Fun new climate change solution: Let’s impose rationing on the developed world
posted at 10:13 pm on November 30, 2010 by Allahpundit
Something to chew on from this week’s summit/tropical getaway in beautiful sunny Cancun.
They haven’t decided on anything yet, mind you. They’re just sort of kickin’ around ideas.
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars…
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture…
Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.
Yeah, really? Rationing electricity doesn’t necessarily mean a worse lifestyle? Every year, environmentalists organize an ambitious global warming protest that calls on people to turn their lights off for one hour. Even among eco-nuts, that’s as much as they feel safe in asking people to sacrifice. Good luck with that rationing idea, gang. Besides, assuming this dopey idea were ever attempted — which it never, ever would be — does anyone expect the world’s number one greenhouse-gas emitter to voluntarily retard its roaring economic growth with rolling blackouts for the sake of slowing global warming? That was one of the grim lessons from Copenhagen, as I recall. Ah well, at least no one’s called for population control. Yet.
Incidentally, here’s how the conferees celebrated a hard day’s worth of deliberations over shared sacrifice and learning to make do with less: With a big party.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The Warmers may have succeeded if their solutions had been reasonable, practical and offered a chance for success. Instead, their proposed answers were worse than the problem. We should be grateful – this could have been a major disaster.
KillerKane on December 1, 2010 at 7:17 AM
Somewhere between the First and Third Amendments, certain rights were guaranteed to prevent something like this from ever happening.
Greek Fire on December 1, 2010 at 7:18 AM
Of course, if you’re not a city-dwelling liberal, that could mean walking to work, or biking – even with snow on the ground.
And forget about parakeets, who can’t wear sweaters. Gee, Prof. Anderson, do you want to be the one to give the bad news to Jackie? She’s never been out of this house.
disa on December 1, 2010 at 7:26 AM
If that were relevant, CW, it would be interesting.
However, please check out something more current than 2007.
We are in the middle of potentially the hottest year in recorded human history, and at the end of the hottest decade as well.
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Ah, but now it’s “climate change” not Glowball Warming. What idiots – they actually consider themselves our superiors, you know.
disa on December 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM
The goal of the Global Warming freaks is to make us all equal,(by us, of course, I mean the working class, not the ruling class) just like every other goal of the far left, except this one goes global, which is why they are latching on to it for dear life.
Consider the fact that they want to make us all ‘equal’ and, since America is the most wealthy, and 25% of the worlds population doesn’t even have electricity, picture how awesome it will be to live somewhere between the two in their New World Order!
We can all live in huts like Obama’s brother!
cntrlfrk on December 1, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Ummmm, most developing nations’ economies grow because they have found products and services to sell to developed nations. Taking down their trading partners is not a recipe for growth.
Stupid, zero-sum thinking.
Sekhmet on December 1, 2010 at 7:37 AM
Of course we are. With all the “adjustments” and deletion of 75% of the surface monitoring stations it can’t help but be hot. “Homogenizing” works wonders!
Start panicking … the end is near. We mustpay taxes to the global warming gods. Only money will stop the inevitable.
Oh … and hurry up and get rid of people, anyway you can. People are the scourge of the earth and are an insult to Gaia.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 7:41 AM
Wait! Climate change is now Global Climate Disruption.
Must.Pay.Taxes.To.Stop.Global.Climate.Disruption
Gaia only likes money.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 7:44 AM
What is it about the liberal “mind” that defaults to “Tear down the people at the top” instead of “Lift up the people at the bottom”?
Liberalism = Spread the Misery
VelvetElvis on December 1, 2010 at 7:45 AM
It’s fun to watch leftist whirling dervishes spin in circles of illogic, envy and hatred of humanity.
They need to continuously come up with scams like global warming, since their basic credo of “We want humanity to suffer and die” inexplicably doesn’t seem to get much popular support.
justltl on December 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM
Like our ancestors before, we should keep our tricorner hats, muskets and powder horns by the door just in case the Green Coats attack. Of course we will update these to mean K-pot helmets, MOLLE webbing and M4 carbines.
They lost me at “Raising taxes” – could they have picked a less-appealing and more-antagonizing solution?
KillerKane on December 1, 2010 at 7:48 AM
Strange how the left always ends up killing people or driving them into misery and slavery … yet people still fall for their crap.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 7:50 AM
The first paragraph:
Edited to my satisfaction.
hillbillyjim on December 1, 2010 at 7:52 AM
Leftists are the former lonely rejects of their high school class fantasizing about destroying the homecoming ball.
justltl on December 1, 2010 at 7:52 AM
Carrie on crack?
hillbillyjim on December 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM
If the warmers came for me demanding
moneytribute – I’m going to be like Leonidas and the 300 on them. No prisoners, no mercy. It ends here. Give them nothing, but take from them everything.KillerKane on December 1, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Of course what the leftist totalitarians don’t tell you is rationing won’t apply to them. Just look at the excesses on display in their latest Cancun get together.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Didn’t AlGore tell us the earth’s temperature just a couple of feet below the surface was millions of degrees? Seems to me there could be a lot of “shovel ready” jobs available to harness this vast amount of energy. Which would also be a good use of Obama’s stimulus funds. Trust AlG to come up with a simple, elegant, single solution which solves all of our problems! Personally, I think he should be awarded a 2d Nobel Prize.
alwyr on December 1, 2010 at 8:26 AM
No, they need people so they can have slaves to send them money! Think about all of that money money money, which they learn how to sponge at United Nations University, where all of the corruptocrats go. Since they destroy opportunities in their own countries, becoming global bureaucrats is the only way for them to swagger around with their BSD trappings of wealth.
disa on December 1, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Liberals are all about money. Money is only a by-product, which is why they don’t know how to produce any. Furthermore, it isn’t at all the key to happiness, so they can’t alleviate the misery of others.
However, this way they can grab a chunk of money when it’s on its way from the producers to the lazy. That’s reason enough to keep redistributing.
disa on December 1, 2010 at 8:30 AM
We should declare an open hunting season on all college professors with a $5000 bonus to anyone who bags an Ivy Leaguer (or European equivalent).
MaiDee on December 1, 2010 at 8:31 AM
The eco nuts seem to be getting more and more desperate with their wild recommendations. We have no growing season here, so will have to learn to migrate. Pretty soon no one will take them seriously. I’m waiting for them to tell us that we can all wear fur parkers.
Kissmygrits on December 1, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Of course this is never going to happen, but I don’t even think this can even be discussed even in a joking matter until that US is paid, starting at the lower end, about 25 trillion for the technology, the protection, debt forgiveness, etc that countless of countries owe the US for their survival.
It’s like the UN – I don’t even know why the US is paying any dues/fees at all. When there is a small protest by the US and they hold back some monies there is ear-splitting belly-aching by the UN and the leftists. I have always thought they were indebted to the US these past decades.
Some years back when Bush refused to pay up on some money there was a lot of screaming about it. Some economists took it upon themselves to calculate how much time, money, and overall use of, say, military sources and they came up with a number of 2 trillion or so that the UN would owe the US.
Again, in anything, the US putting so much more towards the global community and getting mainly harassed as the bad guys. Screw ‘em all.
Btw, about the UN I think it is high time the US left the UN and stated a pro democracy group with rigid standards to get in. Along the lines that Natan Sharansky suggests.
You know, I so sick of this AGW that I’m praying for a nice little Ice Age. ;)
Brass on December 1, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Not to worry. We have leftist trash to spare, in the rich first world. We could just export some of it, to keep
those brown skinned third worlders in line.
http://bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=21594
For every group of $1 per day people we convince to pose and hold signs which they don’t even understand, for the rich white leftist trash types, we can allow an additional 0.1% of growth. So you go Greenpeace!
MNHawk on December 1, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Say What ???
J_Crater on December 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Yes, let’s make everyone in the world use the exact same amount of electricity on exactly the same things. I’m sure when the Swedes are getting their air conditioning and the Moroccans are stoking their furnaces, they’ll just love being ‘equal.’
James on December 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM
And yet, if the ObamaCare mandate is Constitutional, this should be as well. Assuming the judge buys the idea that climate change is directly affected by man and our electricity use, then we are directly harming each other by using it, just as we’re supposedly harming each other in not buying health insurance.
Honestly, if we can be made to buy health insurance, I’m not sure where the line is.
Esthier on December 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Put on a sweater? My mother already taught me all that.
Ration this, pendejos.
princetrumpet on December 1, 2010 at 11:52 AM
It has been said that most cities only have enough supplies for their citiznes for about 3-4 days. I am talking about FOOD here.
Bcs agricultural product facilities have become more & more concentrated, more of you must get your food from farther away than you ever did before.
The infrastructure required to get you goods is so concentrated that your needs will not be met in a crisis.
This is the problem with large ag corporations.
With rationing like this, there will be more food shortages bcs the food is too far away.
I can live without electricity & fuel oils. I did last winter for 2 weeks in temps in the -30s.
It was not fun, but I am prepared.
I can my own food, have firewood & a wood stove & horses to get around on.
But for those in the cities, this will be terrible.
I don’t think this will ever happen.
These do gooders have never had to do without & the minute they get a whiff of major discomfort, this plan would fall through the floor.
But I am still prepared.
Come butcher time, I’m canning my meat.
You just can’t always depend upon electricity.
Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM
You don’t think it’s relevant that NASA faked temperature data?
blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:27 PM
James Hansen could tell oakland NASA faked and fudged data and oakland wouldn’t believe him. oakland is either a paid plant or true believer.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM
UN climate hoax chief admits the obvious: Warm weather is “better” than cold weather
U.S. Carbon Trading Goes Up in Smoke
Bolivian Ambassador Pablo Salon says there should be an international tribunal for climate crimes.
hoo boy…
Akzed on December 1, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’
Akzed on December 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM
there is no weather data. CRU admits it fudged data and then “lost” all the raw data. Nasa recently admitted it has no raw data of its own but relied on figures provided to it by CRU.
So, where is there any raw data for temperatures that supports anything the warmests are saying? I have yet to see or hear of any. Not one liberal poster has ever been able to point to any raw data that anyone can see to support any claim.
It is all taken on faith by these people.
Monkeytoe on December 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM
One of NASA’s former scientists dealing with clouds made the point that satellite surface temp data does not take cloud cover into account when reporting temp data.
Clouds affect surface temps.
So NASA doesn’t take clouds into consideration when taking surface temps because….?
Isn’t that incredible?
In the scientific community this would be treated as a DO OVER.
I read through all of those emails & there were most certainly some scientists discussing how to fake, lie, cheat, & manipulate to get the desired results.
All you have to do is read through them, which is a task in patience.
Also, I believe that tree ring data is suspect bcs it does not take other variables into account beside temperature, like available sun, nutrients, rainfall, etc.
Temp is not the only thing affecting the growth of trees.
Also, ENSO (El Nino, La Nina) is still not well understood either.
Another thing: so far there’s been nothing to show that CO2 influences temperature.
However, it has been show that temperature influences how much CO2 there is.
Another thing: climate has never been stable in all of Earth’s history.
It’s all about power & that is it.
These people will do anything to control people.
Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Which is a pimple on the a$$ of time regarding Earth’s billions of years of history.
We are infants upon this Earth with respect to time.
Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM
NASA didn’t “fake” any data. They made an acknowledged error in their analysis. This is good science, the way it’s supposed to be done (scientists pointing out errors in analysis in other scientist’s work).
Second point: this article that CW linked is not about global temperature averages, but US temperature averages. The point I was making to CW was that this year (2010) is on its way to being the hottest recorded year in terms of globalaverage. And, this decade (the 20-aughts) are the hottest decade on record, in terms of recorded human history. These two facts are very significant, in light of predictions of climate change that have continuously asserted that temperatures were going to be un-mistakeably higher around the turn of the century.
One needs to also understand that there are no other known forcing factors that can explain the magnitude of the current warming trend (other than greenhous gas emissions as the result of human activities).
I understand the concern that mitigation measures are going to be expensive. I don’t relish this either. However, unless there are alternative that don’t cost a thing, this problem is going to cost us. Consider the alternative if we do nothing but business as it has become usual.
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Yes, Badger, this is true. What’s your point, regarding the issue we are discussing?
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 5:58 PM
It would be, if it were true.
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Yes, that’s why so many people died in South America from record cold.
Since most surface stations have been deleted, and the only ones left are in or near urban areas … exactly what do you think the temperture will do?
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I’m looking forward to when they try to make us equal.
I have an equalizer.
/flirting with the ban hammer…
Mary in LA on December 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Nice! Be sure to stock up on ammo.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM
Hey! You’re not allowed to bag my sister! She’s one of the good ones. (Though I can think of a couple of her former colleagues who would make fine trophies over the fireplace…) ;-)
Mary in LA on December 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM
Darwin,
The recording stations are listed and pictured on the NOAA site. You might be interested in giving that a look.
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM
In 1990 75% of the surface monitoring stations were deleted. You might be interested in looking that up. Look at the ones deleted.
darwin on December 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM
It just doesn’t pay to debate this guy.
He says the same crap over & over again.
He is convinced that what he believes is the undeniable truth.
There is no way you can argue with someone like that.
Like I said there is no conclusive evidence that shows CO2 influences temp & that evidence does show temp influences the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I mentioned the fact that satellite surface temps from NASA do not figure cloud cover into their data.
A previous NASA scientist finds this to be a problem.
These are just a few things that are problems with AGW.
Maybe the Earth is warming, but there is no proof to show CO2 is the cause of that.
And warming of the Earth is a good thing for some & maybe not others but ecological change is a given.
It will happen forever as long as this planet exists.
And these changes they are talking about will do nothing to stop their supposed AGW.
The Gaia hypothesis has been discounted.
The Earth is not one superconnected system like a bunch of dominoes lined up in a row where one change causes drastic changes in everything else.
As I said above, even ENSO is not well understood-a natural phenomena that affects global weather patterns.
But people will believe what they want to believe.
Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM
I notice you do, too, Darwin.
What constitutes “proof” to you Darwin?
How does one “figure cloud cover” into direct measurements of surface temperature?
Interesting assertion. What training do you have in the sciences?
Assuming that what you say is true, Badger, what is the problem with this? BTW, did you see any significant urban presence in those sites pictured on the NOAA site?
oakland on December 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Your glorious CCX failed.
Your cause is a fraud intended to defraud.
The game is up.
Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Do you believe the paper regarding UHIE written by SUNY’s Dr. Wei Chyung Wang?
blink on December 2, 2010 at 1:12 AM
Human history? Or thermometer history? When was the thermometer invented? And have you EVER looked at the raw data from “the record?” Probably not. It’s a mess!!!!
Thermometers have been moved and replaced which “requires” that “the record” be “adjusted.”
Yeah, you’re right. NASA was forced into acknowledging that certain claims were erroneous. This is the way it’s supposed to be done. Except for the fact that NASA won’t release more data despite years and years of FOIA requests and litigation.
Why is NASA obstructing good science?
blink on December 2, 2010 at 1:22 AM
oakland, do you believe that GW requires positive feedback from water vapor in order to become CGW?
And do you admit that the hockey stick has been debunked?
blink on December 2, 2010 at 1:24 AM
Like Instapundit Glenn Reynolds says..when the people who are claiming it’s a crisis start to actually behave like it’s a crisis, I may begin to start to believe them.
Big John on December 2, 2010 at 3:46 AM
Can’t find the entire paper; I read the abstract. It doesn’t relate to climate, as far as I can tell. It’s about soil conditions in urban areas.
What’s the problem? Have you read the rationale concerning “adjustments”.
Data analysis and summaries are available online. Complete data records are available from NOAA.
You will have to explain what you mean Catastrophic Global Warming. It is known that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and that water vapor becomes more plentiful with rising temperatures. I am not an expert, but I understand that water vapor would contribute significantly to GW.
A bigger problem seems to be the release of methane from methyl hydrates stored in the tundras of the planet, as it thaws from GW.
If you mean by “hockey stick”, the quickly rising temperatures at the end of the last century and the beginning of this, then that has much data to support it.
oakland on December 2, 2010 at 6:46 AM
I am a geologist. And Darwin did not say those things, I did.
Gaia hypothesis has been abandoned by the scientific world.
You are still living it.
Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 7:55 AM
I don’t know why Oakland keeps referring to Nasa for his source. They have admitted that they have no raw data of their own, but relied on CRU’s raw data. CRU “lost” its raw data, so all we have is CRU’s “adjusted” data.
Thus, there is no science here whatsoever. Again, someone point to some raw data that I can review (not anything on NOAA’s website, b/c that is all CRU “adjusted” data.
So, again, we have no data, only “adjusted” data. We have proof that the adjustments made by CRU were made to support their conclusions (i.e., “hide the decline”).
Without raw data, there is no science. If there were any science supporting global warming – the scientists would be producing all kinds of raw data for everyone to see.
That there is no raw data for anyone to see proves the case against global warming. Period. It doesn’t matter what opinions any “scientist” or “science organization” puts out there in some paper or other – absent raw data for others to evaluate the claims, there is no science and no proof of anything.
Monkeytoe on December 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Correction –
Nasa admits it relied on CRU’s adjusted data – not raw data. But either way, we have no raw data to confirm anything claimed by anyone.
Monkeytoe on December 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM
You read the wrong abstract. I’m referring to the 1990 paper he coauthored with Prof Phil Jones that’s used extensively by the IPCC reports to disclaim the existence of the UHIE.
Anyway, do you believe that UHIE has affected the raw temperature data?
Of course I’ve read the rationale. They acknowledge that the temperature data is a mess and that there’s a need to correct it.
The problem is that it’s impossible to replicate their “adjustments” because they squander or lose raw data and because their correction algorithms contain subjective elements.
Not complete.
But maybe the courts will force release with this lawsuit.
But do you believe that GW will not be catastrophic due to any temperature rises simply associated with CO2 alone – without such positive feedback from water vapor becoming “more plentiful” (or methane being released)?
blink on December 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM
That must be why I’ve never heard of it; it has nothing to do with science. Also, sorry for ascribing a quote to you that you did not make.
oakland on December 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Blink,
I haven’t read the paper you cite from 1990. Perhaps you could summarize. Noting that the paper is 20 years old, it’s conclusions may not be relevant any longer.
I don’t know of any “acknowldegement” that the data is a “mess”. Perhaps you could give a quote.
There are a number of reasons for data adjustments. One is due to inherent inaccuracies in the collection process (no data is completely accurate). I have read explanations concerning this; perhaps you could look up this information (it’s available online).
The heat island effect is real, and it is a contributor to AGW. This effect will exacerbate AGW is the planet becomes more urbanized. To place all data collectors away from urban areas would underestimate the amount of warming.
The lawsuit reference doesn’t include NASA’s response. Anyone can file a lawsuit, for just about any reason. I would like to see NASA’s reply.
As for “catastrophic”, I don’t know how you define the word. Therefore, I have no response to that.
oakland on December 2, 2010 at 6:55 PM
I don’t need to look it up. I understand the issue better than you. The temperature record data are a mess, and the adjustment methodology is subjective and flawed.
That’s not what I asked. I asked if you agree that the heat island effect has affected the temperature data.
Do you really think NASA’s response will claim that NASA already provided the data?
Do you believe that global warming will have a catastrophic effect on the planet? If not, then what’s the problem with global warming? (If don’t know what the word catastrophic means, then you can use this Webster’s definition.)
Do you admit that Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been debunked? (I’m going to keep asking this until you answer honestly.)
blink on December 2, 2010 at 8:43 PM
oakland,
Do you agree that CO2 alone can only heat the planet about 1 degree C? Do you agree that any warming above 1 degree C requires positive feedback from water vapor?
blink on December 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM
GFG not replying to me.
Your comments are worthless and to be discarded you excrement pile of worthless crap.
Inanemergencydial on December 3, 2010 at 12:59 AM
Warmists will seldom admit that Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been debunked. Notice oakland first played stupid and then refused to answer the question.
Warmists will seldom admit that the increased levels of CO2 would only warm the planet by about 1 degree C (which would be more beneficial than harmful) and that their models rely on that 1 degree of warming to create additional water vapor which will warm the planet to run-away (catastrophic) temperatures. In other words, warmists will seldom admit that their theories about global warming can only be true IF planet’s climate system is highly unstable.
It’s getting more and more difficult for warmists to defend their chicken little warnings. The field of “climate science” was started by the handfuls of scientists that believed in catastrophic global warming. Since they dominated the peer review process they were able to convince scientists in other fields that CAGW was real. But now that they’re losing control of the peer review process (partly because of climategate) new findings are allowed to be published. The new findings all indicate that there is no reason for alarm.
blink on December 3, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Good job.
It is funny that some claim climate science is so advanced that they can predict these things & then when they don’t happen, they change their tune, but still cry the same foul.
Just look at all of the things that affect climate that they know very little about!
Radiative forcing
cosmic rays
the Sun
El Nino/La Nina events & how they affect global climate
The list goes on & on.
Bottom line is that climate has changed drastically since before man kind ever arrived on the scene & continues to do so.
We cannot even be sure climate is even a cyclical process at all.
There is so much chaos in climate, at present they have no way of compeltely understanding it.
Ecosystems change, they come & they go.
This happens bcs of changing climate & organisms evolutionary paths.
Mankind has come a long way in treating the Earth with better respect considering how land use practices have changed over time with new understandings.
It is not useful to try & kill off some of our species in order to avert an imagined catastrophe.
Polar bears survived the warming trend during the Viking age when so much North sea ice was melted, allowing them to sail easily to Greenland & N. America.
This stuff happens all the time.
It is climate change that has shaped us as a species.
All of the living animals on the planet today owe their present genetics to climate change.
Badger40 on December 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM
It doesn’t matter if one can argue that there are sometimes valid reasons for data “adjustments” if you don’t have the original data for everyone to look at and determine whether the “adjustments” were valid or merely jobbing the data to conform to your preconceived outcome.
With global warming, we have no raw data. We only have CRU’s adjusted data. Therefore, we have no science. Period. If anyone disagrees with this, point me to a somewhere where I can obtain the raw data. There is no such place. NASA relied entirely on CRU’s adjusted data which was from its “lost” raw data.
Please.
Monkeytoe on December 3, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2