Michelle Malkin quotes:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.Well, why should they have kept that data? The science is settled and man-made climate change is proven, so why keep the original data? The massaged and normalized data ought to be good enough.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
...except that science is founded on repeatable experimentation, the idea that any swinging dick should be able to take your premises and your data and check your results--whether the science is "settled" or not--to verify that your conclusions were on the level and not the result of wishful thinking.
Dumping the original data is something you only do if you don't want anyone to know what the original numbers are. There's no way to undo the massaging, which makes the data that the CRU kept utterly worthless for doing anything which even approximates actual science.
One might as well make up numbers.
Boortz discusses the issue again. This time he starts from the beginning and explains how and why the environmentalist movement consists primarily of communists and marxists.
I have to admit, I can't help but rub my hands together and cackle with glee at this "Climategate" nonsense. It really points up something I've been saying for a long time: that the whole climate-change-AGW bandwagon was about political power and wealth redistribution, not about saving the Earth.
Why? Well, for one thing, if you look at the climate record of the planet, you find that it has never been constant for more than a few thousand years at a time; the closest you'll come, in fact, to a constant climate is the ice ages: looked at one way, Earth is an ice planet which is inexplicably warmer than normal right now, because the climate history of the Earth has a lot more ice in it than tropical climes.
But the climate has always changed, and always will change. The notion that there is some magical climate which is "more natural" than others--and that this climate was the one which occurred shortly before the industrial revolution--is ludicrous almost to the point of laughability. Ask one of these people a simple question: "What is the Earth's natural temperature?" The answer will be a load of jargon and pseudo-scientific tap-dancing, because there is no answer to the question. The answer will start, "Well, that depends...." If they actually do cite a figure--even as a measure of the temperature anomaly from a "base" temperature--ask them how that figure was arrived at.
Right now we report the global temperature as a departure from a mystical standard, and GISS reports the global temperature anomaly as something like 0.6°. The implication one can draw from this--that one is supposed to draw--is that Earth's temperature is 0.6° too high, and that if something is not done to curb carbon emissions, that number will grow larger. This is what the CRU, for example, wants us to believe.
But 0.6° is less of a departure from the "standard" than even the Medieval Warm Period was (one reason Michael Mann's hockey stick graph does not show it) and in fact Earth has been even warmer than that in the relatively recent past. The dirty little secret is that none of that warming can be attributed to human carbon emissions, which is why Mann and the CRU were desperate to explain it away.
There is no "natural" temperature which Earth would assume were it not for our coal power plants and SUVs and BBQ grills; the temperature has fluctuated and will always fluctuate, regardless of whether or not we're here doing human things. There is only natural climate.
* * *
The complete lack of logic in this letter is laughable. Boortz posts a "letter to the editor" in response to an op-ed he wrote for the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation in which Boortz expressed the fact that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to health care.
Moron respondent equates that to Boortz giving up his freedom to keep and bear arms because Boortz can't by himself independantly develop all the science and engineering required to manufacture a firearm.
It is, of course, reductio ad absurdum: the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the right to purchase and own a firearm and its associated ammunition. The exercise of that right does not require the manufacturer of said firearm and ammo simply to give the product of his labor to Boortz, nor does the government get involved in the transaction when Boortz buys a gun.
It's pretty damn funny to read.
* * *
Maybe I'll emigrate to Switzerland when the shit hits the fan here. One reason is that they recently voted down muslim minarets; but this one takes the cake: "Every Swiss head of household has an automatic rifle and a thousand rounds of ammo for it, in his home."
It's the kind of factoid that floats around in my brain, unattached to anything, and then I realize that Switzerland has got to have one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the civilized world. I mean, you simply do not break into someone's house when you know there's a freakin' machine gun there, owned by someone who knows how to use the damn thing.
* * *
So a liberal "journalist" writes this editorial which supports socializing medicine, and it turns out to be full of holes. How interesting.
* * *
So as I said the other night I watched Chronicles of Riddick and had a bit of trouble with Crematorium, the planet where the surface is over 700° during the day and super-cold at night.
There shouldn't be any oxygen in the damn atmosphere, I thought; and then I realized that there could be some kind of silicon-based lifeform which liberates oxygen. (I assumed they meant 700°C, which is about 1,300°F; and that's hot enough for a silicon-based lifeform.)
There would have to be world-spanning horizontal hurricanes at the terminator, though. Hot enough to smelt iron on one side and cryogenic cold on the other means a huge temperature differential; as morning approached the wind would pick up, blowing towards sunrise. The velocity would be staggering; the wind would probably carry a person away.
...but it wouldn't have made for a good scene in a movie, so I get why they didn't do that.
It was really an entertaining movie, though. Now there's just one more I need to see.
Chronicles of Riddick was a gamer movie, anyway, and it was a fun watch. Vin Diesel plays D&D, did you know that? I wonder what it's like to play with him. I bet it rules.