Fickle foehn fallacies

Esperanza
ESPERANZA

I was out birding with a group of folks on Saturday, out on the South Platte River northeast of Denver. In terms of quacks seen, it was a spectacular day, with thousands of birds covering fourteen species along with bald eagles, hawks, cormorants and herons. And smaller stuff. It helps that a major waste treatment plant dumps its final product in the Platte upstream … it both warms the water and adds nutrients. The vast majority of ducks we saw were Northern Shovelers, known to like brackish water.

Shovelers
Shoveler male and female

Such a day makes up for my weak outing on the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, where a friend and I walked  for several hours through woods, not seeing one bird. At the outset we saw two crows flying high overhead, and I reported them only to be told they were ravens.

“So,” I told our group leader, “I saw two birds this afternoon, and got them both wrong.”

I bring this up because of a conversation that transpired during the morning among the four men in that group. They knew my wife and I are originally from Montana.

Mr. One: Have you been to Glacier National Park?”

Me: Not for many years. We lived in the southern part of Montana, and it is a 350 mile drive to get up there.

Mr. One: They should rename it. The glaciers are nearly gone.

Me: Yeah, they’ve been shrinking since the bottom of the Little Ice Age. I remember as a kid in the 1950s being told that Glaciers up there would soon be gone.

Mr. Two: Did you see where they recorded the highest temperature on record in Antarctica?

Mr. Three: Yeah – like 18 degrees Celsius.

I had not heard about this. I learned after that it was reported in bold headlines in the New York Times and the British Guardian, along with the BBC. This kind of reporting, incredibly irresponsible, is deliberately misleading. It is as if I reported that a manhole cover in downtown Denver was blown off by a rush of underground water, and the Denver Post reported

Denver is flooding! Denver is flooding!

It means nothing. It is not even climate variability – it is just local weather.

But not one of those gentlemen will look into it. This is because the truth about those temperatures is not reported anywhere, and these men will not search for it. The Climate Change scare exists because of massive censorship at every level of information in our society, from first graders up to our universities.

I spoke at more length with one, who told me the whole of Antarctica is warming, to which I replied that a small part of the continent is warmer than the rest, and that’s where they get the photos of calving glaciers, but that as a whole, Antarctica is accumulating more ice than melts. That led to this:

Mr. Three: Are you a scientist?

Me: No. An accountant.

Mr. Three: Do you trust scientists?

Me: No I don’t. I think they are just following the money.

[End of conversation. It is very difficult to be both social and to argue rationally in a groupthink environment.]

For the real scoop, I found an article by Michael Kile, and Australian whose CV I do not have, called ESPERANZA ON MY MIND. Esperanza is an Argentine research station on Antarctica.

The high temperature was a “foehn event”:

“Foehn events cause rapid extreme temperature jumps simply due to changes in the air pressure as winds descend from a mountain top. During the 2015 foehn event, Esperanza’s daily temperature jumped from 0°C [32°F] 2 days before, to a record setting 17.5°C [63.5°F]. Elsewhere, Antarctic foehn winds are common and have been extensively studied, often raising maximum temperatures by 10+°C [18+°F] above normal.”

It was just local weather, and not an indicator of anything, least of all anthropogenic global warming. Too bad however, as the lies told by the New York Times, BBC and The Guardian circled the Earth several times while Mr. Kile was tying his shoes.

37 thoughts on “Fickle foehn fallacies

  1. The average person is never going to be able to truly understand the difference between one single point of local weather and the climate as a whole. Their heads have been messed with too substantially. Second graders might get it though…fortunately it’s still taught correctly to them I believe.

    I was just having a similar conversation with a very simple-minded man explaining the Pleistocene Megafauna to him. Gave him the various theories and right away he jumped on the “musta been humans hunting!” hypothesis. I threw cold water on that, but people are people. We have to learn to see it coming.

    Like

    1. Fauxlex: Great, call (not allowing comments) for two basic reasons:
      a) It is better to not allow comments rather than allowing’em thru and then removing them. (Yes, you know who you are).
      b) The topic is so passé… You’re contribution is welcomed, but I guess the case was rested about 2 yrs ago. I know there is still a party going on over there at CTTF blog but that’s tinfoil-hatland over there.
      BTW, that blog (CTTF) looks like a Sociology project or experiment. Must be to justify funding for the project.

      Let me finish by saying I enjoy articles by all writers here. The current active ones and the ones who are dormant alike. I also thank the opportunity to comment in a respectful and civil manner even if some comments are then removed… It’s just a comment, does not change anything in the world, BTW.

      Like

        1. Since commenting about the mote and the beam is not allowed, I will comment here and hope it is okay. I do not think I will ever have any way of knowing the truth about MM. I am not sure it matters. All I want to know is…did JFK really die, etc.? Have I been hoodwinked yet once again? Not a peep yet from the MM camp. For the record, I am not on a side. It is nothing personal. That said, I would prefer people examine his work more than his background.

          Like

          1. This is a bit like the reaction over at the Fog: “ad hominem attack.” But, of course, there is nothing fallacious about showing someone to be a deceiver. He who lies about small things of little import will also lie about bigger things where it matters. Any intelligent person operates according to this standard.

            So much of the MM mythos has been shown to be hokum. Why does anyone give him the benefit of the doubt for any of the arguments made on that site? Because—let’s be honest—only rarely does he actually prove his conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. The preponderance of the exposition is stringing together probabilities and guilt by association. This is how every cockamamie water-cooler conspiracy theory about office politics works, and it is most always incorrect. Where MM does make a tight case, it has been shown by others, he is cribbing off the work of other researchers, whether for the science stuff or conspiracies.

            No, the fakery and dissembling about his personal life (which he voluntarily puts on display in order to wow the reader) go directly to his credibility on other matters where one is assured to just take his word for it. The problem here at POM is too many of us, having been once attracted to the MM myth, choose not to go back and re-evaluate the quality of the arguments that initially appealed to us.

            Alas, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them …”

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Should have made clear, I am not saying that any particular paper is incorrect. They may all be correct (for all I know), and I did not intend to refute any specific paper idea. Those should individually stand up on merit or not. As you said though Maarten, the veracity of the person is absolutely of critical importance. It is hugely relevant, and this is largely volunteered information. We tell others never to accept without first verifying. All I aimed to do was verify. Then it became a rabbit hole, where things just got stranger and stranger. This should serve as a reminder to trust, but verify. We really do like the Taos site. It is incredible, but there is so much hidden beneath the surface and it is our job as alternative researchers to make this information known.

              Like

          2. You guys still really like the site? Not criticism, just surprised to read that. Talking here only the art not science part of the site: What is the point of keep producing papers touching asinine, shallow, irrelevant topics and always ending with the (1/2-assed)genealogy-copnnections-peerage-jews-gays conlusions. Paper after paper. Can you mention any breakthrough paper after 2016? Hitler’s Geni paper realeased Jan-17, but was most likely done in 2016… if not earlier. One example of irrelevance: the Cambridge Analytica paper came out over a year ago, way out of time/touch and with 0 rigor and seriousness.

            Like

            1. To a certain extent, I stopped reading the papers for their stated conclusions long ago. I agree…the revelatory papers are almost extinct at this point. I am just fascinated by things like which topics are chosen (or NOT chosen), the approach taken, and other interesting breadcrumbs. Looking at the site as an enigma, I just want to see what they’ll touch on next. That is my take anyway.

              Like

          3. Went to the Fog site, but daddieuhoh still has me blocked over there so I will post here what I posted there that did not see the light of day:
            “In this paper (http://mileswmathis.com/hutt.pdf) der maler said:”IF YOU RUN PROJECTS AGAINST ME I WILL OUT YOU and Everyone Around You”. So what are we waiting for to out all shill writers at POM?”.
            I predict that outing will never happen. Another gambit. Another deceiving piece among so many.

            Like

          4. Clarification: I used “shill writers” just as a challenge to them. I do not think that of the writers over here not even of any commenters… I used the term since some of them refer that way to you guys. Those acolytes don’t care about all the revelations and fact checking exposed here now and in the past, they do not want their idol, their hero taken away from them. Fine for them, they are a cult indeed and you don’t want any part of that.

            Like

      1. A few points on the article in question:

        One, it is either ignorant or willful mischaracterization to state that MM uses “We” versus “I” in an odd way in his bio. The “photo” provided to back up this claim is not a photo, it is a screencap, and a partial one at that. Here’s a link to the bio, which the author for some reason chose not to provide:
        http://mileswmathis.com/bio.html

        Following that link one does indeed find the relevant section of text, at the bottom. Not, I should note, as part of the bio itself but rather as an addendum, in the form of a response to criticism. It is in this “response”, and not in the bio above it, that MM uses “We” in a few places where one would think, at first glance, that “I” would be appropriate.

        However, scrolling down the page a bit further we reach what is actually the last line on the page. “Original story compiled by Marie-Claude Lacroix, formerly of Cirque du Soleil and boleadoras performer extraordinaire.”

        Hmm. So the “we” MM is referring to is himself and Mrs./Ms./Miss Lacroix, which makes complete sense. Curious that the author of Mote/Beam chose to screencap instead of link. Curious that he/she chose to crop that screencap so as to only present the “We” bit out of context, without the final line to provide explanation. If it was a mistake it was an enormous blunder. How could one fail to read the very next line, the last line on the page, especially when one was allegedly so puzzled by the apparent misuse of “We”? A “We” that, again, appears nowhere in the bio itself but only in the “response”. If nothing else this is extremely sloppy and the inclusion of this allegation in the article only hurts the author’s credibility.

        Two, MM does indeed appear as a “contributing artist”, in not just that issue but in the bulk of issues put out ’85 through ’87. It is also true that his name only appears on page 2 as a “contributing artist” and not anwyhere else, again not just in that issue but in every issue in the period in question.

        However, MM is not alone. There are 13 names credited as “contributing artists”. In the specific issue offered as evidence there is only ONE name in that list which also appears elsewhere in the issue: Tom Ballenger is credited with the cover art.

        And, as it turns out, that is not an anomaly. All the other issues in the period I mentioned present the same picture. A dozen or so “contributing artists” only one of whom appears anywhere else in the issue: Tom Ballenger.

        Now, if I am to ascribe sinister significance to MM’s appearance, or rather non-appearance, in those issues, what of the other 11 men and women whose names both appear and don’t appear in the same pattern as his? To single out MM here is cherry-picking, just as with the misleading bio quote. Or are we to believe that all 11 of them weren’t actually there, and their names were “inserted” as it is alleged MM’s name was? That may be the case, but no case has been made for it.

        Three, the photo analysis is useless to the layman. Perhaps worse than useless, which is to say detrimental, for several reasons. There are no original sources for any of the photos, hence nothing to compare with the images as presented. There are no links to the software used, hence no way for the layman to replicate the analysis. There are no parameters provided informing the reader of what tools were used, what settings in those tools, how those tools were applied and why, etc. There is no control group of photos; that is to say there is no presentation and analysis of a “legit” photo, hence no way to know what one should or should not be looking for. Were any or all of these things present one might be tempted to offer the benefit of the doubt to the author and assume that he/she knows what the hell they’re doing, even if they aren’t an “expert” in analysis.

        Four, the author chooses to remain anonymous while levelling allegations against someone who is not anonymous. All well and good, I suppose, except that if MM’s personal work, travel, family and economic history are all necessary to an understanding of him, as the author of Mote/Beam clearly states they are, what is necessary to understand the author? His name? Occupation? Family history? Cars he’s been photographed sprawled on?

        All of the above are “softballs”, in the sense that MM is going to smash them right out of the park. The misrepresentation of the “We v. I” nonsense is arguably the worst of them, but the others are little better. I can predict the line of defense already. “If my anonymous attacker can’t even be bothered to read the entirety of my bio page, much less comprehend what he is reading, what does that say about the rest of his screed? He can’t even read but he’s an expert in photo analysis?” etc etc

        There are relevant points made in the article, and some interesting info. For me they’re overshadowed by a ridiculous blunder, an unsupported leap of imagination, a shoddy technological presentation and a seemingly hypocritical stance on data evaluation.

        Like

        1. If you think the Cirque du Soleil dancer bit HELPS any of that or “makes complete sense”, then you have drank the Kool-aid. I don’t know what to tell you. You say yourself that this section is an addition from much later, so why is he still referring to the “we”? And why on earth do you think the Cirque du Soleil dancer writing parts of his bio page makes sense?! He uses the “we” in a very direct sense, and I can’t make sense of it using your dancer to explain it away. Either way, it doesn’t really undermine the rest like you seem to think it does. So what? It’s not ALL bombshell stuff.

          I’m not sure what to say about the rest of what you wrote. There were others who were contributing artists who didn’t contribute? Okay. That’s weird for them then, too.

          I don’t claim to be a photo expert (they’re just strange anomalies) and I don’t claim that everything I shared is some kind of slam dunk (though some is pretty darn close). It’s just a collection of interesting information related to things that blogger has put out there about himself. You yourself admit that there are relevant points in what I found. That blogger did not need to release such details about themselves and ESPECIALLY not if it’s false information. This stuff is relevant. I don’t feel that I really proved anything, just put information out there for people to judge for themselves.

          You would really think that anyone who isn’t here for the wrong reasons would just think it was an interesting collection of findings.

          Like

          1. In a nutshell, if he was really referring to “Marie-Claude Lacroix, formerly of Cirque du Soleil and boleadoras performer extraordinaire” (and this person is actually the author of the biography), then he should have said SHE, not WE. He is implying having a hand in something that he previously attributed to her alone. It’s odd. Why would anyone have someone else write their bio page, least of all a random Cirque du Soleil performer? Then refer later to having had a collective hand in it? It’s bizarre, and that is all I really meant to say anyway. It’s a one little bizarre thing in a big pile of bizarre things.

            Like

        2. As for your last point, I am not about to compare myself with the great and illustrious blogger of Taos. Not only is he a gazillion times more known than myself, but he also has made it about himself and his story. These details are part of the great picture of himself that he provides. I am far lesser, and I am not trying to make it about myself in any way.

          Like

        3. And yes, I am sure that if he addresses my post, he will find something useful with which to insult and undermine. It is more or less what is expected, if there is a reply. Then new lies will wash away the old. I did not link or even use his name quite intentionally. My post will always be a niche thing found only by those who are already having doubts.

          Like

        4. You’ve got me even more interested in this one now, because first he says that it’s written by the Cirque du Soleil performer and you claim this explains everything. Looking again, this makes his statement “notice my wording” extremely strange. So was it written by her or not? There he says that it’s his wording. But you say it’s hers. Then he says it’s both of their’s. Confused? Me too.

          Like

  2. Enjoyed this write-up.
    Relevant insight -bold courtesy of yours truly-: “But not one of those gentlemen will look into it. This is because the truth about those temperatures is not reported anywhere, and these men will not search for it.”
    Did not quite get the context of what you were trying to say here, though:
    ” The Climate Change scare exists because of massive censorship at every level of information in our society, from first graders up to our universities.”

    Like

  3. Having middle class parents is a grave indictment as is using ” we ” to mean ” I ” unless you use the term as FAUXLEX himself does. As for the anglicisms, who but an MI6 operative would leave out a definite article. The use of a golf buggy is highly suspicious and indicative of moral bugginess and probably sexual depravity.
    Nothing on that site can compare with the soaring prose of Motorhead or the Olympian insights of Jon le Bon.

    Like

    1. A random fact to toss into the mix: One of the authors who wrote here about MM two years ago chose the name “Bob Zerunkel” (sp). Miles did not know it was a play on a common and well-known British expression, Bob’s your uncle.” Someone with deep British connections would know this, just as American’s know “piece of cake.” I think this raises the question of multiple authors, which does not trouble me, more than anything.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob's_your_uncle

      Liked by 1 person

    2. POM is a site of many authors. Hence, “we” can use this way to refer to ourselves. The Taos man does so in his own personal biography, and is not part of a collection of writers. Or is he?

      Like

  4. Re following the money

    I can see how that would shut down discussion, it’s a bit direct… To me, my speculation is that rank and file scientists are entangled in their subculture, or “cult,” with its groupthink and need for peer approval. And they start from a young impressionable age, working their way through the ranks by impressing their superiors with slavish obedience to dogma, regurgitating the correct answers. Of course career and money is entangled in that, but it’s not an openly cynical chase for dollars. Although some may grow cynical and mercenary about it of course. But even then they’d probably be self deluding.

    Like

    1. The word “scientist” does not appear in 1828 Webster’s. So, the fancy title, and its worshipers have made the whole thing up with words. Men (men and women) investigate all the time. They study nature. Where does the line begin, and who or what determines the appropriateness of the (scientist) title? The “fake” money, of course. Mind control knows no bounds among the “blue-blood” elite — who’ve been faking it for 6000 to 8000 years. Still sucking the blood of commoners, facing no real threat to ending their sick game. Anyone else working on a plan to eliminate ALL slave masters? I know a handful, and applaud their work. Many more warriors in opposition to Crown parasites will be needed. Welcome. Please join when ready and able.

      Like

  5. Their global mean temperature of the earth since the end of the 19th century, it kills me. With a big laugh. How many thermometers, read how many times per day by whom, do you need around the globe to get the data? It makes no sense…

    Like

    1. Not only that, we don’t have the technology now to acquire such useless data. The US temperature reading system is hopelessly compromised by urban heat islands. The best data we get is from weather balloons and satellites, which show that the planet is gradually getting warmer, just as it has since the bottom of the Little Ice Age (circa 1680). But warmists have been busy changing past data to make it appear that the warming, which is beneficial anyway, is more dramatic than it really is. It is so effing corrupt out there.

      Our current interglacial period is called the “Holocene.” We are nearing its end, though no one knows the future. It could be starting to end now, or things could go on as now for another two thousand years. Marc Morano, founder of the Climate Depot website (in the links below), suggested a better name of this period, given all of the hanky panky going on, would be the “Adjustocene.”

      Like

  6. So, guys and gals, you’ve closed the comment section of Foxy’s blog post that got ya excited, so you can continue bashing Miles under this post here? My goodness. Such a sad state of affair here at POM ever since it hit rock bottom years ago.

    Like

      1. Spill over? Right.

        I don’t get ya, Mark. When Miles first criticized ya in his rant yr ultimate reaction to it was reanalyzing yr own pieces and admitting some of them were really to far out there. Hence there are no links to those pieces, ya removed them personally. I was also convinced ya realized how good it is to have an extra pair of experienced eyes covering yr back. Many commenters here tried to convey the very same message to ya before that particular Miles’ piece came out but with no effect. Don’t forget that timeline, it’s important if ya want to be fair or consistent within your own criteria. So why pick Miles out of many people who pointed out the very same errors ya made? They all oughtta deserve the same fate, right? But they never did, while Miles alone was suddenly in yr focus. Well, wtf? Which one is it? Are you happy or not that someone finally made you realize how to improve your research?

        I asked ya this very same question before but never received any meaningful reply. So far. So I’ll ask again: if you’re actually happy about that progress, how is it possible that ya allow such writing here?

        Like

          1. That’s a wrong assumption. Just like that one about Miles being a group of writers. No, I’m not Miles. And I don’t think he’d be reading your blog ever since you started bashing him for no other reason than criticizing your research methods. Which, btw, ya accepted as being spot on. I also don’t think ya’ll ever get his comment at this blog. Strange enough, ya pretend to be grateful for his insight, while in reality yr full of resentments. No, ya have nothing against Miles. Except ya can’t get over it.

            This blog is allegedly yr own. By allowing certain writing here yr indirectly approving it. Which means other authors have yr support regardless of the subject they choose to write about. Ya may think such move is being perceived as democratic or censor-free. But ya’d be wrong. Anybody following this blog knows that not all subjects are free to write or comment about. Some are forbidden for being too far out there or simply ’cause you disallow them. But not “who-the-feck-is-Miles” subject, even though it’s all mostly hear-say. Yes, all of ya haven’t produced anything that would stick, yet. It actually got stuck on yrself.

            Why don’t ya try to verify 3000+ pages of Miles’ scientific research? That’s where his ultimate achievement lies. That’s the real reason why he’s one of the greatest minds. But no, that won’t happen. It can be easily ignored by saying it’s above yr paygrade, right? Gee, man. Can’t ya see what’s going on here?

            Like

    1. You mentioned M.Tokarski in one of your recent papers in unequivocal terms. Why wouldn’t they post a piece about you again? If you so think of Mark, “scumbag agent” and that “POM numbers went to the toilet”… the honorable thing to do is to refund the $400 of the conference, when you “carelessly” and “conveniently” admitted Mark to the conference in 2016.
      By the way, we hold these things as false and self-evident: he’s no scumbag and POM traffic numbers are not in the toilet. If you knew how to use Alexa you would not dare to write such a bold-face lie.

      Like

      1. I never mentioned Mark anywhere and never called him an agent. Ya must’ve mistaken me for somebody else, like many others. I simply think Mark’s stuck in time and within certain emotions that are detrimental to his own image and this blog’s image. That’s a shame. And a mistake, in my eyes. But who am I to judge, right?

        And don’t forget the timeline here. I was around here for long enough to know Miles got bashed zillion times before he wrote about Mark as an agent. Before that it as only about the research methods and no name calling. So, what do ya want? Ya thought he’d ignore it? That nobody would tell him what’s going on at PoM? He might have ignored it, but he didn’t. In my eyes, he was provoked to respond, which he did. And now ya don’t like it….well, too late for that. I reckon ya already know that part.

        Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s