Last year the UK Met Office was shown to be inventing long-term temperature data at 103 non-existent weather stations. It was claimed in a later risible ‘fact check’ that the data were estimated from nearby well-correlated neighbouring stations. Citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders issued a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to learn the identity of these correlating sites but has been told that the information is not held by the Met Office. So the invented figures for the non-existent sites are supposedly provided by stations that the Met Office claims it cannot identify and are presumably not recorded in its copious computer storage and archive.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – pure distilled essence of climate scamPerry de Havilland (Prague) · Environment · Science Fiction & Fantasy · Slogans & Quotations · UK affairs May 12th, 2025 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – pure distilled essence of climate scamLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I literally LOL’ed when I noticed the categories 😀
This is a well-known Statistical procedure to deal with missing data, normally in a geophysical context. It’s called kriging.
You should say very loudly that you’re doing it and work very hard to show that it’s reasonable. In the climate context it’s usually an unacknowledged cheat.
For example, AFAIK the temperature at the North Pole is stated but it’s actually based on kriging from temperature stations which are at least 600 miles away.
Rotten to the core. That’s the sordid reality of all institutions leading the crazy stampede about CO2 controlling climate, and our contribution of it causing a mighty crisis. Both are delusions, but very profitable ones for these rotten institutions to promote.
This is an international practice.
The real data does not show the politically required amount global warming – so data is made-up.
In the end the physical sciences depend on objective moral right and moral wrong – belief in universal moral principles.
If the people in charge do not believe that, and they do NOT, making up data is fine – as far as they are concerned.
Remember, to them, there is no objective universal “the truth” – there is only “my truth” or “our truth”.
“Pragmatist” philosophy denies objective truth – other than POWER.
What expands the power of the Progressive – that is what they are interested in.
Tony Heller, realclimatescience.com, has been investigating these tactics for some years.
Putting temperature measuring stations in urban “heat islands” (even airports), or just making up data via computers.
Thank goodness for “fake but true” data.
They know that CAGW is truly happening because of the data.
They feel comfortable faking the data because CAGW is truly happening.
Logical argument is never going to touch such an approach.
It is worth reminded everyone (since the establishment have tried to utterly bury the story), that in a sense this fraud doesn’t matter. The scandal at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research unit tells is that the researchers “adjust” the raw data anyway. So the whole thing is a fraud built upon a fraud.
I have found in life that a good general rule of thumb is that any time an idea is being pushed that demands we give more money and power to government it is most likely a bunch of malarkey.
Fraser Orr – yes, and when the fraud was exposed the media attacked…..the people who exposed the fraud.
The media did not attack the academics who admitted (in their communications) their fraud – the media attacked the people who exposed the fraud.
If one looks, for example, at “Wikipedia” an expansion of government power by regulations or government benefits is normally described as “advanced” or “positive” – as Wikipedia is written by people who accept their “education” (people who challenge the indoctrination soon get banned) it is a window into the indoctrinated minds (or hive mind) of the left (of the Collective).
To take the specific example of the Carbon Dioxide is evil theory – they do NOT think in terms of testing a theory, they in terms of “is this Progressive” – i.e. can the theory be used to promote Collectivism (“Social Justice”, “Social Reform”, “Equity”). The answer is clearly “Yes” – and that is all they care about.
In Britain this attitude is called “Social Reform” – and it has been the dominant way of thinking in the establishment for at least 150 years. Yes – since at least the 1870s any expansion of state power, by regulations or spending, has been considered “Social Reform” – it is “advanced” or “positive” as Wikipedia would say.
In IRELAND this attitude hit earlier – Ireland was used as a test subject (or lab-rat), by British establishment figures (such as Lord Stanley, later the Earl of Derby, and Lord Russell) from the 1830s – yes almost two centuries ago. Many statist schemes were pushed there – from a national police force (which actually goes back to he very early 1800s), to an education system, and a welfare system.
Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) would have loved the Carbon Dioxide is evil theory – it would have given him a perfect excuse for what he loved, power-and-control. He did not need to be taught statism by Disraeli (the pusher of the dreadful legislation of 1875), because Stanley-Derby was already a statist (as was his “Liberal opponent” Lord Russell – who the text books say believed in “laissez faire” – he did NOT, indeed there was hardly a state intervention that he did not adore).
We are up against forces that go back centuries – people who, for example, regard Frederick the Great of Prussia (an arch statist – in education and everything else) as a “positive” figure, a “reformer”.
None of this is really about Carbon Dioxide.
Contrary to his reputation, J.S. Mill was not really hostile to the expansion of state services and functions – rather the contrary.
But Mill was still shocked by Stanley-Derby (who, I repeat, Disraeli did not have to teach statism to – as he was already a statist), – J.S. Mill agreed that Stanley-Derby was a man of principle, but said that his principles could be summed up in one word…..
“Liberticide” – the killing of liberty.
Where did this attitude come from?
I am not sure – but there does seem to be a change of intellectual fashion as far back as the 1700s.
In the early 1700s most British thinkers detested the statism of Louis XIV, the Sun King, but in the late 1700s many British thinkers (with the notable exception of Edmund Burke) were praising Frederick the Great of Prussia – an arch statist (the ruler of serf ridden Prussia, with its then insane legal code, and creator of such things as the first mass state education system on the planet).
Perhaps it was because the Sun King had been an enemy and Frederick the Great (who got a far higher proportion of his population killed in his wars of aggression) was an ally.
Or perhaps something deeper was at work.
For example, the difference in basic legal principles between Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) to Sir William Blackstone (mid 1700s Parliament can do anything it feels like doing – and no one may justly resist) is stark.
Frederick the Great would have loved any “scientific” justification for power and control – and Sir William Blackstone (active before Frederick) would have only cared about whether Parliament felt like it.
The point of Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt that tyranny by Parliament is just as bad a tyranny by the King was forgotten.
And the disgust of Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke concerning the “New Atlantis” (rule by scientific experts) written by his enemy Sir Francis Bacon (the mentor of Thomas Hobbes) was forgotten as well.
Perhaps (perhaps) the decline of religious faith among some (some) of the elite (look how popular Hobbes, Hume and Bentham eventually, eventually – not at once, became – these men were known to deny the very existence of the individual SOUL – both in the religious and non religions Aristotelian sense) helps explain things – they seemed to feel a “God shaped hole” in their mental universe – and filled it with a new God.
The State.
If the State (the “New Atlantis” rule by “scientific experts” – who, for example, would punish people for saying the Earth went round the Sun – yes Sir Francis Bacon supported punishing people for telling the truth) says that Carbon Dioxide is evil and all humans must have every aspect of their lives controlled by they same “scientific experts” – then that is that.
For the State is spoken – and the State is God.
Remember – many of the “scientific experts” (such as SAGE in Britain – but many others also) were delighted with the Covid lockdowns – it is what they wanted to do anyway, regardless of disease.
The religious tolerance of Frederick the Great was based on his religious indifference – he was tolerant concerning things he did not care about.
As for moral conscience over all the people he got killed – as a Determinist Frederick held he could not have chosen to do other than he did (that his actions were predetermined – no free will) so he was not morally responsible.
Problem solved.
Soviet tractor production statistics in modern times. Any statistic that ‘appeals’ to the Powers That Be eventually becomes corrupted. There are too many scientists and statisticians depending on government patronage.
@bobby b
Oh no, nothing so simple. They know that CAGW is happening and create models which should reflect this. None of the models fit past data or each other so
1) they average the models’ output-this is called ensemble modelling;
2) the models still “run hot” so they adjust the past data which is “obviously” too high and was “clearly” measured with defective thermometers (that’s circular reasoning);
3) they hide (or destroy) the “unadjusted” data (because it was clearly wrong);
4) this produces an artificial upward trend in the past data which goes some way towards justifying their models (that’s more circularity)
5) they throw out temperature stations which produce below expected readings;
6) they krige between the ones which are producing higher readings;
7) they ignore the fact that their models run hot.
OK?
It’s just standard science, you bigot.
200 years ago the philosopher Sir William Hamilton defined (it was in his definition of the term) a university as something created by the state (he took this definition from the German philosophers he so admired).
Why “the state” – in Ancient Greece (Athens and so on) independent thinkers set up places where students could come and study with them. Even in the Middle Ages it was the church that created many universities.
In Sir William Hamilton’s own lifetime independent groups of people created many colleges in the United States – for example Hillsdale.
So why “the state”? Because the state is GOD – the state must have created all universities, because all important things come from the State.
If the State (indeed the international State) says that Carbon Dioxide is poison – then Carbon Dioxide is poison, because the State says so – and the State is GOD.