December 17, 2009

Man-Made Global Warming Disappears, Found to Be Man-Madeup; The One-World Band in Copenhagen Plays On

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:06 pm

While we’re on the verge of promising some unspecified amount of money we don’t have to the developing world to “participate in a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 if a climate change compromise is reached,” the data underlying the entire premise of human-caused global warming has not only merely been discredited, it has most sincerely been discredited.

James Delingpole earlier this week wrote that “the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.”

Today, Joseph D’Aleo at Pajamas Media elaborated, and expanded the scope —

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

…. In the IEA report, there is a chart showing CRU’s selective use of 25% of the Russian data created 0.64C more warming than was exhibited by using 100% of the raw data. Given the huge area Russia represents (11.5% of global land surface area), this significantly affects global land temperatures.

…. Russia was not the only area that underwent cherry-picking, nor is CRU the only cherry-picker.

NOAA’s global climate database (GHCN) — according to CRU’s Phil Jones in …. (an) email — mirrors the CRU data under attack ….

…. And NASA uses the GHCN, applying their own adjustments ….

We know from the maps that NASA produces — produced using NOAA GHCN data — that Canada is largely missing. As is Greenland. The Arctic. Much of Africa. Brazil. And parts of Australia.

The data supposedly “supporting” the whole human-caused global warming presence really IS a bunch of globaloney. It proves nothing, except that virtually all of the major players involved in the enterprise are (or were) world-class con artists who have been caught dead to rights.

Yet at the Copenhagen charade Hillary Clinton today and Barack Obama tomorrow are unfazed, either oblivious to these inconvenient truths or more likely hostile to them. Because, as noted back in October, it has never really been about global warming. It has been about redistribution of wealth and power to a world body that looks, acts, and enforces its mission like a government — and eventually for all practical purposes becomes a government. By their statements and actions, I am forced to conclude that seeing this through is their mission, and obsession.


UPDATE: It’s a complete wipeout, and nothing is reliable, as these specifics from a Joseph D’Aleo column at PJM earlier this week show (the column’s subheadline is “The focus belongs not just on CRU, but on all of the organizations which gather temperature data. All now show evidence of fraud“) –

Climategate has sparked a flurry of examinations of the global data sets — not only at CRU, but in nations worldwide and at the global data centers at NOAA and NASA. Though the Hadley Centre implied their data was in agreement with other data sets and thus trustworthy, the truth is other data centers are complicit in the data manipulation fraud.

The New Zealand Climate Coalition had long solicited data from New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), which is responsible for New Zealand’s National Climate Database. For years the data was not released, despite many requests to NIWA’s Dr. Jim Salinger — who came from CRU. With Dr. Salingers’ departure from NIWA, the data was released and showed quite a different story than the manipulated data. The raw data showed a warming of just 0.06C per century since records started in 1850. This compared to a warming of 0.92C per century in NIWA’s (CRU’s) adjusted data.

Willis Eschenbach, in a guest post on Anthony Watts’ blog, found a smoking gun at Darwin station in Australia. Raw data from NOAA (from their GHCN, Global Historical Climate Network, that compiled data that NASA and Hadley work with) showed a cooling of 0.7C. After NOAA “homogenized” the data for Darwin, that changed dramatically (to a warming of 1.2C.

…. Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is station dropout after 1990. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today. The stations that dropped out were mainly rural and at higher latitudes and altitudes — all cooler stations. This alone should account for part of the assessed warming.

…. Is NASA in the clear? No. ….. They also constantly fiddle with the data. John Goetz showed that 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the 2 1/2 years ending in 2007.

And don’t forget that the custodians of the precious raw data have admitted that they’ve “lost” it (“The Dog Ate My Global Warming Homework).


UPDATE 2: Related, from Mark Steyn at The Corner in late November (links were in original) —

Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data.

Besides the temperature records, the other thing that needs to be reconstructed is any and all primary, secondary, and post-secondary education materials that claim any kind of scientific basis for the assertions that the past few decades have seen historically outsized global warming, and that human activity has been the major cause of it. There is none.

Tea Party Movement Tops Established Parties in NBC/WSJ Poll Despite Biased Question, Skewed Sample


Yesterday at NewsBusters, Geoffrey Dickens documented the furor of MSNBC’s Chris Mathews over the results of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (PDF).

Specifically, Mathews was irked that the Tea Party Movement (TPM) was viewed quite a bit more favorably than the two major political parties by those polled (VP=Very Positive; SP=Somewhat Positive; N=Neutral; SN=Somewhat Negative; VN=Very Negative; DK=No Opinion):

  • Tea Party Movement: VP-20%; SP-21%; N-21%; SN=10%; VN=13%; DK=15%
  • Democratic Party: VP-10%; SP-25%; N-19%; SN=19%; VN=26%; DK=1%
  • Republican Party: VP-5%; SP-23%; N-27%; SN=24%; VN=19%; DK=2%

Mathews dismissed the TPM’s convincing advantage over the established parties, especially in higher strong positives and lower strong negatives, as being the result of a biased poll question working in the Tea Partiers’ favor. I don’t think so. In fact, I think the result occurred even though the question is loaded against the TPM.

Here is the full text of the Tea Party poll question (Question 14b, Page 11; bolds are mine):

As you may know, this year saw the start of something known as the Tea Party movement. In this movement, citizens, most of whom are conservatives, participated in demonstrations in Washington, DC, and other cities, protesting government spending, the economic stimulus package, and any type of tax increases. From what you know about this movement, is your opinion of it very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative? If you do not know enough to have an opinion, please say so.

The words “most of whom are conservatives” didn’t belong in the question.

It was more than a little presumptuous, and may even be inaccurate, for NBC/WSJ to tell those polled that “most” TPMers are “conservatives.” First, the question’s wording works to create an advance negative impression among those — even liberals mugged by the reality of the Obama administration’s spending increases — who have been conditioned to be averse to anything described as “conservative.” Additionally, the TPM has a strong libertarian streak; many libertarians are disinclined to look favorably at anything characterized as “conservative.”

The use of “any type of tax increases” is also a cheap shot, especially given that many in the TPM support the creation of Fair Tax, a national sales tax that if implemented as intended would replace the income tax and many other taxes. It would be correct to say that vast majority of the TPM opposes “any net tax increases.” If the question was going to venture into that territory, it should have included that extra word.

Additionally, the poll question’s description of the movement totally ignored one of its primary motivations: protesting and eventually doing something about the pervasive corruption present in so many levels of government, regardless of which political party happens to be in charge. Any legitimate attempt to describe what the TPM is all about cannot leave corruption out of the equation.

By comparison, a similar question about the political parties was plain vanilla, and was strangely included in a series that asked about other “public figures” (Number 7, starting on Page 5; Democrats second, Republicans third), along with Barack Obama (apparently always asked first), Tiger Woods (fourth), and Sarah Palin (last):

Now I’m going to read you the names of several public figures, and I’d like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don’t know the name, please just say so.

Finally, no review of an establishment media poll would be complete without identifying obvious bias in the sample. At Question F4 on Page 20, we learn of the partisan makeup of the sample:

Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, or something else? (IF “DEMOCRAT” OR “REPUBLICAN,” ASK:) Would you call yourself a strong (Democrat/Republican) or not a very strong (Democrat/Republican)? (IF “INDEPENDENT,” ASK:) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party, closer to the Democratic Party, or do you think of yourself as strictly independent?

Strong Democrat – 22%
Not very strong Democrat – 8%
Independent/lean Democrat – 10%
Strictly Independent – 19%
Independent/lean Republican – 13%
Not very strong Republican – 9%
Strong Republican – 12%
Other (VOL) – 5%
Not sure – 2%

A sample with 22% strong Democrats only represents one thing: A sample that should be thrown out.

Mathews’s contention that the poll favored the TPM is self-evidently ludicrous on not just one but two levels.

The NBC/WSJ poll Mathews disputes as would have turned into a TPM rout if the movement had been properly described (or alternatively, not described at all), and if the poll’s sample had been truly representative.

Cross-posted at

Lucid Links (121709, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 9:03 am

In a year where no one person really stood out for accomplishing anything positively meaningful, Time had an obviously difficult task in naming a Person of the Year.

In picking Ben Bernanke, the magazine claims “he led an effort to save the world economy.”

Later, we read Bernanke is the guy who let Lehman Brothers fail, which “nearly croaked the global economy.”

What’s not stated is that letting Lehman fail was the “brilliant” call by Fed-New York head Tim Geithner, who is now Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary. If the world economy needed “saving” by Big Ben, it was because he didn’t stop Little Timmy.

While we’re on the topic, no one has ever made convincing case, even with Lehman’s failure, that the financial system faced a meltdown that required the blackmail-driven creation of TARP in early October 2008, or the mid-October gun to the head tactics of Hank Paulson.

We were all just supposed to assume in hindsight that the world economic system would have ended if TARP hadn’t passed. I don’t, and no one else should.

Update: Michelle Malkin — “The witlessness and un-wisdom of Ben Bernanke”


The real People of the Year are those in the Tea Party Movement.

From absolutely nothing just ten months ago, its everyday people have created a genuine grass-roots movement that is generically more popular than Democrats or Republicans. They have also politically engaged millions of people who had been relatively uninvolved.

The movement is so potentially powerful and threatening to the established order/disorder that sneering liberal pundits are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to smear them, while at least three of the nation’s leading conservative talkers are taking up an inordinate amount of air time lamely trying to discredit the idea of a third party.

I know it’s early, and of course once you put real people on ballots things can and will change. But an NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll (PDF; HT First Read via Instapundit) shows at Question 14b that the Tea Party Movement is seen positively by 41%-23% (20% very positive, 21% somewhat positive, and only 13% very negative) despite the related question’s incredibly loaded wording. In neutrally worded Question 7, the Republican Party’s analogous result is 28%-43% (only 5% very positive, and 19% very negative), while the Democrats come in with 35%-45% (only 10% very positive, and 26% very negative).

I don’t think any non-single-issue movement in American history has gained so much ground so quickly.

Update, Dec. 31: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air agrees.


A lot can change in a short amount of time, but based on the current political landscape, the preceding item demonstrates why this item (“Obama’s Gift to Republicans: Their Resurgence”) is a load of wishful thinking.

Positivity: Dad Delivers Baby With Help of Internet Search

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:59 am

From the UK (via Slashdot; HT to an e-mailer):

Published: 10 Dec 2009

DESPERATE dad Leroy Smith resorted to Google with the request “how to deliver a baby” when his wife went into labour.
He was so clueless when wife Emma suddenly started to give birth at home he opted to use the internet.

Mr Smith called a midwife for advice but before she arrived Emma, 25, began having powerful contractions.

So the 29-year-old grabbed hold of his BlackBerry, accessed the internet and sought help from search engine Google for step-by-step instructions.

And after following the detailed guide on the internet’s wikiHow Emma safely gave birth to daughter 6lb 11oz Mahalia Merita Angela Smith.

Five minutes after the delivery the midwife arrived to cut the umbilical cord of their fourth child.

Today proud Mr Smith said: “The midwife had checked Emma earlier in the day but contractions started up again at about 8pm so we called the midwife to come back.

“But then everything happened so quickly I realised Emma was going to give birth.

“I wasn’t sure what I was going to do so I just looked up the instructions on the internet using my BlackBerry.

“I was very, very nervous. I never thought I’d actually have to do it.

“The BlackBerry told me that when I saw the head, I had to support it.

“And when the baby actually comes out, I had to place her on Emma’s chest, then covered them both with a blanket and make sure they were both comfortable and relaxed.

“It was amazing. It was just us two in the house because the other kids were with their grandma – Emma’s mum.

“The midwife arrived about five minutes after the birth and told me I’d done good. She clamped the umbilical cord and I cut it.”

Mr Smith, a security guard, added: “I couldn’t believe I had done it and Emma was such a soldier, no pain relief or anything.

“I knew the midwife was on her way but Emma went into labour very quickly, the whole thing only took about 40 minutes.”

Leroy said before the birth of Mahalia on December 1, his wife disapproved of his BlackBerry because he was always playing with it but now she has “changed her tune”. ….

Go here for the rest of the story.