “Wonderland” where I hear the childish exclamation of “That’s it!” that strikes me into shame that I found science the last bastion against hypocrisy (Which did crumble).

    Hang in there!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Taking lead out of petrol is a good example this is on one study by one researcher consequently disproved but it did not matter.

    The lead in petrol damages the modern lambda sensors that are used by engine management computers to self-tune the engine. This is why modern cars run cleaner even without regular tune ups, and so exhaust pollution is reduced (particulates, nitrogen oxides, etc). The two primary purposes of having the lead in the petrol were to make the iron valve seats last longer and to increase the octane rating. The first purpose was made irrelevant by superior material science and tougher valve seats, the second purpose can just as easily use benzine and similar things.

    Thus, the changeover to lead free petrol was done for good reasons, but they were engineering reasons related to the vehicle design. It was sold to the public as a health measure and the public were stupid enough to swallow what they were told. If anything, benzine in petrol is much more dangerous to humans than lead ever was.

    Don’t get me started on lead free soldier which has absolutely no engineering justification, nor even the slightest health justification. It’s only a matter of time before tin whiskers start showing up all over the place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That’s not me by the way – in case you thought I’d flipped sides.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    Richard Courtney – when are people like you going to get round to suing some of these guys? I’m not just being a rah-rah sceptic here – the enquiry you refer to, and others like it, MAY survive attempts to turn them into whitewashes, but I wouldn’t bet on it, and I’d be much happier to see them in court, where the winds of forensic thought, to which these guys appear strangers, blow rather colder. Elsewhere on the net, lawyers have given opinions on possible grounds for litigation, including the memorable American term “tortious interference”, which must surely have its British, Australian, Canadian, etc. counterparts? I hope you’ve got a good brief on the case and are just not telling!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    To those of you pondering the “why do we keep scaring ourselves to death with imaginary catastrophes” question, can I again reccommend Kesten Green’s structured analysis of “Big Scary Predictions That Haven’t yet Come True”, and of the lamentable consequences of legislative attempts to forfend them:

    http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Graphs are so ripe for those who seek to mislead. Who hasn’t truncated the X-axis range to make the peaks steeper ?

    You can fool some of the people all of the time,
    You can fool all of the people some of the time,
    but you can’t fool all of the people all the time

    …lazy reporters and politicians are seriously testing that last line with this warmist fraud.
    If I was a warmist, I would be starting to distance myself from the issue about now.
    The jig is up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tom Forrester-Paton:

    You ask me:

    Richard Courtney – when are people like you going to get round to suing some of these guys

    My submission to the Select Committee directly pertains to the fraudulent nature of the presentation of mean global temperature (MGT) and its use in the ‘attribution studies’ mentioned in Joanne’s article above.

    Who do I sue for that and on what grounds?

    My submission also explains that I tried to publish a paper that proves the various estimates of MGT are worthless but publication of my paper was blocked. As my submission says;

    7.
    However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). This is despite the fact that there is no obvious and/or published reason for changing a datum of MGT for years that were decades ago: the temperature measurements were obtained in those years so the change can only be an effect of alterating the method(s) of calculating MGT from the measurements. But the MGT data sets often change. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.
    8.
    Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.
    But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.
    (a) I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.
    (b) I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.
    “We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”
    (c) I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either
    the paper was rejected because it assessed incorrect data
    or
    we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.
    But I cannot prove who or what caused this.

    Who do I sue for this when “I cannot prove who or what caused this”?

    Assuming you provide answers to the above two questions, then please tell me who is going to pay the legal fees needed for me to take on the ‘Team’ in a Court of Law when the ‘Team’ has effectively unlimited funds?

    Or are you suggesting that I should starve up a pole while the media ignores my protest demonstatration?

    Some of us have been ‘in the trenches’ defending science against the ‘Team’ for a long time. Several of us have been hurt and some (e.g. Tennekes, Michaels, Legates, etc.) have had their careers destroyed by the removal of their jobs. If it were as easy to sue as you claim then several would have done it long ago.

    But, of course, as the AGW scare crumbles people are not saying it was all the fault of the politician and the media. They are starting to say it was the scientists’ fault. But “the scientists” includes me, and I object!

    We have done what we could, and many have suffered more than me. Asssertions that imply none of this would have happened if we had taken simple actions like sueing sombody rubs salt in the wounds.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom Forrester-Paton

    Richard Courtney,

    I’m not a lawyer, so I hesitate to go further than to say, as before, that others who are lawyers have opined that, in their jurisdiction, unjustfully/deceitfully interfering with someone’s work in such a way as to damage their reputations and/or careers is grounds for an action for damages.

    You will need to consult a lawyer to determine if you yourself have a case worth running, and as you say that can be expensive.

    HOWEVER, you are only one of many scientists who may have cases of various strengths, but all leading back to “tortious interference” by the Hockey Team. It seems to me an ideal opportunity to form a group, sift through your cases, choose a poster-boy with the strongest case, win it using pooled resources (see below), and then start going after the cases of the remainder, on the basis that they are by then likely to settle. Defendants will obviously try to include in these settlements a “no publicity” clause, which we, out here wishing you well, hope you will resist.

    AND, I would be surprised if there were not a few good defamation lawyers out there who would do a bit of pro bono,

    AND, if you show me a good campaign, I’d be happy to chuck a few dollars at it myself,

    AND, if you choose the USA as your jurisdiction and are prepared to share the spoils, you’ll probably find a lawyer to do it on a contingency basis.

    Why not contact Lord Lawson and his GWPF, and see if they would host such a group on their site?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Tom Forrester-Paton,
    The British government, in recent years, has not hesitated to defend any legal action in the most cynical way. The government retains the services of the most expensive team of lawyers in the business and then challenges the plaintiff to prove that he/she/they will be able to stump up costs, in the event that the government wins the case. In a case involving shareholders in Railtrack versus the government, the UK government signed up the undoubtedly brilliant Jonathan Sumption (who writes an admired multi-volume history of the Hundred Years War as a hobby), precisely in order to scare off backers of the shareholders’ case. The plaintiffs were told that they had to prove their ability to pay a certain (astronomically high) figure in costs, in the event of defeat, before the case could even proceed. (The Railtrack shareholders stumped up the cash and lost the case.)
    In the face of that kind of cynicism, Richard S Courtney would never even get into a courtroom. Understand that we could easily be talking of figures north of a million pounds.

    Owen


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Prashant

    Great minds describe it best:

    …for Anthropogenic Global Warming theory:
    “There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.”
    – François Duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)

    …for Warmists:
    “Zeal without knowledge is fire without light.”
    – Thomas Fuller (1608 – August 16, 1661). Also attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)

    …for IPCC:
    “Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”
    – James Harvey Robinson (1863-1936)

    …for Dr. Pachauri:
    “It is the habit of mediocre minds to condemn all that is beyond their grasp.”
    – François Duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In the face of that kind of cynicism, Richard S Courtney would never even get into a courtroom. Understand that we could easily be talking of figures north of a million pounds.

    Making the USA more attractive as a jurisdiction, especially when UK citizens can be snatched across to a US court, thanks to that treaty thingy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sorta confirms the view that “justice” and “law” are mutually exclusive terms.

    Never, ever venture into court proceedings with doe-eyed notions of procuring justice!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Richard North of EU referendum has really got it in for Rajendra Pachauri;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/#more-15552

    Good cartoon as well. Who said Indians are devoid of humour?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RCSz

    Before the Copenhagen conference, our (UK) minister for energy and climate change, Mr Ed Milliband stated “Women believe in Climate Change…”. While this is a startling non-sequitur, there might be an element of truth in it, excepting your good self, but including my wife and daughter. Since the two Australian AGW proponents are women, should we reflect on how to present the issue objectively to women?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    I see IPCC is doing voodoo science with millions of taxpayers money. Time for the chief of the IPCC to be charged with several serious crimes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Parale

    You may remember from high school exams, that just because you held a hot Hewlett Packard HP-25C, that didn’t guarantee you always got the right answer.

    Waoow… I never yet met anyone else who had one.
    That pesky Reverse Polish Notation was something of an acquired taste ‘though.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    That HP 25 and I think the 21 were the best calculators I owned. Nothing since is as easy to use. I still have them somewhere but they don’t work as the battery’s are shot. I wish they still made them. I have fancy graphics calculators and simpe models too but nothing compares to the HP’s of that era. I wish I could get a good RPN with the easy to find keys and function buttons just like them today.

    Oh and yes. The article above is spot on. How is it that politicians just accept the nonsense that is spoon fed to them without any skepticism. It is astounding. Except of course if a massive tax on everything just also happens to solve a massive debt that has been run up in the last couple of years. Hmmmm, I wonder, surely not. ;)

    Please Kevin – talk to us about the biggest problem mankind has faced – Climate!! MWHAHAHAA. What a crock.

    Much of this we have known about for some months. It is the fact that it is now starting to get reported in the MSM that is changing. The pace is starting to “warm up” in the MSM expecially in Europe and the US. Let’s see, Climategate, Glaciergate, now today its Naturaldisastergate. See the Times:

    UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&print=yes&randnum=1264289604732

    Lets see you make policy on that Penny. The data is deeply suspect. The IPCC reports supposedly “peer reviewed” by “thousands of scientists” have more holes in them than a road sign out west. Amazing how these errors happened to “sneak” through the “gold standard” of science reports unhindered. The glacier errors would have been spotted by a glaciologist who bothered to give it a casual glance.

    Keep it coming. No doubt lots more to come. I can smell fear as the good ship Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming after unexpectedly hitting an iceberg that wasn’t supposed to be there is sinking now down to the portholes. When is it going to reach the “tipping point” I wonder and who will be amongst the casualties that go down with the ship.

    Must get back to my seat; got my popcorn and the second part of the show is about to start.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Glaciergate not going away too quickly.

    “In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action”

    Read the rest at WUWT


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tel,

    We owe lead free solder to the idiots running the EU. A great case of junk science in action. Of all the lead mined about 1% was used in electronics, 5% in ammunition and 80% or so in batteries. So a minor increase in battery recycling would have achieved the same result.

    Note that the military, aerospace and other safety critical systems like car ABS units are exempt from the lead free requirement. Unfortunately IC manufacturers mostly now use tin plating on IC legs not lead tin so the tin whisker problem still exists. People will die as a result of this idiocy.

    This has unfortunate parallels with climate junk science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    January 23rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    That’s not me by the way – in case you thought I’d flipped sides.

    Yes Matt. We are well aware that no amount of actual evidence will “flip” you.

    You could be buried up to your neck in a glacier in the Sahara and you’d still cling to your religion.

    Thanks for keeping us all entertained. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DHMO

    Joanne I used a 25c and a latter one that had a magnetic card reader. Guess I am showing my age. I am a retired analyst/programmer for last 30years or so. I have worked with large government systems mainly. We had a large resource of business analysts, analyst programmers and testers. Comparatively the requirements of such systems are quite simple but always they proved difficult to get correct. When I read about GCMs my immediate thought was go on you are kidding me. For me any program that has to be tweaked is fundamentally unsound and you can not create new knowledge. There is a book by Von Storch and Muellor on computer modeling that describes computer models as a “Virtual Reality” and I think it is a reasonable assessment. My theory is that “second life” is the actual world and that the world I live in is imaginary. Makes as much sense as the bizarre beliefs many espouse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dana H.

    Great post. And thanks for the picture of the old HP calculator. My dad bought me an HP-35 at a swap meet in the 70s while I was in grade school. I loved that damn thing, and it turned me into an HP/RPN fan for as long as I used calculators. (Now, R on my PC is my calculator.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    great post! If you’re looking for more advice about structured settlements, you can find additional resources : structured settlement lawyer


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps « JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00