Scottish Sceptic

This has got to be one of the biggest joke articles seen on climate. The title reads: The Growing Republican Rift Over Climate Change
but knowing De Smug, I just knew it would be a load of carp, but little did I realise what a cart load of carp it was:

11 Republican Representatives have put forward a resolution, H. Res. 424, “Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to conservative environmental stewardship,”

So, something that almost every sceptic I know would be willing to sign (as long as people like De Smug had no involvement), amounts to a “rift”. Next they’ll be saying that unless they all have Xmas together it will be a “rift” – or that unless they share wives and children, it’s a “rift”. Maybe worst of all – sharing toothbrushes! What jokers!
And compare their joked up “rift”, to the real rift of the whistle blowers at NOAA, and the way one side of NASA are saying the Antarctic ice is growing whilst the other fabricates warming. Compare it to the growing number of academics who are coming out in support of the science and sceptics.

As I watch the poor deluded greens and ecos talking about COP21, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that they are just being used by those attending cop21. Even at a very modest ~£30,000 salary for each attendee, the total cost of those employed is ~£1,000,0000,000/yr, when added to the cost of putting on COP which is estimated at another ~£1,000,000,000/yr this cost of this charade is far more than any commitments.

Green really does equal gullible!

The world has in effect created a monster consuming £1billion a year – and all it need do, to keep the pig swill coming, for those with their snouts in the trough attending year after year, is for them to proclaim how serious “the problem” is year after year, to tell the world how useful their contribution to solving “the problem” has been year after year, and how necessary it is for them to all attend next year. And every year it’s the same!
And so long as they don’t seriously suggest anything tangible or costly, global politicians appear more than happy to play along with the sham to get a few “green=gullible” votes.
But now it’s in no one’s interest to admit the truth. Those attending don’t want to give up these yearly free holidays. Politicians don’t want to admit that there is no real money on the table. The eco activists don’t want to hear any talk of failure – so who is going to tell them that these climate talks have been, and always will be, a total failure. Nothing will ever be achieved except a few non-binding commitments that are then broken or a few bungs of cash – which certainly were already earmarked in other budgets.
This cop-monster is nothing but “green-wash” – allowing politicians who are far from green to have a world stage every year in where they are ritually “green-washed” by the acclamation of the idiots greens too foolish and gullible to know they are just being used to kid a diminishing number of green=gullible voters or activists back home.

When I first coined the term “the pause” back in 2007, it was an attempt to include in Wikipedia article on “Global Warming” a section comparing forecasts with actual results.
Then came Climategate – whereby the world got to see inside the corrupt arena of climate for the first time and no one was happy with what they saw. That didn’t stop the corruption, but it certainly did force them to be more circumspect as they knew they were being watched. As a result we had around 5 years in which the reported “temperature” from the human-adjusted metrics could not be so easily changed, it started to diverge massively from their (failed) predictions.
Finally, after I began winning the online duals time and time again by asking them to show me one single temperature series that had warmed as predicted (which they could not) … it seems they had had enough. And once we sceptics won the debate on the pause, they then had little choice but to introduce the new totally bogus, fabricated temperatures  – ones which are so far from reality, that they are not supported by the satellites, by growing Antarctic ice, by the normal levels of global sea ice, or even Greenland surface ice (which has grown since 1990).
However, whilst we sceptics know these surface temperatures are bogus, we lacked something that could take it to the next stage which is a legal case. Because whilst Tony from Steven Goddard has done a sterling job highlighting the numerous stations with “unaccountable” adjustments, as a heating engineer – even though it’s not that difficult to detect these adjustments – a judge with no knowledge would be presented with a heating engineer and supposedly “the greatest climate ‘scientists'”. So most judges would be reluctant to convict without a similarly statused expert for us sceptics. But now that has changed:

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
See more at: NoTricksZone

As NASA gets huge amounts of money off the back of this work and as those involved benefit hugely from this work, this evidence of falsifying the data appears to amount to proof of fraud. So, no doubt the Congressional hearings into NOAAgate will now be able to look at NASA as well as NOAA.

Strange what you see on the internet:

And sure enough when I looked at (un)realclimate.org I found:

…. More than likely it’s just another one of those Chinese hackers or he’s done what I did with one of my sites and forget to renew the domain name!

A great take down of the PC hatred and intolerance of the BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=ag3GF2sfkiA

Large Mug 20 Oz Large Ceramic Coffee Mug by ScottishSceptic
View other Climate Mugs

VISIT SHOP TO SEE OTHER PRODUCTS

NOAAgate is about to erupt as NOAA officials are confronted with the evidence proving that the reason they illegally and unconstitutionally refused to abide by the Congressional subpoena. And that they broke the law because they had both been instructed to fabricate research “proving” the pause did not exist and presumably also to hamper the inquiry.
More importantly, that smoking gun appears to come from the “Whitehouse window”. Which means the trail leads to Obama. We have yet to see how closely NOAAgate will involve Obama himself, but it is almost certain it will show Democrat interference in NOAA, in the global temperature, and that “science” was being corrupted to fit a democratic political agenda.
Except for two things, this might have remained a minor spat about science:

1. Obama had made a tenet of Democrat policy that the world was ending in doomsday warming, had led a campaign viciously and maliciously attacking republicans who dared to investigate or comment, had misled those like the Pope (who are now looking foolish & misguided), and basically held a gun to the US public and said: “if you don’t vote Democrat you are siding with evil climate deniers”. That is tantamount to racketeering or at least using false “evidence” to arm-twist voters to wrongly support the Democrats.
2. Obama has repeatedly bypassed the constitution, by for example throwing the dictionary out the window and redefining the word “pollution” to mean “plant food”. This meant laws intended for real pollutants could now be used for any “unwanted substance” from CO2, to water, to traffic, to overpopulation – anything could be redefined as “pollution” and left to Presidential decree. And CO2 wasn’t the only issue where he bypassed the constitution. There is immigration, on gun control**and no doubt that are many other ways he has been subverting the US constitution to gain “monarchical” power by decree.

So firstly, NOAAgate will expose the lie being used to force people to vote Democrat, and secondly it will show that Obama’s monarchical power grab was not only against the US constitution, but it was wholly unwarranted.
If you add to that, the pathetic “ISIS have been contained” speech the day before Paris, the illegal use of personal computers and destruction of emails by Clinton, NOAAgate is going to make the Democrats unelectable.

The Next President of the US

Continue reading →

In the Washington times there is another article on NOAAgate. What is important is not what the title suggests: Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report instead it’s this first paragraph:

saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration … Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June …. Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

OK, I can now say, I already knew pretty well, that Lamar had been contacted (I didn’t want to suggest it because I assumed he was going to ambush them at the investigation). So, what appears to have happened is that NOAA now know that Lamar knows they are lying.
But this clearly shows that Lamar was not on a fishing trip trying to find evidence, he already had evidence and thus it would seem to me that those refusing the subpoena did so for illegal reasons and are no open to prosecution.
(Hence the time preparing the #NOAAgate hashtag ready for the scandal to break)

Whilst Doug would not wish it to be seen as such there are two parts to this challenge:

1. Find a way to have a better than 90% detection of a 1C/century trend in a naturally varying climate signal.
2. Break the encryption code

Starting with the signal, the first (mental) step is to differentiate the signals in order that the trend now becomes an offset. Now we have a simple question of distinguishing between two frequencies of 0Hz – and a quick mental Fourier transform tells me that we can ignore all other frequencies except the 0Hz because they are all orthogonal (and so provide no useful information).
So, basically this test (except in the fertile imagination of GW believers), boils down to 1000 gradients and deciding which are biggest/smallest so they are most likely to have had the ±1C/century added. We can work out what confidence Doug places on this test from the figures: $100,000 prize and $10 entry fee. This suggests that there is less than 1 in 10,000 chance of allocating 90% of gradients correctly using the only test available: “is it big/small enough to be likely to have the ±1C/century added”.
The only question is what threshold to use to decide it has/has not the ±1C/century added. For this we can go back to the “Fourier transform”, work out the scale of variation and the profile from all the frequencies free from the ±1C/century added. However, although this is a pretty trivial task, it is pointless, because if Doug is capable of understanding the statistics involved, and capable of generating suitable random sequences, he is clearly capable of checking whether he could lose the prize subject to the only test: just a simple threshold test.

The Encryption Key

If Doug is going to lose money, this is where he is vulnerable. The key encoded answer:
3OT0JEN95MslFL7iZvt99rG8s9uaAUP/q9e87KDdjBb9ja5WgJm3cF0GNedfd9XhAXUz4SZEzqJSIXrQrMu6JL2+GXMzkYccPLAF3ghLEtqDMQSXnz1eCU1VhIk6g8dx891u87HBFNobq02IKBdijfL79FC92f0qtFwO5FlJMq7Eidrz7W/zPY68j/sqIv3U4LsMllnUuQooIlZmZH2Wt4s4V2Js3AAl449xrrUkFfvZD5tGUCvmf99blvHQBW/204jDV/UUiMLOcEtkQjhx1AOiQb12zeDLtanxYC78hAkqItDpnidEa+4P3kTzPrPzQi+ihTuuNqSE35eRZ65VamN+husVQ7eRwhHoi+Qi+SZlJBELzj8tvCstPJo46IZZXcAggAFhvgL+VntG2Xl/TOFpPmjoLUG6xCjSq81RlxmLb77Vjb87FG9QJZOZpvxKXt6srDToH9iCCKQ0zhzWcwsCHJC4dUJ9gj+o5uDweG8Crv/U8Fwf
This is 500 characters long and consists of characters a-zA-Z0-9/+ Thus in total 64, so, this is a 64bit number. The first thing I noticed was the unusually high number of of pairs:

99…cc…ll…ooIl…AAl449xrr…99…UU…uu…ZZXcAgg…77…CC…

There are 15 in 500 characters, but there should be only 500/64 = 7.8. Therefore there are twice as many repeating characters as should occur by chance. This means that the 64 bit number we see is not random! This reminds me of the way the German enigma machine was broken (where characters were repeated). Thus it appears that whatever way Doug Keenan has chosen to encode the text, it is not random and thus (unlike the first challenge), it may be broken. Also, unlike the first challenge, the “code” must make sense to a human, so we will be able to check if the decoding is valid because the answer must make sense. This is in sharp contrast to the first part of the test, where there is no way to validate whether the method we chose is valid except by paying this $10 and asking.

The response

Surprisingly, the person who alerted me to this contest was Gavin Schmidt with his comment, which when I traced it back was this twitter exchange:

Bishop Hill @aDissentient
Climate scientists can win $100,000 by demonstrating their statistical prowess! bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/1…
There’s Physics @theresphysics
@aDissentient The phrase “more money than sense” springs to mind.
Robert Grumbine @rgrumbine
.@theresphysics @aDissentient Note the entry fee. It’s a handy way to pick up some dollars with no danger of paying out.
Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin
@rgrumbine @theresphysics might be worth $10 to just answer ‘none’ – the whole thing might just be his idea of a joke.
2:09am · 19 Nov 2015 · Twitter for iPhone

From which I can deduce two simple facts:

1. That they are aware of the challenge and cannot now say they did not enter “because we didn’t know about it”.
2. That they think it is trivially simple and so they have no excuse that it was “too complex” for them to enter (as I would have guessed from their whole casual attitude to natural variation).

They will not enter

Instead, given their ignorance of the statistics as portrayed in their tweets and yet again by anders on Bishop Hill, they have no idea what they are dealing with – so in order to understand how futile the task is, they will first have to talk to someone who understands the statistics involved. And whilst they will only tell them how futile the task is, it might introduce them to the statistics of natural variation so that they too are on the first step to becoming a sceptics.

Will GCHQ/hackers enter

The idiots on climate haven’t any chance, but in effect what we have here is a $100,000 challenge to break a code that doesn’t appear random, and so appears to be breakable.