The Brits will not embrace “Climate-gate”. It’s sounds too American and the BBC really hates that. They need a scandal to call their own, even if the fraud stemming from this manipulation of data is being perpetrated on a global scale.

Someone else already coined “Climaqquidick”, to honor the cover-up and corresponding media acceptance, if not outright facilitation of a crime. Though it has already been used, I can’t help but repeat it here because I admire the common thread of rising water in that comparison as well.

So with those options taken or rejected, allow me to be the first to offer up “Climatehenge“, a uniquely British creation that combines the much needed elements of religious faith for the faithless while preserving the illusion of a scientific fig leaf dangled from the slippery finger tips of political scientist and carbon credit entrepreneur, Al Gore.

The suddenly inconvenient truth of manipulated climate data should have lit a fire beneath the Oscar and Nobel Prize recipient but so far I’ve not heard much from him. Maybe he is in consultation with Druids.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This global warming scam is only just beginning to unwind.

This interesting article shows how key CO2 monitoring stations seem to have somehow been located very close to active volcanos (huge CO2 emmiters) and other suspect areas of higher than normal CO2.

You have to wonder how deep the scam goes or if it could be a coincidence of continual massive collective stupidity over a number of years by AGW cultists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html

…
Mauna Loa has been producing a readout which supports Manning’s predetermined goal by showing steady growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959. This record, highlighted in Al Gore’s discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth, is known as the Keeling Curve. A graph of the curve is engraved on a bronze plaque mounted at the entrance to the Observatory’s Keeling Building, 10,000 feet above sea level on the rocky north flank of Mauna Loa. According to the Observatory website: “The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.”

For some reason, they fail to mention the erupting volcano next door.
…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oddly, they show the fudge factors up on the screen but they talk about a different dishonesty in the code.

Forget about those “hide the decline” T-shirts. What you really want is a T-shirt with the fudge factors:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

This is criminal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

In the words of the late, great Michael Crichton:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

(from http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html )

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And what does airhead Boxer want to do?? Investigate the Email finder?? Could she be more stupid??

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If the “Science is Settled” then it should be replicable. Even with the initial data having been dumped by Jones in the first place there should be a way of extracting non corrupted data all over again and begin the study once more. I understand that “millions of man hours” have been invested in this but that means the framework has already been built.

Like or Dislike: 0  0