Fausta’s Blog

Ooooh yeah, babeee….

Vanity Fair heaps praise on the Vanderbilt Divinity School drop-out and self-ordained pope of the cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Al Gore: The Poet Laureate of Climate Change

Among the brilliance shared by Gore is this (not sure what to call it),

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

Vanity Fair asks “Is Gore himself that shepherd?” He probably sees himself as the sheperd who will lead us like meek sheep to the promised land, along with the help of countless media tools like Vanity Fair, and other ones like the people who awarded him the Nobel Prize, and the hardcore believers who don’t want us to breathe because we exhale CO2.

On the breathing, Roger Kimball urges us, Don’t Hold Your Breath! Humans for Respiration, Unite! While you’re still allowed to breathe, hold on to your wallet: The AGW farce will cost us plenty, as you can see in these two articles,

James Pethokoukis writes on The EPA and Obama’s Uncertainty Tax

the only thing certain about the EPA ruling is more regulatory uncertainty leading to less economic growth and fewer jobs. Bad news, to be sure, for American businesses already flummoxed by the mercurial state of healthcare, financial and tax reform. Call it Obama’s Uncertainty Tax.

While a cap-and-trade bill has already passed the House of Representatives, few Capitol Hill observers expected the Senate to approve one, even by the end of 2010 thanks to the anemic economy and political risks for incumbent Democrats facing midterm elections. What’s more, expectations of a more Republican-leaning congress after 2010 made it seem like economy-wide carbon caps were sliding off the Obama agenda for the foreseeable future.

But now it’s conceivable carbon restrictions would be implemented as early as next year – even though the EPA itself admits its efforts would be more disruptive and less efficient than congressional action. Such an optimistic timetable assumes no legal challenges. But there will be plenty of those. Already, business groups are preparing to file suit against the EPA. It could fall to U.S. courts to determine the future of the nation’s approach to climate policy. This is a nightmare scenario for the private sector when it comes to planning for new expansion or hiring. Note that the big problem with the job market at the moment is not so much job losses and zippo new jobs being created. It will take a year of 4 percent growth adding 250,000 jobs a month to lower the unemployment rate to 9 percent.

Of course, about the only thing worse than regulatory uncertainty would be for the EPA to follow through with its top-down, command-and-control approach to dealing with perceived climate change.

While we’re dealing with that, the tools at the UN want our money: William Jacobson has the details, UN Climate Chief to US: “Show Me The Money”

Jacobson points out,

None of this is surprising. The global climate change industry is all about shaking the dollars and cents out of our pockets. From Al Gore’s profiteering off of the hysteria he has created, to the large corporate interests involved in selling “green” as a marketing tool, to researchers willing to stifle debate and tamper with data so as to justify funding, to an internationalist movement interested in transfer of wealth as a social policy, the global climate change debate is all about showing the money.

The “show me the money” line is from the movie Jerry Maguire, about a desperate sports agent willing to do anything. So fitting that the UN climate change guru now uses such a crass phrase

Perhaps the UN guy’s been reading Shakespeare, where Iago, one of the great villains, says,

Put money in thy purse; follow thou the wars; defeat thy favor with an usurp’d beard. I say put money in thy purse.

Thing is, that’s our money he’s talking about.

UPDATE, Thursday 10 December
Defused Lethal Al Gore Poem Released by Government

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Hmmm…. three years…

As A J Strata said,

You don’t invest 3 years rechecking into a supposed emergency unless the picture is really that bad. It is really that bad.

Why is the Met Office’s review important?

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

We’ll see how their analysis turns out. I share Richard’s skepticism, who asks, Three years to wait?

And Stewart rips the “value-added data”, even when he apparently still hopes we weren’t scammed.

Instapundit posted that video, along with another item, from P. J. Gladnick of NewsBusters:
Over at the HuffPo, Huffington Post Suffers ClimateGate Panic Attack since, even when the AGW gig is up, their mind was already made and can’t be confused with the facts. The HuffPo blogger even came out with this beaut:

RealClimate also explained that “the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.

Being irony-poor liberals, the HuffPo crowd can’t seem to realize that whores also do “tricks”, for exactly the same purpose.

Also via Instapundit, Trust Science
A few general truths to keep in mind in the wake of Climategate.

2. Trust science, but don’t trust scientists.

And, if it can’t be reproduced, it ain’t science.

(Oh, and by the way, Al Gore did not invent the internet.)

Lots more reading:
The Anchoress is Staying on top of Climategate, and she’s got a great roundup, in addition to this video:

The University of East Anglia scientists found the shortest distance between the facts and the results they were looking for: when the data didn’t fit, they dumped it.

Climate change data dumped

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.

Why does this matter?

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.

How come?

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.

So much for the scientific method.

No science is possible, then:

So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few “scientists” whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

Well, Obama’s heading to Denmark.