Baby it’s Cold Outside

This post being conceived

This post being conceived

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

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.


7 thoughts on “Baby it’s Cold Outside

  1. Amazing I too have had occasion to work on such models, however I realised that the superior “culturally aware” models you speak of that give us the required and therefore correct results were limited by conventional mathematical thinking. So like the mathematician that tried to square the circle I set upon my task, a sort of base 8 for Marxists. So forget the Shimura Conjecture, so too are elliptic curves are old news. The corner stone result of the new mathematics is given in the link below…

    “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable — what then?”
    George Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four. (1949). ISBN 0-452-28423-6

  2. This is not surprising. Back in 2009, when the “Climategate” scandal over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was hot, there was much analysis of the emails that showed bad faith among the CRU scientists. What was not discussed much, but what I found more interesting, was the FORTRAN program listings from their models that were also published. Also notes of the analyst who was tasked with trying to recreate their results. He gave up after about three years. It was just impossible to work out what the versions of the programs that produced them had looked like.

    In one of the listings, there was a routine that added a hard-coded list of “fudge factors”, of increasing magnitude, to the raw temperature data. If you fed it unvarying annual temperatures – every year the same – that program would spit out a hockey stick. Maybe the fudge factors represented real data calculated offline, I don’t know, but as far as I know it was never documented, and apparently nobody thought to ask. Personally, I think you’ve nailed it here. The fudge factors were carefully calculated to be the difference between what the data showed, and what the assumptions demanded.

  3. What never gets discussed in the MSM concerning “climate change” and the “Climategate” scandal in particular, is the falsifying of data to get desired results in order to drive public policy. The CRU was shown to have eliminated temperature findings that were lower from various weather stations (usually those in less developed areas), in order to stack the deck in favor of higher temps. That scientists were politically brainwashed to ignore facts and instead make sure the preferred narrative was published is at least the worst part of this entire episode. As is further conflicting evidence were required…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s