Previous month:
October 2009
Next month:
December 2009

Global Warming: Was "hacked" data release a hoax to mislead the public from a more troubling truth: the original raw climate data was destroyed?

In the scientific community integrity and honesty is taken for a given – but what happens when imperfect human beings and underfunded institutions are tempted by the prospects of both fame and self-sustaining fortune?

It is almost a certainty that institutions will do or say anything to protect their institution first, their leadership second and their source of continuing funding third. Along with the propensity of an artist to produce works pleasing to his patron, many institutions overtly and covertly direct the inquiries of those working on government, industry and foundation-funded projects.

As reported by London’s TimesOnline …

Climate change data dumped

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

“It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

Apparently this news comes, not from the widely-publicized leaks, but a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request …

“The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”

It is inconceivable that anyone would destroy such valuable original data which forms the historical record of the world and imparts prestige to the organization as its curator …

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

Was the allegedly “leak” of hacked data and e-mails a preemptive public relations ploy to dilute the real shocking news in a wave of Internet stories?

“The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.”

The smoking gun …

“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.’”

If true, this shocking revelation needs criminal and civil investigation along with severe criminal sanctions …  

“The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.”

Trust us?

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. ‘The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,’ he said.”

Are we to spend billions of dollars and subvert our essential freedoms based on computer models which we now know were fed “manipulated data” and that the original data apparently no longer exists?

Remember the name Pielke when you read the e-mail excerpts below!

Protecting the leadership? 

“Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.”

He must of known – even though he was not in charge of the Climate Research Unit. And he did little or nothing to alert the world which was relying on the fundamental data produced by himself and his institution.

Can you trust the computer models which do not correspond to the reality of historic records – even with their manipulated numbers?

“He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is ‘unequivocally’ linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.”

Bottom line …

I call bullshit. Not only were the original model results woefully deficient, we now find that the data to produce the outputs were manipulated in ways that we can no longer measure.

Are you willing to bet your future and the future of your children on nothing more than computer models designed and operated by key institutions and scientists in which self-interests may have overridden science?

I am not willing to pay additional taxes, change my lifestyle and sacrifice my freedoms based on a political philosophy of Marxist wealth redistribution – supported by suspect science and scientists.

I now suspect that the release of so-called “hacked” records may be nothing more than a ploy to dilute the impact of the real news: science has been subverted by corrupt or complacent scientists for their own self-interest reasons.

Why has Phil Jones not been investigated and sacked?

Here is an e-mail from Phil Jones, the head of the CRU and you must ask yourself, does this single e-mail tend to suggest that Jones is not only manipulative and protective of the CRU, but intellectually dishonest? Perhaps the reason why so much of the science is actually speculative hypothesis being sold as scientific fact by the politicians bent on perusing their Marxist “redistributive” political agenda?

From: Phil Jones 
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul  8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
   Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13.  As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !

I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf.

The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil

Mike,

For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong.  It isn't that strongly worded as the first author is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report. It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.

I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit    School of Environmental Sciences    University of East Anglia 

Mike,
   I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie's email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.

Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
Cheers
Phil

At 08:11 13/08/2004 -0400, you wrote: 

Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM??
let me know...
thanks,
mike

And it appears that Roger Pielke is more concerned with science than self-protective appearance and manipulation like Phil Jones …

From: Roger Pielke     To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors   

Hi All

I requested to Ming Cai and Eugenia Kalnay that they respond to the comments regarding their work. The response is forwarded to you in this e-mail.

This debate, of course, should really take place in the literature. There has been, however, in my view an unfortunate change over time where reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection of subsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the different perspectives on a science issue. Our report has to make sure it   is inclusive, in order to avoid this pitfall.

An unbiased discussion of the K&C results, and ways to resolve the disagreement through hypothesis testing, should be included in the appropriate chapters.
Roger

And the real nail in Phil Jones’ coffin …

Tom,

I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any more about it since agreeing a week ago.

As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get   used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.  I'll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.

Cheers
Phil

Phil Jones, what a dishonest asshat …

Ben and Tom,

Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12. I did talk to Nature about the three papers. Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off. I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12.

As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going
around. If only these people would try and write peer-review papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a proper journal.

I almost missed the one with Pielke's resignation in. Is this going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably now you'll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe you'll be able to ignore them?

Cheers
Phil

About Pielke’s resignation …

Commissars of Climate Change Strike Again

Another Prestigious Scientist Resigns Due to Theology of Global Warming

DALLAS (August 22, 2005) – Another prominent and respected scientist, Roger Pielke Sr., has resigned from an important government panel citing political bias built into the process of researching climate change. Pielke is also the Colorado state climatologist and professor at Colorado State University.

“Just like the Commissars of the old Soviet Union, activists in the scientific community brook no dissent in the ranks,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “They suppress findings that are at odds with their dogmatic view of climate science.”

Pielke resigned in a letter to the head of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), citing a recent article in The New York Times as the “last straw.” He complained not only that certain aspects of a CCSP report had been leaked to The Times, but also that another committee member was surreptitiously circulating a chapter to replace the one for which Pielke was lead author.

Referring to other CCSP members in an entry on his blog, Climate Science, Pielke noted that “…they, inappropriately, vigorously discourage the inclusion of diversity of perspectives on the topic of the CCSP report in order to promote a narrowly focused topic which has a clear political agenda.” <Source>

Diluting the real news: critical raw data necessary to research global warming has been missing for years and that some members of the scientific community were complicit in hiding this important news.

And there is much, much more contained within the so-called “leaked” or “hacked” e-mails – all of which seems to dilute the news that the original research data has been destroyed and only the manipulated data currently exists.

We need to keep our eye on the ball: the basic data which is necessary to deal with the matter of global warming is GONE – how ‘effing convenient for the corrupt scientists and politicians whose prestige, power and profits rely on believing man is more powerful than nature.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Climate change data dumped - Times Online


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Global Warming: Is the Obama Administration prepared to side-step Congress on cap-and-trade?

Cap-and-Trade one of the chosen weapons of the far-left radicals who want to use “redistributive change” to move the United States from free-market capitalism to a socialist system …

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Marxists, socialists, communists and anarchists that are now controlling the democrat party need the healthcare legislation to control individual behavior and the cap-and-trade legislation to control our economy.

Unfortunately, both issues are being pushed by the dishonest brokers in Congress, the Administration, the Judiciary, the educational institutions, the media and in the corporate world to secure both political and financial rewards.

Whoops …

It appears that there are toxic elements hidden within the 2000+ pages of the democrat healthcare legislation and that much of the data and science behind the global warming computer models may have been manipulated for to pursue a private agenda.

A reluctant Congress …

With the revelations that certain key scientists and institutions may have intentionally manipulated the raw data used for climate models, misused the “peer review” process to suppress the work of dissenting scientists, and worst of all, destroyed the raw data underlying most of the global warming calculations, it appears that Congress does not look forward to further investigating institutional scientific malfeasance or fraud and may be reluctant to attempt to pass cap-and-trade legislation.

Enter the Obama Administration …

Totally circumventing the Constitutional protections of a robust checks and balances system, it appears that the Obama Administration is considering an end-run around Congress when it comes to implementing cap-and-trade.

By using executive orders and agency directives, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and other White-House-directed groups will simply promulgate rules and regulations imposing that which has been denied by legislation.

The democrats, long known as the party of lawyers and who famously use the judiciary to get what they can’t get from Congress or at the ballot box, is sure to use every means at their disposal to implement their anti-American policies which harm American citizens in favor of supporting our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Bottom line …

The democrats must be purged from the government starting with the 2010 election cycle and continuing until the 2014 election cycle to insure that the last remaining corrupt and complicit Senators are removed from office.

If implemented, both healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation might rise to the level of governmental tyranny so egregious as to demand the impeachment of elected officials and the implementation of a new Constitutional Congress to address the never before seen spectacle of a thoroughly corrupted government operating in their own personal and political self-interests.

Perhaps the survivalists and self-protectionists are not too far off the mark as they urge individuals to pay strict attention to their own welfare and that of their family in these troublesome times.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Global Warming: Is the “hacked e-mail” story hiding the real story: the raw climate data has been destroyed?

With the news filled with tales of illegally obtained e-mails, I am afraid that there is an even bigger cover-up might be under way.

Let us look at the Telegraph’s report on the CRU releasing their data …

As reported in London’s Telegraph …

“Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row” 

“Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.”

“The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, ‘stolen’ by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.”

“In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.”

Now let’s consider the e-mail revelation by Dr. Phil Jones who heads the CRU …

Tom,

I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any more about it since agreeing a week ago.

As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get   used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.  I'll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.

Cheers
Phil

So it appears that Phil Jones is well aware of how to manipulate the legal system when it comes to IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) and seems well-prepared to do so.

But what are they really hiding and exactly which data will they make available?

As reported by London’s TimesOnline …

Climate change data dumped

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

“It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

“The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

Impossible to reproduce the global warming calculations?

Without this data, it appears that it would be next to impossible to compute the differences between the “raw” data and the “manipulated data” which feeds all of the climate models used to support global warming theories (and they are nothing more than theories) and provide a basis for draconian and radical political agendas.

So what data will they be releasing? And will the release happen after Copenhagen where corrupt and complicit politicians hope to convince others that global warming is real, catastrophic and that we must allow our politicians to engage in socialist tactics to remedy the situation.

As if man could regulate the awesome forces of nature by demanding higher taxes, reduced freedom and fealty to a particular political system!

“Hacked” e-mail story diluting the media coverage of the real story …

It appears that this entire charade of allegedly “hacked” e-mails may be nothing more than just another cover-up to dilute the public’s attention away from the fact that the scientists involved in pushing a global warming agenda are not in consensus (as if that is how science is really done) and that there are significant problems with the climate models and the data used to reach climate conclusions.

More on this tomorrow …

-- steve

Reference Links:

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row – Telegraph

Climate change data dumped - Times Online


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Mayor Bloomberg: Jumping on a national crisis to push gun control ...

Bloomberg, the quintessential limousine “do as I say, not as I do,” liberal …

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, by any account, is a liberal democrat who switched parties to avoid the competitive fray in the democrat party. He is a billionaire, and by all accounts,  a prime example of a limousine liberal who thinks he knows best how to run YOUR life. Insulated by wealth, power and position from the legislation he advocates and surrounded by armed guards to make him feel safe and secure.

Bloomberg does not like guns and apparently has little or no respect for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution …

Even though he has sworn an oath to “uphold and protect” the Constitution, that does not stop Bloomberg from pursuing stringent gun control legislation in a venue which not only has the strictest gun control laws, but a high crime rate and institutionalized government-organized crime relationships. If the Mafia is said to have any headquarters outside of Sicily, it is in this mayor’s home town.

It’s crime control stupid!

What Bloomberg does not say and will not publicly admit is that New York’s finest cannot be everywhere they are needed when they are needed. Thus relegating New York’s citizens to the vagaries of street crime. He has pursued policies that confuse gun control with crime control. All of which denies the ordinary law-abiding citizen the right to an effective self-defense and a means to save their own lives and properties from those who care not one whit about gun control laws or, for that matter, any other local, state or federal laws. 

The democrat way – jumping on a crisis …

As reported in the Washington Post …

“Enabling the next Fort Hood? -- Congress's curbs on gun data hurt investigations”

“The news from Fort Hood shocked the nation: American soldiers shot on American soil. Thirteen dead and 38 injured. It was almost too terrible to believe. Almost.”

“Unfortunately, the Fort Hood rampage was not the first time that our military personnel have been murdered in the United States this year.”

Which points out a very troubling pattern of behavior by the democrats, many of which I believe do not wish the United States well and often act as if they are representatives of foreign ideologies. Case in point: former President Clinton disarmed soldiers at military bases across the nation, leaving the protection of soldier’s lives and base property to civilian protection services and the military police. Hardly surprising considering that Clinton apparently does not view the Military with favor and that he believes that war criminals should be tried in federal civil court as though war crimes were just another manifestation of plain old murder and mayhem. Clinton weakened the protection of our military bases and placed our soldiers, support staff and families at greater risk. And now Bloomberg attempts to do the very same thing with the civilian population.

In both cases, the loss of these young soldiers was compounded by a disturbing reality: The assailants had been under investigation by the FBI. In the more recent case, it would be easy enough to point fingers at the FBI. Its counterterrorism agents concluded that Maj. Nidal Hasan's communications with the radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi -- an al-Qaeda sympathizer who acted as a ‘spiritual adviser’ to two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers -- were for professional reasons.

Death by liberal democrat political correctness …

The problem with the FBI and all other agencies that are sworn to protect American citizens is that they have become hyper-politicized by liberal democrats and that rampant career-ending political correctness has made agency personnel “gun shy” when it comes to protecting the interests of the United States.

Heaven forbid that they, under the Obama Administration, call a slime-bucket terrorist a terrorist or refer to IslamoFascism. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano notwithstanding, acts of terror should be called terrorism, not a “man-made disaster” – a politically correct euphemism designed to spare the feelings of the Islamic community – many of whom, we are assured, are “moderate” when it comes to political matters. This is where I call bullshit. There are active radical Islamo-Fascist cells in America and there are a number of Saudi-supported Mosques preaching hatred for America if not outright Jihad.

Now comes more bullshit …

“A full investigation will reveal whether other red flags should have resulted in preventive action, but here is one thing we already know: A federal law repeatedly supported by Congress interfered with the FBI's ability to find out about Hasan's purchase of a handgun. Knowledge of that purchase might -- and should -- have triggered great scrutiny. And it could have saved lives.”

I cannot believe that the FBI or any other law enforcement agency would be so naive or stupid as to believe that any person associated with terror or criminal activities should not automatically be considered “armed and dangerous.” This is common sense and has nothing to do with knowing whether or not your suspect has purchased a weapon. The fact that most criminals steal weapons or purchase them on the black market – with little regard for the legalities of legitimate gun registration – marks Bloomberg and others as asinine fools when it comes to either crime control or making the nation safe from terrorists.

“During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan's investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record -- and then it was gone, forever.”

There are many that believe that registration lists of gun owners is a precursor to de facto gun confiscation by imposing increasingly higher taxes upon gun owners. Similar to the idea that, if the government runs healthcare and continues to dictate rules and regulations to insurance companies, that law-abiding citizens would face increasingly greater premiums for the risk said to be associated with gun ownership. A risk which has not be statistically supported and, in fact, may be totally wrong in that armed communities experience less crime and violent attacks on its residents.

“As former FBI agent Brad Garrett has said, ‘The piece of information about the gun could have been critical. One of the problems is that the law sometimes restricts you in what you can do.’"

Hogwash!  Are we also going to force people to register before visiting a hardware or grocery store where one can find the materials to make deadly bombs? Will the purchasers of screws and ball bearings by the pound face similar registration. It is the person, not the weapon that is the problem. If the FBI were so concerned about Hassan, why did they not alert the military authorities about an American citizen with a security clearance who was talking to a hostile person in a foreign nation. Had the liberal democrats gotten their way, these conversations would have never been intercepted and the United States would have been placed under far greater risk.

“The Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress interfere with preserving, sharing and investigating data on gun purchases by terrorist suspects. If that weren't bad enough, Congress has also failed to close a gap in federal law that prevents the FBI from blocking a sale to an individual under investigation for terrorist activity.”

What world do these liberal democrats live in?

The reality is that the courts allow felony criminal activity involving weapons to be plea-bargained to lesser crimes to insure a high rate of convictions. Psychiatric facilities do not always report their patients to the authorities for purpose of denying them access to firearms. Yes, the system sometimes works, but the points of failure are growing increasingly large – especially in the days of liberal political correctness. The thought that registration procedures, be they for gun purchases, criminal activity or medical conditions which would preclude the ability to purchase a weapon are unrealistic and devoid of reason.

Liberal stupidity …

“The Bush administration asked Congress to authorize the FBI to block gun sales to terrorist suspects, to no avail. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed the Obama administration's support for this legislation -- for good reason. A Government Accountability Office report published in June found that individuals on the terrorist watch list had purchased guns and explosives from licensed dealers in the United States on 865 occasions over the past five years. “

It makes little or no sense to spend multiple millions of dollars and inconvenience millions of law-abiding citizens to trap approximately 173 people per year who may be considers as terrorists and who have purchased weapons. Consider all terror suspects as being “armed and dangerous” and the problem is solved. Knowing that Hasan purchased a weapon does not make it more likely that the politically correct FBI would have notified the military in a timely matter. In fact, they probably would have ignored the threat and considered that Hasan, being exposed to potentially violent psychiatric patients, bought the weapon for home self-defense.

More liberal bullshit … 

The fatal lesson we learned on Sept. 11 was that, if we are going to protect innocent Americans from terrorists, we must break down the walls standing between federal agencies and effective investigative practices.”

Under Obama, our Justice Department seems more interested in conferring the rights of citizens on admitted terrorist and insuring that “their” civil rights are not breached. If anything, we have learned that the system apparently worked … the NSA (National Security Agency) provided the FBI with actionable intelligence. The fact that the FBI lacked the balls to escalate the threat and notify the military is a political issue. One not involving the access to more information, but acting on the intelligence they have developed.

A tragic reminder …

“The attack at Fort Hood was a tragic reminder that such walls still exist. Until Congress shows the political courage to tear them down, there will be more catastrophic breaches of national security and more tragic loss of life. If lawmakers fail to close gaps in the background check system and reform the Tiahrt amendments, the next terrorist shooting on American soil will be shocking, but it will not be surprising.”

No, this article serves as a tragic reminder that this government is hell-bent is disarming law-abiding citizens to remove their Constitutional right to own and bear arms – not for sporting purposes, not for hunting your own food, but as a protection against government tyranny. No wonder the liberal democrats are so eager to disarm Americans, especially when their policies involve the confiscation of land and wealth for redistribution to those who provide campaign financing or voter support to the politicians overseeing the process. The Fort Hood terrorist attack was totally placed at the feet of the FBI – people who had the intelligence but lacked the political will to take action. They were not stupid, they were complicit in allowing political correctness to destroy the effectiveness of their agency. Make no bones about it, the FBI agents and support staff are government bureaucrats, facing the same type of bureaucratic folderol and fear for their jobs as any other government worker. There are few heroes in government agencies when one must consider your personal welfare and the welfare of your family over actions to protect and defend the United States of America.

Bottom line …

We need to replace the corrupt and complacent politicians (mostly in the democrat party) who have brought us almost to the brink of disaster; the very same people who want to engage in wealth redistribution and other Marxist polices to ensure their political position in the years to come.

We need to move beyond thinking about more restrictive gun legislation and realize that crime control necessitates the enforcement of the laws already on the books. No more liberal mollycoddling of criminals or others who prey upon the citizens of the United States.

We need to encourage self-protection and self-defense. As a life member (Endowment Level) of the NRA, I suggest that everyone takes a gun course. For safety and as self-education about the rules and regulators for those who use or plan to purchase self-defense weapons.

And we need to get real:

there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim as long as their religion precludes the recognition and practice of other religions or demands that infidels (non-believers) submit or die.

that the death of the United States will come at the hands of political correctness, multi-cultureless and moral equivalency – viewing the United States as just another unexceptional member state of the United Nations.

and that the democrat party and “progressive” democrats have moved far beyond the party of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to a malignant, activist group wanting to impose Marxist philosophies as they turn American towards European-style socialism.

We are at the crossroads, when we can see a clear and present danger from our self-serving, corrupt and complacent politicians. We need to vote all of them from office and replace them with our friends and neighbors who hold conservative values. If we don’t start in 2010 and complete the job in 2014 (for the remaining Senators), we may not recognize our homeland as it is taken over by foreign sovereign entitites. All welcomed by the politicians who seem to want to make the United States a non-nation.

-- steve

Reference sources …

Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Kean - FBI needs gun data to prevent terrorist attacks - washingtonpost.com


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



ACORN: IS THE FIX IS IN ... What say you Jerry Brown?

Where is the United States Attorney General?

Considering the multiple states in which serious charges of election-tampering and questionable financial practices have been brought against ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), why is the United States Attorney General not investigating the organization for alleged election fraud, violations of the tax code and serious misuse of non-profit restricted funds for political activities. Could it be that ACORN’s activities served the democrat party and was a major force in the election of a democrat President, Barack Obama? Could it be that the United States, rushing to pursue, prosecute and imprison Border Patrolmen for allegedly violating the civil rights of illegal aliens wants nothing to do with this potentially disastrous hot potato? 

If ACORN was a national corporation under investigation, you bet that the government would have already put each and every entity on notice to “protect all documents or face an obstruction of justice charge.” So why are we finding that a massive document purge seems to be underway in multiple states … and apparently nothing is being said or done while potentially incriminating evidence is destroyed.

Here in California …

Here in California the democrats are caught in a squeeze play. They are the traditional party of lawyers, in bed with the unions and openly promote indulgences and benefits for illegal aliens – which is a criminal act in and of itself.

You can bet they are loath to investigate this major source of campaign funds, voter support and an essential leg of their power base.

Enter Jerry Brown …

Complicating matters is that California’s Attorney General is former democratic governor Jerry Brown who is exempt from the term-limited bill passed after he left the governor’s office – and who just happens to be running for another term as the governor of this formerly golden state.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jerry Brown is a product of the democrat machine. Trained by his father, former Governor Pat Brown, and inculcated with years of entitlement social policies and leniency towards illegal aliens.  Jerry Brown, as the recent mayor of Oakland, California inherited a cesspool of poverty, crime and civic decay. By all accounts, not much was changed on his watch, it appears that Oakland is still not a destination of choice for those seeking a good time or a decent job.

The Orange County Register is reporting …

“Editorial: Jerry Brown vs. ACORN: State AG should take allegations seriously”

“It might sound little cliché, but ACORN is the gift of controversy that keeps on giving. This time the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is putting Jerry Brown, California's attorney general and likely gubernatorial candidate, in an awkward political position. Can you say Acorngate?

Acorngate?

Political activist Andrew Breitbart broke a story this week about ACORN, a national association of community organizers that claims to advocate for low-and-moderate-income people, on his Big Government blog. This time ACORN is accused of a massive document dump at its San Diego office. The discarded papers contain sensitive personal information about clients and employees, such as Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, voided checks, tax returns, even credit reports. Other documents, according to Derrick Roach, the private investigator who retrieved the data, contained detailed information about how ACORN operates in California.

Is the democrat fix in?

The real story, though, is the timing of the disposal, which occurred six days before representatives from the Attorney General's Office visited the ACORN offices for their investigation into potentially illegal advice and misconduct captured on video by two activists posing as potential ACORN clients. The videos caused a national stir in September.

The party line: It’s not the organization that’s the problem, it’s the individual activists?

“If he doesn't, it might cost him at the ballot box. The attorney general's office claims the investigation of the controversial ACORN videos is ongoing, but according to David Lagstein, Acorn's chief organizer in San Diego, the state's top law agency is in ACORN's corner. In a recorded speech he gave to the East [San Diego] County Democrat Club last month, Mr. Lagstein said that every bit of the communication he had with Mr. Brown's office suggests that the fault will be found with the activists who made the videos, not the people with ACORN.”

Capture11-27-2009-12.29.04 PM 
Read more …

The democrats need ACORN, or whatever they will be calling themselves and their politically-connected ally, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union)  …

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the democrats face an especially contentious election cycle in 2010, an off-year in which voter turnout is usually light – where the major voter strength comes from activists and others committed to the political process rather than from the wider voter base which would normally turn out for a national election.

This is the time when the democrats desperately need the campaign cash and dedicated support of organizations like ACORN and the SEIU. Both, to my way of thinking, corrupt and thuggish organizations supporting the democrat power base in California. Standing for everything that has driven California into a financial hole and threatens to rip the social fabric of the state into rags.

Consider the spending of the state’s “one-party rule” legislature on entitlement programs which provides benefits to illegal aliens, unions and the special interests.

Consider the ever-increasing failure of state policies to repair or replace our crumbling infrastructure while producing an increasing governmental bureacracy with does little or nothing of value other than to sit around and develop socialist/Marxist policies into a restrictive business environment that is driving tax-paying, job-producing business  from California into the arms of neighboring states with business-friendly climates.

Consider that the titular head of the State, Governor Schwarzenegger acts more like a liberal democrat than they fiscal conservative he promised to be. And that the State’s republicans openly conspired with one another (in a closed door caucus) to sacrifice the fewest number of their own members in order to vote with the democrats in saddling Californians with one of the highest tax rates in history.

California in crisis …

As with our national programs, California is in crisis … caused by corrupt and complacent politicians on both sides of the aisle. But mostly by the democrats who should be called to account for the destruction of the Golden State. I urge my family, friends, colleagues and fellow voters, not to allow the democrats to complete the process of turning California into alta-Mexico or some debt-ridden third-world nation. We need to hold those who have destroyed the California dream to account – starting with all of the incumbent politicians, especially the democrats.

Time to face the evil in California politics …

-- steve

Reference links:

Jerry Brown vs. ACORN | acorn, brown, office - Opinion - The Orange County Register

CALIFORNIA PROBLEMS: SOLVING THE FIVE-SIDED PENTAGRAM ...


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Why Schwarzenegger sounds like Obama on global warming, cap-and-trade …

Capture11-27-2009-12.48.25 PM

He’s using Obama’s old TelePrompTer!


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Global Climate Change: What's going on here?

Before we commit to spending trillions of dollars, ceding a portion of our sovereignty to foreign panels and commissions, and limiting the freedoms of Americans, perhaps it is worthwhile to stop for a moment and consider the obvious.

Beyond name calling …

Many have suggested that the issue of environmentalism has taken on many of the aspects of a religion. The reliance on faith over logic. The need for people to accept the words of the climate leadership without question. And that the self-interests of the religion’s promoters be overlooked. So to both the climate jihadists and deniers, here are a few items of concern. 

The inherent bias in the science may be political and is certainly “human … ”

One side is likely to excoriate the other because some portion of the funding for climate research has come from those associated with energy production. Big oil, big gas and big coal are the demons. While it is nice to have a clear cut demon for the purposes of securing media support, rallying the troops and collecting contributions, this type of attack overlooks the obvious. That the funding provided by governments, non-profit foundations and educational institutions should be similarly suspect. Especially a government who can assert greater control on its economy and population, raising taxes to support the political bureaucracy and profiting in numerous ways from the conclusions of the research. Likewise, there is an inherent bias in those educational institutions which rely heavily on government grants and projects for a major portion of their day-to-day funding. Not to mention the foundations whose grants and stipends seems to reflect both the political and personal persuasion of its leadership and major contributors.

So what I am saying is that there might be, and in all likelihood there is, a significant political bias in the research being performed and presented on climate research.

On a personal level, those who are institution administrators or staff scientists are statistically more likely to explore routes of scientific enquiries that attract funding and adhere to the broad societal goals of the institution. Agreement with other institutions of similar repute is often cited as an indication of the correctness of the inquiry; although nothing could be farther from the actual truth.

Science is not performed by consensus and committees don’t decide on what constitutes scientifically-derived fact. To those who are doing science, a fact may only be a temporary assumption until proven wrong.  

Peer review may not always be effective in eliminating institutional or personal bias in science; or for that matter, guaranteeing the soundness of the underlying science  …

Scientists are fond of stating that publication in a prestigious journal which demands peer review answers many questions as to the legitimacy of the research. Of course, this is far from the truth. First, the prestigious journals are often over-priced sources of revenue for their sponsors. Second, the editor of the peer-reviewed journal often functions as a mini-potentate of their own fiefdom. The choice of who is to peer-review and article is often as important as the choice of an author. Having well-credentialed and prestigious reviewers gives a work a certain amount of credibility which may be undeserved.

Peer review satisfies a number of criteria. The credentials and strength of the available peer-review panels speaks referentially to the prestige of the publication. The peer review process weeds out obvious crackpot theories from people who may be charlatans and publicity seekers. And, of most import, the peer review attempts to insure that obvious errors do not appear in the published piece and that the article is clearly written.

What the peer review does not do – is often what the public colloquially expects of peer review. That is, the peer review panel does not examine the data in-depth and verify the validity of the computational models. The peer review panel does not express and opinion on the work other than to declare that it is ready for publication in a scientific journal and that the article meets the journal’s standards for subject matter, clarity of content and authorship.

It should be remembered that those scientists who author research papers are not always required to produce their raw data, their computer models and their work-papers to the peer-review panel. And even if they did, there is no guarantee that the panel would have the time and inclination to examine the models and test the data. Although this might be something of public perception, it is not the function of the peer-review panel to engage in these affirmative activities.

Unfortunately, the peer-review process can be subject to the petty whims of the peer-review panel or be selected in such a manner as to promote some submitted papers over others. In this endeavor, peer-review is performed by humans – complete with petty jealousies, foibles and allegiances. Of course, it is up to the journal’s readers to challenge papers, mount credible responses and to serve as the counter-foil that keeps science relatively honest.   But, as we have seen in the past, this is not a guarantee. Especially where the scientists can be separated into discernable camps of cliques.

About the data …

Much of what has been published about global warming comes from relatively limited historical weather station data or so-called climate proxies like tree-rings, ice cores, ocean sediments and other stand-ins which can be roughly correlated to past climate trends and events.

There are relatively few weather stations for a very large planet. Many of these stations exist in populated areas because people are interested in their local weather. Other, more widely scattered stations exist for weather prediction and other scientific endeavors. Unfortunately, not all weather data is accurate or reliable. It has been shown that increasing urbanization greatly affects temperature measurement. As does station placement, the surrounding environment, the type of instruments used, the enclosures for these instruments and the movement of stations to different locations for practical purposes.

Therefore, in an attempt to provide “uniform” data for their climate models, many scientists have manipulated the data in a manner as to improve their computational value to the researchers. Where instruments have failed, are obviously in error or have been relocated, the scientist may attempt to correct the actual data. Since the data may be voluminous, these corrections may be applied to all of the data originating from a station or to just the missing or outlier values. This effort gives rise to the suspicion that the data may have been modified for nefarious purposes; mostly to support a pre-ordained conclusion or theory. This type of inappropriate manipulation has been done in the past and will, in all probability, be done in the future.

About the models …

Most researchers are not statisticians, programmers or instrumentation specialists even though their actual work does require such multi-disciplinary interaction. Therefore, we must consider that some of the computer models, especially those hand-crafted a module at a time, may contain bugs or other flaws which would adversely affect the output. Most computer models are a hodge-podge of different modules which both represent the underlying scientific principles being used to craft the model and those which serve purely to manipulate large datasets. Therefore, most climate models are extremely complex and remain somewhat unauditable.

Where are we NOW …

Contrary to Al Gore’s assertion of consensus and settled science, there are deep divisions in the scientific community. And with the publication of the purloined climate documents from the Climate Research Unit of University of East Anglia, we now have some insight into the personalities and petty behavior of some of the prominent climate research scientists. Enough so as to demand a thorough and complete inquiry into the matter of global warming and public policy.

We can continue to fund scientific research in the area, but we need to reexamine the entire matter from the ground up.

But, we need a new type of “open peer review” which is made possible by the Internet. Taking a page from the collaborative creators of “open source software,” we should be calling for a similar effort in the science of global warming as it involves computers and data.

Of course, there is a single impediment to this “open peer review” initiative. That the institutions and scientists have a proprietary need to keep their data and models out of the public domain to preserve their competitive advantage when securing funding for new research. A prime motivator in a “publish or perish” environment where reputations and funding rest on being the first to publish seminal papers on newly emerging scientific discoveries.

So I believe, that is broad, costly and intrusive public policy is to implemented by our government on the basis of science, that the government release the models and the data in the form of “open source” materials which can be “peer reviewed” on a much larger scale. Of course, there should be no problem with this as a significant part of the funding comes from the very taxpayers which are being told they must conserve and alter their lifestyles based on this scientific “evidence.” Evidence which lives only in the silicon silliness of computers and which does not correlate well with current climate records.

Bottom line …

I am one of those skeptics, denier if you must label me something, that believes that the Sun’s variability, the Earth’s Orbit, the dynamics of our planet, deep ocean currents, volcanic activitiy and other such factors greatly outweigh man’s ability to control the climate. I also believe that CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming oceans and not a causal effect of global climate change. Add to this a deep distrust of the democrat party which controls our government and I find great merit in open source peer review prior to adopting public policy.

And should we discover that global warming is not a problem, let us concentrate in eliminating environmental hazards, improving our water supply, improving our shelter against natures awesome fury, improving our food sources and, of course, exploiting nuclear energy to gain independence from those who take our money and do not wish us well.

-- steve

The open source peer review initiative …

  • Publish the raw data
  • Publish the corrected data with explanations for the corrections
  • Publish the computer models in a compilable form along with a “make program” to allow people to build and test the working model.
  • Publish a module by module explanation of the underlying assumptions
  • Publish the “forcing” values needed to produce the models upon which public policy is based

This would allow all of the various people, scientists, programmers and others to participate in a review of the science … before the taxpayer commits to being tapped for trillions of dollars.

To those who said that the matter can’t wait and this is an emergency … the planet has been around for a long time and is functioning in a self-sustaining loop, to think that this is an emergency is unwarranted and speaks of unbelievable hubris.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



THE LAST WORD ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HEALTHCARE REFORM ...

Today we give thanks for God's bounty, those who codified our freedom in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, our families and friends. Unfortunately, we are facing a clear and present danger to the American way of life -- aided and abetted by corrupt and complacent politicians and political parties who are acting in their own self-interest rather than in the interests of "We the People."

So as you enjoy your day, give thanks that our founding fathers provided a mechanism for removing politicians from office in an orderly manner. It is now time to take action and I can think of no better day than to renew our pledge to continue our freedoms for the sake of future generations who will be inheriting our great nation. 

The liberal left and their socialist agenda ...

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, discusses the constitutionality of healthcare reform … based on quotes offered up from those who interpret the Constitution liberally – finding within in its 6 pages and 4618 words authority for the Federal government to do everything that is specifically prohibited. Here is a short document which has run the nation for over 200 years – as opposed to a 2000+ page document which purports to solve a non-existent problem with legislation which has yet to be written and which grants the Executive Branch of the government unlimited and unprecedented powers over the citizens of the United States.

Let’s consider what Ruth has written …

'Illegal health reform'? Not quite.

“Is Congress going through the ordeal of trying to enact health-care reform only to have one of the main pillars -- requiring individuals to obtain insurance -- declared unconstitutional? An interesting debate for a constitutional law seminar. In the real world, not a big worry.”

The first big mistake is to consider that constitutional matters are not a big worry. Whenever the freedom of American citizens is being challenged, it is a very big deal.

"’This issue is not serious,’ says Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration.

Walter Dellinger is greatly mistaken.

“But it's being taken seriously in some quarters, so it's worth explaining where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose an individual mandate. There are two short answers: the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.”

No matter how tortured the explanation offered by far-left radicals, the commerce clause was not designed as a weapon to usurp the freedom of Americans, but to regulate the orderly commerce between the states. It was meant to promote trade practices, customs and standards which are the underpinning of transactions between willing parties who have freely agreed to engage in such activities.

The tortured explanation …

“First, the commerce clause. Spending on health care consumes 16 percent -- and growing -- of the gross domestic product. There is hardly an individual activity with greater effect on commerce than the consumption of health care.”

“If you arrive uninsured at an emergency room, that has ripple effects through the national economy -- driving up costs and premiums for everyone. If you go without insurance, that limits the size of the pool of insured individuals and -- assuming you are young and healthy -- drives up premium costs.”

One could make the case that if illegal aliens subvert our healthcare system and work rules, they are also affecting our economy and those elected officials and legislators who attempt to provide them with the benefits of citizenship are aiding and abetting a criminal act while diminishing the freedom of American citizens. 

The problem starts and ends with the democrats and their political agenda …

“The clause empowers Congress ‘to regulate commerce . . . among the several states,’ which may not sound terribly far-reaching. But since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has interpreted this authority to cover local activities with national implications.”

And their complicit interpreters in the Supreme Court …

“In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the justices ruled that even though an activity may "be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."

“Thus, the court said, Congress was entitled to tell Roscoe Filburn how much wheat he could grow to feed his own chickens. Surely, then, Congress could require Filburn's grandson to buy health insurance.”

Idiocy, to say the least.

“Congress clearly has authority to, in effect, require employees to purchase health insurance for their old age by imposing a payroll tax to fund Medicare. It's odd for the same conservatives bemoaning a government takeover of health care to complain about requiring that people turn to the private marketplace.”

“Which brings us to the alternative source of congressional authority, the ‘Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.’

“The individual mandate is to be administered through the tax code: On their forms, taxpayers will have to submit evidence of adequate insurance or, unless they qualify for a hardship exemption, pay a penalty.”

The imposition of a healthcare tax cannot be linked to the running of an efficient and orderly government. In fact, healthcare as a constitutional guarantee is a non-starter. Especially when the states already exert a major control over the delivery of healthcare within the states.

“Balkin cites a 1950 Supreme Court case upholding a tax on marijuana distributors. ‘It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed,’ the court said. ‘The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary.’"

Sounds like the individual mandate to me.

The last word …

Whenever corrupt men act out of political or financial self-interest to bend the Constitution to their will and for the purpose of supporting their corrupt or self-serving activities, especially activities which eliminate  or diminish the freedom of Americans – the matter rises to the level of tyranny and compels us to resist the diminution of our freedom at all costs. 

Whether it is stimulus funds to assist a segment of the financial community and which disfavors the savings and commerce of ordinary Americans; the provision of healthcare which demands that every citizen act in accordance with government dictate for the benefit of private interests; the taking of private property from one individual to give to another individual so long as the transfer benefits the state or the regulation of the economy based on nothing more the supposition about the climate – these are all unconstitutional acts which demand a redress in our courts and our polling places.

No fancy words or convoluted legal opinions – do these matters rise to the level of unfairly depriving American citizens their freedom in favor of a corrupt political party who is seeking to subvert the very Constitution it purports to defend? In fact, a case may be made that every elected official and representative of the people will have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution should they vote yea on matters which reduce our freedoms and make us more vulnerable to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

But it all starts with honest brokers – and as we have seen, there are those in Washington who have gone far beyond government service and need to be recalled or denied office – if not prosecuted for crimes against the people.

We the people need to decide if we want the likes of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempting to turn our democracy into a socialist nation ruled by a corrupt governing elite? And it is not limited to the democrats, we have been ill-served by the Republicans with the exception of Ronald Reagan. But, this remains the sole question that should be asked in 2010 and 2012: do we want liberty or will well allow the corrupt and complacent politicians to guide us into slavery to a corrupt government system?

-- steve

Reference Links:

Ruth Marcus - Why a health-care mandate is constitutional


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



OBAMACARE: FRANK BELL REMINDS HIS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FACTS ...

Once again, Frank Bell, acting as a concerned citizen, attempts to remind his so-called representatives that Obamacare is a piece of poorly-crafted legislation which will adversely affect the citizens of the United States. You have to admire Frank because he is not giving up in a seemingly endless, as well as thankless, task of trying to urge his representatives to do the right thing: both for their constituency and the Country.

In Frank’s own words …  

Franklin T. Bell, CFM, RPA, FMA    Columbia, MD 21045

Barbara A. Mikulski   Benjamin L. Cardin

My Dear Ms. Mikulski and Mr. Cardin:

It is absolutely vital to the preservation of our Republic that you refuse to participate in and, in fact, defeat Obamacare! Here’s why:

  1. The Declaration of Independence guarantees us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - NOT taxpayer-furnished, mandatory, health insurance. And the U. S. Constitution provides NO basis, no matter how far the stretch, for forcing its citizens to pay for government-funded and government-run healthcare as a replacement of what we already have.
  2. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently admitted that he doesn't know if government lawyers have reviewed OBAMACARE to determine whether or NOT it is constitutional. LIBERAL Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't care if he had to BRIBE any Senator to get the 60 votes needed to start the Senate debate.
  3. Not only will OBAMACARE cost more than $1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and as much as $3 TRILLION according to other sources, at a time when government spending and government debt already are at record peacetime levels, simply put: WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS BILL AT ALL!
  4. Barack Hussein Obama is overstepping his bounds in a mad rush to severely weaken - if not destroy - our Constitutional republic, by sinking his leftist hooks so deep into the American people that they'll never be removed!

Both the House and Senate health care reform bills require individuals to purchase federally-approved health insurance, and those who fail to do so could face criminal prosecution. "Using [criminal law] to enforce one particular notion of appropriate insurance coverage is nothing less than a tyrannical assertion of raw government power over the private lives and economic rights of individual Americans," write Heritage legal scholars Brian Walsh and Hans von Spakovsky. This abuse of governmental power does not bode well for freedom, as it specifically targets those who choose to make their own decisions regarding their health insurance.

Moderates like Senators Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson are now viewed by their voters as servants of Senator Reid and the White House. They destroyed all their work to try and get their voters to see them as something other than liberal Democrats who will just spend and tax and spend. This was the highest price Senator Reid paid to win the vote to proceed to the bill: he has forced the so-called moderate Senators into looking like lap-dogs.

Now, the moderates must go above and beyond opposing the White House and Senator Reid for them to earn their so-called moderate label back. Right now, the voters are never again going to believe these Senator’s happy-talk about being concerned about the public option, or the deficit, or being pro-life, or fighting against new taxes, or opposing Medicare cuts. And the only thing dramatic enough is to vote against ending the filibuster of the ObamaCare. It is the only vote that matters now.

Meanwhile, the Democrats sink farther in the polls the longer health care is front and center — and the Senate rules are going to make sure the health care bill is front and center.

Here’s where the American people stand, Rasmussen Reports this morning: Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

And yet you are moving rapidly to enact this legislation in direct defiance of the American people's express wishes. You are defying representative government, raising the question: If not the people, who do you represent?

Indeed.  It is becoming increasingly clear that you are putting Party over country.  What the people want is being cast to the side in a rush to enact a highly radical, ideological agenda that puts primacy on the power of the state over the people

On Friday, November 20, 2009, a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration, which addresses the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.  The 4,700-word declaration issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian consciences.  Excerpts from the declaration include:

· "We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths.  We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."

· "We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral."

· “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

Your health care "reform" bill includes:

  1. A government "option." The Senate proposal would create a one-size-fits-all public plan to "compete" with private insurers. But the government will retain its role as regulator and thus stifle any competition and causing millions to lose their private coverage.
  2. More people in failed programs. Both bills would place millions of Americans under the failing government-run Medicaid program, reducing subsidized benefits from those who truly need them and increasing the financial burden on the states.
  3. Employer mandates. All employers of 50 people or more will be required to provide coverage that meets new federal standards or else face a hefty penalty. This mandate will disproportionately impact low-income workers.
  4. Individual mandates. For the first time in history, all Americans will be forced to purchase federally approved coverage minimums. Those who fail to comply are subject to new tax penalties and, in some cases, jail time.

You people may be congratulating each other for producing a health care bill that meets the President's $900 billion cap. But its $849 BILLION price tag is a preliminary estimate only, and it really only has one place to go -- up.

History has proven that the government cannot run a business; the U.S. Postal Service has run at a loss for years and there is now a move to “bail it out;” AMTRAK is a disaster in terms of paying for itself, not to mention making money. Virtually everything you touch fails or grows to an unmanageable size, or costs ten times your estimates and now they are requiring “bailouts.” Why can’t you get the message?

How in the world can you add millions of people into a system that you say already is too expensive and save money at the same time? You must think we are brain-dead. Your proposals are preposterous and can only be designed to grow government and increase its control of our lives because it surely isn’t going to save money. And, to make matters worse, it won’t even do what you originally proposed to do; it still leaves millions of people without coverage - you people are a joke.

THERE IS A REVOLUTION COMING! I CAN FEEL IT!

Sincerely,


Franklin T. Bell

What more can you say! It is now up to the rest of us to let OUR representatives know how we feel.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Hacked Climate Emails: Smoking Gun or Smoke and Mirrors?

The appearance of concern may overshadow reality …

There is no doubt in my mind that the environmental movement in the United States and elsewhere has been infiltrated by socialists, communists, anarchists and others who have discovered that non-profit tax-exempt organizations simultaneously allow them to raise significant amounts of money from unaware do-gooders and to pursue a comprehensive political agenda without being sanctioned by the authorities for meddling in politics. For radicals, this is the best of all worlds – allowing them to influence politicians and public policy makers without revealing their own hidden agenda.

Using our own laws against us …

By subverting our own legal infrastructure and using our own laws against us, those radicals in the environmental movement are able to hurt our military, our economy and further restrict the freedoms and liberties which were won with blood, sweat and tears. Freedoms protected by those fighting in foreign lands to keep us safe and to extend human rights and individual freedoms to those who remain oppressed by those who deny their citizens even the most basic of human rights.

The greatest example, up to now, has been the environmental movement’s campaign against nuclear arms and energy generation. Mainly for impacting the development of the nuclear arms which keeps us safe from aggression and the source of cost-effective, sustainable and renewable nuclear power generation which would provide a large measure of energy independence, the ability to significantly grow our economy and avoid transferring significant amounts of money to our enemies.

A confluence of evil influence …

Unfortunately, the agenda of the environmental movement is being adopted by others who see the benefits being enjoyed by the so-called environmentalists.

  • Being able to raise funding from the public with little more than press releases and reports.
  • Being able to shelter a significant portion of their revenue from the tax collector while investing in properties not subject to ordinary taxation. Not to mention the relaxed reporting standards which keeps the public from prying into the private affairs of the organization and its leadership.
  • Being able to direct funding to friends and other special interests to secure additional support and political influence. 
  • Being able to earn a good living while traveling the world in grand style – ostensibly to promote the good works of the organization.
  • Being able to secure favorable media attention with a minimum of scrutiny or critical analysis.

Thus we see corporations join the movement to enhance revenues and media coverage. We see institutions promoting the movement to ensure continuing funding and government support. And worst of all, we see governments sign on to the movement for the significant benefits of having a rallying point for their own political agendas.

  • Raising tax revenues, both directly, through tax assessments, and indirectly through third-party taxes passed along to consumers by a service provider. One need only look at their utility bills (water, power, telephone) or the notice on your gas pump to see the extent of this indirect taxation methodology. The government has a vested interest in higher prices as their tax revenues are often based on the total purchase price of goods and services.
  • Supporting the special interests which result in further campaign contributions and voter support.
  • Curtailing the freedom of choice in order to alter the behavior of  citizens. Here in California, the State has deliberately chosen to make driving on our roads as difficult as possible to promote the “mass transit” strategy that is being foisted on the public by the “enlightened leftists” who control California’s legislature.

The real problem with the science is politics …

It appears that many in the environmental movement have gone beyond a science-based approach to public policy and have adopted radical socialist Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals” to condition the debate. Shouting down the opponents who believe that the variability of solar output, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the behavior of deep ocean currents, the action of the most prevalent “greenhouse” gas water vapor, and the output of volcanoes and other natural processes vastly trump man’s puny ability to influence nature. Basing public policy less- and-less on the science and more-and- more on a self-serving political agenda and economics which adversely impacts the citizens who have elected politicians to represent them.

The simple truth: Why Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is necessary to sustain life on Earth. In fact, greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the past appear to have been beneficial to plant life, and by extension, human life. But the reason the environmental movement must demonize carbon dioxide is that it is the key to controlling energy production and can provide a political stranglehold on our economy and environment. Serving as the basis to control the economy in the same manner that the Obamacare legislation would allow politicians to exert greater control over our individual lives.

The basis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming goes something like this: man’s increasing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing perilous global warming which, if unchecked by government intervention, may result in the destruction of life as we know it. Or at least make it extremely uncomfortable.

I call bullshit

Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatem) is a nice way of saying things should not be overly complicated and that among competing theories, the simplest one is more likely to be the truth.

So applying Occam’s Razor to global warming, we should consider the following …

One, the Earth has been much colder and hotter than it is presently;

Two, the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been lesser and greater than they are presently;

Three, carbon dioxide is part of a life-sustaining natural feedback loop which keeps the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere somewhat stable.

Four, that the rise in the carbon dioxide levels LAGS the rise in temperature which tends to say that carbon dioxide is not a causal agent of the warming, but an after-effect. And this can be demonstrated by considering a recently-opened ice-cold beer. As the beer warms, carbon dioxide comes out of solution (the oceans) and enters the atmosphere where the concentration of carbon dioxide has seemingly increased.

Five, the accumulation of atmospheric heat resulting from greenhouse gases should be seen in the troposphere – but no evidence of warming can be found.

Add to this the relative scarcity of actual temperature measurement sites, the increasing urbanization of areas in which temperatures are measured and the fact that heavily-massaged data is fed into computer models which do not seem to mirror short-term global climate behavior and you have the basis for scientific skepticism. 

The mainstream media is not helping with their biased reporting …

One of the most obnoxious trends in the coverage of the science related to global climatology is the apparent biased reporting that seems to be prevalent in the mainstream media. Some publications will report news which seems to suggest that global climate change is not man-made and thus cannot be ameliorated by man’s efforts, but bury the report in the lesser-viewed sections of the publication. Others will “pick and choose” which facts they report or assign pejorative terms such as “rightwing blogosphere” or characterize the source as a “denier.”  The real story is not getting out.

Peer review is not always the answer …

Most people believe that “peer-reviewed” publications are the be-all and end-all in scientific reporting. Something which can be, depending on the publication, far from the truth. Peer review is an internal process that prepares a scientist’s work for publication, correcting obvious errors and bring more clarity to the paper. Very rarely are fundamental assumptions and the hypothesis questioned as this is the purpose for publishing. The process can be easily subverted by the politics of the publication, the interests of the publication’s leadership and, of course, the selection of those who will peer review the paper. And, in most cases paper authors do not need to provide access to the underlying data and computer programs which were used as the basis for the original research.

If there is any take-away from this blog entry, it should be the knowledge that peer-reviewed does not mean that the position of the paper’s author or authors has been independently confirmed. That is the subject matter for additional papers and research.

Scientists as bitchy little girls …

Scientists are like other humans, with the same foibles and propensity to shade their findings in order to secure recognition and funding for their projects. Their work is highly influenced by those funding the research – and it would be naive to believe projects which fundamentally challenge the work of the institution, its leadership or other scientists would be look upon favorably. Many scientists live in a “publish or perish” environment and their work is complicated by securing profitable funding for the institution and managing their graduate students.

The purloined letters …

Numerous media reports are covering the alleged “hacking” of servers belonging to a prestigious climate research organization. While the leftists are loudly crying foul over the release of e-mails, computer code and other materials on the Internet, one should remember that many of these very same people hailed the release of the stolen classified  “Pentagon Papers” as a blow for freedom. They are now on the Internet, so wailing about spilt milk seems disingenuous.

Damage Control …

Many are subtly questioning the validity of the released material. Others are questioning whether or not the information released has been edited for effect or taken out of context. Even if we are provided a “glimpse” of what is being discussed among scientists, this should serve to raise our awareness of potential manipulation of the data, the computer programs, the delivered papers and the positions taken by various scientists.

What can we learn ….

While this is but a smattering of data, let us consider a few things that were revealed.

What does peer review look like …

  1. line 32 of abstract – change ‘known’ to ‘presumed’ or some other word. The NH temperature trends are not ‘known’, instead we have good estimates!
  2. Could emphasize in the first paragraph of the Introduction that most of the SAT/GST comparisons are discussed in the context of models.
  3. The long sentence encompassing lines 74 to 79 could be reworded to make it easier for readers. I had to read this several times to get the meaning. Perhaps split it into two and don’t begin with the ‘If’.
  4. p85 add ‘global average’ to mean radiative forcing changes. The next sentence gives the important information.
  5. The sentence extending over p91 to 94 could usefully do with a reference.
  6. The reason the difference in trends between 2.1 and 1.2 on pp 101/102 is because you are talking about the global average. This point is made a little higher, but it could be repeated.
  7. p111, can you restate what the question is? It wasn’t obvious to me at this point.
  8. p132, presumably the 10m SAT values from GISS-E do not have any effect as you’ll be using anomalies from a modern reference? Would be worth stating this.
  9. p142, reducing sea level by 40m 9Ky BP ago, the land surface is now higher in this simulation compared to those later in the sequence. A simple lapse rate calculation would make this simulation 0.24ºC cooler than the later ones.
  10. p151-155, I was going to suggest a map of the boxes in some Supplementary Information, but a map sort of appears in Figure 1. It might be worth mentioning that here.
  11. p159, can you state the modern, pre-industrial period you are using?
  12. In the discussion in pp180-186, the SAT peak over the Holocene, compared to GST, is a broader flatter one that has a slight peak about 3K Years ago.
  13. A reference to the ‘inverse’ perspective on p188 would be useful.
  14. The long sentence encompassing pp193-198 could again be useful split to enable easier reading.
  15. p233, other models would be useful, but my guess would be that none have run a similar set of experiments.
  16. p247, remove ‘in’.
  17. The likelihood that seasonal trends differ from annual ones has been discussed in a number of papers – at least for the last 1000 years. It would be useful pointing out that the seasons needn’t follow the annual average, especially in the context of the seasonally and latitudinally different forcing that took place. A useful reference for the recent millennium would be Jones et al. (2003).

Is peer review free from bias, manipulation and fraud?

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.

How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Using the peer-review process to silence critics and those with lesser credentials…

if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question.
of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the    discredited contrarian home journal  "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that    McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.

It appears that some journals are extremely “clique-oriented” and seem to have a “preferred line of inquiry.”

Researchers seeking  assistance from others …

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly.  One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. 

So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have worked especially from the small island States or similar areas, who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group and/or to invite to speak?

The random conversations between colleagues …

NB I have not updated the piece of code that has to do with mid year/end year values and your .dis files. Please could you do what is necessary for that. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’ll come and show you.

For the results for the TAR we just ignore the sea level.

For the temperature results from 1990 to 2100 plot please try with and without IS92e/GFDL and IS92c/PCM. Ie a high and low result with SAR scenarios. Use the new versions of these as in M3mike, TAR_IS92.zip

Please ask if a problem……. Can’t think of anything else right now. Want all the figures and appendix tables please. But if you want to just do the line temp plots for a first check it might be a good idea.

Testing data and alternative theories …

As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that   the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from ~1940-1980; and  warmed substantially from 1980 to present.

OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best  method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been   using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate.

The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the   'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series.
Some key points:
1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal.
2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding  change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage).
3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom).
4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data). What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in   the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from 1900-1970.

Of course, some of the documents appear to create the impression that the data may have been manipulated to achieve a specific result.

Settled Science or preconceived notions by people trying to prove a point ?

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?  We are asking that here in    Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.  We  had 4 inches of snow.  The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it    smashed the previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.  This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing system is inadequate.

Or something more sinister?

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps  to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from  1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual  land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land  N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999  for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with  data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The smoking gun …

If there is anything to be learned from these leaked documents, it is that scientists work with others of like mind and similar attitudes and beliefs. And while there are embarrassing conversations not meant for public scrutiny or details of who funded which project – the great majority of this material proves nothing except that there might be a loosely-coupled conspiracy among those who want to promote their own position and who are fighting to have their work considered and included within larger programs.

Yes, there are hints of data manipulation: replacing of raw data with estimates, removing outlier data which does not fit the central thesis, the creation of data by interpolation where none exists. But unless the researcher has good cause to engage in manipulating the data or the computer program, the real results will eventually be published. One reason why we cannot allow politicians to rush to judgement when it comes to implementing drastic public policies on the basis of on-going science.

There are also hints of deliberate manipulation and distortion of the data. All of which needed to be thoroughly investigated and, if true, sanctioned.

Bottom line …

The proponents will promote, the deniers will deny – and the public will be screwed over by corrupt or complacent politicians who are manipulating the science for their own personal and political self-interests.

Scientists will be held accountable by peers and those who have been sloppy with their research will be mocked. Those who are likely to be proven wrong will alter their research or move on to more fertile areas. Those who have led their institutions astray will be sanctioned. Such is the way of big science. People should remember, it only takes one dissenting opinion to start the debate and that most science builds upon the work of others. Science is not done by consensus and groupthink. It is an ongoing process of discovery, enlightenment, explanation and education.

It is now time to consider the "official" pronouncements of a relatively small group of scientists and scientific organizations who have driven the debate and shouted down, with the complicity of politicians and the media, those who disagree or merely want to debate. Government agencies which sanctioned employees who disagreed with the central thesis of global warming need to be investigated and those responsible for suppressing the truth or credible dissent dismissed without their retirement bonuses.

Considering the leak of these materials, there appears to be no rational reason why we should allow our elected representatives to push a hostile and toxic political program such as cap-and-trade forward when the science is still unsettled and the consensus subject to political manipulation.

-- steve

Reference Links:

For those wishing more information, I suggest that you might want to read the Investor's Business Daily editorial.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell