Bishop Hill Inhofe - 'dig deeper'
Feb 25, 2011 Climate: Parliament The press may be reporting that the Commerce Department investigation has given NOAA a clean bill of health, but Senator Inhofe is not so sure. In a press release yesterday he suggested that further investigation is required:
I want to thank the Inspector General for conducting a thorough, objective, and balanced investigation," Inhofe said. "NOAA is one of the nation's leading scientific organizations. Unfortunately, in reading past the executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation. It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze. Her justification for blocking the release was contradicted by two career attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. This is no doubt a serious matter that deserves further investigation.
"Also, the IG recommended that certain NOAA-related emails ‘warrant further investigation,' so I will be following up to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent according to federal law, and that the public will get access to the science NOAA produces."
Reader Comments (13)
There can't be many of the major contributors to IPCC WGI who have been acting in a professional and honest manner. Is anyone keeping a list of the main "co-conspirators" (Climategate description) and their misdemeanors?
A re-moat chance we are aproching that 'canard maison' moment
Once upon a time, primitive peoples believed that, with enough human sacrifice, they could change the weather.
Today's advanced post-industrial peoples believe that, with enough human sacrifice, they can change the climate.
That's real human progress for you.
@ O'Geary
Class [sic]
Spot on O'G, inspirational ;-)
O'Geary, many thanks for that, pure magic!
I hope you don't mind but I have just posted it at the Delingpole DT melting pot. Might make a few people think.
Josh:
I can't wait to see if your image matches the one that flashed through my mind - Apocalypto redux?
Bishop, it's a long read but read the preamble on the first page and then go to page 7. It's absolutely terrifying.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
Here is what Paul was referring to:
QUOTE
Fast-forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.
Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.
The new carbon credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.
The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.
UNQUOTE
Now that is all straight forward.
The idea is to tax all fosil fuel based industry out of exitence and to hope we can exist on what ever technology can be cludged up to replace it (if at all).
Do NOT forget farmimg.
That's for the chop as well, but they do not talk about that too much.
Strange that - I wonder why?
The bit I like is that merchant banks will be allowed in for their chop of the action as the money goes by.
Just put you pension money into banks and (if they don't go bust in the meanwhile) you may be rich by the time you retire (or may be not, as the case may be).
Simple economics really.
I am due to be fitted for my personal CO2 exhailer meter next Tuesday, but I have already gone in for an appeal for an exemption due to old age, infirmity and insanity.
Don't laugh - it works for the politicans and scintists, so why not me too?
@O'Geary
I've long thought it, but you crystallised the words.
Bravo! Keep them coming!
Paul
I'm not sure "absolutely terrifying" quite gets to the core of it somehow!
Sheesh!! Anyone for a colonising expedition to Alpha Centauri?
@O'Geary
Very good summary, of course the plebs of the primative peoples are thought to have revolted and killed the ruling classes when the sacrifices stopped working before migrating to greener pastures.
I have served as an expert witness in commercial litigation in the past. When attacking the other side's expert, one of the easiest goals you can score is to find that the executive summary of his statement doesn't match up with what's in the body of it. You can then show that rather than reasoning his way to a conclusion and summarising, he must have written the summary first; so it's opinion, not fact.
This same habit appears to be an endemic fault in climate geomancy, where they decide first what the SPM needs to say, then let the sheeple assume the supporting text supports it, when in fact it is often at odds with it and is often further at odds again with the footnotes.
It's encouraging that one Senator at least takes the trouble to read past the exec sum to find out what it really says.