Relativity, part 3: gravity and light


Reason TV’s Nanny of the month – July 2012


Brightest Stars Don’t Live Alone

Here is a professor of international law, explaining the terms that regularly crop up with respect to Omar Khadr.

This is important, because legal terms are narrow in their scope and if we don’t understand them correctly, we cannot have a meaningful discussion on any topic these terms refer to.

Greg Lukianoff: How Colleges Fight Free Speech


Daniel Hannan: Squashed between EU and USSR

A bit more on the ‘hockey-stick graph’…

Since Dr. Mann’s new hobby of suing people has brought up the subject of the ‘hockey-stick graph’ – specifically, whether its creation was honest incompetence or straightforward fraud valid ‘climate science’, I wend digging through the interwebitudes for some more background material.

Note:  Dr. Mann is not suing National Review and Mark Steyn for comparing Penn State’s whitewashing of both the pedophile and himself.  Not at all.  He is suing them for having called him a fraud.  And the reason he is suing Dr. Ball is because he said that Michael Mann belongs in State Penn, not Penn State…  Therefore, I am not suggesting either of these things, in any way, shape or form.

There is so much material out there, it is difficult to pick the best few – the ones that best document the events.  However, here are a few front runners:

This post opens with:

‘There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.

The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.’

It then supplies graphs – of what was the historical record prior to 2000, and how that all changed as the ‘hockey-stick graph’ took shape.

It even points out which bits were done by Phil Jones’s team, which by Michael Mann’s team.

Chock full of graphs, showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ figures.

So, how did this become ‘accepted science’?  What ‘studies’ confirmed it?  How did it make it into the IPCC reports?

That is an interesting story in its own right – and has been meticulously pieced together in this post:

From the intro:

The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.’

Here, meticulously documented, is the story of how the ‘hockey-stick graph’ went from being just one paper, submitted by one scientist, to ‘scientific consensus’ and unquestionable holy writ.

It documents questionable behaviour by the scientists involved, the editors of the journals and the IPCC folks, none of whom appear to be following their own guidelines of professional conduct.

  • the IPCC itself…

While we are on the topic of IPCC itself, it is important to note that while they loudly touted the unfortunate hockey-stick graph for quite some time – before quietly removing it without an explanation  – it is important to understand that this is not a body of leading scientists:  it is primarily a political body, formed by a political organization, through a politically correct process, to promote its own political agenda – with a few scientists tossed in for window dressing.

One person who has documented IPCC’s sloppiness (if not downright corruption) and lack of adherence to its own rules is the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise.  Here she is, from a tour in Australia:

Much of the IPCC process was dominated by ‘climate modelling’ – computer programs that try to predict what will happen based on what has happened.  On the surface of it, this seems valid:  the problem is in how these models were constructed.  It seems they are, to put it mildly, highly flawed.

Another fundamental problem for the IPCC reviewers was that they were only permitted to comment on the studies which were pre-selected and presented to them for comment.  This selection process was highly sensitive – but handled by the behind-the-scenes bureaucrats.  There were many instances where scientists spoke up, saying the material they were presented with was not representative of the current work in the field and asked to be permitted to include a broader spectrum of studies.  These requests were summarily dismissed by the apartchicks running the show.

But even as hamstrung as they were, when scientists actually commented on errors/omissions/inaccuracies in the drafts of the reports, their comments were dismissed, the drafts were not corrected and the objectionable conclusions or downright errors made it into the final reports.  Cough, Himalayan glacier, cough…

That is not a sound scientific process….

While I was scouring the interwebitudes looking for supporting links, I came across an interesting site:

Bookmark this site – it catalogues peer-reviewed, scientific papers (by category) which refute the warm-mongering narrative.  Over a thousand of them.

It would b easy to just sit here are read them all – but then, this post would never get fin…

Iranian scientists under investigation for copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is no laughing matter – as some scientists at Iran’s nuclear facilities are about to find out!

Reports have begun to appear that these scientists have been listening to unlicensed copies of AD/DC’s popular song, Thunderstruck.

At full volume!

If they are not under investigation for this already, they are bound to be soon!

Sure, the scientists are certain to claim some lame defense, like that ‘hackers did it’.

Come on, people!

Hackers may be naughty, but even they would not transgress against the mighty copyright trolls!

Iran is about to learn a very difficult lesson:  the American government may be a bunch of pushovers whom they can bully at their will, but transgressing against the music copyright holders will bring Iran to its knees!

Is Dr. Michael Mann Canuckophobic?

Do you remember Dr. Michael Mann?

He is a singularly interesting figure in the world of Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis.  (In this comment thread on Bishop Hill blog, the field is referred to as ‘Mann-made Global Warming – lol.)

He was one of the central figures in the leaked CRU emails – and of the ‘hide the decline’ fame. (Here is the song..)

Dr. Mann is also the author of the thoroughly debunked ‘hockey stick’ graph – as demonstrated by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.  Dr. Mann has said some very ‘not nice’ things about this statistician and economist…

Two Canadians.


And, he is in the process of suing Dr. Tim Ball – another Canadian!

Aside – this lawsuit is not going well for Dr. Mann:  as part of the discovery process, he has to hand over for courtroom scrutiny the very data he has spent a decade hiding, or face contempt of court charges and a ruling in Dr. Ball’s favour.  Somebody did not think his tactics through…

But, that is not all!

Now, Dr. Mann has decided to sue National Review for the words Mark Steyn wrote there…


With all the critics of Dr. Mann ‘out there’ – why is he picking on the Canadians?

Could it be – CANUCKOPHOBIA?

I don’t know – perhaps we should have someone in the sensitivity training field pay Dr. Mann a little visit, just to be on the safe side…

What about those who think everyone is unfairly picking on poor Dr. Mann?

If you don’t think the vast bulk of the criticism heaped upon him is undeserved, please, consider the following:  his Penn State course information contains the following: (H/T betapug)

GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits) with the course schedule for days 37 & 38 is : MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1 and Part 2)


Yes – according to this ‘scientist’, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Universtiy-level science material!  LOL!!!  When, years ago, I showed it to my kids, my young son actually thought that this movie was made with intentional errors in the science so as to train kids how to spot bad science…and greatly relished pointing the mistakes out!

Come on!

If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you really ought to know better than to use such seriously flawed material as a teaching tool…

In other words, perhaps more than any other scientist of our era, Dr. Mann is rather to be ridiculed…perhaps his compulsion for making himself the laughing stock of the scientific community is rooted in the same pathology from which his (potential) Canuckophobia stems.


H/T:  BCF, Bishop Hill, Watts Up With That, Steyn, and many more…

P.S.  It looks like Dr. Mann’s legal fund is backed by George Soros, via  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and GAP’s Environmental program…this could add a whole new dimension to the conflict.

BBC: Female Genital Mutilation In The UK – a hidden world July 2012

Of course, all genital mutilations of a minor ought to be prosecuted.

We need to speak up and make this known to our authorities everywhere:  the right of a person to hold views (religious, cultural or whatever) stops short of the body of another human being!

Passing laws to protect children is important:  upholding these laws is no less so.