In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”
...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?”
Translation: "What? Peer review? Screw YOU, jerk!!"
But it gets worse.
Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
And even worse than that:
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Even assuming he's telling the truth--that the dog ate his homework--the scumbag freely admits that he 'adjusted the data for homogeneity issues.'
If the US Senate moves to pass Cap-n-Tax, or if Congress allows EPA to create Cap-N-Tax by regulatory means, it will be time to "spit upon one's hands, raise the Black Flag, and begin slitting throats." --Mencken
Yes, I intend to pass on an economically viable country to my children and grandchildren.
Ease up with the "slitting throats" fantasies. You can make your point without fantasizing about violence.
Do you really think spilling blood is going to help your cause?
It is very likely that a health care bill will pass this year. When it does there is a very good chance some nutcase is going to do something really stupid and violent to delusionally combat against "socialist, fascist, marxist, commies".
If something bad happens this revolution rhetoric you are playing with is going to eliminate any moderate support your cause ever hoped of having.
Guess it's time to go the ammo store (again).
I quote Mencken. For a reason.
HE didn't "slit any throats"--at least physically.
Mencken would have run you through the wringer dad.
you forgot « feminism »
Post a Comment