I think Colonel Russell Williams is the most honest man in Canada.
He came clean with everything he did , admitted guilt , told the truth to investigators , and now he serves his sentence under the laws of Canada. Just like he expected he would.
Name me one other person who has been so honest about themselves. Name me one other person who has stood up in front of the whole world and described his crime like Colonel Williams did.
Name one.
His type of honesty is admirable.
We must not fail to see that. It would be a shame if we did.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Monday, January 18, 2010
The economy is bad when :
In order to try our best to keep you smiling .... here are a couple of tid bits ...
For a moment I thought Rodney Dangerfield was back in action. Enjoy.
The economy is so bad, I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
I ordered a burger at McDonald's and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"
CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," call them and ask if they meant you or them.
Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico .
Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting.
Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore.
The Mafia is laying off judges.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal.
Oh Great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!
And, finally... I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Lifeline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck!
For a moment I thought Rodney Dangerfield was back in action. Enjoy.
The economy is so bad, I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
I ordered a burger at McDonald's and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"
CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," call them and ask if they meant you or them.
Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico .
Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting.
Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore.
The Mafia is laying off judges.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal.
Oh Great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!
And, finally... I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Lifeline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Liberals & Conservatives. How they are different.
.
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course! Especially the religion by detonation.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he’ll have a good laugh.
A liberal reads this he will complain and be offended because his feelings are hurt.
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course! Especially the religion by detonation.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he’ll have a good laugh.
A liberal reads this he will complain and be offended because his feelings are hurt.
Bell helicopter Checklist . Bell 206B startup
.
This is a typical Bell 206B III CHECK LIST.
.
BEFORE START
FLIGHT CONTROLS-friction, movement, flat pitch, neutral
THROTTLE-Check movement, closed
LDG LTS switch OFF
ENGINE ANTI-ICING switch-OFF
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM switch-ON
FUEL VALVE switch-ON
Altimeter-Set to field elevation
Instruments/Gages-Static position at zero
Overhead switches-OFF
Generator switch-OFF
Circuit breakers-in -as required
Battery switch-ON -OFF, if external power used-
Observe TRANS OIL PRESS, ENG OUT,
ROTOR LOW RPM c/w lights & engine out audio
C/W lights test
TOT light test
ROTOR LOW RPM system
FUEL BOOST - circuit breakers in, check press, light off
ANTI-COLLISION-ON
TIE DOWN-REMOVED
ENGINE STARTING
Collective pitch-full down
Throttle-full closed
Rotors-clear
STARTER-Engage...TOT below 150'C./Check Voltage
-12% Below 0' F-13% 0 to 45' F-15% Above 45' F.
IGNITE, Let off, Add fuel.
ENG Oil pressure indication, main rotor turning by 25% N1
STARTER-Release 58%-let idle for 1 min.
Check Engine and Trans oil Press
N1 60 to 62% -25 seconds GPU start-
External power-removed. -40 seconds BATT start-
Throttle-70% N1
Generator switch-ON
Radio equip.-ON
Position LT switch-ON
CAUTION LT - circuit breaker-IN
Fuel boost pump pressure-check
Advance Throttle to full open position
N2 Governor check-97 to 100%
ENGINE RUN-UP CHECK
Engine anti-ice -ON -40'F and below w/moisture-
PITOT HEAT-ON -40'F and below w/moisture-
Hydraulic System check
Flight Controls-Friction as desired
BEFORE TAKEOFF
Electrical equipment-as required
Lighting-as required
Radios-as required
Throttle-Full open, set N2 100%
Power and Flight instruments-Normal operating range
Generator load-below 70%
ENGINE SHUTDOWN
Throttle-Flight Idle
Flight Controls-Friction
ENGINE ANTI-ICE-OFF
TOT-Stabilized for 2 minutes
IDLE Release button-Depress, Throttle Full Closed
N1 Decelerate to 0 and TOT Stabilizing
Apply Cyclic to minimize static stop contact
Radios-OFF
FUEL VALVE-OFF
Generator switch-OFF
Battery switch-OFF
ALL switches-OFF
Overhead circuit breakers-Out -as desired-
SECURE AIRCRAFT
NORMAL OPERATING INDICATIONS
Transmission- Pressure- 50 PSI
Temperature- 75'C
Engine- Pressure- 125PSI
Temperature- 75'C
Load Meter-<20%
Fuel Pressure- 12 to 16 PSI
N1--100% N2 Ground- 80%
-Normal cruise 80% Torque- 92 to 94%
TOT--100% N2 Ground) 600'C
-Normal cruise 80% Torque- 650' to 675'C
Torque--100% N2 Ground- 28 to 30%
OPERATING LIMITS
TORQUE- 100% -5 minutes)
110% -5 seconds-
TOT- 810'C -5 Minutes-
738'C -Max Continuous-
810'C to 843'C -Power Transient 6 Seconds
810'C to 927'C -Start & Shut down 10 Seconds-
Anyone do anything differently or would add anything??
This is a typical Bell 206B III CHECK LIST.
.
BEFORE START
FLIGHT CONTROLS-friction, movement, flat pitch, neutral
THROTTLE-Check movement, closed
LDG LTS switch OFF
ENGINE ANTI-ICING switch-OFF
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM switch-ON
FUEL VALVE switch-ON
Altimeter-Set to field elevation
Instruments/Gages-Static position at zero
Overhead switches-OFF
Generator switch-OFF
Circuit breakers-in -as required
Battery switch-ON -OFF, if external power used-
Observe TRANS OIL PRESS, ENG OUT,
ROTOR LOW RPM c/w lights & engine out audio
C/W lights test
TOT light test
ROTOR LOW RPM system
FUEL BOOST - circuit breakers in, check press, light off
ANTI-COLLISION-ON
TIE DOWN-REMOVED
ENGINE STARTING
Collective pitch-full down
Throttle-full closed
Rotors-clear
STARTER-Engage...TOT below 150'C./Check Voltage
-12% Below 0' F-13% 0 to 45' F-15% Above 45' F.
IGNITE, Let off, Add fuel.
ENG Oil pressure indication, main rotor turning by 25% N1
STARTER-Release 58%-let idle for 1 min.
Check Engine and Trans oil Press
N1 60 to 62% -25 seconds GPU start-
External power-removed. -40 seconds BATT start-
Throttle-70% N1
Generator switch-ON
Radio equip.-ON
Position LT switch-ON
CAUTION LT - circuit breaker-IN
Fuel boost pump pressure-check
Advance Throttle to full open position
N2 Governor check-97 to 100%
ENGINE RUN-UP CHECK
Engine anti-ice -ON -40'F and below w/moisture-
PITOT HEAT-ON -40'F and below w/moisture-
Hydraulic System check
Flight Controls-Friction as desired
BEFORE TAKEOFF
Electrical equipment-as required
Lighting-as required
Radios-as required
Throttle-Full open, set N2 100%
Power and Flight instruments-Normal operating range
Generator load-below 70%
ENGINE SHUTDOWN
Throttle-Flight Idle
Flight Controls-Friction
ENGINE ANTI-ICE-OFF
TOT-Stabilized for 2 minutes
IDLE Release button-Depress, Throttle Full Closed
N1 Decelerate to 0 and TOT Stabilizing
Apply Cyclic to minimize static stop contact
Radios-OFF
FUEL VALVE-OFF
Generator switch-OFF
Battery switch-OFF
ALL switches-OFF
Overhead circuit breakers-Out -as desired-
SECURE AIRCRAFT
NORMAL OPERATING INDICATIONS
Transmission- Pressure- 50 PSI
Temperature- 75'C
Engine- Pressure- 125PSI
Temperature- 75'C
Load Meter-<20%
Fuel Pressure- 12 to 16 PSI
N1--100% N2 Ground- 80%
-Normal cruise 80% Torque- 92 to 94%
TOT--100% N2 Ground) 600'C
-Normal cruise 80% Torque- 650' to 675'C
Torque--100% N2 Ground- 28 to 30%
OPERATING LIMITS
TORQUE- 100% -5 minutes)
110% -5 seconds-
TOT- 810'C -5 Minutes-
738'C -Max Continuous-
810'C to 843'C -Power Transient 6 Seconds
810'C to 927'C -Start & Shut down 10 Seconds-
Anyone do anything differently or would add anything??
Neils Bohr the Clever Danish . When students are smarter than the teacher
.."Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected. I read the examination question:
"SHOW HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE HEIGHT OF A TALL BUILDING WITH THE AID OF A BAROMETER."
The student had answered, "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring the rope up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.
In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units."
"A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tact, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem.
Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The student was Neils Bohr and the arbiter was Ernest Rutherford.
"SHOW HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE HEIGHT OF A TALL BUILDING WITH THE AID OF A BAROMETER."
The student had answered, "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring the rope up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.
I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.
In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.
"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units."
"A very direct method."
"Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."
"On this same tact, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem.
Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The student was Neils Bohr and the arbiter was Ernest Rutherford.
Monday, December 28, 2009
How the Liberal Left Catch a pig - (we are the pigs)
Catching Wild Pigs... and other Liberal left tactics
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ” Do you know how to catch wild pigs?” The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. the pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man told the professor that it is exactly what he sees happening to America and Canada. The Liberals in government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time. Even the Conservatives are doing it now. We need to go green and recycle ALL our politicians.
One should always remember “There is no such thing as a free lunch”; and “You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
__________________
There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ” Do you know how to catch wild pigs?” The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. the pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man told the professor that it is exactly what he sees happening to America and Canada. The Liberals in government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time. Even the Conservatives are doing it now. We need to go green and recycle ALL our politicians.
One should always remember “There is no such thing as a free lunch”; and “You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
__________________
Michael Mann - More truth comes out on Global warming
Steve took a look at the stats and got curious. Now, it happens that Steve is in the mining business; he also happened to be a prize-winning math student in college. He knows how to read number sets. He knows what good analysis looks like.
He also knows what cooked figures look like. He has seen the phony projections that companies use when they're trying to swindle people. Their results are too perfect. Mann's report looks too perfect, too.
So Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong — it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
But Mann used government grants in his research. Which means he has an obligation to disclose. Steve contacts him, asks for the information. He gets a runaround. He gets pointed to a website that does not have the information. He tries again, and again gets a runaround — in fact, Mann sends him a very rude letter saying that he will no longer communicate with him.
Why should he? Steve isn't a legitimate researcher in that field. He's just a businessman.
But Steve is now sure there's something fishy going on, and he doesn't give up. He gets other people to help him. Finally they are pointed to a different website, where, to their surprise, they find that someone has accidentally left a copy of the FORTRAN program that was used to crunch the numbers. It wasn't supposed to be where Steve found it — which is why it hadn't been deleted.
Also, there was a little more carelessness — there is a set of data labeled "censored." Steve can't see, right away, what's significant about it, except that a score or so of data sets are left out of the censored data.
Steve looks at the program. He finds the glitch rather easily. He tries the program on random numbers and realizes that it always yields the distinctive shape that has caused all the stir.
Sorting out the data sets is much harder. He contacts a lot of people. He does what anyone checking these figures would have to do, and he realizes: If anyone had tried to check, a lot of this information would already have been put together.
He realizes: I am the first person ever to attempt to verify these astonishing, anomalous, politically hot results. Out of all the researchers in this field who had a responsibility to do "due diligence" before accepting the data, none of them has done it.
Finally he has all the original data put together. It includes more than just real numbers — it includes "extrapolated" data, which means that sometimes, where there were holes, Mann just made the numbers up and plugged them in. This is sloppy and lazy — but it's just the beginning.
What's crucial is that Steve now understands why the "censored" data sets are smaller than the ones Mann used. The full source data includes those misleading results that shouldn't have been used. But the "censored" data sets leave it out.
This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an accident. Mann ran the program on the data without the misleading numbers, and then he ran it with the misleading numbers. What he published was the results that made his ideological case.
============
How Can We Know What's True?
All this can be checked. I didn't even change the names. "Mann" is Michael Mann; his co-writers on that hockey stick report are Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. "Steve" is Stephen McIntyre, and the writer of the report I'm working from is Ross McKitrick, who is a climate scientist. Their report is a chapter in Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
He also knows what cooked figures look like. He has seen the phony projections that companies use when they're trying to swindle people. Their results are too perfect. Mann's report looks too perfect, too.
So Steve starts digging. First, he read's Mann's original report. He finds it an exercise in obscurity. From what he published, it's very, very hard to tell just what statistical methods Mann used, or even what data he operated on.
This is wrong — it's not supposed to be that way. Scientists are supposed to leave a clear path so other people can follow them up and replicate their research.
The fact that it's so obscure suggests that Mann does not want anyone checking his work.
But Mann used government grants in his research. Which means he has an obligation to disclose. Steve contacts him, asks for the information. He gets a runaround. He gets pointed to a website that does not have the information. He tries again, and again gets a runaround — in fact, Mann sends him a very rude letter saying that he will no longer communicate with him.
Why should he? Steve isn't a legitimate researcher in that field. He's just a businessman.
But Steve is now sure there's something fishy going on, and he doesn't give up. He gets other people to help him. Finally they are pointed to a different website, where, to their surprise, they find that someone has accidentally left a copy of the FORTRAN program that was used to crunch the numbers. It wasn't supposed to be where Steve found it — which is why it hadn't been deleted.
Also, there was a little more carelessness — there is a set of data labeled "censored." Steve can't see, right away, what's significant about it, except that a score or so of data sets are left out of the censored data.
Steve looks at the program. He finds the glitch rather easily. He tries the program on random numbers and realizes that it always yields the distinctive shape that has caused all the stir.
Sorting out the data sets is much harder. He contacts a lot of people. He does what anyone checking these figures would have to do, and he realizes: If anyone had tried to check, a lot of this information would already have been put together.
He realizes: I am the first person ever to attempt to verify these astonishing, anomalous, politically hot results. Out of all the researchers in this field who had a responsibility to do "due diligence" before accepting the data, none of them has done it.
Finally he has all the original data put together. It includes more than just real numbers — it includes "extrapolated" data, which means that sometimes, where there were holes, Mann just made the numbers up and plugged them in. This is sloppy and lazy — but it's just the beginning.
What's crucial is that Steve now understands why the "censored" data sets are smaller than the ones Mann used. The full source data includes those misleading results that shouldn't have been used. But the "censored" data sets leave it out.
This means that Mann knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an accident. Mann ran the program on the data without the misleading numbers, and then he ran it with the misleading numbers. What he published was the results that made his ideological case.
============
How Can We Know What's True?
All this can be checked. I didn't even change the names. "Mann" is Michael Mann; his co-writers on that hockey stick report are Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. "Steve" is Stephen McIntyre, and the writer of the report I'm working from is Ross McKitrick, who is a climate scientist. Their report is a chapter in Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)