Adjustment of data into Truth

At Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith labored to erase from the newspaper morgue facts inconvenient to The Party and replace them with “rectified” versions.

As in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the better folk–fully deserving of their government jobs and hand in the till–can plainly discern Truth. Their inability to differentiate a constant or read a thermometer to within a single degree is just the sort of spurious irrelevancy one would expect Deniers (in the pay of dollar-worshipping egotists) to criticize by way of misdirection. Today that penchant for rectification via alternative facts is applied by recipients of transfer payments from taxpayers to modern “researchers.” Here, courtesy of Tony Heller, is how political pseudoscience persistently altered the past record of ordinary temperatures to meet present exigencies in the wake of the defeat of the Democratic candidate in 2000:

Data tampering

realclimatescience.com

Yet sudden changes in the policies and laws advocated and passed by “the elect”–those better voters ensconced in the Congress–are not news. Those better people are paid $174,000 apiece in annual remuneration for the discerning way in which they direct the initiation of force to the benefit of fellow Party members by whom they are elected. In November 1892, practically 9% of all voters cast ballots for candidates enamored of the “graduated income tax”, plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

In just over a year the income tax neither entrenched kleptocracy party wanted became law. It wouldn’t do for the Great Unwashed to realize that a vote for its own party was what changed the law. Therefore no History book in any government school calls attention to that timely succession of events, much less to the economic collapse that caused the Supreme Court to strike down that tax law the following year.

Government subsidies today call for ex-post-facto rectification of sea level measurement data. The largest changes are reported by Communist China, Ecological National Socialist Brazil and three primitive islands in Oceania, home to fewer than a million inhabitants frightened into a state of fear by pseudoscientific documendacities.

data adulteration

Who controls the present controls the past…

But we’ve also seen how 1.4% of the total vote, when cast by religious fanatics in 11 successive campaigns, added a Mohammedan Sharia law ban on alcohol to the Constitution. Religious racial collectivists formed Germanic-style parties to compete with republicans even after  Prohibition enforcement caused the Crash and Depression and made that party the hateful thing it is today. Constant draining of spoiler votes by socialist, socialist-labor and communist parties had a similar affect in seducing the  Democratic party away from the salutary influence exerted on it by the Liberal Party during the campaign of 1932, when the economy collapsed entirely.

Small wonder then that a government once dedicated to the protection of individual rights was changed–by persistent casting of looter spoiler votes by tiny but violent minorities–and mutated into a truthless looter kleptocracy. We’ve seen where such spoiler votes took Russia, Germany, China and half of Korea. Since 1972, however, libertarian parties have offered voters a peaceful, rights-respecting path back to freedom, and now function in at least 21 countries. Will 9% of US voters avail themselves of the opportunity to change history? Possibly.

Orwell wrote: “The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end.” –Through a Glass, Rosily, (Collected… V.4 p 35). If 9%–about a third of Americans able to frame concepts and make comparisons–deign to cast their vote for rights and reality, looter altruism may give way to individual rights just as the communism of pelf gave way to union goon violence and communist taxation in 1894, and ecological nationalsocialism in 2008.

This interpretation of current events in the light of historical precedent was brought to you by http://www.portugueseinterpreter.com

 

Advertisements

Petition Project v. Consensus impostors

Over 30,000 degreed scientists signed the Petition Project successfully urging the Senate to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Yet politicians too ignorant to integrate by parts or even differentiate a simple constant apply religious tests for office.

Arrayed against the 30,000 is the self-styled “Consensus” of unlisted looter scientists. The Consensus claim amounts to unquestionable religious belief impersonating science in the name of Ochlocracy panic. Anonymous sockpuppets haunt internet videos, heaping shrieks and abuse upon “deniers.” But just how many of these Affirmers preach the Revealed Word of the Consensus to the faithful?

centerpetitionIn Legates et al. (2013)Watts Up With That revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 flatly stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade. (This was itself premised on the existence and measurability of half a degree’s difference).

Let’s assume there were three authors prophets per paper. That would give us, um,  123 is to 30,000 as x is to 100… 0.41%. So 0.41% of so-called climate scientists set up a caterwauling din over how–because of electricity–the world is a rotisserie. THAT is a Consensus?!   Furthermore, the comparison with the Petition Project is assuming the illustrious Cassandras have actually earned a Bachelor of Science degree in ANY field of science.  One half-wit for every 100 researchers producing papers is several cards shy of a full deck.

I’m gonna have to go with the Petition Project on this one. Indeed there is healthy competition springing up in this business of scientists and educated laymen petitioning Congress on behalf of empowering humanity through access to energy. The Center for Industrial Progress has its own petition to lawmakers. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is shaping up as a nice companion volume to Dr Petr Beckmann’s The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.

It was Petr Beckmann who convinced me that the Libertarian Party was a worthwhile effort, and not a collection of mad anarchists.