FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
A good one.
bump to forward later.
Simple common sense, if the data had said the hoax were real, everyone would have long since had a copy of all the data.
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Somehow this part of Eisenhower's address never quite makes it into the leftist mantra. I suggest that every time a leftist pulls out the "military industrial complex" we need to slap them right back with (apologies to Paul Harvey)...the rest of the story....
"FRONT-PAGE-BOLD-TYPE-NEWS" BUMP
All I can say is, WOW. The WHOLE THING is a fraud, from the “data” on up.
I have said for years that they do not have any reliable data to support any form of long term climate models. The reason is not that they fudged it. The reason is that they never had it.
70 percent of this planet is covered in water. In order to observe the temperatures over the oceans, there has to be a ship to record the measurements. The ship has to record the measurements over a period of time that will provide an accurate mean. This was never attempted. It would require ships to record the temperature over every square mile of ocean for decades.
Ships use shipping lanes for reasons to reduce distance (great circles), to avoid hazards to navigation (shoals), and to be where other ships might find them in the event of a disaster. Ships do not sail willy-nilly all over the ocean. A sailing ship transporting tea from India to England will not stop by Hawaii to see what the weather is up to. A tanker or a container ship is even less likely to leave the established lanes because it wastes fuel.
This changed in the 1960s. Ballistic missile submarines could go wherever they wanted and were encouraged to do so. This made it more difficult for the other side to find them. So the subs used circuitous routes and the surface ships had to sail around to find them. Mind that the entire fleet of US ballistic missile submarines consists of 41 boats, not all in service at the same time. The Soviets had less than that, and the British had perhaps six of them. This does not lend itself to widespread ocean exploration and monitoring.
Aside from the oceans, we do not even now monitor the temperatures in vast wilderness areas. North America has deserts and arctic tundras. Nobody goes there to record the daily temperature. Australia has the Outback, Asia has Siberia, South America has vast, nearly impassable jungles, and Africa has jungles, plains, and deserts. Perhaps 10 percent of Antarctica has been explored, and then only for very brief periods. The environment is too harsh for people and instruments.
This whole climate change scam is insulting to anyone with a rational mind.
THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT GLOBAL WARMING.
ping so I can reference this later
Absolutely incredible. It is simply too bad that no mechanism exists for “dis-barring” scientists from further practice of their profession when they have indulged in such shenanigans.
My problem with the whole global warming theory is the “average world temperature”. I don’t think we can accurately determine average world temperature now to tenths of a degree, and I damn sure don’t think we can accurately determine the average world temperature over the last few thousand years.
Revalations into the fraud of Global Warming data are unavoiadable. Mostly due to tools like this:
VIDEO Joe Bastardi of Accuweather.com in debunking blame of CA fires on Global Warming, debunks GW
Accuweather.com ^ | 9/10/09 | PRO1
Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:02:57 PM by PRO 1
Joe Bastardi of Accuweather.com on Accuweather’s website and again on Bill O’Reilly’s show 9/9/09 presents irrefutable evidence which debunks claims by environmentalists that California’s wild fires were caused by Global Warming. In a few short minutes and with just a few graphics of charts and images He debunks contemporary claims of Global Warming entirely.
Certainly, many far better than myself, have refuted the false claims of Global Warming and the so called human cause of it. But for obvious reasons, those who’s attempts to do so have been thwarted by a biased agendized media, disinterested and dishonest politicians, and an ignorant distracted public.
Few of us were of the scientific background to immediately refute or take the time or expend the resources to independently research the topic entirely to where we would be fully informed. Combing the volumes of research data where deep within lay the truths that would expose the fraud has been something inaccessible to most Americans.
This is how they fooled and/or silenced most of us. Not because we were stupid but because we lacked the “at finger tip” tools to refute the liars as they told their tale.
Here is a tool. Here is a very simple, easy to replay, irrefutable presentation that is for even the layman (which most of us are) to comprehend and understand.
Not being a skilled poster I apologize in advance. I’ve always sought a simple brief presentation (which I knew would come along eventually) that I could show people I know which would prove Global Warming to be a fraud, or at a minimum, show it to be highly suspect.
Think for a moment of all the billions if not trillions of dollars which has been stolen from the American taxpayer to prop up a complete fraud. Because if it indeed is a fraud, then every action based on that fraud that has been taken is equally fraudulent also. The list includes; Greenhouse Gasses, Cafe Standards, all “green” initiatives (Fed,State,Local), “Green” related products, bogus research grants, all related taxes, all government legislation and bureaucracies, Climate Change, Oil consumption and exploration restrictions, and all other actions taken in response to a completely false and unsubstantiated premise called “Global Warming”.
All the fraud, all the wasted energy, all the wasted tax and business expenses would end if we can just reach everyone with the truth.
Link:
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=37129475001
So in the mid-80’s, all the data from what time period was destroyed?
The entire premise is “Trust us”...
ping
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
For both my Bachelors (Economics) and Master’s Degree’s (Finanace/Quantitative analysis) I did quite a bit of Econometric modeling. What was pounded into our heads from day one of each and every class was “You MUST preserve the SANCTITY of the Data”. From the raw data, all analysis flows.
So, when you come up with a new analysis and refer back to your original data source, your analysis can undergo peer review, and as such your findings/conclusions can be repeadted based on the original dat and your transfomations performed on the original source data.
That’s the entire point of source data. Recreatability of analysis. Also, if you get the model right, you should have an expected forecating result +/- some margin of error (standard error of estimate or some such) Typically, the models I ran had an R^2 of somewhere around .990 to .996. I would not even consider results of less than .970.
AGW/EPA Fraud Bump! ;-)
bookmark
