22 Highlighting Harra's Disinformation 12/10/2015
A follow up from page 15 On "Being Certain Even If You Are Wrong"


Understanding dogmatic Green/Left thinking
Their brains insert phantom info so 2+2=5
..hence their overCERTAINTY

Watch out for 2+2=5 thinking
when they hear RACISM SEXISM in your normal speech
- due to hearing phantom info

seems Green/left always never doesn't seem to be much Introspectio


Sometimes people people info hear info in a sentence, than was actually said.Just the same way sometimes people see the "face of Jesus" when they stare at the clouds or the wallpaper.The human brain is programmed to over interpret.

Benford’s Law is a forensic science trick which can detect accountancy fraud.

- In seems natural large datasets form a pattern, whereby the most frequent first digit will be a “1” 30% of the time etc. And somehow this still applies event if you apply divisions when converting to another currency etc.
– It only works when the data is spread through wide magnitudes Can it be applied to Climate Change temp data : perhaps temperature data is too limited, typically being between -30+30 CSpiegelhalter min 0:38.00 Naked Scientists

BTW for someone who says he doesn't look at Climate stats cos he is busy on medical stats Spiegelhalter seems to pop up on the Radio and TV a lot .. been on 4 times this month talking general maths or plugging his new book Sex By Numbers
Interesting comment in Chiefo’s blog Jason Calley says: December 2011 at 12:45 am
\\I have heard that a good place to look for errors in the record is in the Soviet measurements. Apparently, many of the cities in the northern Siberian region of the USSR were allocated coal and oil based on their climatic needs, i.e., on “how cold does it get there each winter?”
The colder the city, the more coal and oil it got
….so what do you think happened to their temperature measurements? Yup…outright fraudulently low records. Once the Soviets fell in the early 1990s, the reported temperatures became untied from resource allocations and there was a remarkable, uh, “warming” in the reports.Funny how these things work.//

BBC board : Honest and Impartial on Climate ?
: The executive management board
1: Helen Boaden : instigated The 28 Gate the BBC Climate Change Propaganda Strategy meeting and cover-up
2: Dame Fiona Reynolds is a former Director General of the National Trust
3: Simon Burke, director of the Co-op Food division. (people who fund anti-fracking film shows)
4: Alice Perkins is married to Jack Straw MP.
5: Sir Howard Stringer : a very public obsession pursuing climate change alarmism. (Under his leadership, Sony got into bed very firmly with all the usual eco militants in leading the charge towards a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and he is a platform speaker at climate alarmist events such as this. This adulatory piece in the BBC’s house journal The Guardian says it all.)
6: Sir Nicholas Hytner created the 2011 Climate Change propaganda play Greenland "A climate-change play at the National fails to either inform"

That good info was from News Watch a UK site similar to BiasedBBC.org ...see NEW BBC TRUSTEES FAIL INDEPENDENCE TEST

I see Climatechangedispatch.com recommends Judith Curry's commenting

Green/Left think other side is EVIL

WE just think Green/Left is WRONG

Parallels between language pedants & warmist true believers
As a human do you prefer order to disorder ?
Possibly you seek to impose order on Natural Disorder ?
Unable to deal with the uncertainty in English language that it is 60% rules and 40% customary use language pedants form a world-view it's 95%, 5%.
And then they make up rules to make their world-view correct
Asserting "You can't say 'alright' the rule is it's 'all right' " etc.

- As BBC Word of Mouth prog about 'The Pedant' explained this I could see that is exactly what warmists are doing this '2+2=5 thinking' comes from seeking to impose order on Natural Disorder
- Thankfully it included "reformed pedants'

Trolling is a fishing term meaning baiting
- News on Trolling etc : In A BBC Radio 4 show the guy explained the term does not decribe people trying to lead discussions off track and down dark tunnels, but rather actually originally was a term used in fishing : when you load the lines with tasty BAIT and drag it through the water in attempt to get the fish to BITE. So internet trolling originally meant BAITING ie to post phrases that would provoke other people into biting ..so you can hook them into a discussion. Bait used included pretending to be a character, or deliberately using bad spelling so that people would attack you , and then they can hook you into the debate.

- The programme is a little tricky to listen to, cos it's easy to miss that it's not just one troll he talks to, but rather he describes in turn the 4 trolls he met with. All of whom were much nicer in person than he expected. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgm1y

- Meanwhile Jon Ronson a left wing journalist who used to enjoy mocking and shaming people on the net, realised he had gone to far and wrote a book about "Are we addicted to shaming"..and has been on the programme circuit plugging his book ( eg on March 16 podcast another good example on BBCr5 Afternoon Edition )(he's from the Guardian Newspaper crowd of course)

Green/Left Censoring and closing down debate

One way they exclude debate is by pulling the "that is offensive" rule, arguing everyone must feel comfortable so can't have sexism, racism ..this is contradicted by their own way of intimidating others by namecalling etc as well as being wrong under the "need for a right to offend"
anti- safespaces article http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1




THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2 8 3 4 5 6 7 9 10


a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place


NEXT -->