NASA fudged global temperature records

Some time ago I down loaded the complete worldwide temperature files from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).  The file format is ASCII, 80 characters per line, which means the file started out on IBM punch cards, which makes it OLD, and was later moved to a disc file.  The records go back to 1700.  In 1700 there are only 7 stations reporting.  The number of reporting stations grows over the years, reaching 100,000 by 1979. 
   In 1980 the great purge was started, and by 1983 the number of reporting stations was down to 30,000, two thirds of the reporting stations had been thrown away.  NASA has never offered an explanation for the great purge.
   Had a warmist (and NASA is full of warmists) done the purging, by dumping stations with colder than average readings he could easily create Mann's "hockey stick" warming trend. 
  For that matter, NASA never explained their "corrections".  The GISS site offered two files, one of raw temperature readings and one of "corrected" temperature readings.  The raw file plotted out in a convincing manner, a smooth curve, no spikes or jumps.  The "corrected" file would not plot properly.  Just looking at the plot you could see hops, jumps, skips, spikes, and stretches of pure random trash.  All the data before 1860 was total trash. Perhaps a bug in NASA's correction program?
   There can be tremendous various between stations just a few miles apart.  At my place in Mittersill, temperatures run 5 degrees F warmer in winter, and 5F cooler in summer than they do at Mac's Market, which is only 4 miles away. 

Remind me NOT to buy a new TV

Internet posting accuse the new voice controlled Samsung TV of listening in on everything said within its hearing and forwarding it all the "an undisclosed third party" for analysis and snooping. 
WOW. 
   When Uncle wants to snoop on you, all they have to do is force Samsung to disclose the undisclosed third party, and then force said third party to let them snoop everything the TV heard you say, going back to when that smart ass TV first darkened your door. 
ARRGH.
Lets hope my older, all solid state, Sony keeps on running. 

Phone Banking, Then and Now

Years ago we did phone banking up here.  We did cold calls on friendly voters to urge them to get out and vote.  Back in the good old days, say 5 years ago,  most voters were happy to receive such a call.  Many of them were slightly flattered that the party cared enough to call.  The would pick up the phone and  answer our questions and chat. 
Not any more.  Last time I phone banked, the voters were hostile to the entire idea of getting called.  Most of 'em just hung up.  All of 'em indicated displeasure with the call. 
  I would normally attribute this change of attitude to telemarketers  fouling the nest.  But over the same 5 years the telemarketers have disappeared.  The "Do Not Call" lists have been effective.  Five years ago,  I would get two or three telemarketer calls a day.  Today, I don't get any.  I get calls from politicians and political parties, but no telemarketers. 
   Why the change in voter response to phone bank calls?  Beats me, but it's for real. 

Fighting Islamic Extremism

It's not all military.  Propaganda is very effective.  We ought to create an Arabic language TV news channel.  Broadcast it from satellites and stream it on the Internet.  Feature stories of IS brutality, what it's like to be a Nigerian school girl carried off by Boko Haram.  Some nice gun camera shots of smart bombs hitting right on target.  Human interest stories of Muslim families doing well in the United States. Some interviews with Muslim soldiers fighting on our side.  Other stories that help our cause.
    Take a good look at the old WWII BBC broadcasts.  The wartime BBC managed to establish a solid reputation even among the enemy for honesty and truth telling.  While remaining an effective pro allied slant.  We ought to be able to do as well today. 
   Then we ought to get Hollywood to do some useful movies.  If they can make Kim Jung Un look like an idiot,  they ought to be able to do the same to the Ayatollahs.  
   The medium is the message. 

It's easier for the guys

To look sharp that is.  Poor Hillary, usually looks terrible on TV.  Her hairdo needs work, her complexion shows her age, her choice of color is questionable (did you see the radioactive green suit she wore?) and her figure is also showing her age. 
  It's easier for guys.  Shave and haircut (standard short guy's haircut) dark suit, white shirt, and red tie with regimental stripes.  Well shined shoes.  That is all it takes.  The suit looks good in spite of figure defects ( look at Chris Christie), the color choice is limited to dark wool, so the guys don't get a chance to display their poor color sense.  And, guys get pockets to carry their wallets, car keys, eyeglasses, and house keys. 

First Crusade

We had our peerless, and clueless, leader bad mouthing the Crusades the other day.  He left out a few things.  The Crusade was preached in response to a plea for help from the Emperor in Constantinople.  The Emperor inherited the prestige of the Roman Emperors, and was held in much reverence thruout Western Europe. Another reason for launching the Crusade was the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, followed by harsh treatment of Christian pilgrims who merely wished to visit the holy places.  This was kinda dumb on the part of the Muslims,  pilgrims don't cause trouble, and they often spend money.  Beating up on pilgrims is like beating up on tourists today. 
   There were other reasons for Crusading, some of them religious, but then religion, the Church, was involved in everything in those days.  The Church anointed the European kings, provided clerks and teachers, in fact operated all the schools, did all the marriages, did all the funerals, baptized all infants.  The threat of Interdict, (shutting down all church operators) was enough to strike terror into the hearts of the Church's enemies. 
   Sure, the Crusades were religious wars, but so was everything else back then.  The Crusades were not that much more religious than other medieval wars.  Tough old William the Conqueror carried a Papal blessing, and a Papal banner across the channel on his invasion of Saxon England. 
   The First Crusade was a military success, due to incredible bravery of the Crusaders, combined with political disarray among the Muslim foe.  The Muslims still remember that, and don't like to be reminded of the shellacking they took.  Bad feelings have lasted for 900 years.   The Geneva convention hadn't been invented yet, and military practices were much harsher back then than we would allow today.  But even 900 years ago, Crusaders didn't burn captives alive.  And Western European society and culture has made tremendous progress since the Crusading time, 900 years ago. 
   We should be proud of the bravery our ancestors displayed upon Crusade.  We wouldn't do that sort of thing today, but back then it was pretty cool. 
  

Exit Strategies

There are only two exit strategies from war.  Victory or defeat.  Take your pick.  Last time, in Viet Nam, we chose defeat.  It still smarts, forty years later.