.. it’s easy if you try
No Arctic ice a-melting
No warming globe to fry…
Environmental scientist Patrick J. Michaels, writing at NRO, discloses that the database used through 2007 by the IPCC, to come up with all its cool climate models and apocalyptic (and sub-apocalyptic) warming projections, was reportedly lost at some point in the recent past to, as it were, canine ingestion.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
Michaels reports this exchange between the keepers of the database and an inquiring scientist from Australia:
Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
It goes on and on from there. Repeated requests for the original data have been rebuffed, on several remarkably uninventive pretexts.
Read the whole thing. And cherchez le chien.
Comments 14
I’m sorry, JED, I can’t “read the whole thing” because that would make me like a Holocaust denier. Our TGL today told the world that everything was going irreversibly to Hell unless we, I dunno, got new refrigerators or something, and you wouldn’t want that to happen, would you? Would you?
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
There’s a girl at my kids’ school who will not accept rides home from us because she thinks cars are evil. Instead she spends over an hour on public transportation for a ride which takes us 20 minutes.
She’d be devastated to learn man made global warming is a hoax.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Medvedev: “… but in some cases sanctions are inevitable.”
September 24th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Even John Stewart thought it was all a big joke. We are being played, thankfully those skeptical of the GW story have drug it on long enough that the anecdotal weather that people experience no longer supports the MMGW script so the population doesn’t buy it, and increasingly, the data used by the alarmists is being shown to be manipulated and if not willingly falsified at least incorrectly analyzed. This has about 18 months to go. If next summer is cool, and the US unemployment rate is still hovering around 10%, this entire topic will be dead. Thankfully.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am
JEM, from your mouth to God’s ears! I wonder what it will take to scotch this thing. It has the perfect combination of elements–piteous scenarios about helpless animals, to attract children to the cause, seemingly hard-headed economic estimates to scare business, information about low-lying islands in the Pacific for the multiculturalists, and of course taxes and complete control of everyone for the politicians.
Obama has been using the expression “carbon polution” quite regularly now. Do you think he will try to go the EPA route of announcing controls on carbon as a pollutant without having to pass cap and tax? Then the tax will seem like a benefit to industry.
It seems to me that this will be a hard one for the Republicans to get their hands around. Our Mark Kirk already voted for the House bill–his suburban constituents are really into “conservation.”
September 24th, 2009 at 9:02 am
@JEM —
I swear that when I began to read this sentence, I thought your conclusion was going to be that TGL would argue this is proof that global warming causes unemployment. Does that not sound like the sort of “logic” the left pedals?
September 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I think the EPA will try, but they will have to defend it in court and I don’t think they have the data to prove their case, so the courts will strike it down. The greens need Copenhagen to garner them some momentum, and I just don’t see any. You need $140B to make China and India say they will play nice (which they will proceed to ignore after pocketing the money). That money doesn’t exist.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Howard Portnoy –
A dead ringer! I agree.
Sorry for scaring you!
September 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Hasn’t stopped ‘em before.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:59 am
@CK MacLeod – But wait! Didn’t we save $140 billion every month by cutting out the government payments to ACORN?
September 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am
@fuster – Paying India and China to pretend they’re doing something to stop climate change: $140 BN
Exposing the President’s friends and political family as a left-fascist criminal cult: Priceless
September 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
CKM #1 — how about you read the whole thing and we walk out on you? (Figuratively, of course.) Don’t worry, we’ll be back for coffee later.
Michaels’ point that EPA rulings can be challenged based on science is particularly significant, I think. The challenge to the AGW/CC “theory” is solid, starting with the “dog ate my data” problem of the AGW/CC advocates.
Of course, taking back Congress in 2010 makes a difference too. Hard as it is to believe, Congress can actually (look it up) defund agencies that rule psychotically against the public good. If it had a mind to, Congress could eliminate the whole federal charter to protect smelt-fish against the operation of water pumps, and other arcane religious observances.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
This could lead to death panels. Since carbon is a by-product of respiration, the EPA will decide who lives and who dies.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Zoltan Newberry –
Zoltan,
That sounds like a girl your kids should be avoiding anyway.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pm