I’ve nearly worn out my keyboard’s quote key as a result of my honest writing about the BS “settled science” of the “man-made global warming”, and more recently, the “investigations” of the various frauds and cover-ups of the “climate science” community and their political science leaders and sycophants.
But today Financial Post writer Peter Foster does the quoting as he reports on his reading of the latest BS: the internal investigation by “scientists” and other such like-minded dedicated-to-the-mantra individuals who concluded little more than the fanciful notion that the scientists were but a “small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers.” They’re “dedicated” to what, exactly, asks Peter Foster.
Peter Foster: Climategate whitewash
… The CRU’s data has appeared in two forms: raw and cooked. Much of the raw variety, unfortunately, has been “lost.” This is treated by the review as infinitely excusable due to the pressures of the academic life. You know, tedious admin meetings, the pressure to publish, the need to get in those applications for multi-million dollar grants attached to proving man-made global warming. But how can ditching the fundamental data on which your science depends be dubbed mere carelessness with “non-essential record keeping?”
As for the cooked data, the CRU has been accused of “manipulation” not in the legitimate statistical sense, so that different data sets may be comparable, but in support of the results required by government-funded, highly politicized science. Without data suggesting rising temperatures due to anthropogenic emissions, there would be no justification for massive global programs such as cap-and-trade, redistributionist “clean development,” or the hefty subsidization of alternative energy.
The CRU is also gently fingered for its lack of statistical sophistication. As the report admits, “It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical.”
But hang on. Draconian global policies have been made on the basis of dodgy data handled by those who are less than expert? This is surely a little more than “regrettable.” If statistics are so important, why didn’t the IPCC make sure the CRU, and itself, had the world’s greatest statistical minds on tap? Could that be because the data and science are there to support the political position rather than guiding it? …
But if that weren’t enough, Peter Foster’s fellow Financial Post writer Lawrence Solomon writes-up an equally brilliant and properly cynical piece today, which also focuses on the ever so perfect investigators, with this satirical beauty: “…Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, a man of impeccable credentials in the climate change field…” and goes on to explain why he and his cohorts were so perfect for the job.
Lawrence Solomon: The Non-Inquiry of Climategate
Posted: April 15, 2010, 7:19 PM by Lawrence Solomon
To allay public concern over Climategate — the unauthorized release of some 3000 documents from the computers of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University — the university established two independent inquiries to attend to the widespread view that science had been corrupted through the distortion and destruction of data, through cover-ups, and through the perversion of the peer review process.
The first of these inquiries has neatly dismissed all concerns of impropriety through the oversight of its chair, Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, a man of impeccable credentials in the climate change field. Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major windfarms in the U.K., France, Spain and Italy, and he’s chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $-trillion industry by 2050.
Lord Oxburgh’s judicial temperament also served him well in his role as chair of the university inquiry. “We are sleepwalking” into a global warming threat so dire, Lord Oxburgh explained in 2007, that the world may need to do more to discourage carbon dioxide emitters than to simply put a price on carbon. “It may be that we shall need, in parallel with that, regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” he explained. …
Fantastic reading about one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.
- Canadian Gov’s Right Hand: “Invest!”— Left Hand: “You Suck!” - Friday June 2, 2023 at 12:50 pm
- The T targeting children makes Target the target - Thursday June 1, 2023 at 4:15 pm
- Canada has been replaced. It’s now TransQueerland? - Thursday June 1, 2023 at 11:05 am