NYT proves some residual bona fides.

A Mind in Non-Polynomial Time Was Once Beautiful

Leave it to The Best Men

Ah, The Bureaucracy. It sho ain't about the stinkin' Ingenuity thing.

Someone tell her that the stuff ain't really supposed to be "safe"

More smart Dems.
Artillery over the bow.
Mac's inside fastball is a bitch.

"The Art of Argumentation", by the Mayor of Pepeburg.

Versailles Triumphant is a wonder of the human mind.

Krauthammer on Hölder

A is for .....uhhh.....apple!

Beat that caption, schmucks!
Ain't gonna stick to it?

Iowahawk Takes His Post and Shoves it Like a Hockey Stick Up Mann's Mavening Arse

Much better than his original post on "Ace". Clear and with sufficient detail. More good statistics there than a thousand Pepe's bloomin'

" In all the talk of "models" and "smoothing" and "science" and "hide the decline" it became apparent to me that very very few of the people chiming in on this have even the slightest idea what they are talking about. This goes for both the defenders and critics of the scientists.

Long story, but I do know a little bit about statistical data modeling -- the principle approach used by the main cast of characters in Climategate -- and have a decent understanding of their basic research paradigm. The goal here is to share that understanding with interested laypeople. I'm also a big believer in learning by doing; if you really want to know how a carburetor works, nothing beats taking one apart and rebuilding it. That same rule applies to climate models. And so I decided to put together this simple step-by-step rebuilder's manual. Regardless of what side you've chosen in the climate debate (I'm not going to pretend that I'm anything but a crazed pro-carbon extremist) I hope this will give you a nuts-and-bolts understand what climate modeling is about, as well as give some context to the Climategate emails."

UPDATE: Iowahawk is all bullshit. The section on PCA is all nonsense.

Interview With The Devil

At least Matematica is not Mord.... not yet at least

"Until 2003, nothing in McIntyre’s life suggested that he would assume a central role in one of history’s great scientific debates—yet that life, in retrospect, seems to have been equipping him for the role. The son of a surgeon, McIntyre had an impressive record of performance in math competitions as a young student attending the University of Toronto Schools. He is still proud of having once beaten older classmate Michael Spence—“he was a bit of a hero of mine”—who would eventually snag the Nobel memorial prize in economics (2001). McIntyre went on to obtain a math degree at the University of Toronto"

"The world of mining is one in which everyone is constantly aware of how engineering results can be tampered with or misrepresented to rip off investors. And in 2003, when McIntyre first saw the hockey stick graph, it reminded him uncomfortably of some stock promoter’s over-optimistic revenue projection."

Pacepa calls Iran's Rev Guards

Bolton tries a harder sell. To Onana.

He Really Hates Reunions

Ha, time for Devil's Island.

Victor vivisects Obama the Incompetent, and discovers Obamakles Da Kompetent

Rot has it dead wrong, Victor has it dead-eye right. Obama is doing exactly what he wanted to do. It may be possible to stop him, but it won't come from his failure to aim true.

Narrative This!

Evolutionary Classic

'Well you see, Norm, it's like this . . . A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.'

Steyn Meets Pepe Da Canucka: Fire in the Hole!

Mr. David Zimmer: Mr. Steyn, there was a well-known, indeed famous, American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who made a statement in which he expressed his view of the limit on free speech in a case in the 1930s, and I'm wondering if you agree or disagree with this statement. He said that nobody is free to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Mr. Mark Steyn: It wasn't the 1930s; it was 1919 that Oliver Wendell Holmes made that statement. It's interesting, that case. He was an American-

Mr. David Zimmer: I know, but do you agree with that statement or not?

Mr. Mark Steyn: Let me say this for a start: He was upholding espionage charges against an anti-war protester. So by his measure, thousands of Canadian liberals would have been rounded up for protesting the war in Afghanistan.

Mr. David Zimmer: But don't duck the question.

Mr. Mark Steyn: I'm not ducking the question...

Mr. David Zimmer: No, no, but then answer the statement.

Mr. Mark Steyn: Because Oliver-

The Chair (Mrs. Julia Munro): Excuse me. Could I just have one speaker at a time?

Mr. Mark Steyn: Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely-falsely-shouting "Fire" in a theatre. The problem with the Human Rights Tribunal is that falsely shouting "Fire" is not at issue. It doesn't matter whether the theatre actually is on fire, because under the Human Rights Tribunal, truth is not a defence.

In my own particular case, no one has ever pointed to a single fact in the Maclean's article, an excerpt from my book, that is inaccurate. So essentially-

Mr. David Zimmer: But back to Holmes's statement, is that a fair limitation on freedom of speech: You can't yell " Fire" in a movie theatre, just as a general proposition?

Mr. Mark Steyn: As I've tried to answer you, I think if the theatre is on fire, you're certainly entitled to point that out. By the way, that, as a metaphor, is simply a ludicrous metaphor. He was talking about gaslight, 19th century theatres. By 1919, the Winter Garden on Broadway... was an electrified theatre, and it wasn't in danger of burning down. The metaphor is lazy and irrelevant

"National Treasure" Chest?

Serendipity, fo sho.

Facing the music

Kayla is waiting.

President Fucking Hussein Douchebag, Esq.

Unity, boys. Unity.