Motherlode Part V

7 Responses to Motherlode Part V

1. Robertv says:

   February 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm

   All Global BS

   http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

   -48 C -54 F

   Reply
   • Billy Liar says:

     February 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm

     -56°C -69°F now.

     Reply
2. markstoval says:

   February 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm

   This data tampering by government agencies must be criminal under U.S. law. The question is how to get anyone to charge those responsible with a crime so that there could be a court case.

   My god, a trial on this issue would be electrifying.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     February 23, 2014 at 1:29 pm

     The big problem with the US court system is the court can declare the person or entity has No Standing. Unfortunately this can be a rather arbitrary call.

     An Example: Monsanto Wins Again in Federal Circuit: Organic Farmers Have No Standing

     Yet the Starlink Corn fiasco, where cross pollination from a GMO corn contaminated neighboring fields of corn proves the Organic Farmer Certification is jeopardized by neighbors growing GMO crops near their farm.

     Starlink was certified only for use in cattle feed because it causes allergic reaction in humans. Despite being taken off the market a decade ago the genetics has just recently been found in Saudi Arabia. rt(DOT)com/news/banned-gm-resurfaces-saudi-arabia-074/

     Standing

     The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

     Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

     The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear “cases” arising under federal law and “controversies” involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

     Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.

     Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech……

     Reply
     • catweazle666 says:

       February 23, 2014 at 4:48 pm

       It strikes me that the best hope for a legal action concerning the apparent data tampering will occur if Mann loses his cases against Steyn and Ball, and Steyn’s $10,000,000 action against Mann proceeds.

       The resulting disclosure – especially with regard to the Climategate affair, may create the necessary chink in what appears currently to be an impenetrable shield that has been erected around the entire scam.

       Far too much money and far too many reputations are at stake. Hopefully, Mother Nature herself will intervene and it will become obvious to the meanest mentality – even politicians – that the AGW hypothesis is and always has been, totally false, and what started as honest scientific research has become utterly corrupted in the interests of dishonest politicians and financiers.

       Reply
3. RealOldOne2 says:

   February 24, 2014 at 3:55 pm

   Here are a couple other gems from the 1978 Angell etal paper:

   “This may reflect the existence of a close relation between atmospheric and oceanic temperature in the tropics, since it has been shown by Bacastow (1976) and Newell and Weare (1977) that there is a good correlation between sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific and rate of increase of CO2 , presumably because more CO2 is released from the oceans when they are relatively warm.” (p.767)

   Figure 11 is a good one too, as it shows a steady increase in CO2 but a decrease in surface temperature. (p.768)

   “In contrast to this near doubling of the rate of increase of CO2, the CO2 input into the atmosphere only increased by about 30% between the periods 1961-67 and 1967-74 (Baes et al., 1976), so factors other than emission rates appear to be involved in the overall CO2 growth rate“. (p.769)

   Reply
4. Joseph Dooley says:

   February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm

   The rationalization for this is that we didn’t know how to take reliable temperature readings until the ’80s. Somehow I doubt this.

   Reply