Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/21/2009 11:43:04 PM PST by dila813
Update: Looks like the "missing" hockey stick data has been found:
documents\mbh98-osborn\mbh98\TREE\ITRDB\ORIG\251tar\
If so, that there is the ballgame.
Shock and surprise at the conduct of particular individuals within the CRU seem the order of the day. I'm not quite sure why. If, indeed, the disclosures are genuine (and it certainly appears on first blush that they are) how is it news that "scientists" embroiled in what long ago ceased to be scientific research and now amounts to a political campaign would cut corners, sabotage critics, conceal or even destroy data and analysis, massage results and graphics and otherwise act exactly like politicians, particularly where their careers, the body of their life's work and their continuing income stream were at risk?
(Excerpt) Read more at finemrespice.com ...
The author of the blog is in shock.
Anyone who has been following the saga of the Hockey Stick Chart knows exactly what he is talking about.
It is coming in surge, I am watching people as they create documents, they come in burps, can’t help it.
I was surprised that some detractors of the skeptics are starting to turn on CRU so fast.
The fraud of saying the data was deleted / lost should be enough by itself to sink CRU’s cred all by itself.
fyi
*****************
Still, all this frightens me for two reasons:
1. Absent wholesale data manipulation, the government (somehow appointed as chief economic cheerleader in the last century) is now out of levers to pull and buttons to push.
2. I cannot think of a more dangerous animal than a wounded government with control over economic data, a large military, nuclear weapons and an unresolved inferiority complex.
*****************
Their false eco-gods and goddesses -- their "Gaia"s, if you like -- are all rapidly revealing themselves, at long and painful last, to be nothing more than shoddy, embarrassingly obvious cardboard shibboleths, after all.
"In shock" probably doesn't even begin to cover it, I daresay. ;)
Yep, its all there—opened up my copy of the file and there it is..reams and reams of temp data.
They’re old-school communists in green shirts.
When you approach this latest development from that perspective, nothing is shocking about it.
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=125688
Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked –[epic fraud?]
I note, ironically, that their sub-forum for this:
“Global Warming and Other Junk Sciences” was created many years ago— they called it from the first.
I have said it before (but please feel free to use this) that when Al Gore, a divinity school dropout, out of frustration of failure in politics, tries to take over with pseudo-science quackery in the best tradition of the Charlatan, and then the weather changes, cools down instead of warms for ten years against his models, and then is exposed as an outright liar with forged evidence with these emails just exposed,.. well that PROVES to me not only that there is a God, but that he also has one heck of a sense of humor!
We should be no more surprised to learn that statistics from recovery.gov are increasingly looking like a total fabrication, or that the Fed won't release stats than to find that "scientists" at CRU fiddled around with their results and tried to sweep uncooperative data under the rug.
Still, all this frightens me for two reasons:
1. Absent wholesale data manipulation, the government (somehow appointed as chief economic cheerleader in the last century) is now out of levers to pull and buttons to push.
2. I cannot think of a more dangerous animal than a wounded government with control over economic data, a large military, nuclear weapons and an unresolved inferiority complex.
When I first started to hear about pollution as a little girl I was afraid for the planet. Watching the simply sublime "Edge of Darkness" (soon to be poorly remade via Mel Gibson) reminded me that the planet will be here long after we're gone. It doesn't quite need saving.
The same sort of thought process has made me worry less about the fate of free markets. Free markets are a natural state. They will far outlast (and probably actually destroy) centralist governments. The only question is: Will we survive the death rattle of the CRUs and the Barney Franks, elbowing anyone and everyone aside as they grasp desperately and frantically for any frayed root hanging from the cliffside even as they speed over the edge with their foot still on the gas?
Using ‘search’ with words like ‘trick’ and hide may have gotten a fast few emails to show up, but this one I find particularly interesting. No matter what the two data sets being discussed represents, the fact stands out that the conclusions reached by the Kyoto proponents are misleading and that scientists are being misled. (I’ve left off the names - but dates still there, so it’s searachable)
“Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases” for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science — when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits (averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much, too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late (which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (”after carefully examining the question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I find this extremely disturbing.”
for another great read:
IS99 Storylines and Scenarios
February, 1998
Ged Davis et al
For Comment Only Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
LOL, what you said. :^)
dila: "It is coming in surge, I am watching people as they create documents, they come in burps, can’t help it...I was surprised that some detractors of the skeptics are starting to turn on CRU so fast."
Really??
Whenever rats are outed they'll always squeal. That's all we're seeing with these, ummmm, "detractors". Outed rats. LOL
dila: "The fraud of saying the data was deleted / lost should be enough by itself to sink CRU’s cred all by itself."
"Should", the bane of all times past or present.
Because right now as we correspond, all the forces brought together to perpetrate this fraud are huddled, generating miles & miles of plausible denials.
Denials engineered to take all attention from the misdeed(s) & refocus it, elsewhere.
These are professional monsters we're dealing with, here. I half suspect the only thing that'll assure the world's rid of 'em forevermore would be a wooden stake driven forcefully through each ones chest. Really. They're that evil.
Cap&Trade is not dead yet. If the GCM doesn’t get on this then for most people it doesn’t exist. The tree fell in the forest and no one hears.
“Because right now as we correspond, all the forces brought together to perpetrate this fraud are huddled, generating miles & miles of plausible denials. “
Plausible? You mean like Holder in front of the Senate?
Holder: “I dunno nuthin bout nuthin. Obama sprung this NY thingy at the last minute, and nobody bothered to brief me on this dumbass change. You wanted change, you got change.”
“These are professional monsters we’re dealing with, here. I half suspect the only thing that’ll assure the world’s rid of ‘em forevermore would be a wooden stake driven forcefully through each ones chest. Really. They’re that evil. “
You might shoot each of them with a silver bullet just to make sure all demons are covered.
...any person who—
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;4
That is exactly what I mean. That beard works as well as any other for demonstration purposes. LOL
"Holder: 'I dunno nuthin bout nuthin. Obama sprung this NY thingy at the last minute, and nobody bothered to brief me on this dumbass change. You wanted change, you got change.'"
LOL Talk about rats & their squeals. LOL
"You might shoot each of them with a silver bullet just to make sure all demons are covered."
Yea, & then beat 'em with a Bible. LOL
It took the guberment many years, and a libtard majority, to get on the global warming bandwagon. It will probably take them just as long, and a libtard minority, to get off the bandwagon.
Global warming *IS* manmade --
it was caused by manipulation of the raw temperature data.
I.e., a hoax.
Cheers!
Demons? Yes, despite Sagan.
Prayer works.
Prayerful action works even better.
Gods acts through the hearts and actions of men as well as by miracles.
(See also Ronald Reagan and the fall of the Berlin wall.)
Keep praying and keep working...
Cheers!
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.