No joke. This is apparently what happened at CRU, one of the main sources of data for the global warming alarmist camp, according to the UK Times Online:
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.
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.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
And the response from “proper” scientists is understandably one of amazement:
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
One of the comments sums it up well:
“Dear Inland Revenue [ATO, IRS], I enclose my latest accounts. Please note that I accidentally destroyed all the original invoices but I promise they were all entered correctly. Honest!”
Read it here.
Whoever leads the Liberal party after Tuesday, it must not be Malcolm Turnbull. If he wins the leadership spill, it will only put off his execution until the inevitable apocalyptic defeat at the next election. But Malcolm Turnbull is blind to all of this, and blusters on in ever more extreme rhetoric:
Mr Turnbull this morning lashed out at his critics, in particular Tony Abbott, whom he will likely face in a leadership ballot on Tuesday, and Senate leader Nick Minchin.
“They are destroying the Liberal Party,” Mr Turnbull told Channel Nine. “There is a recklessness and a wilfulness in these men, which is going to destroy the Liberal Party.
“I will win on Tuesday. I am unbowed.
“Joe Hockey has told me as recently as last night that I have his complete support.
“I am not interested in becoming a mouthpiece or a patsy or a tool for people whose views are completely wrong and are contrary to the best interests of our nation, our planet and indeed the Liberal Party.
“If this issue is not resolved, the climate change war that Nick Minchin and his wreckers have started will continue to destroy the Liberal Party until such time as we are destroyed by Kevin Rudd in an election.”
Right result, wrong cause, pal. That will be the result if you remain leader. And I’m glad Hockey’s backing you – we don’t want Hockey as a leader – soft left, Turnbull-lite. So with luck it will be a straight fight between a deluded leader who is finished but can’t see it, and Tony Abbott. There is only one choice.
Read it here.
Because they don’t understand it. Thanks to this government, all they have heard is climate alarmism and the constant refrain that we need the ETS to “save the planet [for the sake of our children and grandchildren - Ed]“, even though it will do nothing for the climate whatsoever. The Herald Sun has some poll results that should make interesting reading for the Tony Abbott camp:
- 81% of Coalition supporters (74% overall) want the ETS delayed, which means only 26% of voters back the Rudd-Turnbull position
- 90% of Coalition supporters (80% overall) say they do not understand the ETS and want the government to explain it better (which they won’t, because then they will have to admit it will cripple Australia’s economy for no benefit)
- 73% of Labor voters are in the dark on the ETS!
The only way we will have this proper debate on the ETS is via a full blown election campaign. It is clear from this that the Australian public are finally wising up to the spin of Rudd & Wong, and that Malcolm Turnbull is completely out of step with the wishes of the electorate and his own party.
If the next election is a referendum on the ETS, there is no guarantee that Rudd would win.
Read it here.
UPDATE: Piers Ackerman writes:
IT’S a matter of grave concern for stalwart rank-and-file Liberal Party members that Malcolm Turnbull’s number one supporter for his global-warming stance is now no less a figure than Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, while his number two supporter is the former union leader, Greg Combet.
That the embattled Opposition leader enjoys such support underscores the anger of those Liberals who feel Turnbull has taken liberties with his leadership in supporting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s totally flawed emissions trading legislation.
The backing of a duo last united so publicly in their bid to prop up the historically corrupt Maritime Union of Australia’s stranglehold on the nation’s docks, has not gone unnoticed; and nor has Turnbull’s use of stalling tactics more usually applied in the spivvy world of corporate takeovers than party politics.
Read it here.
And a Poll on The West Australian’s website gives a 70/30 split against the amended ETS after 700 or so votes (see here) – thanks to reader Russ.
With all the ETS shenanigans going on, one tends to forget about the debate on climate science itself, and the flimsiness of foundations on which all global warming alarmism is based. Dr Roy Spencer lists his ten top annoyances, and Kevin and Penny would do well to read these, as they blindly believe anything the IPCC says:
Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.
- The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.
- “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.
- The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review. [Read more...]
Which, given Kevin Rudd’s usual form in these things (think “no special deal for Sri Lankans”), means he will probably call a double dissolution on January the first.
“I’ve been elected by the Australian people to implement our mandate including the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We intend to get on with the business of doing that,” he said.
“I’ve said consistently going back a long long time that my belief is the Australian people expect us to fill a full term. My view on that has not changed.”
Read it here.
Malcolm Turnbull is sounding more and more like Kevin Rudd every day:
Mr Turnbull said he had a message to all Australians and the Liberal Party: “We have a duty to our country, to our planet, to our children to take effective action on climate change.”
“I respect the views of those who believe we don’t need to … but it is not responsible to proceed on the basis that there is nothing to be concerned about.”
Mr Turnbull said he understood the government’s frustration given an agreement had been reached on the ETS and negotiations conducted in good faith.
“What does it say about the character of the Liberal Party if, having entered into an agreement, we were to simply say we have changed our mind, we are going to renege on that deal. How could you trust us?”
Read it here.