Who Wants To Argue With A JavaScript?

Posted in Blogging on March 1st, 2010 by Jacob

1 March, 2010

I have been missing in action for a while now, the reason is twofold that will became apparent as I tell the story.

Sometime towards the end of January, I posted on MySpace a video that I edited from the security CCTV (Close Circuit TV)  that is installed in the building I live in. Within a few seconds a massage appeared on the screen, informing me that that video, I just posted breached the copyrights rules and that my upload privileges been temporarily suspended.

The message further advised me, that should I persist in violating copyright rules, my uploading privileges be permanently revoked or my profile deleted (or words to this affect). It also gave me the facility to depute their ruling, but who wants argue with a JavaScript?

My own CCTV copy righted? seemed very odd. It turned out that it was not the video that was the problem but the background music that I added to the clip, “The Pink Panther” played by the Henri Mancini orchestra, that I ripped of one of my own CD’s.

Apparently the music companies include id’s in their music that enables hosting website to detect copyright music and indeed MySpace gave me all the details of the “offending” audio.

Before I go any further, I wish to make it abundantly clear that although it was not my intention, indeed I violated copyright laws, at least technically — I definitely, albeit unintentionally, violated MySpace’s condition of uploading, I have no argument with that part.

I immediately deleted the offending clip with a view of removing the background music and reposting it, but that was not good enough for JavaScript. JavaScript demanded that I take its “course” in copyrights law before it would restore my upload privileges, my acknowledgment that indeed I had violated copyright law notwithstanding.

Whilst I complied with that demand, I took umbrage at the condescending attitude of JavaScript during this whole ordeal.

MySpace was not put up for my benefits or yours, we all know that, it is there to get eyes in front of advertising. They have every right to make the rules and send JavaScript to enforce them. By the same token, I have the liberty of not posting my videos in MySpace.

There are a few ways to bypass the copyright filters, but I am not in the business of playing such games. I had established my own website a year and a half ago (initially for the sole reason of keeping my blogs that are deleted by JavaScript on an unknown basis, a whim, is probably a better description) thus I decided to move all my video clips and store them on my own site.

I removed all my videos from MySpace, not so much as a “punishment” but because they are all work of someone else (except my CCTV footage), thus potentially a breach of copyright law and MySpace Rules. Although my other videos had passed the watchful eyes and ears of JavaScript, there is nothing to stop JavaScript from playing gotcha games with me at some future date, by now I am accustomed to MySpace constant shifting of goal posts.

It presented me with a new problem. I had built my website following the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) using only HTML script, thus unable to embed most the video formats, including the mostly used one for website, flash-FLV. Further, in order not to be at the whim of other hosting sites (clip time and size limitation they impose and the occasional deletion), I had to have video clips playing on my site also hosted there. I am fully aware that at some stage I may need to increase my website band width but if it comes to that, so be it, I put my money where my mouth is

I could accomplish such task only by having my own JavaScript (but not as a policemen) and learning some basic video editing, two minefields that I decided to cross.

I had to learn two new kills, that did not have and I am glad to advise that, whilst I am an expert at neither, I managed sufficient skills in these two minefields to accomplish what I had set to do.

As JavaScript allows me to have more functionality in my website, I also decided, while I am at it, I re-build my website from scratch. This has kept me busy for weeks and away from writing blogs.

When it come to playing videos, there is always the trade-in between clarity and size. The more clarity a video has, the bigger its file has to be AND more important, a faster connection is required to view it uninterruptedly. I chose the mid-way but as I have a very fast connection (ADSL-2) and a fast computer, I have no way of knowing how its working for people with slower connections.

Whilst I am not yet completely done, you are welcome to go and check out my new site and comment or suggest improvements, if you so inclined.

I would appreciate, if you, particularly those with slower Internet connection, check out the videos section on my site and report any difficulties. Please name the “offending” video(s), your connection type/speed and the browser you are using.

For those of you who connecting from outside Australia, please note that Australia is connected to the world with only two cables, thus at times you may experience delays connecting to my site, irrespective of your Internet speed.

Now you have it.

Tags: , , , ,

The Perfect Man (a Poem)

Posted in Fun Stuff on January 20th, 2010 by Jacob

20 January, 2010

The Perfect man, your sunshine ray
Will always love you all the way
Morning coffee on a tray
Whilst in bed you will stay

Bunch of flowers every day
Walks at dusk on shores of bay
Concerts, movies or a play
For your shopping, sure he pays

Changes his undies every day
Cooks your meals without a say
Only food they call gourmet
Not that rubbish take-away

He does the dishes without delay
And the laundry to your dismay
Irons his shirts that’s a pray
Anything you say, he obeys

Even your mother says “he is OK”
And he doesn’t mind if she stays
Oh my darling, if I may,
Your perfect man is … gay!

(If You are a Yiddisher meidaleh
This is really a big Oy Vei)

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer

Tags: , ,

Obama’s Cojones, Or Lack Thereof

Posted in Islam & Terror, Israel, Political Correctness, United States on January 4th, 2010 by Jacob
4 January, 2010

It is getting wackier and wackier by the day!

The president on the United States Of America stood before the people on New year day and “revealed” that:

Here is a transcript of part of what Obama’s teleprompter says:

It’s now been more than a week since the attempted act of the terrorism aboard the flight into Detroit on Christmas day and we’re learning more about the suspect.

We know that he travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgency. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane heads for America.

[Highlights are mine]

So we now know that it is Al-Qaida!

Phew, What a relief! I had been worried sick that the investigation that Obama had ordered would turn out that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been trained, equipped and ordered to his “mission” by the Women Zionist Organisation (WIZO) and what he actually carried in his pants was a Hanukkah latkes (potato pancake) mix (OK, the poor soul misunderstood the bit about adding two well bitten eggs to the mix and thought he can use his own)

We can all relax now ,it is all Al-Qaida’s fault! (and George Bush, of course). In a separate interview to Fox News, John Brennan the president’s advisor on counter-terrorism also stressed the Al-Qaida aspect of the terror attack. What is wrong with those people? It sounds almost as if they are saying “it is OK, it is Al-Qaida”

Obama then went on to spread more smoke screen on the real issue by citing some of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S success as his own. He then goes on to describe how America would “strengthen (it’s) ties” with Yemen, which means one thing; open your cheque books America, you are about to resolve Yemen’s “crushing poverty”, an obvious attempt to excuse Muslim terror as a poverty “challenge”.

No Mr. President, this is not what we are asking! The problem is not Al-Qaida in Yemen or anywhere else, the problem Mr. President is how a Muslim with known links to terror could obtain a visa to enter the US? Why such person was allowed to board a plane bound for America? And most importantly, how he managed to smuggle explosive onboard?

To remind you, all eleven 9/11 terrorists, entered the USA on valid vistas, didn’t you learn anything?

These are the real questions! So please spare us your rhetorical smoke screen and answer the bloody question, sir!

Another red herring is the Administration attempt to shove some blame to Schiphol (Amsterdam) airport; sure there was a severe breach of security in Amsterdam BUT let me get you on a “secret”;

the security of an airlines is the SOLE responsibility of the airline in question, not the airport. Airport security, is just that, securing the airport parameters — anything beyond the (departure) gate is the responsibility of the airline and its national government of the airline.

Do you think, my friends, that Umar Farouk would have been able to board an El-Al plane in Amsterdam? Not in a million years! The reason is simple; the government of Israel mandates certain security measures that El-Al as a well as any other airline flying into Israel MUST follow, IRRESPECTIVE of local airport security.

Unlike the rest of the world, Israel been grappling with Muslim terror since the 1960′s with the inception of the Palestinian terror. In the past 45 years or so, Israel has got the war on terror, to such a fine art that, ironically, the vast majority of passengers going though Tel-Aviv airport would pass security in a fraction of the time it takes in most other airports in the world. Why? Because the Israeli security people know what they are looking for and don’t concern themselves with symbolism such as confiscating your nail clipper to show you that they are doing something.

Any plane, of any nationality, must accept (in full) the Israeli security measures as a condition of obtaining a landing permit in Israel, the measures themselves vary but a few things never do, one is the security is always controlled Israeli nationals and the second is PROFILING!!!

That’s right! American carriers who fly to Israel have accepted the Israeli security methods on all of their flight to Israel. Profiling is carried out right now, as we speak, in all major American airports!

No thanks to massive disinformation campaigns by the human right industry and the PC brigade, most people don’t understand the concept of profiling, as it relates to aviation security.

Profiling simply means putting more security resources at people who are perceived higher risk, not wasting them on symbolism.

I was profiled a couple of times (that I know of), once I was detained in Heathrow Airport before boarding a plane to Tel-Aviv, my Israeli passport, Israeli national ID card and my fluent Hebrew notwithstanding. I was taken to a side room, my luggage was pulled out, brought in and searched, I was thoroughly searched and interrogated (politely) before I was allowed to board the plane. The apparent reason that I had been selected was that I flew-in from Indonesia, a Muslim country that do not allow entry to holders of Israeli passports and they wanted to know EXACTLY why I went there and what I was doing there.

Was I offended? To the contrary, I was happy to cooperate, it made me feel ten time safer boarding that plane than had they confiscated my nails clipper and my $2 set of mini screwdrivers (the ones I fix my eye glasses with) that were in my briefcase.

Looking at it another way, if you belong to vast majority of passengers ,who are not profiled (or positively profiled as not pausing security risk, if you wish) you go through security in no time, which indeed is the experience of most passengers going through Tel-Aviv Airport.

As you see the problem is not that the CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA (have I miss anyone?) don’t know what to do, the problem is that they would not do for ideological reasons.

* * * * *

If you fly to the USA from Sydney Airport, there is check-in area specifically allocated for such flights of all airlines where security measures are different to the rest f the departing flights . This, we are told here, is to facilitate the security measurements required by US government and indeed it is their responsibility.

Yet this inept president of yours and his administration are telling you that America has no say what happens in Amsterdam airport. This is a lie! a lie intended to cover up their ineptness.

There has surely been a security breach in Amsterdam, but as I said earlier, the responsibility for the security all America airplanes lays purely with the American government. Remember, an American aircraft is an American territory.

The Dutch, the Brits, the French and indeed all countries where El-Al, and other Israeli carriers, operate to and from, America included, do not have any problem with the way the Israelis are conducting their security checks, profiling included.

There is little doubt that one of the main reasons for 911 was the fact that until 9/11, terror was treated as law enforcement issue which costed America dearly. George Bush recognised it and attempted to correct that but since Obama’s inauguration the clock has being turned back for no other reason but IDEOLOGY.

Obama and his politburo deemed the Bush anti-terror measures as not needed because there has not been a terror attack on America in recent years. The very same twisted logic can be applied to Polio vaccination, let stop vaccinating our kids because we have not had a Polio problem for some 50 years.

As I am writing this, the news that the US and Britain are closing their embassies in Yemen “because of threats by Al-Qaida”. We are not privy to the consideration that led to such drastic measures, but how do you think the terrorist interpret such decision? Yes, that’s right! They can push America (and Britain) along.

The decision as to which embassy will remain open is n longer the State Department or White Hall, it is now all up to Al-Qaida to decide, but that’s OK, as the president said, “we know it is Al-Qaida”

How long, do you think, before Al-Qaida would issue a threat against another American embassy somewhere? Hours? Days? surely not longer than that.

Mr President, you don’t need more investigations, you need cojones but I guess that in that respect you have something in common with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

© copyright – Jacob Klamer 2010 all rights reserved

Tags: , , , , , ,

British Politically Correct Justice

Posted in Europe, Globalism, Islam & Terror, Israel, Political Correctness on December 19th, 2009 by Jacob
19 December, 2009

Last week a lawyer working for a Palestinian activist organisation sought an arrest warrant against the Israeli Opposition Leader, Ms. Zipi Livni, under the International War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity’s Universal Jurisdictions provisions, in relation to her alleged part in the Israeli Cast Lead operation in Gaza last January.

Bashi_Livni

Although it is apparent to any fair minded person that it was, what is known in Legalese, a frivolous claim, the Westminster Court granted the request and issued an arrest warrant for the Opposition Leader who was due to visit London on a private capacity (hence not entering on a diplomatic passport).

Apparently the Universal Jurisdictions of British law permits any person to bypass the prosecutor and request arrest of any person, for alleged war crimes, something which is not permitted under any other Law.

(the arrest warrant was subsequently withdrawn when it transpired that Ms. Livni would not come to London).

This case is not about war crimes, it is not even about intimidation of Israeli officials and it certainly not about Zipi Livni. This case is about political correctness riddled justice system, which is not uniquely British.

We don’t know who was the judge that stupidly granted that frivolous warrant which, rely on liberal media reports and left wing blogs as something that vaguely resembles evidence. I wonder how many arrest warrants request for common criminals this very judge declined the Metropolitan Police for lack of sufficient evidence or for a missing comma somewhere on the applications form? Just a thought!

This is not the first time that activists Eurabian judges issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials. In 2000 a Belgian judge had issued an arrest warrant against Ariel Sharon which was subsequently ruled by the International Court of Justice in Hague as contravening international law and ordered to be withdrawn.

In 2005, Maj. Gen (ret) Doron Almog ( a retired IDF Chief Of Stuff) was tipped that there is an arrest warrant against him for “war crimes” as he landed in Heathrow Airport. The general escaped arrest by remaining on the (El-Al) plane and return with it back to Tel-Aviv.

Last September (2009), an arrest warrant was sought against Israel Defence Minister and Deputy PM, Ehud Barak, whilst in London on official duties but deputy district judge Daphne Wickham, whilst accepting Mr Barak’s diplomatic immunity said that the allegation of war crimes (in Gaza) were well documented (oh really?).

Hey Charley, how many MUSLIM terrorists were arrested and trialled in Europe? How many? I thought so!

Most of the Palestinian terror organisations openly kept offices in London, came and went as they pleased using diplomatic passports issued by Arab countries (Libyan and Syrian mostly)

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally closer to Europe than any Arab country, why is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the European-Arab Dialogue. In her book Eurabia, Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

Can you now understand the ease by which an arrest warrants are issued against Israelis in Europe compare with the wheeling and dealing in an attempt to bring the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir to justice for his involvement with genocide in Darfur? Sure you can!

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT opposed to universal jurisdiction for REAL war crimes and REAL crimes against humanity that was put in place to overcome the ability of REAL criminals to escape justice in countries with a weak or nonexistent legal systems. What I am incest about is the hijacking of universal jurisdiction by the human rights industry and the PC brigade.

The British government undertook to amend their laws to ensure that universal jurisdiction cannot be abused political activism. We shall patiently await the outcome. But bear in mind that, when (and if) the Brits will close the loophole, the problem will simply shift into another country in Eurabia that adopted the universal jurisdiction, not all EU members have.

The term crime against humanity is a modern version of an old legal term hostis humani generis, Latin for: the enemies of mankind (before it was politically corrected to “humankind”) that originated in the first true international Law, the Admiralty Law .

The Admiralty Law specifically referred to sea piracy as hostis humani generis. Slave trading was added to the definition some time later but recent attempts to include terrorism so far failed due to the objection of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the under-developed countries bloc in the UN which control the voting of the General Assembly and in turned is itself controlled by Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), surprise, surprise.

As a matter of interest, the Admiralty Law was introduced by Eleanor of Aquitaine (Richard the Lionheart’s mother) in 1160, hardly a new concept.

Whilst the Admiralty Law is still widely used in governing international shipping today, the piracy provisions have been transferred into the Law Of The Sea.

And indeed there is universal jurisdiction, albeit not by that name, in the sea piracy provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Low Of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 105 (in Part IV) says:

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the personsand seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

[Emphasis are mine]

As you can see both universal jurisdiction and crimes against humanity has their origin in medieval maritime law.

Question: How many captured MUSLIM Somali pirates were brought to justice in British (or any other European) courts under UNCLOS universal jurisdiction? NONE!!!!

I must clarify that Islam is NOT what makes these scum bags Somalis, pirates, there is no evidence of that whatsoever, no Somali pirate has ever board a ship shouting “Allahu Akhbar” but to point that they are getting a “pass” from the EU ships (in particular) BECAUSE they are Muslim.

So the enemy of humanity that cause havoc in international shipping in the Gulf of Aden, the East African Coast and deep into the Indian Ocean go scot free while human rights industry and the PC brigade are busy trying to arrest Israeli dignitaries, whose only “crime” was protecting their civilian population from terror.

Can someone please point out a human right that surpasses LIFE?

Whilst the European politicians, knowingly, or otherwise, mislead their public by saying that there are no legal grounds to arrest MUSLIM Somali pirates, their real concern is that according to the UN Conventions Relating To Status of Refugees, once a pirate is on a European territory (European flagged ships included) they can claim the status of asylum seekers.

Yes my friends, indeed, the inmates are running the asylum.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009 — all rights reserved

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climategate II

Posted in Environmentalism, Globalism on December 13th, 2009 by Jacob
13 December, 2009

As expected, Climategate has done nothing to temper the enthusiasm of the climate ideologues in the funfest of Carbonhagen, even the Danish sex workers harnessed themselves to the task of ensuring a successful event by opening their hearts (and their legs) to the delegates.

Climategate has NOT taught us anything we had not known before, it merely added another level of confirmation that global warming is a fraud of gigantic proportion. I shall explain that later.

The main stream media, who finally could not ignore the story went into a “yes but” mode, glossing over the fact that the “robust science” is a work of scientists who are more preoccupied with politics s and funding that with science. I is all a sceptic stunt to undermine the Crapenhagen conference, and the global warming is still as real as ever and the current cooling is only a natural variability after a long warming and still 2008 was the fourteenth hottest year since …. etc etc etc, whoopee!

Natural variability hey? and what would you call the warming of the 20th century after the Little Ice age that ended at the end of the 19th century? If you go by Climategate that has never happened — Prof Michael Mann, the father of the Hockey Stick theory (as we saw in Climategate I) religiously prefixed the terms Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age with the words “so-called” as if they had never happened. And they call us “deniers”(?!)

Sure, the Hockey Stick theory is now truly buried, even by the dogmatic IPCC. I was shown to be a plain scientific hoax but the charade goes on.

The Climate Models

The global warmers tell us ad-nauseam that the climate models (there are about six versions) provide the scientific proof to global warming.

Let me explain what a model is.

A climate model is a mathematical model, or model for shot. A model is a set of mathematical (including statistical) calculations, known as algorithms, attempting to simulate the real world. A model is as good, or bad, as the rules and the data put into it, for example:

Suppose I want to model trains time table; I know the distances between stations, I know what speed the train can do, therefore I know how long it takes a train to get from one station to the next. I allow 2 or 3 minutes for every stop and bingo I have a model that simulate the run of one train. But this only a start.

My aim to provide service to the travelling public so I need more than trains, I know how many passengers I need to carry thus I can work out how many cars each train will have (consistent with the length of platforms), I space the trains and run my model to ensure that the no two trains reach a station at the same time, or meet each other in the opposite directions, if they use the same tracks on both direction.

But I also know that the vast majority of the travelling public require to travel to and from work in the morning and the evening, so I run more and longer trains during rush hours. As more people need to get on and off the trains, I need to allow more time at stain stops, meaning yet more trains — it is getting complex but manageable because ,so far, I have dealt with known factors.

The difficulties starts emerging when I deal with known unknowns; mechanical breakdowns (trains and signals), accidents, weather delays (floods, snow, heat waves). I use probabilities that I work out from past records (data) and build it into my model, I then run “what if” scenarios (called sensitivity analysis).

Eventually I will have a model simulating the whole railway network in a quite reliable MODEL, the technology to do it exists, it was done successfully many times in the past, so far so good. BUT,

How successful would be my model if I try to do it for a city in a country that has never had trains before?

Not much because I don’t have the required data to construct my model — I would need to rely on guesstimates and experiences in other places and ASSUME that it is relevant. In technical wards, I built assumptions into my mode.

As I don’t really know the size of the train travelling public, I would try and estimate it from other available data, say, buses statistic - The bus data becomes my “proxy”, that proximates my train travelling public, is the yardstick by which I guess the size of the travelling public, it is not perfect but it the best I have.

You can now see, that usefulness of such model is limited by my lack of data, my confidence in my model would be shrunk by comparison to the earlier model.

What all this has to do with climate? I hear you ask; the climate models akin models that simulate trains that have never run (as yet). They rely on data, such as tree rings, ice core samples (called boreholes), and other proxies to simulate temperatures for the times when there was no methodological collection and recoding of climate data on earth which is the whole of the planet’s 4.55 billion years history barring the last 200 years at the most.

Climate Proxies

There is a legitimate debate about how well the various proxies represent past climate data. Such debate is a matter for the science to resolve and I am not going to buy into it.

This is not a criticism on the use of proxies, science has to use what is available to it, but we must bear in mind that whilst the bus travelling public may give us a good clue as to how many train passengers it is only an indication, that may or MAY NOT come to fruition.

In my second train model I would take bus data and CALIBRATE it. I would try to run my model a number of times with different assumptions such as 50% 60% 70% of the bus passengers will travel by train whiles it start running.

The climate science does just that, so as you can clearly see, it is an educated estimate, at best, and with all the care I take, I would not stick my house on being 100% right, would you?

It may take some 10 or 15 or twenty years before the new trains, which I just modelled, will start running. Would you now, base on my MODEL, commit yourself to be at the station at 8:17 am on Monday, 2025? of course not. Yet these global warmers not only want us to commit ourselves to be in station that has been built yet but they also want us to buy the tickets, (carbon credits) NOW because the models say so.

But there is more.

Suppose I see a bump in the number of passengers between 2pm and 3:0pm (presumable caused by school kids going home) and I ignore it as a “natural variability” as it does not suit my model. This is exactly what the Hockey Stick theory does — ignore available data because it spoils the model!

In fact, it is worse than that, the global warmers goes further and tell us that the trains are already running. Yet a mere 8 years into their predictions and the trains are running indeed but in the wrong direction!!! yet they insist that the model is 95% accurate.

This bring us to the question of:

How Certain Are The Models?

We often hear that the accuracy of the models are within 95% probability. No, it is Not!!!

The warm mongers are in fact referring to the statistical term known as degree (or level) of confidence, (also Confidence Interval) which measures the accuracy of their models.

That term has little to do with probability. It is a statistical measurement of an interval , a “window” around the model result into which a certain percent of the eventual and real life events expected to falls. It is typically 95% or 97.5% but it can be any number under 100%. I’ll give an example

Taking the trains again, it means that within a certainty of, say,95% a train will arrive within a time” window” around the schedule time. In other words, 95% of trains will arrive within a certain time before or after the appointed schedule time. Naturally, it stand to reason that the larger the time window is the more trains will be “on time”.

As you can see 95% confidence interval is meaningless without knowing what is the actual interval — it is one thing if 95% of trains arrive within one minute of the time table and a completely different story if 95% of trains arrive within three hours of the schedule time and still “be on time”.

Climate is a lot more complex than my trains model example and whilst in the case of running trains we know all there to know about what affect the trains running on time , when it comes to climate science, we don’t even know that the track is reaching the next station let alone the our final destination.

The best science do is forecast the weather reasonably accurately for FOUR DAYS into the future, any further then that is an educated guess and they want to tell me that they can tell the weather in 2050?

Enjoy you cold showers in the dark if you still think that you are saving the plant.

All aboard!

© copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 — all right reserved

Tags: , , , , ,

Climategate I

Posted in Global Warming on November 29th, 2009 by Jacob
29 November,2009

Can you imagine that you are about to go into a dangerous military mission just to discover that the intelligence reports on which you mission is based, are fraudulent, would you still go on that mission?

Can you imagine that you are about to board a plane and just to discover that the licences your pilots are holding are forged, would you still board that plane?

Can you imagine that the new breaking system just fitted on your car is based on a mathematical model which was never been road tested, would you still take your car for a spin?

The answers of course are no, no and no.

Yet our politicians are going to Copenhagen to agree measure to combat global warming, in a complete disregard to the fact that the globe is cooling, in a complete disregard to the fact that NONE of the climate models used by the IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) forecasted the current cooling and in a complete denial to the recent discovery of Climategate.

Climategate is the term given to the posting of email files on the Internet, files that were hacked from a computer of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK.

These exchanges show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the science behind global warming is controlled by a relative small group of scientists, activists, journalists (surprise surprise) and bureaucrats whose motivation is anything but science. The pear review we heard so much about is a sham, akeen to the police investigating itself, the member of the clique review each other, reciprocate kudos and not only exclude any opposing science from the “reviw”, but use their clout to silence it.

Here is an example, on 14 October 2009, Tom Wigley, a senior researcher with the University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) wrote:

Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?

In a classic approach of the global warmer ideologues of “kick the man, not the ball”, Prof Phil Jones of the UEA replied (inter-alia):

I recall Pat [Michaels] wasn’t very good at writing stuff up.

What was Dr Michaels’s sin that necessitates a re-education Mao style ? Apparently Dr. Michaels had the audacity to publish a (PhD) thesis on the relationship between crop and climate that contradicts findings of one of the group members. So What? you ask, in simple words, it means what we all know intuitively and that is that (global) warming is beneficial to crops and we can have that, can we?

******

On 9 October, 2009, Paul Hudson, a climate correspondent, wrote on the BBC web site an uncharacteristic (for the BBC) article titled What happened to Global Warming? , he wrote:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

He goes on to suggest, what many of us already know, that perhaps the 1990′s warming was part of a natural cycle as indeed is the current cooling.

The ensuing email discussion revealed that, other than a few guesses, the scientists don’t really have an answer to the current cooling. Dr. Kevin Trendberth of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was honest enough to say that:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Professor Michael E Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Mr Hockey Stick (more about him later) ,suggested a real scientific way to resolve the quandary and that is to put Paul Hudson in his rightful place, he said:

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

You see, these people not only run the global climate fraud, they also in bed with the liberal media.

* * * * *

There are over 1,000 Climategate email files, mostly with more than one message in them (because of the apparent use “Reply” and “forward”) going back to 1996. I do not pretend to heave read them all, or even a significant number of them, nor do I claim to understand many of the scientific arguments and counter-arguments made, from these that I studied, somewhat randomly, it is abundantly clear that a lot of scientists’ time and efforts is devoted to sheer ideology and politics rather than to science.

Whilst there is nothing new in the fact that the science of global warming is heavily tainted by ideology and politics, a claim that had been made by many reputable scientists, we now have the smoking gun as a proof, if we even need one.

Too often we are told that the science (of global warming) is settled and passed the scrutiny of peer review. It appears that this is not so! It is more like the scientific consensus was brought about by peer pressure, rather than by peer review.

Let me pick a subject.

The Hockey Stick Theory

Had you watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, you would no doubt recall this scene where Al Gore stand in front of two large graphs.

Al Gore & The Hockey Stick Graph

The left graph depicts the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) variation from (a long term) average temperatures going back to 1,000 years and on the right one, the average carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere. You can clearly see that the temperatures were relatively stable until the twentieth century as it shot up, resembling a hockey stick on its side, hence the term.

The so-called hockey stick theory was a brain child of Prof Michael Mann (albeit not by name), the very same Prof. Mann I cited earlier. So powerful were those graphs that when shown by Al Gore they swayed many uncommitted into the global warming believers camp, I personally know a few.

The graphs, together with Prof. Mann’s theory made their way into the IPCC report with the blessing of the climate scientists and, naturally, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and the politicians.

In his book Heaven + Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, Prof Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide (Australia) described how two Canadian mathematicians, Steven McIntire and Ross McKitrick, obtained Prof. Mann’s raw data (despite great obstacles put him) and concluded, amongst other things, that the data does not support Mann’s conclusions, or in their words:

due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolations of source data, obsolete data, geographical location error, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control. defects.

[- Page 90]

So much for peer review scrutiny.

In fact, Prof. Mann somehow missed two significant climatic events in the last 1,000 years, the Medieval Warming Period (MW or MWP) of 900-1300 AD (when Greenland was green and and grapes were growing in northern England) and the Little Ice Age of 1280 to 1850 AD (when the Thames was frozen solid).


Here is a comparison between the hockey stick theory and the real climate history of the Northern Hemisphere (at least).

The Hockey Stick Vs. The Real History

By 2006 the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age that had been expunged from the IPCC report in 2001, miraculously reappeared with no explanation.

Was it just an error in good faith on the part of Prof. Mann? Not so according to Climategate.

Apparently two honest scientists, Dr Edward R Cook and Dr. Jan Esper, both tree rings specialists, had raised the existence of both the Medieval Warming Period and the little Ice Age with Dr. Mann back in May 2001.

(If you open the link, read it from the bottom upward, last message first. Don’t worry too much about the science itself but rather note that: a) The existence of both the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age was proven by 2001, and b) How “moderate” peer pressure was applied on those who strayed from the orthodox path)

This is what Ed cook says to Michael Mann in a message dated 2 May 2001, inter-alia:

Jan [Esper] also had to compare his record with the hockey stick … the [Jan] Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick

You would have thought that the existence of a study that contradicts his previous scientific findings would trigger Prof. Mann’s scientific interest. No fear, as we say down under, Professor Mann is not interested in the science, politics is far more important, Prof. Mann replied that:

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review [meaning: pressure]. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.

Translation: Don’t you ever publish results that we don’t approve of! It is dangerous (for you) to do so.

As professor Plimer said in relation to climate data: “If the data does not fit the model, you torture it into submission” (or words to that effect). Now, who are the real climate deniers?

Why is it that I feel that Climategate will keep me busy for week?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer – all rights reserved (except images and clips).
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,