Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?

Top climate scientists discuss hiding contrary data, marginalizing dissenters

Posted: November 20, 2009
11:27 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit

Officials at a key global warming research center in the United Kingdom have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a “trick” that would “hide the decline” of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.

 

Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have “manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”

 

According to the Australian Investigate magazine, the 62 megabyte Zip file with documents, e-mail exchanges and other information from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit apparently was posted by an unidentified hacker on a Russian web server.

 

One e-mail said: “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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

 

Another expressed internal doubts: “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.”

 

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”

 

“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” Delingpole writes, “a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

 

(Story continues below)

 

 

He cites an e-mail: “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …What do others think?”

 

Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where “cooler heads prevail,” said the e-mails are “shocking.”

 

“Its kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community,” he said.

 

The documents, he said, “raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

 

“What I’ve seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issues. It’s very improper,” he said. ” One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientist, and policy can be handled in public debate.”

 

Delingpole observes the world “is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called ’skeptical’ view is now also the majority view.”

 

Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, confirmed to Investigate magazine the documents appeared authentic.

 

“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and e-mails,” he said.

 

“It’s completely illegal for somebody to hack into our system,” he told the magazine

 

But Jones denied there was any attempt to mislead or conceal.

 

“They’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years,” he said.

 

Jones said he could not recall what he meant when he wrote about a plan to “hide the decline.”

 

In the e-mail, dated 10 years ago, Jones wrote: “Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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 [sic] from1961 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. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit.”

 

The documents also included a message dated last month from Kevin Trenberth to Michal Mann about the “U-turn on climate” by Britain’s BBC News.

 

“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).”

 

Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.

 

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any “global warming.”

 

The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.

 

But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” the campaign has been reinvigorated.

 

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ’settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.

 

 

Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

 

Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress.

 

“Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas,” Paul said. “They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.”

 

The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

 

Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequencesof assuming “global warming” results from mankind’s actions.

 

“The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded,” he said. “In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” he told WND.

 

Warned Paul, “Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

 

“While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom,” Paul said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

November 19, 2009 3:03 PM

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” 

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.” 

I am told the section applies to exactly one state:  Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world:  Louisiana.  (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost?  According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language: 

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html at November 20, 2009 – 07:36:46 PM EST

It just seems to get worse each day!!!

 

MEET THE NEW CIA DIRECTOR’S DAUGHTER …

 

 

Linda Panetta the daughter of Leon Panetta, who was recently named by Barack Obama to be the new CIA director.

Linda is a supporter of all the anti-American regimes in this Hemisphere. Here she is with Hugo Chavez [Venezuela] and Daniel Ortega [Nicaragua], two sworn enemies of the United States

She is a radical anti-American activist who wants to close the anti-terrorist School of the Americas, in Fort Benning , Georgia , where Columbian soldiers are trained. She says they are training criminals and is against any aid to the government of Colombia , our main ally in the region.

Would any reasonable and impartial individual be concerned if any of her activities are not duly probed and questioned during her father’s confirmation hearings, would the Senate “advise or consent?”

These are frightening facts which should be made known to the American public and they compel any reasonable and impartial Individual to pass them on.

Ft. Hood: When PC Kills

By George Handlery Created 2009-11-14 09:32 George Handlery about the week that was. The killing spree in Ft. Hood. Snake medicine and the snakes. Ignore what you see, believe what they say. How to legalize the Sharia without alarming anyone. Aid to the destitute, poverty through aid.

1. In the past, this writer has repeatedly handled themes related to political correctness. This was done to depict it as an idiocy that survives because so many of us are too foolish or cowardly to defy it. No wonder, the unmasked doubters of PC are quickly tagged as “bad human beings”. Now, we find out that that the killer’s associates had suspicions regarding the Ft. Hood murderer. These reservations concerning his political reliability and commitment were shared by the Major’s superiors. No one dared to undertake anything to deal with the problem that signaled itself through Hasan’s statements and his behavior. It was not the amount and the weight of the evidence that held back the concerned. It was that no one wished to jeopardize his career. Everybody stood in danger of being labeled a “racist” for speaking up and for stating what in PC terms was not supposed to exist at all. Such as that Hasan rated what he considered to be Islam’s command, more highly than his sworn duty to America.) The conclusion: PC is at its best stupid in its motives and ridiculous in their outcome. The case at hand demonstrates that PC also kills. Not only in Texas.

2. The reports that deal with Major Hasan’s slaughter like to quote the “suspect’s” relatives. These emphasize that the man is not capable of doing such a thing. He is a good person, devoted to healing, loves God, besides that, he is also a kind person. (Perhaps George Bush is really to be blamed in this case, too.) Actually, about the same thing could be said of a number of the great killers of history. It is to be assumed that Genghis Khan loved his horse. Lenin was kind to his cat. Hitler, scores as a vegetarian and he had strong feelings for his dog. About “Stalin and the animals” – except his camp guards – I know nothing. However, he smoked a Digby pipe. As this pipe smoker can tell you, pipe smokers are relaxed peaceful contemplative and wise characters. Seriously, as the joke recognizes, one can love mankind but hate ones neighbor. Some forms of devotion to a concept of the “good” do not exclude criminal behavior. If the “good” to which one is committed is an exclusive and not an inclusive concept then, cruelty is not an aberration but an intended consequence of the commitment. A creed might teach that it is more than the best path leading to the “good”. Those that take other approaches are not only wrong but their error is an expression of evil. In this case, proceeding with any means against these becomes not only permitted but also a command for the righteous (Soldier of Allah).

3. Quite naturally, the issues that flow from the growing Muslim presence provoke discussions in Europe, too. The trigger is the perceived resistance of a sizeable element within the Muslim community that goes beyond simply resisting adjustment to their chosen environment. Visible members of this migration hold the view that the local culture, the way of life and religion is to be rejected as inferior, even as improper. Over the resulting issue, the “uncouth” perception of the public collides with that of the fans of multi-culturalism. This becomes a conflict between the experienced reality of the “barefooted” and the favored PC-hatched theory of the privileged “political class” with opinion-making influence and media access. A campaign is rolling over the landscape. Its aim is to convince people not to notice what they see. A typical product of it has been a recent essay that appeared in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (rated to be within the global top ten). Its tenor was that the God of the Jews, Christians and Moslems is the same God. Therefore, there being no difference, there is also nothing to be concerned about. One of the important arguments made is that, consequently, a politically and socially unfolding Islam can represent no problem. After all, most resident Muslims do not practice their faith. As a responding letter-writer pointed out, this argument makes the earlier claims regarding the “religion of peace” irrelevant. What is being said is that the aggressive and dominant aspects Islam can show are not to be feared. That is supposedly so because the nominal practitioners of the faith do not take their religion seriously. The question that arises is: and what if they become serious about what they outwardly avow to be no more than folklore.

4. Nowadays, any talk about the possible incremental introduction of the Sharia in currently non-Muslim countries, sounds like a fiction that extrapolates a figment of paranoid political imagination. Those who react by dismissing even the possibility of the impossible happening should be reminded that a number of countries have already begun to bend their laws to accommodate Islamist demands. With that, a fundamental principle is coming close to being violated. It is that religious conviction is not admitted as a justification to violate the law applying to all. Reason suggests that this pertains to a special extent to immigrant communities. These have knowingly chosen to live under the system of their choice whose rules they claim to have a right to not only to ignore but also to breach. Therefore, the concessions mentioned involve a critical matter. Giving way here by creating law-free-zones means ignoring the foundations of the host’s own system. If the past century teaches us something it is that, what is popularly regarded as impossible has a way of coming about.

The creeping in of the Sharia will be difficult to oppose. The process will begin by admitting it in some areas that will be declared to be private and therefore outside of the intended reach of the law. In these areas then, among consenting individuals, arrangements that conform to the cultural peculiarities of the participants will be permitted. If in such cases the application of the Sharia by “consenting adults” will take place, then so be it. Even when the decision is made, those permitting the practice will know, but refuse to admit that, the “consent” will be extorted. The decision resulting will also do more than legalize the settling in private matters in a way agreed upon by a closed community. The judgments rendered will not only disregard the basic law of the hosting land: It will be likely to violate it.

5. Latin America is ailing of a state of pleasant and self-induced state of historical amnesia. One might add that, a corresponding phenomenon is detectable among the – due to their experience – more unlikely candidates located in what used to be the Soviet Empire. Consequently, incrementally Socialism and planned economies are being introduced south of the Rio Grande. Unlike the area where the trial was first launched and crashed, the experiment – which, having been tested, is not really an experiment at all – is not becoming government policy by force or conquest alone. The writer does not intend to overlook the role of violence in places such as Cuba and Venezuela. Nor does he ignore the threat of government by force that Allende was about to shackle Chile with before his overthrow. Nevertheless, Socialism, a form of communalist dictatorship dedicated to re-making man, his values, way of life and mores, can still draw support. It comes from those who are enabled to ignore the consequences of such snake medicine. This applies even in Eastern Europe where, it became obvious that not only the patient but even the snakes are decimated by the potion touted as curing all ills.

“A Collection Of Tax Increases, Cuts In Services For The Elderly And Heavy New Burdens For Broke States”

The Permanent Campaign Continues

November 20th, 2009

Obama Calls Stimulus False Reports ‘Side Issue,’

November 20th, 2009

Obama’s Indecision

By Ken Blackwell

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamas_indecision.html at November 20, 2009 – 11:43:23 AM EST

White House at odds with bishops over abortion

Nov 20, 8:30 AM (ET)

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill’s attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage – even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he’s seen so far on the divisive issue.

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate.

So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries’ own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.

Despite criticism, there were growing indications Reid would prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the bill toward full debate, expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks. It’s during that debate that the battle over abortion will be joined in earnest. Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill.

At the White House on Thursday, health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle praised Reid’s effort to find a compromise on abortion.

“It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy,” DeParle told reporters. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.

But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops’ conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid’s “is actually the worst bill we’ve seen so far on the life issues.”

He called it “completely unacceptable,” adding that “to say this reflects current law is ridiculous.”

The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.

In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother – reflecting a current law known as the Hyde amendment.

The Hyde amendment restrictions apply to Medicaid, military health care and the federal employee health plan. Many states provide abortion coverage to low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they must do so separately with their own funds.

Abortion opponents say Reid’s bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition – even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

“All the money the government has starts out being private money,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “Once the government has them, they’re federal funds.”

The restrictive language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services.

Abortion rights supporters say that fencing off government funds from private premiums would achieve the same goal, without forcing women to get special coverage for a legal medical procedure now routinely included in many private health insurance plans.