The folks at East Anglia are the godhead of climate research. NASA and NOAA are tied for a distant second.
Stand by! One moment please! Attention viewers and all the ships at sea: This just in (Dec 14th):
"Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Widely available data, existing in the public view for years, is now disappearing from public view."
formatting link
these are not "one group of scientists..." These are (ALL OF) the leaders of the climate change community (which isn't that large to begin with - there are only about ten of them). Admittedly 2,500 (or 10,000, I forget how many) scientists have boarded the Anthropogenic Global Warming bandwagon but, to carry your Christian metaphor forward, look how many true believers the twelve (or eleven) apostles (plus Saul of Kenya) managed to excite.
These investigators have ignored one of the cardinal rules of science: "When you've reached the bottom of the hole, quit digging" and you may have overlooked the first principle of public acceptance: "Fish rots from the head down."
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:26:02 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard scrawled the following:
Michael Mann and the East Anglia CRU crew, or parts thereof, come to immediate mind, sir. Haven't you been following that? They're funded for their output.
Algore and crew is another handful. The Brit courts mandated that no fewer that nine of his false claims in the movie had to be stated to the viewers before the movie could be shown in there schools. Brits have a horridly liberal/political school faculty, too. Gore is starting to rake in the carbon credit bucks now.
Paul Ehrlich and a crew for each of his totally defective and disproved books comes to several more handfuls. He was funded for his research and for his books. And the POS books of his are still for sale, ruining young minds anew.
James Hanson and computer modeling crew(s).
CRU admitted to _tossing_ raw data during the move to another building due to lack of storage space. No _real_ scientist in his right mind ever does that because it serves as a basis for your ongoing research. DUH! Now the CRU is saying that all the data can be replaced from original sources, but the collection they had which produced the data they put out will never be reassembled. I guess that's not too bad of a thing, as it will surely prove that the graphs they sent out were not created from the true data, but from a falsely created, manipulated set, nailing them to the wall.
Recommended to you by another alarmist, sir? "Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science" Science update or data update? Written by students at what Aussie school, er, University?
OK, they're claiming 2" of sea level rise over the past 15 years. Why isn't Florida under water? Why isn't everyone moving out of Hawaii, and off every other island in the world?
Executive Summary: 3.4mm/yr sea level rise.
formatting link
London Royal Society calculates net sea level rise in Australia at
1 mm/yr[22]?
formatting link
link)
Every report from the IPCC shows -diminishing- forecasts for doom. The first expected a 4.2 degree increase in global temps by 2100. The second 3.8, the third 3.5, the fourth 3.26 degrees C. Hansen thought it would rise 4.2 in '88 and revised it to 2.8 in '08. Monckton and crew say 0.5 degrees C rise by 2100. Slide 73.
These guys say the IPCC is underestimating everything. Hold onto your hat, Larry. They say the sky is, indeed, falling even faster than dreaded. NOT
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
Just corrupting an old 1980's hit by Thomas Dolby, "Blinded by Science". Primary refrain throughout the song is the single word, "SCIENCE!". Replacing that with the refrain, "CONSENSUS!" seems apropos.
Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.
She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)
Umm, yeah. You get to schedule the rainfall, there is very little danger of destruction by hail or other natural disasters. Yields are good and growing season is near ideal -- cotton loves hot.
Yeas ago (duh!) in one of Johnny Carson's monologs he said that California was the only state in the Union where one had to have an operator's license to own a home... earthquakes, mudslides ...
Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around. Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Of course not and they won't be asked to. The claim is these are "developing countries" and should'nt be burdaned with such a thing. The main target is the US as we are the biggest poluters. Maybe so as compared to, say, Germany. A quick look at any map and it should be obvious to any intelligent person why that is.
That's the famous argument put forth by Pascal to encourage belief in God. If there is no god, the cost of believing is small. If there IS a god, the rewards are immense.
In the environment case, it's just the reverse. If there IS global warming, the result of doing nothing is almost inconsequential (and may even be beneficial). If there is NO anthropogenic global warming, the cost of averting it is astronomical. The worst of both worlds is to reduce the human condition to one that is deprived, brutal, and short and STILL end up with global warming.
Consult a list of the GDPs of nations and economic zones. There's one in wikipedia.
The U.S.'s GPD is listed as being about 14.2 trillion dollars, China about 4.2 trillion, pretty close to that of Japan's at
4.9 trillion. This is pretty could performance for a country that's only recently begun industrializing and really participating on the world stage economically.
Interestingly, the CIA factbook now lists the European Union as having a larger GDP than the U.S., some 18 trillion dollars.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.