Think Quentin Tarantino instead of Frank Baum. When the curtain is pulled back, Oz has a gun. In an imaginary Tarantino version of the “Wizard of Oz,” Dorothy and her pals are in mortal danger for exposing the fraud which was the Wizard. But deception in our times does not lead to reflection and redemption, as it did in the Wizard of Oz. Instead, we witness a ruthless doubling down on the deception.
Within a week of the “hide the decline” revelations from the Wizards of Anglia, the climate warming ideologues and plutocrats went to DEF CON 1. In the ”fake but accurate” world of climate science, their Oz-like actions may have been unethical, unscientific, fraudulent, and non-replicable, but they are still the gospel truth, “so help us Richard Dawkins.”
So when Fox Special Report led this week with the story that the Obama EPA’s Lisa Jackson “decided” to finally use the “nuclear option” of regulating carbon as a pollutant, we had moved another step toward totalitarianism. Pick your literary metaphor, but even as the curtain was pulled back on climate science, the Obama Government stands firm. Government will use an undemocratically elected entity –the EPA — as the lead battalion to control theoretically up to 100% of our economy. They propose to replace cheaper energy with more expensive “clean” energy, with politically correct exceptions of course. When more capital and labor are needed to produce the same output, that means less wealth and income, not more. They do this with force at exactly the point in time when science demands prudence.
My job in real life is working with time series data. It is data in financial markets, but the analysis of time series data is the same everywhere. Rule number 1 for time series data: you must have a data base which is the repository for all raw and adjusted data. But the CRU has lost the raw data, or so they say. From where I stand, this is enough to say “get back to me when you find the data“. The same people we are supposed to believe can do the most complex of analyses (see my previous posts) have the ability to lose the data? Obama doesn’t have a problem with this? I thought he was the smart one.
Scientists cannot peer review the methods that were used to “convert” the raw data used to answer the most basic of questions; “what is the historical temperature record of the world?” To get a sense of how important this is, view the graph below. There are certain areas where there are records of raw and adjusted data.
The graph above represents an example of just such an upward temperature adjustment made in Darwin, Australia, (where they have rejected laws regulating carbon emissions). The black stair step line is the “adjustment factor”.No one knows how the this adjustment was made but it is inside the larger IPCC report. (Please go to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com for more details of this absurdity.) It is this kind of thing which peer review will answer.
The only true “clean data” the world has is the collected data from satellite measurements since 1979 in the lower troposphere. All other temperature records have to be converted from measured sources (devices from around the world known to exist subsequent to 1850) or derived from other sources such as tree rings and ice cores for periods prior (and subsequent) to 1850. The derivation of temperature from tree rings and ice cores are themselves subject to model error, let alone the conversion from the ”raw” tree ring data to ”homogenized” temperature–(for example, they might need to estimate the temperature of, say, the east coast from estimates from 500 year old trees on the west coast). The margin of error can be significant from these other sources. Thirty years of satellite data is a blip on the screen of history. As an aside, it is the same temperature this year as 1980. Yet, with non peer reviewed data, let alone any empirical predictive scientific experiments, Al Gore tells Sarah Palin the science is as settled as “gravity”. Its impossible to overstate this point. They do not have the data. Yet, the Copenhagen Gulfstream liberals tell us “the science is settled”.
But as Special Report’s Charles Krauthammer points out, this is really all about wealth transference, not saving the planet. People who believe the latter are the rubes, the marks, or the suckers — otherwise known as American taxpayers. From the UN’s perspective, it’s wealth transference from American taxpayers to the Emerging economies. From Gore and George Soros‘ perspective, it’s from American Taxpayers to “Green Entrepreneurs.” From the Academics’ perspective, it’s from the American taxpayers to their research grants. From Pelosi and Reid‘s perspective, it’s from the American Taxpayers to their political coffers, as they choose whom to dole out dollars to—based on their vision of what is “green.”
When you think about it, who cares about geeky details like “data”. It has never been about “data.” It’s always been about Oz with a Gun.