Dog Ate My Homework?

The Glowbull Wormening Cultists just keep getting funnier and funnier, and we’ll make no secret of the fact that Mad King Charles throwing his towel in with them (along with every other insane theory on the planet, birds of a feather and all that) only makes it so much more fun to ridicule the silly arses.

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, ..politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then again, we all already knew that the very last things that Glowbull Wormening Cultists are interested in are “facts.” They’ve made their conclusions based on where the grants are, the debate is over and anybody who criticizes them is a Holocaust Denier, Flat Earther something-or-other.

But if you think that this is hilarious, just wait. Faced with ever more loud requests that the Gore-ons produce the data upon which they built their Mad King Charles approved conclusion that Earth has heated up by 0.6 degrees over a whole century (which isn’t really anything to get excited about in the first place, even if it were actually true), they’ve come up with a new excuse.

“Erm, we’d love to give you the data, but we seem to have misplaced it. Really, honestly. It was here a minute ago. We were just about to mail it to you!”

Maybe those dastardly Reichwingers from Vlaams Belang stole it? Chucky would certainly believe it but, then again, he’s clinically insane.


  1. 1
    LOBO says:

    And why have we in the so-called heartland had the coolest summer in 10 years ??? Glowbullshit. Let’s not forgetin the past two years we have had “Two” massive winter storms. And the last one killed over 50 before FEMA stepped up….
    In that time I have not had power for a month, no net, useing whatever will burn to cook on…

  2. 2
    Elephant Man says:

    Have you noticed that the moonbat mantra has changed?

    It’s no longer “global warming”. (since evidence is mounting that the Earth is actually in a cooling phase)

    Now it’s “climate change

    Kind of like when the the moonbats changed the term “liberal” to “progressive”. :em99:

  3. 3

    “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    It’s called “peer review”. Perhaps they’ve heard of it…?

  4. 4
    americanexpat says:

    We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    Well, Europe had about 1400 years invested in the Ptolemaic theory of orbital mechanics before Copernicus came along. That still didn’t make Ptolemy right and Copernicus wrong. All that should matter is which theory better explains reality. Copernicus’ theory wasn’t perfect; it took Kepler 60+ years later to show that orbits were elliptical rather than circular, as Copernicus thought. But the groundwork was there on which Kepler could build. Global warming is looking more and more like epicycles these days.

  5. 5
    rabidfox says:

    Frankly, it was nonsense like that Phil Jones quote and the “The Science is setteled” mantra that first got me questioning AGW. Science – true science – just doesn’t work that way.

  6. 6
    Eyas says:

    Let’s not talk about the temperature record. Let’s talk about the past 2 years of cooling. Let’s talk about the thickness of polar ice. Let’s worry about relatively miniscule errors caused by the placement of today’s temperature sites. Let’s talk about sunspots. Let’s talk about the flatlining of the temperature record in the last 10 years. BUT DO NOT DISCUSS the simple fact that the original temperature record showing that the claimed 150 years of warming is complete BUNK … statistical garbage. We should all just assume that the last 150 years of warming is true and accurate. DO NOT QUESTION IT!!

    I’ve posted as many places as I’ve been able for three years that none of the other global warming discussions and debates matter. All that matters is that THERE NEVER WAS any global warming because the original temperature record — compiled by Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in the UK — is utter horseshit. To the best of my recollection, no one listened. Here’s one of the first posts I made two years ago on another site.

    There is NO credible evidence of warming temperatures
    by Eyas » 09/06/07, 2:05 pm

    My biggest peeve with Rush and all other radio hosts is that they all argue against global warming, and yet they ALL blindly accept that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years.

    At some time, you may have seen a graph that looks like this:

    (Sorry, graph didn’t copy)

    This graph ostensibly shows the “Global Average” temperature record since 1850. However, based on the underlying data, this is neither “Global”, nor is it an “Average”.

    This graph is on the IPCC website.
    On the very same page of the IPCC site is the “modified” data** from which the graph was derived.

    To illustrate the main problem with this data, I’d like you to imagine a piece of graph paper. Let’s say that the entire sheet has 100 grid-squares. Now imagine that I place numbers in sixteen(16) of those 100 squares. Then, in the remaining 84 squares, I write N.A. (not available). Now imagine that I ask you to calculate the average of all 100 squares. (If you can do this, please post your answer and how you arrived at it)

    Now, on the IPCC site, you can download the file HadCRUT3. If you open it, you will see a large volume of incomprehensible numbers. The important thing to note is this:
    The number “-1.000e+30” represents a 5o lat. x 5o long. grid-square for which there is Zero data. If you look at the data for January of 1850, you will notice that the IPCC has based their “Global”, “Average” temperature for that month on data from less than 16% of the planet’s surface.

    The data becomes more geographically widespread as time goes on, but there is simply not nearly enough data to be statistically valid until about the 1930’s or 40’s.

    One might say,”Well, so what? At least we have good data from the 30’s & 40’s onward.” Aside from the fact that that isn’t true (the data aren’t good); the point is that if I told you that global temperatures had gotten warmer over the last five(5) years, a reasonable person would reply, “So? We’ve had 2 or 3 warm years. That doesn’t make it a TREND.”
    How many years of data do you need to establish a statistically valid Trend?*** 10? 20? 50? More?

    There are other problems with this data, but the gist is this: if you need 150 years, or 100, or even 80 years worth of data to show a statistically significant TREND; the IPCC does not have it , because the first 70 or 80 years of their data is statistical nonsense.

    This data is taken from the work, in whole or in part, of one man – a Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University in the U.K.. This is THE SOURCE of all global warming claims made by the IPCC, Al Gore, and every other believer in global warming on Earth.

    ** To the best of my knowledge/ability, the “RAW” data is unobtainable.
    *** There IS a way to figure this out. Sadly, I’ve forgotten how, and my time-series analysis textbook has gone missing.
    ****In addition, the IPCC’s CO2 concentrations, and their sea-level data are likewise JUNK.

    Of course, this isn’t why I returned after saying I was leaving. I felt I needed to make one more post on a completely different subject. But, I saw this post and I couldn’t resist saying something on this subject, too.

    I’ll wait for an appropriate topic to come up to make my one other comment.

  7. 7
    Cannon Fodder says:

    I remember temperatures in the ’70’s being somewhat “mild” and slowly over the years it did seem to get hotter every year for quite some time. But, recently I was reading something that said that we just came out of a period of high sun activity. The sun is supposed to be moving into a sort of dormant phase; and the article said we would be experiencing a cooling over about the next 25 years, or something to that effect.

  8. 8
    bruce says:

    don’t we call climate change weather and we can predict maybe 5 or 10 days in advance.just take a look at geological data from 500,000,000 million years ago till now. what it shows is the planet gets warm and it gets cold in all that time with no humans around.take CO2 if the ocean is warm we have more CO2 if the oceans are cool we get less it is not CO2 that warms up the planet.when there has been a lot of CO2 we get a lot of plant growth so more is better.there is nothing humans can do or not do the will in any way change the temperature of the planet.the only reason for the glowbull worming bull shit is to harm america.

  9. 9
    anonymous hourly worker says:

    What horseshit. I remember being told in sixth grade how the new ice age was coming and that we were all going to freeze to death.

    don’t we call climate change weather and we can predict maybe 5 or 10 days in advance

    And that’s the true bitch about Glowbull warming. I’ll get excited when they figure out how to accurately forecast the weather for tomorrow, much less years and years from now.

  10. 10
    Cortillaen says:

    “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    Maybe because science, unlike the crap you try to pass off, is best summed up as “Observe, form a theory, then try to disprove your theory“, you arrogant dumbass. The fact that you have neglected the most important part of the process so badly that other people feel the need to do it for you would shame any real scientist to no end. Likewise, the fact that these farcical pretenders to the name feel the need to protect their supposed data from scrutiny, lest the light reveal countless errors and outright fabrications, should invoke a mandatory dismissal of their claims out of hand.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.