Posted on 11/30/2009 10:30:23 AM PST by neverdem
The most obvious thing that strikes anyone wading through the CRU documents is how easy it was for a small number of "experts" to propel their data-raped conclusions first into a "peer-reviewed" "consensus" and then up through western governments into the international fait accomplis of Kyoto, the IPCC and now Copenhagen. I initially assumed stuff like this was just a bit of naked obstructionism toward a few troublemakers:
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren't any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers.
But no, it was systemic. Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible*.
No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
But don't worry. It'll all be very scientific. Your carbon allowance numbers will be kept in a big database. Maybe in East Anglia?
(*Or, as Jim Treacher puts it, the science is settled ...at the bottom of the dumpster.)
I called our senator and congressman today to rant the long version against any iota of Copenhagen.I insisted we first ground the boy-king's 747 and pimpmobile with the five-inch ballistic armor and run-flat tires.
And godsake enough with the Wednesday night parties.
Newt Gingrich and John McCain and Lindsey Graham go for this crap.
And you wonder why the Republican Party had electile dysfunction.
Thanks for the ping!
We need a medication for that problem....
BWWWHHAAAAAAAA!!!!
Phil?
I can honestly hear you, your voice telling the weasels that.
Funny stuff, my friend.
Thanks for the ping, and the call.. ;^)
Unfortunately, we both know damned well they didn't listen.
I do not get why the original data points cannot be reconstructed, even if they reside in various data bases in various countries and universities and meteorological centers around the world. Is there no chance of a forensic reconstruction?
As for the *carbon cards*, we have boycotted flying since 2006. We also mainly drive a low-mileage vehicle and perhaps only go on one trip of around a thousand miles per year or sometimes 18 months. We also heat primarily with wood, and while we do use propane, we use much less than we once did. We have mostly CFLs. Does this mean we can resell our *credits* just as the big boys do? Do my 40 acres of woodland and 20 acres of fallow crop land and 20 acres of meadow land count at all? If we were to get all our water from our 3 springs, would we be credited for not using our well pump? Do we get a break for being at *normal* or under *normal* weight, therefore using less carbon? If we utilize less medical services than *average*, do we get a credit for that? Does our venison count against our meat allotment, since killing the deer means they are no longer emitting carbon or eating up the carbon sink grasses? What about pan fish? Is the carbon debit for my container lettuce and tomatoes less than the carbon debit needed to ship them North in winter?
It is really confusing. I think they need some complicated algorithms to calculate all the variances.
I don't know. Try Patrick J. Michaels at Cato.
Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data...Thanks neverdem and Ernest!
WHOOPEEE!!
UPDATE:
Yesterday
Leader of conservative coalition, Tony Abbot, announces:
EMMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME - DEAD IN SENATE!
P.S. Snippet on State Broadcasting Service (SBS) evening news: Hansen standing down, investigation pending, possible fraudulant data discovered - E-Mails - one shown on-screen, hockey-stick ‘trick’ reference.
LOVE IT!
JENNY WONG, OZ LABOR PARTY CLIMATE CZAR, LOSES COMPOSURE IN PARLIAMENT! hahaha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.