Huckleberries Online

TGIF Wild Card — 12.4.09

Posted by DFO

Dec. 4, 2009 5:37 p.m. • 81 comments

For those keeping score at home, Huckleberries Online topped 1.9 million page-views for the year on Thursday. This blog now has approximately 94,000 page-views to go to hit the magic number of 2 million for the year. Which should be doable. As always, thanks for your tips, comments, blogs, and blurking that keeps this piece of the blogosphere hopping. Now, for your re-posted Wild Card …

81 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Pecky on December 04 at 10:57 a.m.
USA in group C for the worldcup with - England Algeria and Slovienia!! Cmon! PIECE OF CAKE - go USA!
lewis8457 on December 04 at 11:03 a.m.
I have learned a few things this week.

My life is not worth as much as a Policeman’s.

My life is not worth as much as a Fire mans.

My life is not worth as much as my Mayors.

My life is not worth as much as the city paid meter readers.

My life is not worth as much as the city paid trash haulers,

Who am I, I am private sector worker in Spokane Washington
Cindy_H on December 04 at 11:03 a.m.
Certain parties have expressed concern because I want to get Milo’s picture taken with Santa.
It’s his first Christmas, and lines are being drawn.
Some (okay, just Sam so far) say, “Of course you should get his picture taken with Santa!”
Others say that is the dividing line between “crazy cat lady,” and lady with a cat.
What say you?
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 11:17 a.m.
cuckoo, cuckoo. :)
Bent on December 04 at 11:19 a.m.
two members of the Academy want to revoke Al Gore’s Oscar for Inconvientient Truth:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Poliwood/Climategate_Hits_Hollywood%3A_Should_the_Academy_Rescind_Gore%27s_Oscar%3F/2780/;jsessionid=abcowwO-8vPzC5mPVAyvs
nic on December 04 at 11:20 a.m.
I was thinking the same thing, CB.
moscow_minidoka on December 04 at 11:20 a.m.
Speaking of cuckoo, what’s with Lewis’ abuse of the Wild Card at the very top? It’s not the content, it’s the word count… sooo many woooords.
OrangeTV on December 04 at 11:39 a.m.
Top 10 reasons why the CDA Press online is more fun to read than Mad Magazine:

1. Actual headline: “Tough Toenails Tended”.

2. Two words: Fish Tips.

3. The story about the D Street “beauty” and her burst boobie, especially the line “”Because she was drunk, short, and ugly,” the victim told police for the reason behind her assailant’s attack.”

4. The scrolling banner at the top of the page soliciting Moms to upload photos and tell stories. What about Dads? Are their photos and stories all just uninteresting crapola?

5. Actual photo caption: “Christian Horton, right, and Makenzie Pickles watch from their spot on Saturn as their second grade classmates at Seltice Elementary race to see how many trips they can make from the sun to Neptune during a science exercise…”

6. Mary Souza, who claims to hold such high ethical standards, asserting repeatedly that approximately 10 different commenters are all Thom George under different names, thereby attempting to out anonymous posters, one of the most non-ethical, sleazy things one can do in an online forum. Naturally, the supposed moderator doesn’t seem to give a toss.

7. The letter to the editor that spends four paragraphs doing complex mathematical equations to ultimately complain that the yellow lights on US95 ought to be 2 seconds longer.

8. This kind of thing: W�o�m�a�n� �s�c�r�a�p�i�n�g� �t�o�g�e�t�h�e�r� �f�u�n�d�s� �t�o� �m�o�v�e� �m�o�b�i�l�e� �h�o�m�e� �a�f�t�e�r� �e�v�i�c�t�i�o�n

9. Also scrolling across the screen near the top of the page: “Hospitality STATELINE SHOWGIRLS NOW HIRING FCocktail Waitresses FBartenders FBeverage Servers FDancers Apply In Person I-90, Exit 299”

10. For the extremely sadistic: “Interested in being a comment moderator on CDAPress.com?
If so, contact Richard.”
JohnA on December 04 at 12:36 p.m.
10. For the extremely sadistic: “Interested in being a comment moderator on CDAPress.com?
If so, contact Richard.”

OTV, if you think they’d let any of us moderate comments there, I’d say you don’t know Dick. :)
BethB on December 04 at 12:47 p.m.
@Bent - that Gore should give back Oscar for Inconvientient Truth

Is that anything like Omniscient Truth? Or Incontinent Truth? Is it the French version of the movie?

@Cindy - get the photo! get the photo! Keep in mind, however, that this is advice from someone who some people DO secretly call the Crazy Cat Lady.

And in other news - and the link by Lizard in the body of the WC above - OMG. Really. O. M. G.
DFO on December 04 at 12:49 p.m.
Mebbe I should volunteer to be a comment moderator at the Press Online. I could clean up that site in a weekend. After all, I ran most of the usual suspects out of here three years ago. Then, I don’t think the Press wants a civil site.
Bent on December 04 at 1:06 p.m.
Yeah, i’ve been pretty sloppy with the typos and spelling lately…without Kage around it’s much more noticable
Lynne on December 04 at 1:11 p.m.
Can someone help me find a link? I used to have a page bookmarked that showed gas prices at different places around CDA. I can’t find it now.
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 1:30 p.m.
DFO, you might be giving yourself a wee bit too much credit. Bob ran off more than one. Trish ran off another.

But on another note, please front page Bent’s wonderful treatise on the death of AGW from last night. It is well worth the attention. Heck, anything that can silence Sis and Spooke for a day is gotta be something.
moscow_minidoka on December 04 at 1:31 p.m.
Yeah, what happened to Kage anyway? I’ve been ill and away from my computer, but I noticed he seems to be MIA - is he out helping overturn the CDA election?

Not saying I *miss* him…
Cindy_H on December 04 at 1:43 p.m.
Thanks Beth.
/ignoring CB and nic
Here’s more pressing question:
To glitter or not?
The mister and I are attending a “Holiday Bash” tonight. There’ll be a DJ, no-host bar, appetizers etc.
The instruction “dress business casual” appeared on my reservation confirmation.
I know for guys that means no tie or jacket needed, but what about ladies?
I’ve got some serious holiday glitter I only wear once a year, but now I’m thinking maybe I should stick with slacks and a blouse.
But. I like my glitter.
Thoughts?
spokelooneh on December 04 at 1:45 p.m.
Glitter, definitely.
Sisyphus on December 04 at 1:49 p.m.
“Heck, anything that can silence Sis and Spooke for a day is gotta be something.”—you might be giving Bent a wee bit too much credit. Can’t speak for Spoker but I’m not around 24/7 to correct the misguided. But I did respond. I’m glad you think he’s a champion for your pre-conceived conclusions, but then you might need to look a little more closely than your cursory partisan glance.
Joker on December 04 at 1:52 p.m.
GO GLITTER OR GO HOME.
nic on December 04 at 1:58 p.m.
@ Cindy…

Aw, don’t ignore me… it’s the comenter above you that I consider cuckoo.

My two cents: 1 - dress the cat up as santa and take a picture at home. It’d make a fantastic avatar and is far better than a weirded out santa at the mall. 2 - glitter. Do it. And if it doesn’t get on your Mister, you’re not wearing enough. Wear enough glitter that you’re still finding it in curious places three months from now.
Smacky on December 04 at 2:00 p.m.
Death of AGW? Reports of its death has been greatly exaggerated. Except of course in the minds of those who never gave it life or thought in the first place.
JeanC on December 04 at 2:04 p.m.
What is AGW??????
Smacky on December 04 at 2:06 p.m.
anthropogenic global warming - or human contributed global warming
Bent on December 04 at 2:16 p.m.
“—you might be giving Bent a wee bit too much credit.” — Sis

I actually think agree with you, Sis.
JeanC on December 04 at 2:25 p.m.
Thank you Smacky, I am terrible when it comes to figuring out acronyms :P
Sisyphus on December 04 at 2:34 p.m.
“I actually think agree with you, Sis.”—you and I agree more than we disagree on a variety of things. I certainly respect your opinion.
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 2:38 p.m.
Sis, Bent is not my champion, but it was a well thought out balanced answer. Thought that deserved a front page, but I guess we will have to settle for more press bashing.
Bent on December 04 at 2:52 p.m.
“I certainly respect your opinion. ” — likewise

Hey Cabbage here is twist: http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851637.ece
spokelooneh on December 04 at 2:54 p.m.
“But on another note, please front page Bent’s wonderful treatise on the death of AGW from last night. It is well worth the attention. Heck, anything that can silence Sis and Spooke for a day is gotta be something.”

As I recall, Bent gave a good analysis of the political ramifications of this manufactured controversy.

And his final thought on the matter led to a youtube video of a science teacher who DEFINITELY believes in AGW and makes the case in series of videos which I watched last night as to how he (and the overwhelming majority of top climate scientists) have come to that conclusion, and that by doing the things necessary to curb AGW, it will have a net positive effect whether or not the severe consequences happen. He also, time after time, says don’t believe him, but check it out for yourself. And he’s humorous and self-deprecating.

“Look. Anyway you look at the question of global warming, the stakes seem to be the whole world.

The skeptics promise global economic DOOM if we take hasty action on an unproven question. The activists warn of global climate DOOM if we don’t take immediate action on an imminent threat. And the only way to know for sure who’s right is to let the experiment play itself out.

Unfortunately, we’re in the test tube. So there’s got to be a better way to go about this besides shouting at each other.”

http://www.gregcraven.org/
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 3:04 p.m.
“So there’s got to be a better way to go about this besides shouting at each other. ”

Indeed. But all we got until now was a closed door that said “We got Consensus.”

I am not predicting Global economic doom. I am sure China would fare quite nicely if we cripple ourselves. I just don’t wanna make laws based on political pandering to the large green machine.
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 3:06 p.m.
Heh, Bent, I think that activity will lead to increased global warming. Especially when the Mrs. back home finds out.
Sisyphus on December 04 at 3:14 p.m.
“I just don’t wanna make laws based on political pandering to the large green machine.”—then how about we make policy on the best science available. I’m still trying to figure out what this massive green conspiracy is. Is this some Soros funded outfit hellbent on dismantling Exxon so they can give the Alaska pipeline to Caribou for safe passage? It would seem to me that avoiding the consequences of man caused climate change dovetails nicely in the non-partisan goals of reducing our dependence on foreign oil not to mention the maintenance of a clean environment. All these matters of public policy scream for attention. If you’re looking for conspiracy, howzabout I throw one of your favorite phrases back at you, and ‘follow the money’ to those who benefit from the status quo.
simpleton on December 04 at 3:20 p.m.
I was listening to the BBC this morning about the leaked e-mails on climate change. They made an interesting point about the upcoming summit/conference on climate change. The one country that is in the forefront of using the e-mails to brand global warming as a hoax? Saudi Arabia! Anyone wanna guess why?
poolman on December 04 at 3:23 p.m.
@Cindy - are you talking glitter as in the kind that comes in a bottle or are you referencing an outfit that has some glittery elements like sequins or maybe rhinestones? My experience with Christmas time parties is this - you can never over-dress, but you can easily under-dress. Get your glitter on - both kinds- and make sure the mister wears a jacket – and avoid mixing alcohols – try to stick to vodka and Red-Bull if possible– Ha Ha - just kidding.
spokelooneh on December 04 at 3:28 p.m.
Even Exxon has changed it’s tune in recent years, I think they realized their ties to the overtly demagogic and non-scientific political deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute was no longer tenable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html
Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 3:35 p.m.
“then how about we make policy on the best science available.”

Exactly Sis. And tell me with a straight face that this scandal doesn’t expose the AGW crowd as not the best science available?

Not sure where you are going with the straw man, but make sure he wears a jacket. It’s cold out.

I am all for finding alternative fuels. Many are in the works and some may be a good way to wean off oil. But government over-regulation isn’t gonna help them develop any faster.

I would turn it back to you, forcing the AGW politic, cap and trade, et al dovetails quite nicely with socialistic agendas.
Cindy_H on December 04 at 4:07 p.m.
nic, since you have such fabulous advice, I shall take it and not ignore you.

Poolman: I’m going for the glitter— golden glitter, augmented by the special glow that comes good wine, hopefully good music, and holiday cheer.

Cuz tomorrow I may not be glowing so much.
Just saying.
Sisyphus on December 04 at 4:18 p.m.
“And tell me with a straight face that this scandal doesn’t expose the AGW crowd as not the best science available?”—IT DOES NOT! That’s been the point since the story broke. Its a convenient red herring to be exploited by the flat earthers like Jim Inhofe, his Oklahoma oil fields and their obedient hacks. It will be fodder for the media debate but the scientific community still has multitudes of other studies pointing to big trouble in this century. Moreover the underlying data on this specific study may still support the same or similar conclusion had the boneheads not sexed up their graphs. Nobody is arguing this wasn’t a glaring ethical lapse but it does very little to show that man caused climate change is a fraud as Hannity put it.

“Many are in the works and some may be a good way to wean off oil”.—in the works, that’s funny. maybe you should watch this movie to refresh your recollection on why policy matters.

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

Ooooooh. That fictitious Republican demon “socialistic” agenda. Funny how Republicans trot word that out when when a factual consequence eludes them. For example I’m quite amused how Republicans are now the convenient champions of Medicare in the HCR debate, when they sponsored proposals in the last few years to do in this ‘entitlement’ program. You do much better when you lose the rhetoric and at least grapple with reality.

Glitter!
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 4:40 p.m.
Sis >> “Ooooooh. That fictitious Republican demon “socialistic” agenda. Funny how Republicans trot word that out when when a factual consequence eludes them.”

What is it called when the Government owns businesses? Like AIG. City, and Gm? Socialism has indeed showed its presence. That is not opinion, its fact. Your spin is great for the ‘foot soldiers’ but doesn’t work here. Sorry.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Sisyphus on December 04 at 4:58 p.m.
Where did you get that somewhat erroneous definition? To paraphrase: “its the hypocrisy, stupid.” Educating you is so tedious sometimes. Speaking of education, where were you educated? Who protects your family from those evil Muslim hordes? Who puts your fires out? Who built the roads you ride on? Who enforces the laws? Do you haul your garbage? You collecting Social Security? And how about those faith based initiatives?

Here’s a much more comprehensive list of specific examples of entrenched Republican hypocrisy on “socialism”.

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200904230006
Bent on December 04 at 5:00 p.m.
CB, here is the problem I have with the international treaty and how it “appears” it is going to work with cap and trade. (I only say “appears” because our cap and trade system has yet to pass congress and coould change significantly before it does)

Anyway, next week China is expected to announce that they will reduce their “Carbon Intensity” by 40-45%. This means if China’s GDP grows by 10% next year and greenhouse gas emissions only grow by 9% they will get credit for reducing their “intensity” by 1%, but their greenhouse “emissions” are actually still climbing.

Obama plans to announce his commitment to reducing “carbon emissions” by 17% lower than our 2005 emissions.

(I’m still researching this, so this is merely my theory),

The way I understand this so far is our domestic manufactures’ emissions will actually be capped and our US companies will actually have to reduce emissions from current levels to earn carbon credits, OR they have to buy credits on the market to expand if they cannot…

Now, if you are an American company that manufactures goods in China, you will get carbon credits for reducing your “intensity” to help China attain its goal. What I don’t know yet is if these credits will be equal in value to the credits earned by domestic manufacturers who actually reduce carbon emissions. If they are, that would create a huge incentive to move manufacturing to China.

Still even if you take the credits (or value) out of the mix, it will be easier to expand in China under their intensity reduction program for sure… Like I said, I am still tracking this and more will be be revealed when the climate summit begins monday.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 5:07 p.m.
Sis >> “Where did you get that somewhat erroneous definition?”

Merriam-Webster, Sis. That is THE common accepted definition. Sorry, you can’t spin you way out of this one.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 5:11 p.m.
Bent. The problem is that we (USA) would tax and commit to global reductions and actually make progress. The developing Countries would give it lip service and likely do little at all. So, without their compliance, which is doubtful, it drains our economy and there is no net improvement. The developing Countries pollute lots more than we do.
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 5:29 p.m.
Peggy Noonan on the Obama speech on Afghanistan ….

“But there was too much “I” in the speech. George H.W. Bush famously took the word “I” out of his speeches—we called them “I-ectomies”—because of a horror of appearing to be calling attention to himself. Mr. Obama is plagued with no such fears. “When I took office … I approved a long-standing request … After consultations with our allies I then … I set a goal.” That’s all from one paragraph. Further down he used the word “I” in three paragraphs an impressive 15 times. “I believe I know,” “I have signed,” “I have read,” “I have visited.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574311658007036.html
zelda on December 04 at 5:33 p.m.
I’m swerving off the road (figuratively speaking). KREM just aired a portion of the 911 call of the Mead, WA, woman’s call to 911 while being stabbed to death.

The day this happened, I included a paragraph in my blog post on HBO about how I hope to never hear this audio, but then I deleted it before posting, thinking, surely, surely, no TV station would ever do this. But they did.

Gabbie Ibbs was horrified and urged everyone to clear children from the room beforehand. Reality TV — who needs Bravo?
hmoffsuite on December 04 at 5:44 p.m.
Rep. Issa: Obama’s refusal to investigate ‘Climategate’ emails is ‘unconscionable’
By Tony Romm - 12/04/09 12:52 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70653-rep-issa-white-house-refusal-to-investigate-climategate-is-unconscionable-
Bent on December 04 at 6:30 p.m.
“Moreover the underlying data on this specific study may still support the same or similar conclusion had the boneheads not sexed up their graphs.” — sis

Sis, it was much more than that and the emails prove that out. They manipulated the data to create an “unexplained” delta between the model projections and the actual measurables. They ruled out every cause for this anomoly and concluded that it could only be human generated CO2 that caused the delta, but of course we will never know for sure if it is real science because THEY BLANTANTLY DESTROYED THE ‘EFFIN DATA…

That goes right to the heart of this email thing. What motivates the so-called leading scientists to cover their tracks like this? Of all people, they know darn well that they should be documenting how they processed the raw data and — unless the exact same data can be obtained again — they know they had to preserve it for peer review. They tossed it, man. That doesn’t bother you?

Nevertheless, now, we only have two choices:

1) accept thier value-added data as fact and proceed forward without legitimate peer review…

2) start over and document the process so it can be legitimately peer reviewed…

Personally, I am leaning toward #2.They obviously had a reason for flouting the most basic steps of data management on a such a huge global issue
hhuseland on December 04 at 7:28 p.m.
Cindy, I’m going with the tried and true, “If you got it, flaunt it.” You’ve got so you go, girl.
hhuseland on December 04 at 7:33 p.m.
I whipped over here to the wild card crazed with the notion that I would make a world shaking difference if only I could reach the Huckleberries wild card. I made a huge mistake. I first read all of the posts. all 47 or so of them. By the time I got to the bottom, I’d totally forgotten the world shaking comment I would have posted if I only hadn’t forgotten it. With that, I’m reasonably sure that the world is probably better off without it anyway.
hhuseland on December 04 at 7:36 p.m.
Ah … I just remembered. I was going to post a quote from Ronald Reagan.
“I have wondered at times about what the ten commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. congress.”

Well, would you believe some that is actually happening?
Ashley on December 04 at 7:52 p.m.
Two weeks.

Two weeks until I’ll be able to sleep a full 8 hours, much less 4, each night without feeling guilty or anxious about getting everything that needs done finished.

Two weeks until I’ll be able to sit and finish a good book and warm drink without having to constantly check the time to make sure that I get where I need to be on time.

Two weeks until I have no more deadlines and no more interviews for three whole weeks.

Two more weeks until I no longer have to fight the snow, ice, wind and bitter cold from my wheelchair everyday.

Two more weeks until I’m without the two people I trust most in this world for three weeks.

Two more weeks until I realize that while I desperately need a break I’m going to be mighty lonely for the next three weeks without my amazing friends.

What do your next two weeks look like?
JeanieSpokane on December 04 at 7:57 p.m.
Ashley, if I lived in Coeur d’Alene, I’d help you through the snow. If you need something - send out an SOS on HBO and one of us will be there!
Ashley on December 04 at 8:05 p.m.
Thank you, Jeanie! It really is very sweet of you :-) I’m stuck in Moscow for two more weeks though.

The thing I miss the most about Coeur d’Alene?

Java’s Bowl of Soul
Bent on December 04 at 9:32 p.m.
Oh, this is going to be good. Obama appears to be signaling a potential agreement:

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/04/obama-shifts-date-of-copenhagen-visit/
spokelooneh on December 04 at 10:02 p.m.
“The developing Countries pollute lots more than we do. “
-HMO

Well perhaps they do, although what were talking about was greenhouse gasses that are believed to be causing AGW.

” * China produced 6,017 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

* The United States are second with 5,902 million metric tons.

* Russia is third with 1,704 million metric tons.

* India is fourth with 1,293 million metric tons.

* Japan is a close fifth with 1,246 million metric tons.

* Germany is sixth with 857 million metric tons.

* Canada is seventh with 614 million metric tons.

* The United Kingdom is eight with 585 million metric tons.

* South Korea is ninth with 514 million metric tons.

* Iran is tenth with 471 million metric tons.

http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/largest_producers_of_greenhouse_gas_emissions#ixzz0Yn2OSW84

I would count the US, Japan, Germany, Canada, UK, and South Korea as “developed” nations. They account for 9718 million metric tons. That’s six out of top ten countries.

China, Russia, India, and Iran I would call developing countries, although Russia might not belong on that list. These four countries account for a total of 9485 million metric tons.

When I learned math, 9718>9485.

So saying the developing world is producing more greenhouse gasses than the developed world is false.

China is a problem in this area however, since they’re building dirty coal burners as fast as possible.
spokelooneh on December 04 at 10:04 p.m.
“They tossed it, man. That doesn’t bother you?”

Bent, what is your authoritative source that “they” tossed the data?
Bent on December 05 at 12:16 a.m.
The Climatic Reaserch Unit of UEA admiitted it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Bent on December 05 at 12:36 a.m.
“China is a problem in this area however, since they’re building dirty coal burners as fast as possible.” —spoke

They are preparing for an expansion of their economy. They are the #1 GHG polluter. They are richer than us right now. Yet, they are allowed to join the developing countries category and expand their emissions? There is something seriously wrong with that in my book?
spokelooneh on December 05 at 12:42 a.m.
Bent, you relied on ONE source for this?

The Times of London is wrong and has committed a journalist sin of omission in order to mislead.

From an Oct. 14 report:

“Citing a statement on the research unit’s Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the “suspicious destruction of its original data.” According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

***”When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” ***Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”“

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

So tell me again what data were destroyed, and how is it significant?
spokelooneh on December 05 at 1:11 a.m.
Well perhaps you don’t believe Jones. So lets see who else says the data destruction claim is bunk:

From the University’s Dec. 1 press release:
” … CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate

Do you think this guy’s lying too? Because he’s putting his butt on the line if he is.

No, the rational conclusion is that this Vice Provost at the University is telling the truth, and this whole “destroying data” meme is simply a political hatchet job.

The only data that was destroyed, if you want to call it that, is data that would have EXAGGERATED the effects of AGW by including stations that were being modified by the urban heat effect. IF they had included that data, wrongly, it would have shown an even higher level of temps.
spokelooneh on December 05 at 1:25 a.m.
“They are richer than us right now. Yet, they are allowed to join the developing countries category and expand their emissions? There is something seriously wrong with that in my book?”
-Bent

Well, on a per capita basis, they’re WELL below us and the rest of the developed world. Like us, they have huge coal reserves.

Unlike us, they manufacture huge amounts of non-GHG producing solar panels, both thermal and PV. And they will soon overtake Germany in the installed base of such.
Bent on December 05 at 9:07 a.m.
““Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

That is pretty clear to me. So I am supposed to accept Jone’s spin on this. And the Greenwire story is more credible that the London Times? Typical response. Your source is better than mine…blah,blah,blah.

Dr. Jones is the source in the “Greenwire” story. He is also the main guy in question here. The emails show quite clearly that he doesn’t believe the world has the right to review and criticize his work, yet you are willing to take his story on the destruction of the data at face value, hmmm.

Your second source: “Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.”

We could play link wars all day on this, but the fact is they admit they destroyed the data they can’t account for 5% of that… without the remain 5% how are you supposed to recreate their work?

It’s been conceeded, man.

You may be Ok with their spin ” Trust us… the value-added data is fine…” and “95 % of the data is close enough.” After the research I have done, I am not…

The issues will be investigated along with others, and I’ll be interested to see the results of that. Until then, I am on to Copenhagen.
Bent on December 05 at 9:21 a.m.
So, let me get this straight, Spoke… you are fine with China, the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gas, being allowed to continue increasing their emissions (albeit at a slower rate) while they expand their economy, but the untied states in going to start rolling back our emissions and make our employers pay to expand in our country.

And it’s ok because they produce solar panels and we don’t? Hmmm.

Well, you certainly have an intersting take on this subject …
Stickman on December 05 at 10:08 a.m.
Ashley: When you get back to town, if you ever need a push or some sort of help, I would gladly assist you. I remember awhile back how you ended up here one day and didn’t know where I lived. Many people ended up assisting you that day and you finally arrived and got back safely.
Phaedrus on December 05 at 11:48 a.m.
I’m enjoying the Bent/Spoke discussion; here’s some more perspective.

The Truth About ‘Climategate’

Hacked e-mails have compromised scientists—but not the science itself.
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 5, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/225778
Ashley on December 05 at 2:27 p.m.
Thank you, Stickman!
People are truly too kind, especially in the Coeur d’Alene area.
Down here, the only thing anybody ever wants to know is why I don’t have an electric wheelchair :-(
spokelooneh on December 05 at 2:38 p.m.
Bent, find me another top climate scientist or two that concur that EAU destroyed data and that it is no longer available.

Until you have that, you’re relying on incomplete reports and political hacks for their opinions.
hmoffsuite on December 05 at 3:05 p.m.
Spoke >> “Until you have that, you’re relying on incomplete reports and political hacks for their opinions”

You sound somewhat like others that can’t accept the fact that the global warming emails revealed a hoax.

I guess this is how you liberals deal with the issue, huh?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/05/climategate-professor-calls-g-warming-skeptic-hole-live-tv
Stickman on December 05 at 4:28 p.m.
Ashley: You have a great attitude, that in itself is half the battle. You have a great smile about life and hopefully people help you along the way. If I see you anyday, I would gladly give you a hand, no matter how busy I was, as we all seem to be so busy these days with our lives. We are too busy for anything these days, much less a person that really needs it. Am I too in your face about this matter for most folks, I hope so, as we need to slow down a bit and smell the roses in a sense. If you see someone that needs help, forget what you are doing and stop, and remember, we are all here for some reason, not just for our own travels from here to there. We are becoming very selfish, and need to slow down again and help those in need. Very simple actually, and I promise to slow down myself, as I probably have intruded on most of you.
Ashley on December 05 at 7:43 p.m.
Well said, Stickman.
And, thank you :-)
Bent on December 05 at 8:14 p.m.
” you’re relying on incomplete reports and political hacks for their opinions…”

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Are you serious…? Dude, believe whatever you want…

The fact that the UEA itself FINALLY admitted destryoing data nearly 30 years ago is not good enough you, then sorry Spoke I cant help you…

You post an excuse for destroyed data from the guy who is under investigation right now. The guy who has been refusing to release current data for legitimate peer review for years.The guy who has bee caught red-handed advocating for the destruction of email trails that explain how it supposedly reached its conclusion on catastrophic global warming. the same conclusions that are being used next week to establish global agreements that will certainly shift economies. And you have the audacity to claim I am following biased sources…That just cracks me up…

And get real… do you really expect me to write you a dissertation on this issue citing all my sources of information because you read something else on your trusted “Greenwire?”

Sorry man, aint going to happen. FYI, I have been eyeballs deep in this issue for months, you haven’t a clue to the extent of my knowledge on this issue..
mia on December 05 at 8:42 p.m.
Well said, Bent.
Cindy_H on December 05 at 9:50 p.m.
Agreed mia: Bent’s response is a thing of beauty.
spokelooneh on December 05 at 10:29 p.m.
Bent, it was not only Jones, as I pointed out, but the University’s Vice Chancellor’s vouching for the integrity of the data and its availability in numerous places. The only data they supposedly destroyed was tainted by the urban heat affect.

So the University’s Vice Chancellor is a liar too, is that it?

Pretty weak case, IMO. If your talking about science that is, not political spin by laypersons and biased media talking heads.
Bent on December 05 at 10:48 p.m.
No Spoke, you are right. The university has no incentive whatsoever to cover its A**.

You win!!!
spokelooneh on December 05 at 10:54 p.m.
All that glitters is not gold.
spokelooneh on December 05 at 10:58 p.m.
You’d have to believe the Vice Chancellor was a moron, or a psychopath for defending the integrity of the data as he did, if he knows his assertion is false.
Bent on December 05 at 11:33 p.m.
“You’d have to believe the Vice Chancellor was a moron, or a psychopath for defending the integrity of the (Value Added) data as he did, if he knows his assertion is false…”

No, I would consider it brilliant… because nobody can disprove him THEY. DESTROYED. THE. RAW. DATA.
spokelooneh on December 06 at 2:41 a.m.
“No, I would consider it brilliant… because nobody can disprove him THEY. DESTROYED. THE. RAW. DATA.”
-Bent

No, they didn’t. They transferred it, oh, and btw, the original data are still accessible.

You’re making a political mountain out of a scientific molehill.
keithincda on December 06 at 7:29 a.m.
Spoke, you need to remove the Kool Aid IV…

they destroyed the data, no other scientist can test the calculations that were made.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
Phaedrus on December 06 at 10:17 a.m.
hey destroyed the data,

So, is this the only data in the world that points to AGW? Are there any other organizations that are conducting AGW research? No doubt these scientists screwed things up, it doesn’t logically follow that AGW is a hoax.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.