Like most of you, I eschew reliance upon my own senses, experience, intuition, and intellect such-as-it-is in making decisions both small and large. Instead I rely on a highly sophisticated proprietary modeling application that utilizes a robust range of scalable inputs, vendor-supplied parameters, and heuristic algorithms capable of rendering a six sigma representation of human behavioral metrics. All customized from open source code written by a commenter at Jezebel.com.
For instance, here are some of the obvious assumption inputs that should form the basis of any sound and moral decision matrix:
* Women and men are the same
* Race does not exist (but racism does)
* Human beings have no tribal impulses, they are production/consumption units
So configured, counsel from this application has been invaluable in both personal and professional spheres. For instance, my model-recommended same-sex partner and I have chosen to heed model guidance to base our tech startup firm, which develops model-inspired next generation female warfare equipment, in Monrovia, Liberia. With assumptions being ceteris paribus, it really all comes down to cost of inputs. And without the modeling program, I could never have made such efficient decisions.
This is why articles such as these are so irritating.
But now another damning example has been uncovered showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.
…in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
It is sadly a concept lost upon this hack journalist and his dim demotic audience, though readers here will be able to discern the subtle, but key, distinction. The critical variable is not what the temperatures are, but what the models say they are. My God one grows weary of explaining this to two SD imbeciles. The models do not lie; they can not lie. Unlike humans, they are logical machines. We simply input culturally sensitive, tolerant, and unprivileged assumptions, and they render what the temperatures must be. We are then able to wield unchallengeable peer-reviewed data in partnering with Goldman Sachs to save the planet through formation of global carbon credit exchanges. It’s science in service to man.
So forget this quackery about the “real temperatures.” I hardly think those have been adjusted to consider the needs of a broad multiracial trans-sensitive coalition.