And Now the Data Disappears?

I have to admit that I am quite surprised to see how the world of man causing global warming, or even climate change, is disintegrating right before my very eyes. You have to admit that the build-up was impressive. They really did a good job of snowing everyone, forcing compliance, and bullying anyone who dared to question the “facts about global climate change.” But over the last month, the revelations have been coming fast and furious. And the panic that is starting to appear in the global warming folk’s ranks is providing for some awfully good comedic relief. I am pretty sure that Al Gore is sitting at home attempting to come up with a plan. “If I could covertly detonate 43 nuclear warheads, the earth would surely have to heat up a little bit and we can get my money-making pyramid scheme up and running again in no time!”

You and I know that is pure fanatasy, but certainly no less fantasy than “An Inconvenient Truth.”

So the news comes out today that the University of East Anglia has “thrown away” much of the data that the predictions of global warming were based upon.  University of East Anglia? I know many of you said that as soon as you saw it. Is that like the Middle Tennessee State Municipal Polytechnical University Fighting Tree Sloths? The answer is no. East Anglia is one of the top universities in the world (according to the academics who vote among themselves and thus proclaim their alma maters as the top in the world).

The University of East Anglia have been at the forefront of the claimate change agenda for many, many years. Their Climate Research Unit was formed in 1972 and has been considered one of the better environmental research divisions in Europe. They have been a world leader in advocating anthropogenic polar warming as fact and anthropogenic global warming as well. Their collected data was the basis for much of the global warming hysteria and further claims throughout the last decade. Simply put… it all starts right here at UEA.

The University of East Anglia gathered the data from weather stations around the world. It was raw data that gave us important information from which research could be done. After all, without the knowledge of how hot today is we cannot say that tomorrow is hotter, colder, or unchanged. Once they gathered this data, they did  adjustments toaccount for variables in the way the data was collected (and this is important, very important, as you will see below). They saved the “adjusted” data, but for some reason felt that the original data, the un-doctored data, was not really important. After all, the governments of the world are only spending trillions and trillions of dollars and striking liberty and national sovereignty down in the name of the conclusions based on that data. So they deleted it to make room for more important things, like you tube videos of last week’s “Britain’s Got Talent” Semifinals.

This means that all of the other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. It means that the only “facts” we have to base conclusions on are the “facts” that were saved…. the adjusted data from the esteemed scientists at the University of East Anglia. I don’t know how accurate the adjusted data is. I am not a climate scientist. And I certainly wouldn’t be the guy to address the differences between the raw data and the adjusted data. Bu I do know this: If the world were spending trillions of dollars fighting climate change based, in part, on the data that I had in my computers, I would have that data backed up about 5 times over and I wouldn’t be deleting it under any circumstances. It is simply too important.

And of course we have “Climate Gate”. as Fox News has so eagerly dubbed the email mess. A couple of thousand emails exhanged between climate scientists that seem to indicate some “doctoring” of data and a possible intentional misleading of folks towards a conclusion that was desired. It appears, after reading some of the emails ( haven’t read them all), that the scientists in the emails had determined that they wanted the data to show a certain result and were willing to manipulate the data to ensure that the desired conclusion was the one reached. I say “seem to indicate” and “appears” because the reality is that I don’t kow the truth. I know what it seems like in the stuff that I read. But I acknowledge that I don’t know the scientists involved, and I don’t know what else might play in to what I read.

Because reading an email that says “we should terminate the program recipients” sure does sound like I am advocating the murder of people in some program when I may be discussing the possible changing of a contract that awards other program’s fiscal incentives. I simply wanted to eliminate the incentives, not kill anyone. Context matters. And I don’t have all the context for these emails. So I don’t know what the truth is. What I do know is that the emails are enough for me to have some doubts. I cannot reach a conclusion, but I can realize that I need to dig a little deeper.

The problem is that I cannot dig a little deeper. Because the data to dig a little deeper into has been thrown away. You see, the emails in question were between the scientists who were adjusting the data at the University of East Anglia (Specifically Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Center). They kept only adjusted data, and now the emails suggest that perhaps this adjusted data is tainted or even possibly outright dishonest. And with no original data, we cannot find out the truth. In those emails, Jones discusses how to stop critics from getting their hands on the original data. I wonder why any academic worth his salt would want to stop ANYONE from having access. If you believe your results are accurate, wouldn’t you want as many critical eyes as possible to look at the data? Well UEA didn’t. And now they have conveniently made sure that no one will ever be able to analyze that data. Let’s not forget that the emails in question are between the gentlemen responsible for the ever popular (and completely inaccurate) hockey stick graph that has been proven wrong so many times.

It seems to me that the data supporting the Global Warming / Climate Change / BS is beginning to crumble around the feet of those who would fleece us by using this crisis to do what they please. But there will only be a limited amount of folks who get to see the truth. Because it certainly is not going to be disseminated to the masses. As usual, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, and all the other liberal MSM are not covering this at all. “Nothing to See here” seems to be the mantra of the modern MSM whenever data or events or information doesn’t jive well with their agenda. Much like the Tea Parties, this is simply being ignored by the MSM.

My favorite thus far has to be the New York Times, perhaps the biggest liberal trash rag of the bunch. They decided to offer an explanation of why they are not going to run the story about the leaked emails. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times said that the email story would not be run because “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.” (interestingly, Revkin has since gone in and altered that page on the internet so he no longer makes that bold of a claim, it changed overnight from one time I read it to the next). I found this interesting from a paper famous for running the “Pentagon Papers” story in 1971. Interesting from a paper that ran a series based completely on stolen communications within the tobacco industry in the 90’s. Interesting from a paper who ran a front page story based on illegally acquired information about wire tapping by the Bush administration. Even more interesting from a paper who was so eager to run with the hacked Sarah Palin emails.

I have to say that I am growing more and more weary of the excuses and lame cover-ups by the main stream media these days. The tobacco example above is the most relevant comparison to this situation. In that situation the New York Times actually fought in court to expose what was in those stolen documents. In this case, they wouldn’t even face a court challenge, but they will refuse to run with a very pertinent story anyway. The MSM is a joke. The New York Times is the Hardy to MSNBC as Laurel. And for the record, anytime a major news outlet claims to be not running a story based on “moral” reasons, you should immediately thrown the shenanigans flag. If it bleeds, it reads. That is the only mantra they go by. Morals have no standing in the media of modern America (or the politics of modern America either, for that matter, but that is redundant as the two are one in the same these days).

So the climate change bullcrap continues to crumble. The MSM continues to attempt to cover it up. And the politicians and the United Nations continue to attempt to act fast before the world wakes up. As I reported last week, India and China have already made it clear they are not on board with the massive BS in Copenhagen. These nutjobs in Congress and President Obama had best not sign a treaty that redistributes our tax money and sacrifices national sovereignty based on what appears more and more to be a fictional account of climate history.

All of this comes as a paper has been uncovered that was written by the top environmental bureaucrats in Switzerland a couple of years ago outlining the goal of the United Nations Environmental Network to become the ultimate authority over all nations in terms of climate change legislation. They want to create a situation where they have ultimate authority over global economic and political decisions. The best quote from their bullshit paper: “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” with a close second going to, “The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making.”

I read the unofficial paper that these high powered environmental bureaucrats put together. It is clear in the writing that they are looking to use propaganda to influence the youth of the world and gain power while “not appearing to do an end around on national governments.” In short, they are looking for UNEP to gain ultimate power over the world’s economic decisions through the use of climate change hysteria. It is a troubling document that I am sure those who hate my conclusion will claim means nothing. But there are only so many references to a single body having control over all nations that I can take before I have to accept that there are some out there with a lot of power who would like to get to a new world order.

And now they are doing based on some very questionable data that is no longer available to be disputed. We have to put a tamp on this climate change bullshit fast, because it is a powerful tool in the hands of those who would control us all.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?test=latestnews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html

Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks – United Nations – FOXNews.com

Advertisements

Comments

  1. From the desk of Mrs. Weapon,
    Good morning everyone! I have to say, for me, the holidays give me an additional bounce in my step. And to anyone that knows me, this only means my normal walk of making my hair swing from side to side (now normal from years of cheerleading) just swings a little bit more. Instead of yelling at people in my car, I try to pray for them and remember the holidays are upon us. I know, many of you are thinking, Weapon married an x-cheerleader? You bet! As Weapon has said many times, I am the optimism to his pessimism. I try to BE emotional and take the world for what I like it to be…. a good place with only a few bad eggs. I even went so far this holiday season to watch “By the people, the election of Barak Obama”. It was impressive…I will not lie. It is hard to watch that and believe this is the same man my wonderful husband writes about night after night. But unfortunately, reality has settled into the Weapon household. Last night, I decided to look thru the MSM to see if I could find any articles about this “lost data”. I did quite a few searches and only found stories about the leaked e-mails, and did not find anything about the lost data. If it wasn’t for the knowledge that Weapon does his research, and stories covered by Fox News, I would never know anything about this story. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE PEOPLE? How in the heck is data lost that is that crucial to global decisions being made now, for Teenager Weapon to pay for later? I want to believe the world is still good…but how does this happen? My question is put out there to the logic of the SUFA readers, because my holiday brain cannot process this. How can I stand up to random people in the supermarket who make comments about the wrath of Global Warming if they never are exposed to media outside of NBC News or MSNBC?
    I will say that this will story will not change me this holiday season. It is still important to remember the Christmas season is about thinking about others more than ourselves, and remembering that we are lucky to have what we do have. But still, how does this happen?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Mrs. Weapon – “My question is put out there to the logic of the SUFA readers, because my holiday brain cannot process this. How can I stand up to random people in the supermarket who make comments about the wrath of Global Warming if they never are exposed to media outside of NBC News or MSNBC?”

      BL – I have an idea. I goes along with the “there’s a sucker born every minute” theory.

      See, I’ll set up a small bottling factory where I’ll very cheaply produce a health-food drink that is “dihydrogen monoxide” diluted with twenty equal parts filtered/purified water.

      Then I’ll set up a web site with all of the tens of thousands of reasons why “dihydrogen monoxide” is good for your body. I’ll have posted, nutritionists and doctors’ quotes and opinions, scientific data, etc… to support “dihydrogen monoxide”.

      I’ll have it set up so anyone can order my “dihydrogen monoxide” drink for only a little more than what you would pay for soda.

      Then I’ll send you some ” dihydrogenmonoxide.com ” business cards in the mail.

      You can hand them out to anyone that is stupid enough to support paying an “air tax” to battle global warming.

      dihydrogen monoxide = H2O = Water

      lol.

  2. I have to say, as a scientist, this is downright laughable. To claim you can interpret the facts and then throw them out is not scientific at all!

    Good riddance to this lunacy. Maybe now we can start having real conversations on this topic. We should still go for “clean” energy simply out of cost/benefit analysis, but not overburden our industrial base with crap like cap and trade.

    • The cost/benefit analysis shows “clean” energy is a big loser.

      • Excuse me, I just meant getting off foreign oil. One big benefit of this is less dependence on the middle east.

        • As you can see, ME oil is not really a big deal.

        • And why do you want to pay more for oil when you trade for it cheaper?

          • v. Holland says:

            Because I’d like our country to be as self sufficient as possible, I’d also really like it, if we started actually making the things we need to survive instead of trading for them.

            • V.H.

              While I do understand your sentiment that is how STATISM creeps into our lives. Yours is a political decision that then drives economic decisions which in turn cause us to be less efficient than we could be otherwise.

              A truly free people will trade freely with others based on their best economic interests.

              The flip side is that we are driving up the cost of domestic products with our environmental and other regulatory policies. If those barriers were removed then I would say we should acquire that which costs the least.

              Remember, every drop of ours retained is a drop we have for later if we need it.

              • v. Holland says:

                I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have free trade with other countries but I am saying that we need to be able to provide the things necessary for our survival without having to depend on foreign trade-I even see the advisability of using theirs and saving ours but are we prepared if they decided not to sell to us, do we have a large enough reserve in oil-do we have necessary military tools when we are having parts made in other countries, etc. Freedom is hard to hold onto if you are dependent on others.

              • V.H.

                I don’t disagree that it is good to be self sufficient. I am just arguing against imposing “political” decisions on the economy.

                That is why we are in the fix we are in today.

                I believe that if we got all the govt imposed, political, decisions out of the system we would be more self sufficient.

                Even with the cheaper labor overseas, it still costs a bundle to ship those products back to the USA so we can buy them.

                If our dollar were strong we could also get more for our money at home.

                You do raise a good question however, regarding the need to maintain certain infrastructure and manufacturing capacity to maintain our self defense.

              • v. Holland says:

                Maintaining Freedom can be effected by outside forces that care nothing about our freedom and the best course isn’t always determined based solely on monetary cost.

          • BF,

            While I agree with your premise, the actual execution is lacking. If we can get it cheaper from the ME, that is fine, but when you figure in the costs of all the wars in the ME, and every other cost associated with dealing with the ME, I think we are spending far more on oil from the ME than we would to drill and process our own.

            • USW:

              But why are we fighting wars in the middle east?

              If we played square with everyone and stopped trying to control them perhaps the cost of trading would be much less.

              Remember the oil executives testimony during the last years of Mr. Bush when the Dems grilled them at hearings? They clearly stated that oil would be cheap and abundant if we stopped messing up the political situation in the middle east.

              So that takes us back to where we were months ago on the whole question of our PROPER ROLE in that part of the world.

              In fact what is our PROPERT ROLE in the rest of the world? It is not just about the Middle East.

              • JAC,

                I 100% agree with you on this. I do not dispute that we are not operating within our proper role in the Middle East, or the rest of the world for that matter. I agree that oil prices would go down with our changing our role over there. I was not speaking to whether we should be in a war over there, only that that is the reality of the situation and contributes greatly to my belief that drilling here is cheaper in the long run…. under the CURRENT situation.

                I think that discussing what our current role is, there and elsewhere, is a good endeavor. We have to get this country back on track, and that means a change in the way we do a lot of things.

                Missed you last week. Hope you had a great holiday with family.

                USW

              • USW

                Had a great time, thanks for asking.

                Son has a TV and I got to overdose on college football.

                Hope all is well at your place also.
                JAC

          • Why do you want to buy oil when we can get it in our own country and use/sell it ourselves?

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – just some added context based on what I have read this a.m.

    1. The ‘tossed data’ occurred back in the 1980s as the Times Online reported – long before there would have been the debate there is today (meaning – less likely a malicious motive)

    but also –

    2. Supposedly more than 95% of the raw data has always been available on something called the “Global Historical Climatology Network” – read here: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel=0&title=University+to+publish+all+climate+data+

    So – I’m not quite sure what the story really is here – is this an issue of “context” as you mentioned elsewhere in your blog posting? If they removed ‘some’ of the raw data from their systems around 20 years ago (and for whatever reason) yet approximately 95% of the raw data is/has always been available to scientists through other channels – then who gives a shit? Perhaps you are associating a potential non-event with something malicious even with lack of evidence to suggest such (or context)?

    I’d be interested to hear/see what others find.

    Thanks…

    • Ray

      1) – not so fast.

      On Monday, July 27, 2009 CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory http://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009

      Deletions have been on-going for years. The problem, of course, is these guys are now going “trust us, our math is good” – while been shown up that their math is terrible, and with Climategate, they are wholly untrustworthy.

      2) The GHCN has been shown to be rippled with errors – from surface station placement problems to data pollution from ocean measurements (whether they are from buckets, depth or out of the intakes of ships). And further, GHCN has been corrupted by fraud – the leaked emails confirm Wang’s fraud in ‘making up’ stations.

      The data hasn’t been made available – the MODIFIED information has been provided – and even with that, the past changes almost monthly 🙂

      Tree ring data hasn’t been fully released and Thompson still hasn’t release his Ice Core raw data.

      And equally important, neither has the statistical methodology and program code that these yahoo’s used to make up their graphs.

      With the spirit of ‘transparency’ suddenly forced on the cretins, it will be interesting to see what happens now.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Flag:

        “On Monday, July 27, 2009 CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory http://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009″

        – No screenshot came through – not sure where this statement comes from (you or someone else). Helpful may be to understand their data management protocols – I’m trying not to assume anything positive/negative w/o knowing how the should handle the data and would is acceptable or not.

        “Deletions have been on-going for years. The problem, of course, is these guys are now going “trust us, our math is good” – while been shown up that their math is terrible, and with Climategate, they are wholly untrustworthy. ”

        – As I complain of many researchers – show me the research – don’t just report on your research.

        “The GHCN has been shown to be rippled with errors – from surface station placement problems to data pollution from ocean measurements (whether they are from buckets, depth or out of the intakes of ships). And further, GHCN has been corrupted by fraud – the leaked emails confirm Wang’s fraud in ‘making up’ stations.”

        – I was only pointing out that it was stated the raw data is stored in/on GHCN – not whether other processes or data associated with or owned by them stand up to scrutiny from all scientists. Again – do we know what their data management practices are? I do not – what I do know is that I treat my own research data the same as I used to treat computer forensic data – I always have a pristine copy that is encrypted and checksummed and so on so I know it is reliable and has integrity. I’d like to understand what the parties here did or did not do along those lines. Otherwise it would seem too easy to draw conclusions either way based on one’s own bias to the end product and in not having all the facts to draw a complete conclusion.

        “The data hasn’t been made available – the MODIFIED information has been provided – and even with that, the past changes almost monthly”

        – What do you mean by “available”? I think they do state that it is available but they have managed to snooker up access because of who owns what chunk of data, no? Not sure how to prove/disprove frequency of changes (‘monthly’) – where did you pull that from?

        Thanks as always,

        Ray

        • – No screenshot came through – not sure where this statement comes from (you or someone else).

          From climateaudit.org – they have an ongoing history of data obstruction and deletions.

          – I was only pointing out that it was stated the raw data is stored in/on GHCN – not whether other processes or data associated with or owned by them stand up to scrutiny from all scientists.

          No, it is not ‘raw’ – but ‘fixed’

          Again – do we know what their data management practices are?

          In the UK, there are laws around it, which have probably been broken.

          But everywhere else – I don’t know either. At best, it appears wholly haphazard.

          – What do you mean by “available”? I think they do state that it is available

          In chunks and cherry-picking. Again climateaudit.org has a history of task of recompiling data. It was their work that exposed Wang, and now it appears from the Climategate emails, they were right regarding Wang’s faked Chinese readings.

        • Kristian Stout says:

          Ray,

          I’m sure you’ve heard the saying “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire”. Well, I’d say that probably applies in this case. You know that anyone worth their salt as a scientist backs up their data unless they are just complete dumbasses or are trying to cover something up.

          If I have one complaint about this site it’s that sometimes the simplest things are over analyzed to the point of ridiculousness. It’s real simple, the e-mails were leaked, the original data no longer exists because it was deleted. If it quacks like a duck,…etc.

          • But Kristian, that is a tactic that is used by the left, to try to find “gotcha” on any words or phrases. It then changes the discussion to those words/phrases rather than debate the issue at hand.

            Ray is a pro at this.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Whoa – hang on Kathy – I have said numerous times that it is important to get it right/correct. I’m not looking for phrases or gotchas here – with respect to this issue of emails – sure – I can find any number of opposing sites that provides snippets of data and shoehorn it into their own ideology. And this issue is no different.

              Yes – I agree – where there is smoke – there is usually fire. I like to make sure there is fire though, and I did not mistake the smoke for something else and make assumptions that I cannot validate.

              If you want to get accusatory we can pollute this thread with that garbage – I was merely trying to understand the issue as presented and gladly engaged Flag to get some opposing views on what I read on other sites. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

              • Kristian Stout says:

                I wasn’t trying to accusatory. I apologize if you took it that way. The criticism wasn’t directed at you Ray, just the site in general. I’m all for making sure there is an actual fire before I go in to full alert but you know as well as I do that some things on this site just get analyzed to death. It’s like someone asking what is is.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Kristian – I didn’t think you were accusatory.

              • Hey Ray, was giving you a compliment!

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                What ! 🙂

                Man I need some sleep.

              • You really think where there’s smoke there’s fire? Okay. I have one word for you Ray: Birthers.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Kristian – partially agree – trouble is the smoke has been obscured by more smoke as the opposing views bastardize what was actually in the emails and what the context of the dialogues actually were.

            I can understand that over-analysis does not seem to interest many and seems to distract from the core issue of what MAY have occurred. But when you get people very passionate about what they believe to be true and have facts to back it up – they will fight or debate tooth and nail.

            Perhaps many do not like my approach (apparently Kathy thinks this way). But I try and take USW’s rules of the game very seriously (most of the time). He demands facts – so – I try and be factual – which he has taken to sometimes pigeonholing as argumentative when he doesn’t want to engage me. His posts are generally ripe with facts, but sometimes framed by the timing of his writing and colored by his own bias – that is what makes a blog. It is far too easy to dismiss opposing views as nitpicking or wrong because they do not jive with one’s own paradigm or view.

            And yes – I would ‘suggest’ that these folks had some pretty crappy data management practices occurring. Not sure why they would delete data – would be nice to hear a more complete explanation from them.

            • Kristian Stout says:

              I guess I’m coming at this from a different angle. I don’t really care what the scientists have to say about it because I can see with my own 2 eyes what’s going on. I see the weather every day, don’t you? I also have a pretty good memory for what it was like when I was a kid, you know, sensory memory. I remember the summers when I was a kid being pretty darn warm, that was in the seventies and early eighties. I remember it snowing in Florida in the late eighties. We also had a drought in the mid nineties. I’ve noticed that it’s starting to get a little cooler a little earlier in the year here than is normal for us. My point is that it doesn’t matter what these scientists hide or don’t hide I still have all of my senses, including common sense, and I can see that it’s cooler than it’s been in years.

              My biggest concern in all of this is that our esteemed leaders are not looking at this ans saying whoa, maybe we need to check into this before we do something irrevocable. That doesn’t mean that I believe everything that I’ve read about this, I’d be an idiot if I did and my momma didn’t raise any idiots.

              Ok, gotta finish decorating the office Christmas tree. Later folks!

            • Ray,

              I appreciate your input here. I do sometimes find that you are simply being argumentative, while other times you are absolutely right in the way that you approach the issues.

              I am a fact based guy. In other words, I don’t like opinions based on no research. I have not, at least in my memory, found you to ever offer an opinion that was not at least somewhat researched. I can appreciate that. I only wish at times that you would cut me a little slack. I offer roughly 5 articles a week. I research what I can, but I will certainly not be flawless or as well researched as what anyone here can offer when a hot buttom topic for them comes up.

              I try to base even my opinions on some amount of research or facts as I can find them. I more so attempt to offer what I know, what I have found, and what I can in terms of links. You have to remember, I am not looking for people to take anything that I say as the gospel. My intent is to create a dialogue. I am fine with you or anyone else tearing apart my opinions or my data. When I accuse you of being argumentative, what I mean is that you are focusing too much on the way I present the dialogue primer and not enough on the actual subject at hand. Does that make sense?

            • Is the point here that the theory is still up for debate, and that before we agree with anything that has potential to wreck our economy, the evidence must be conclusive, and unimpeachable.

              For myself, explain the 600 year Medieval Warm period, that was warmer than what Gore says we are doomed to suffer in 2100? It already happened 1000 years ago, and the human race loved it!

  4. It happens in part due to “Expertitis” – a disease where a person abdicates ones own thinking and reason to third parties who have labeled themselves “experts”.

    Public school system no longer teaches the necessary material for the average person to discern science or the required math. Our society is math illiterate, and to most science means “gadgets”.

    So it is like having a conversation with a two year old – most people don’t have a clue what anyone is saying in any technical matter, so they ‘trust the expert’ to tell them.

    When the experts are corrupt, danger is a consequence.

    This doesn’t just happen in climate science, but medicine as well, for example. Doctors pump in the drugs, most of them have no real idea of the consequences. But we are supposed to trust them – experts – to make us healthy.

    And then the circle is closed. Because the people are no longer competent, they cannot educate their own child, hence send their kids off to public school – and the circle continues… Matt’s Idiotocracy Theory.

    • Bottom Line says:

      BF – “Public school system no longer teaches the necessary material for the average person to discern science or the required math. Our society is math illiterate, and to most science means “gadgets”.”

      BL – Agreed. Many are calculator dependant. Try asking a typical fourth grader to do long division. Many can’t. How very sad.

    • The “expertism” is definitely a problem. It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial, where the DNA “experts” totally snowed the jurors who had no ideas about DNA and had to rely on the experts.

      It will be interesting to see what the UN and other agencies will do now. Will they just ignore the e-mail scandal and just keep pushing their agenda?

      Remember, Al Gore didn’t win a Nobel Prize for science.

  5. Hello to All

    I know is off the topic, but couldn’t help to put up. Not to long ago President Obama said he didnt know that his aunt was here illegally and was suppose to be deported in 2004 after a judge denied her request to stay.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091201/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_aunt

    So she visits him as a Senator, goes to the swearing in etc. And he has no idea that she not here on a legal basis? Plus her case gets reopened for a judge have a second ruling due to her now being a relative of the President, that will cause her more harm in Kenya. WOW is all I have to say.

    http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/obama.aunt.kenya.2.853967.html

    • Ellen,

      I thought the same thing when I read the article! I didn’t bother to post because most of us here aren’t surprised by this, and commenting on it would likely enrage his faithful followers who will never be enlightened, but defend Him until their last breath on Gaia…..

  6. Another excellent article USW.

    This story has been very frustrating for me. I have followed the story since it broke and only Fox news carried it. The story is all over the internet and on talk radio. We are up against a system of evil. Some know the lies yet continue to push the agenda. Others don’t know any better and/or they are too lazy to find out. Climate change has become a religion. The UN and other Western Governments are still trying to push through Copenhagen and our Congress will still pursue Cap and Trade at some point next year. It’s not about the climate. It’s about control and redistribution of wealth. This story shows how evil statism is at the national level and international level.

    • “It’s about control and redistribution of wealth.” Agree!!!!

      “Some know the lies yet continue to push the agenda.” Agree!!!!!

      Why did the media “report” Obama was a moderate, when he was rated the most liberal member of the senate? It fit their agenda. Why has Pelosi gotten away with so many lies? She, Obama and the media share the same agenda.

      Matt like what if questions,

      What if a devout Christian is told by a 14 year old friend’s daughter she is pregnant and getting an abortion. Sworn to secrecy, your beliefs require you to tell her parents.
      You broke a promise.
      You lied.
      By your beliefs, this was the lesser sin, and God will forgive you.

      What if you were a liberal reporter? Then during the Presidential race, you could say with a straight face, that Obama was a moderate on abortion and gun control. That the economy is getting better because of the stimulus. That the 7% un-employment Bush had was so much worst than Obama’s 10.2%.

      And that global warming is a proven fact.

      And that it’s caused by mankind.

      By your beliefs, this was the lesser sin, and the future generations will
      forgive them. After all, didn’t they save the world?

    • I was checking out the website for the Communist News Network, and didn’t see anything about the climate data. Not surprised.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Pretty much since I have been a participant on this blog, I have been saying that the proponents of AGW are closer to snake-oil salesmen and flim-flam men than “scientists”.

    I have been aware of this for a long time. Others of you have strongly suspected it for a long time, some of you have only started to suspect relatively recently, and some of you still think that AGW is somehow real.

    I strongly suspect that UN-IPCC will do its best to cover this up and convince everyone that it means nothing and that the “science” is still sound, valid, and settled. It never has been sound, valid, or anywhere near settled. With the power of the internet, and the outrage of many in the scientific community over this, I think that a cover-up and a return to “business as usual” for the AGW folks only has about a 15% chance of success, but it could still succeed.

    For those of you that are still convinced that AGW is real and that the UN-IPCC is just out to save the world and has noble motives, skip the following article from Fox News. For those of you that doubt this or are convinced that the UN-IPCC has ulterior motives that have nothing to do with global warming, I really think you should read this article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html?test=latestnews

    • Fox News doing the job of the Lame Stream Media. Again.

      As I was reading the article, I had to wonder how the human population control advocates are going to fit into the plan. Some groups advocate an 80% reduction of the global population. Am I the only one who’s concerned about the joining of population control and environmental movements?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        These movements have been joined since the 1970s. Several of Obama’s “Czars” have been plenty active in both movements for decades.

      • Hey Cyndi,

        Read D Keith Mano’s novel “the Bridge” from the early 70’s. It has us all marching into the gas chambers voluntarily to save the environment. Great thinking person’s read.

        • I’m not sure I want to put myself through that 😉 It’ll just get me wound up.

          I think the population control movement is a potential threat to us regular folks, especially those of us with any wealth at all. At the risk of setting off a certain Obama supporter, I will mention Hitler’s confiscation of the Jews’ wealth to fund his social programs. Talk about wealth redistribution!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi Cyndi

            A continuation of the other night here I see.

            Hope you’re doing well today.

            • Hey Judy!

              I’m doing good for 5:20 am!

              It’ll only be a continuation of the other night, if my favorate plaything takes the bait! LOL!

              🙂

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                And who might that be? It’s 9:27 am here.

              • I’d name names but I don’t have time to spin him up today. I’ve got to go to work and we have a lot on the agenda. I won’t be able to hang out around the computer. You might still find out if he makes himself known….

                BTW, its Wednesday morning here…..

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I think I know who you’re talking about.

                Have a good day Cyndi.

  8. And that is the root of it, too, Peter.

    There is no ‘real’ revelation from Climategate that skeptics haven’t tried to bring to light for the past 10-15 years. It was just ignored.

    Climategate simply confirms most of the skeptic’s warnings about the fraud, obstruction and mismanagement of the AGW zealots.

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The “raw” data is crucially important, and it is what is “missing”. The raw data consists of the ACTUAL UNCORRECTED station temperature measurements, BEFORE any “smoothing”, rejection of “outliers” or other mathematical manipulations have been done.

    Such manipulations are often valid, when done correctly. For example, stations which were known to be in highly urbanized areas which suffer from well-documented “urban-heat-island” effects could be easily rejected as biased high due to their citing.

    However, it is critically important for all scientists to have access to the raw data, in order to be able to reconstruct the work done by Jones and the other “scientists” and see if they can duplicate the results starting from the raw data. Without the raw data, such duplication is impossible. A model which is impossible to duplicate independently is unverifiable, and therefore invalid.

  10. And this is the WH’s take:

    “no real scientific basis for the dispute of this” (climate change)

    Unbelievable!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The truly sad thing is that there never was any valid scientific basis for the THEORY that man was having any impact on global climate in the first place, and yet they have managed to turn it into a religion.

      Belief without proof requires faith, so that makes it a religion.

  11. This is well beyond my pay grade. The only thing that I fall back on in this mess….if Al Gore is involved, it is MY own opinion that it is a fraud. Having said that, then only other thing that I can fall back on is my retired Uncle from Berkley. As stated before, he is a nuclear/astro physicist (what ever that means). He worked for years at Los Alamos developing lasers and stuff that measured all kinds of things.

    He is an accomplished astrology scientist and is called upon on various research projects. One of these guys that has his own observatory in his backyard. His opinion on climatology is that it is fraudulent and the data can be manipulated to say anything you want it to say. Sort of like…figures don’t lie..but liars can figure. He says that early on, he was involved in the laser technology of measuring temperatures, ice pack stuff, measuring light rays penetrating the atmosphere and things like that. Being a Berkley man and having worked for the government in this for years, I will assume that his PHD and his experience is worth something.

    He is a “die in the wool” liberal as far as ecology is concerned….overboard, if you ask me…but what the hey…..In short, he says this global warming issue is fraudulent and he says the true aspect of the cyclical warming/cooling is over looked because there is no cause or money in it. He believes that we are killing our planet but it is not causing global warming and holes in the ozone and death rays from the sun. We are simply using up earth’s resources until there will not be any. He says that in the horse and buggy days, we still had global warming/cooling, cyclical changes, freezes, heat, La Nina, El Nino…..and all of that and there is nothing we can do to stop it now.

    The focus, he says, is natural resources. We will run out and the ice packs and the snail darter and the spotted owl will do nothing to save the resources. It is that simple and to give a single dime to the global warming fanatics and these pseudo-conferences is throwing good money after bad.

    This from an Uncle that is a Berkley PHD and a nuclear/astro-physicist. But, just to talk with him at family outings makes one head spin.

    Sorry, I can not put any input to this garbage except to say… I can read and ascertain as well as the next person….but I am reading and ascertaining what someone else said. Like Ray….show me the money….then explain it in layman’s terms.

    According to my Uncle…and his name is John (no fooling)….so according to my Uncle John, the world is doomed in about another 12 million years….and I was so looking forward to retirement.

  12. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone.

    Not sure if this article was put up or not, but took a chance and put it up anyway.

    Hope everyone is having a good day today.

    Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

    Monday, November 30, 2009
    By George Russell

    Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.

    The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world’s top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to “the center of political and economic decision-making” around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

    The positions argued in that paper now appear to be much closer at hand; many of them are embedded in a four-year strategy document for UNEP taking effect next year, in the immediate wake of the much-touted, 11-day Copenhagen conference on “climate change,” which starts on Dec. 7, and which is intended to push environmental concerns to a new crescendo.

    The major difference is that the four-year UNEP plan expresses its aims in the carefully soporific language that U.N. organizations customarily use to swaddle their objectives. The Swiss document makes its case passionately — and more plainly — than any U.N. official document ever would.

    The ambitious paper, entitled “The UNEP That We Want,” was the product of a select group of 20 top environmental bureaucrats and thinkers, including UNEP’s current No. 2 official, Angela Cropper. The document was later delivered to UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

    Other participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Julia Marton-Lefevre, head of the World Conservation Union; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, a Bulgarian academic who is director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

    Another important attendee was John Scanlon, listed on UNEP’s website as principal advisor to UNEP’s Steiner. Among other things, Scanlon is credited in his UNEP biography with being the leader in developing UNEP’s new medium-term strategy, “Environment for Development,” covering the period from 2010 to 2013. The draft version of the strategy was presented to a UNEP’s Governing Council and a meeting of the world’s environmental minister’s in February 2008, and subsequently approved.

    The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are “simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being.”

    Even though all of the Swiss participants took part in the brainstorming, the responsibility for the ideas in the paper are his own, Halle emphasized to Fox News, after he was contacted last week about the document. The paper itself says it offers “elements,” not a “complete offering,” of what UNEP should consider for its role in the years ahead.

    Despite those limitations, the report was “very well received” by UNEP’s hierarchy, according to Halle, and “it has had a great impact internally.” He added, “I have participated in several discussions and presentations of the ideas.”

    In fact, there is a high degree of overlap between the ideas pulled together at the small Swiss meeting of experts and the ideas that also appear in the new strategic plan for UNEP, a copy of which has been obtained by Fox News.

    Those ideas are being espoused at a highly charged time. Both environmentalists and the entire United Nations, led by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are still fervently pressuring governments around the world to sign a legally binding and more global successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas suppression, which expires in 2012. At the moment, that deal appears likely to be delayed, at least until next spring, as some wealthy countries, including the U.S., balk at the high cost and potentially crippling economic impact of targets to reduce carbon emissions into the earth’s atmosphere, even though President Barack Obama supports an ambitious Copenhagen deal.

    But UNEP’s strategic plan, as well as the IISD document that grew out of the Swiss gathering, look well beyond the horizon of Copenhagen in suggesting the outlines of the world’s environment-centered future, to what the strategic plan calls “the next phase in the evolution of UNEP.”

    Among other things, both documents argue for:

    —a “new and central position for environmentalism in the world’s thinking,” as the Swiss paper puts it. “The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making,” says the medium-term plan.

    —a new position in the international power game for UNEP, reaching far beyond the member governments that currently finance its core budget and make up its normal supervisors. “It will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency,” as the Swiss paper puts it.

    UNEP will “actively reach out to Governments, other United Nations entities, international institutions, multilateral environmental agreement secretariats, civil society, the private sector and other relevant partners to implement the Medium-term Strategy,” says the UNEP document.

    —a major restructuring of international institutions to merge environmental issues with economics as the central priority. “We require an Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century,” Halle argues — a reference to the meeting that laid the foundations of Western international finance and economic regulation after World War II. “The linkages between environmental sustainability and the economy will emerge as a key focus for public policymaking and a determinant of future markets opportunities,” according to the UNEP strategic plan.

    —new environmental rules, regulations and standards, and the linking of existing environmental agreements, in a stronger global lattice-work of environmental law, with stronger authority to command national governments. The Swiss paper calls it a series of “ambitious yet incremental adjustments” to international environmental governance. Indeed, the document says, UNEP’s “role is to ‘tee up’ the next generation of such rules.”

    The UNEP four-year strategy puts it more obliquely, and only in a footnote on page 7 of the document: “UNEP will actively participate in the continuing international environmental governance discussions both within and outside the United Nations system, noting the repeated calls to strengthen UNEP, including its financial base, and the ‘evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.'”

    —an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth” as well as business and political groups, to support UNEP strategic objectives.

    As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

    The official four-year plan uses more restrained language in declaring that “civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns…. Civil society will also be engaged to assist with UNEP outreach efforts.” (The term “civil society,” as used by the U.N., usually refers to organizations and associations that have received formal recognition from one branch or another of the sprawling world organization.)

    —along with increased political leverage for UNEP, bringing increased financial leverage to its cause, once again by reaching beyond the national environmental ministries that traditionally are the organization’s financial base to more powerful sectors of government as well as business and other interest groups that will see profit and advantage in the new, environment centered approach.

    Says the Swiss paper: “UNEP must focus on priorities that meet two characteristics: they should appeal to the more powerful [government] ministers responsible for economic policy; and they should empower environmental ministers at the cabinet table. UNEP’s message is not for environment ministers — the already converted…. It must aim higher.”

    As UNEP’s four-year strategy more circumspectly puts it: “Mobilizing sufficient finance to meet environmental challenges, including climate change, extends well beyond global mechanisms negotiated under conventions. It will require efforts at local, national and global levels to engage with Governments and the private sector to achieve the necessary additional investment and financial flows.”

    As far as UNEP itself is concerned, the document says, the organization “will raise contributions from the private sector, foundations and non-environmental funding windows…Funds will also be drawn from humanitarian, crisis and peacebuilding instruments, where appropriate.”

    —Perhaps the most important function both documents see for the newly enhanced UNEP is to seek influence as the world’s guiding arbiter of a new measurement of human development. “We believe the environmental argument should be recast in terms of its importance for and potential contribution to prosperity, stability and equity,” the Swiss paper argues.

    Or, more discreetly, as the strategy document puts it: “Integrated environmental assessments that highlight the state of the environment and trends will be used to inform decision-makers and ensure UNEP plays its lead environmental role in the United Nations system and strengthens its capacity to respond better to the global, regional and national needs of Governments.”

    According to Halle, however, in an e-mail exchange with Fox News, there are signs that the hugely ambitious role he and his fellow-thinkers sketched for UNEP as religion’s main competitor are “beginning to happen.” Halle pointed to UNEP’s espousal this year of a so-called Green Economy Initiative, a proposal to radically redesign the global economy and transfer trillions of dollars in investment to the world’s poorest developing countries, but one that is couched in terms of providing new green jobs, an end to old, unfair carbon-based energy subsidies, and greater global fairness and opportunity. Halle called the development “quite exciting.”

    The Green Economy Initiative, also called the Global Green New Deal, is a major counterpart to the new treaty on greenhouse gas suppression that all branches of the United Nations, and a horde of environmental organizations, are lobbying loudly to bring to agreement at the environmental summit in Copenhagen.

    It is certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect.

    • Judy,

      Thanks for putting this up. It was one of the sources that I put a link to at the bottom of my article. This is the document I was referring to at the end of the article.

      Hope you are doing well.

      USW

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        HI USW

        You’re welcome, just thought it was interesting and decided to put it up.

        I’m doing quite well thank you, and I hope you’re doing the same.

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Gold $1199.00, dollar down a ton today.

    Some of you will be celebrating because the market is up, but always remember, if your stocks are denominated in dollars, the dollar going down 2% and your stock going up 2% is a wash….

    Everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that Dubai World MIGHT be able to get quick refinancing of $22 Billion in debt, so world markets are up quite a bit today. Well DUH, of course Dubai World is going to be able to get quick refinancing… a default, even of that “small potatoes” magnitude would cause a major market “correction”, and the politicians know that a 20% drop in the Dow is totally unacceptable right now if they want to save their own hides. I am speaking not only of US politicians, but WORLDWIDE at this point.

  14. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I recall years ago watching CBS News with Dan Rather (sad thought). He was reporting a past long term drought simply based on ‘tight tree rings’.
    Any logger knows ‘tight tree rings’ are normal for trees grown close together in competition for sunlight, nutrients, and water.
    I am sure many scientists are book educated with little real world experience and sometimes lacking common sense to begin with.
    So even when they are not ‘fixing’ the results, their conclusions are quite apt to be wrong anyway.
    Gotta Run, Later….

    • Quit being logical…it does not fit today’s mantra….

    • Have never heard that before, thanks for sharing.

    • Puritan has part of it right.

      The growth of trees, in terms of rings per inch, is directly affected by Stand Density Index. Which is a relationship between the average diameter of the trees and the number of trees per acre. Another measure often used to describe “stand density” is Basal Area per Acre. Also a combination of diameter and trees per acre.

      Reduced growth in diameter, which is what is actually shown by tree rings, can also occur due to reduced growing season. Such as a much colder period of time, not just hot and dry.

      Fires that naturally thinned forests, before we started putting the fires out, reduced stand densities as well. Thus releasing the surviving trees to grow more rapidly. So if drought was the cause there should more than likely have been evidence of fire within the same time frame followed by a sudden increase in growth.

      Insect and disease can cause the same effect. Anything that reduces density without killing all the trees.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Tnx Just A Citizen, that’s exactly what I meant to say. 😉

        • You did say it plain enough.

          But since everyone was acting all “sciency” today I figured I would throw some terminology around.

          Also couldn’t resist pointing out that abnormally cold periods can have the same effect on tree growth. Something the pundits never mention.

          So Puritan, is it a forestry or logging background you have, or both?

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Actually not quite either.

            I do however own some woodland and spend quite a bit of time cutting logs for a small sawmill and firewood for my own use.

            I am out in the boonies and have time to ask myself questions such as why the ring growth is the way it is, and be able to see a bit of history in the growth patterns. Such as nice wide spaced rings after a logging operation 30 years ago opened up the canopy.

  15. Re-post from last time this came up. Its interesting that even with the doctored data, Humans contribute only 0.28% of the greenhouse gases. Over 99%
    is caused by nature, and they still want to claim we are the largest factor.

    http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Greenhouse gases make up two percent of
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% the atmosphere.
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Nitrogen,
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Oxygen,
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Argon & other gases account for 98%.
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% 0.2% Greenhouse gases.

    Of the two percent of the atmosphere that are greenhouse,

    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Ninety-Five percent is water vapor!
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Ninety-five percent of two percent!
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% 3.62% of that two percent is CO2

    Of the two percent of the gases in the atmosphere that are greenhouse,
    3.62% is CO2, 1.38% is other(methane, etc. makes up a smaller percentage,
    but has a greater effect) Of this 3.62%, that is a fraction of that two percent,

    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6% is natural
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6% 3.4% is caused by humans

    Humans contribute 0.28% of the greenhouse gases.

    Also of interest, CO2 levels were nine times higher during the Jurassic Period, which was also 10C warmer than today.
    pg.14 has a chart showing the modern, Roman and Medieval times.
    pg.18 chart comparing US vs European emission reductions
    pg.26 polar bear population trends

    H2O: Dangerous Chemical!
    A student at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide.”

    And for plenty of good reasons, since:

    1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
    2. it is a major component in acid rain
    3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
    4. accidental inhalation can kill you
    5. it contributes to erosion
    6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
    7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

    He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

    * Forty-three (43) said yes,
    * six (6) were undecided,
    * and only one (1) knew that the chemical was water.

    The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”

    He feels the conclusion is obvious.

  16. Still think there’s no money in spreading global warming alarmism?

    Well, how’d you like to make $1,200 just for shaking someone’s hand and having your picture taken with the sycophant?

    This is what Al “I’m Only Doing This To Save The Planet” Gore is charging for such an honor at next week’s climate change conference in Copenhagen.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/01/al-gore-asking-1-200-shake-his-hand-copenhagen

    • AP Promotes Copenhagen ‘Momentum’, Ignores ClimateGate

      By Candance Moore

      An Associated Press article Sunday read like a virtual advertisement for global legislation on climate change: completely oblivious to the ClimateGate scandal and failing to give one drop of ink to anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

      The piece, written by the AP’s Ben Fox, announced its intent with the headline “Leaders Say Momentum Building on Climate Change.” Readers were then treated to 570 words exclusively about these political leaders and their claims.

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/candance-moore/2009/11/30/ap-promotes-copenhagen-momentum-ignores-climategate

    • I’d pay $1200 to kick him in the shins and write FRAUD on his forehead with a purple Sharpie.

    • Buchanan: Gore’s Moment ‘Passed’ – No Proof of Manmade Global Warming; Clift’s Response: ‘No Known Proof There’s God Either’

      By Jeff Poor

      If you’re curious to see how the mainstream Washington, D.C. press views the global warming debate, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift may have tipped off the public off.

      On the Nov. 29 edition of “The McLaughlin Group,” host John McLaughlin asked about the prospects of a Copenhagen climate change treaty and its possible impact on the U.S. economy. MSNBC and “The McLaughlin Group” regular Pat Buchanan gave some spot-on analysis on global warming alarmist about former Vice President Al Gore and how it pertains to the climate change issue.

      “Well, I don’t think it’s going to have any impact, John, because I don’t think it’s going to get through the United States Senate,” Buchanan said. “And there’s a reason for that John, and that’s Al Gore’s moment has come and gone. The truth is they’re changing the name to climate change rather than global warming for a reason.”

      Buchanan pointed to several anecdotal examples of not global warming, but global cooling and that this issue won’t get much traction during economic downtime.

      For 10 years, the earth has been cooling – 1998 or so was the hottest year. The polar bear population is doing fine. Antarctica is growing, the ice cap is growing. The Arctic ice cap has stopped shrinking. You take a look around the United States, you’re having record cold trends and you got this tremendous real problem in the American economy as opposed to this mythical problem of global warming.”

      The real reason behind this global warming scare according to Buchanan is to reshape the global power structure.

      And for these reasons John, I think it’s not going to get through the Senate and I think the, as I say, Al Gore’s moment has passed. This whole thing was a bit of a hoax designed to transfer power from individuals and wealth to governments and from governments to trans-national, international corporations, global institutions. And that time has come and it has gone.”

      Later in the show, Buchanan reiterated his point that global warming wasn’t going on and said there was no proof that any of the warming that has occurred in recent history was caused by man.

      “It was warming, John,” Buchanan said. “It’s not been warming since ’98. Secondly, there’s no known proof it’s because of man and there’s no known proof it’s a great danger.”

      However, Clift felt inclined to responded, rather emphatically. She said she believes U.S. policy should be proactive toward the issue. Her view is arguably indicative of the mainstream media’s sentiment on the debate, and she equated it to blind faith when she told Buchanan there’s no proof there’s a God either, which didn’t mean global warming wasn’t a danger.

      “It’s no known proof there’s God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?” Clift replied. “Oh, it is a danger. It’s a danger in many places.”

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/11/29/buchanan-gore-s-moment-passed-no-proof-manmade-global-warming-clift-s-res

    • Stop the presses!!!! ABC did cove Climategate, once.

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/29/week-discusses-climategate-obamas-copenhagen-trip

      GEORGE WILL: It raises the question of — we’re being asked to wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is, the e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn’t be embarrassed about that. It’s a complicated business, and that’s why we shouldn’t wager these trillions.

      PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: All those e-mails — people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There’s not a single smoking gun in there. There’s nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1998 was a very warm year doesn’t actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that’s loose wording. Right? Everything is about — we’re really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there’s no trend here. And that’s what — the travesty is how hard it has been to explain why that’s bad reasoning.

      WILL: One of the emails, Paul, said he wished he could delete, get rid of the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years…

  17. Good rule of thumb for the environment…..”Don’t eat the yellow snow”.

  18. All this proves what I have been saying for years . . . It ain’t about what they care about you, cause they only care about how fat their collective wallets are!

    Time to rise up and throw the bums out!

    And that includes the UN!

    Just my not-so-humble opinion!

  19. Check out this article by Dr. Ball. He looks to have the right credentials to know what he is talking about.

    “Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102#

  20. Judy Sabatini says:

    Had to put up a funny.

    An Amish farmer walking through his field notices a man drinking from his pond, with his hand.
    The Amish man shouts:
    “Trinken Sie nicht das Wasser, die Kuhe und die Schweine haben in ihm geschissen!”
    Which means: “Don’t drink the water, the cows and the pigs have shit in it!”
    The man shouts back: “I’m a Muslim, I don’t understand your gibberish. Speak English you infidel!”

    The Amish man shouts back in English:
    “Use two hands, you’ll get more!”

  21. Judy Sabatini says:
  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I sometimes have to stop and realize that because I AM a scientist, I expect everyone around me to have the same basic understanding of math and science which I have, and then suddenly there are only 2 people in the room with any idea of what I am talking about and the other 100 people in the room are saying, “What???”

    Let me simplify this as much as possible. If Jones, Mann, Briffa, and the others at the East Anglia CRU been STUDENTS, they would have been expelled from University for fraud. It is really that simple.

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    University of East Anglia/Climatic Research Unit

    The director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation

    The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

    In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

    Professor Jones said, “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.”

    Details of the independent review will be releasd in the next few days, according to the statement.

    Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate,” he told FoxNews.com.

    Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.

    Jones’s biography page, published on the CRU’s servers, notes his research interest “in instrumental climate change, palæoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK using long rainfall records. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 20 years and these are available in the CRU Publications List.”

    The controversy spun from a collection of e-mails stolen from the CRU and leaked onto the Internet. The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent. And the trustworthiness of the scientific community’s global warming data pool is being called into question as the scandal over doctored data continues to unfold.

    The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

    “They are making scientific progress more difficult now,” says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “This is a shameful, dark day for science,” he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

  24. Judy Sabatini says:

    Women ” line up to claim affairs with Tiger Woods ”

    Why doesn’t this surprise me?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/golf/article6939787.ece

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    7 stories Barak obama doesn’t want told.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29993.html

  26. v. Holland says:

    • V.H.

      Thanks for that.

      I had forgot how much I loved listening to her sing.

      Now I am feeling all nostalgy.

      The best to you and your family this beautiful evening.
      As I sit here watching the sun set out one window, glowing organge against the snow capped mountains and watching the full moon rise out another. A bright white glistening off the snow covered pines on the horizon.

      I am thankful to have found this place and those who frequent it.

      JAC

  27. My stand has always been that it is stupid to crap in your own nest. Some pollution is unavoidable, but if you damage another person’s property you are responsible for the damages and should accept the consequences of your actions, which means paying restitution or cleaning it up.

    To put government, the world’s absolute worst despoiler of nature, in charge of “protecting the environment” is about the ultimate in foolishness IF your desire is really to protect the environment. If your desire is to destroy freedom and individuality, then I’d say it is a calculated strategy of evil.

    I spend a lot of spare time cleaning up trash and litter because I despise seeing it blowing around. I like clean surroundings. Yet, “laws” against litter are just as disgusting to me. I hate law pollution as much as I hate other types of pollution.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    I’ve always liked this song by the Carpenters

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    The best entertainer ever.

  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    Bitterly remembering this, I dread ANY form of government intervention into
    private enterprise. We’re going to (continue) paying for this many times
    over.
    Can’t wait to find out how much I’ll lose when the government determines
    what (if any) health care I get.

    Subject: Gubmnt & how Gubmint works

    Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

    Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a
    desert. Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.”

    So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

    Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”

    So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to
    write the instructions and one person to do time studies.

    Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks
    correctly?”

    So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people: one to do
    the studies and one to write the reports.

    Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?”

    So They created the following positions: a time keeper, and a payroll
    officer. Then they hired two people.

    Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?”

    So they created an administrative section and hired three people: an
    Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal
    Secretary.

    Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one year,
    and we are $18,000 over budget. We must cut back overall costs.”

    So they laid off the night watchman.

    NOW, slowly, let it sink in…

    Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

    Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY….. during the Carter Administration?

    Anybody?

    Anything?

    No?

    Didn’t think so!

    Bottom line. We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an
    agency…the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

    Ready??
    It was very simple…and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

    The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977, TO LESSEN OUR
    DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
    Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

    NOW IT’S 2009 — 32 YEARS LATER — AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS “NECESSARY”
    DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
    AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE
    DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, “WHAT WAS I THINKING?”
    Thirty-two years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today
    70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

    Ah, yes — good ole bureaucracy.
    AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE
    AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

    HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

  31. Judy Sabatini says:

    The Worlds Shortest Books

    BLACKS I’VE MET WHILE YACHTING
    By Tiger Woods
    ______________________________________________
    THINGS I LOVE ABOUT MY COUNTRY
    By Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan.
    Illustrated by Michael Moore
    ________________________________________
    MY CHRISTIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS &
    HOW I HELPED AFTER KATRINA
    By Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton
    _______________________________________

    THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL
    By Hillary Clinton
    ________________________________
    Sequel:
    THINGS I LOVE ABOUT HILLARY
    By Bill Clinton
    ___________________________________
    MY LITTLE BOOK OF PERSONAL HYGIENE
    By Osama Bin Laden
    ___________________________________
    THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD
    By Bill Gates

    ____________________________________
    THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY
    By Dennis Rodman
    _________________________________
    THINGS WE KNOW TO BE TRUE
    By Al Gore & John Kerry
    ______________________________

    AMELIA EARHART’S GUIDE TO THE PACIFIC

    ___________________________________
    A COLLECTION of MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES
    By Dr. J. Kevorkian
    ______________________________

    ALL THE MEN WE HAVE LOVED, BEFORE ……
    By Ellen deGeneres & Rosie O’Donnell
    ______________________________

    GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE
    By Mike Tyson
    ______________________________

    THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY
    _______________________________________

    MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS
    By O. J. Simpson
    ________________________________________
    HOW TO DRINK & DRIVE OVER BRIDGES
    By Ted Kennedy
    ___________________________________
    MY BOOK OF MORALS
    By Bill Clinton with introduction
    By the Rev. Jesse Jackson
    *******************************************************

    AND, JUST ADDED:
    Complete Knowledge of Military Strategy!
    By Nancy Pelosi

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    While trying to escape through Pakistan , Osama Bin Laden found a
    bottle on the sand and picked it up.
    Suddenly, a female genie rose from the bottle and with a smile said,
    “Master, may I grant you one wish?”
    Osama responded,” You ignorant, unworthy daughter-of-a-dog! Don’t
    you know who I am? I don’t need any
    common woman giving me anything.”

    The shocked genie said, “Please, I must grant you a wish or I will
    be returned to that bottle forever.”
    Osama thought a moment, then grumbled about the impertinence of the
    woman and said, “Very well, I want
    to awaken in the morning with three American women in my bed. So
    just do it and be off with you.

    The annoyed genie said, “So be it!” and disappeared.

    The next morning Bin Laden woke up in bed with Lorena Bobbitt, Tonya
    Harding and Nancy Pelosi at his side.

    His penis was gone, his knees were broken, and he had no health
    insurance.

  33. To All

    I must go and check on my sourdough biscuits, meatloaf and baked taters.

    Speaking of food, I thought I would leave you all with a little food for thought from one of my favorite philosophers.

    “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    Chew on it slowly so that all the flavors are released for your pleasure.

    JAC

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
    [info][add][mail]
    Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 – 1965), Speech in Detroit, 7 Oct. 1952
    Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting.
    [info][add][mail]
    Alan Dean Foster, “To the Vanishing Point”
    Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.
    [info][add][mail]
    Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), ‘Out of My Later Years,’ 1950
    The basis of a democratic state is liberty.
    [info][add][mail]
    Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), Politics
    Because you are in control of your life. Don’t ever forget that. You are what you are because of the conscious and subconscious choices you have made.
    [info][add][mail]
    Barbara Hall, A Summons to New Orleans, 2000
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    [info][add][mail][note]
    Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
    If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
    [info][add][mail]
    Carl Schurz (1829 – 1906)
    We hold in our hands, the most precious gift of all: Freedom. The freedom to express our art. Our love. The freedom to be who we want to be. We are not going to give that freedom away and no one shall take it from us!
    [info][add][mail]
    Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, Northern Exposure, Cicely, 1992
    Only the educated are free.
    [info][add][mail]
    Epictetus (55 AD – 135 AD), Discourses
    In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.
    [info][add][mail]
    Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 – 1945), Speech, September 22, 1936
    Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
    [info][add][mail]
    George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)
    The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
    [info][add][mail]
    Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 – )
    Patterning your life around other’s opinions is nothing more than slavery.
    [info][add][mail]
    Lawana Blackwell, The Dowry of Miss Lydia Clark, 1999
    While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
    [info][add][mail]
    Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919
    Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
    [info][add][mail]
    Lord Acton, Lecture, February 26, 1877
    Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.
    [info][add][mail]
    Malcolm X (1925 – 1965), Malcolm X Speaks, 1965
    You can’t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
    [info][add][mail]
    Malcolm X (1925 – 1965), Malcolm X Speaks, 1965
    It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
    [info][add][mail]
    Mark Twain (1835 – 1910), Following the Equator (1897)
    Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward.
    [info][add][mail]
    Patricia Sampson
    To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive.
    [info][add][mail]
    Robert Louis Stevenson (1850 – 1894)
    People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
    [info][add][mail]
    Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855)
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    [info][add][mail]
    Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.
    [info][add][mail]
    William Hazlitt (1778 – 1830)

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good night to everyone and I hope you have a pleasant tomorrow.

    I love you all very much. I hold each and every one of you in that special place deep within my heart. You are a very special group of people that I am so happy to know, and will always cherish the friendship that we have developed here on this site.

    Take Care Everyone

    Judy

%d bloggers like this: