Science frauds may face criminal charges

Science frauds may face criminal charges

Christopher Alleva

For some time the main publication of the American Association for the  Advancement of Science, Science Magazine, has effectively banned any papers that  dissent with the global warming orthodoxy.Apparently there are some alarm bells ringing over at Science’s offices. In a breaking news post, they are contemplating criminal liability for the Scientists involved in this scandal.
Antonio Regalado of the Science Blog writes:

The University of East Anglia, whose stolen documents caused a furor of excitement among climate skeptics over the weekend, said today that it had called in police to investigate possible criminal activity.

But university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.

The case of the climate hack began last week when an anonymous individual calling himself “FOIA” released hundreds of private emails and documents belonging to East Anglia’s influential Climatic Research Unit.

In recent years, the university had been subject to a flurry of information requests from bloggers and others skeptical of man-made global warming demanding to see raw data used to calculate temperatures, as well as for scientific correspondence. The university has rejected most of the requests citing various exemptions to the U.K. public disclosure law, which took effect in 2005.

Frankly, in the wake of Bernie Madoff, I would not like to face criminal fraud charges like these.

Page Printed from: at November 24, 2009 – 07:58:56 PM EST

Obama’s Presidential Approval is -15

Obama’s Presidential Approval is -15

November 24th, 2009

Rasmussen Reports

 The American People are waking up to the fact that Obama is a fraud

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.

Forty-five percent (45%) want U.S. troops home from Afghanistan either right away or within a year.Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed to such a firm timetable.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.

Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.

Read More:


Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘S true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as “partnering.” Pritchett rose from soap salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the
Private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

TRUE – CHECK: <http://WWW.snopes.Com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

W.H. hits back on climate critics

W.H. hits back on climate critics
By: Lisa Lerer
November 23, 2009 05:10 PM EST
It’s been a bad few weeks for the Obama administration when it comes to climate change, as the White House has found itself trapped between a stalled Senate and constant hammering from world leaders on a lack of leadership on global warming.

On Monday, the administration hit back.

“It would be a mistake to conclude that the international community’s failure to reach a final treaty in Copenhagen is due to a lack of domestic legislation in the United States,” said a senior White House official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

The United States, said officials, plans to propose a near-term emissions reduction target as part of a “meaningful submission” the country will present at the talks.

Just what that meaningful submission will be remains unclear. But the White House on Monday was clearly reaching out trying to change the negative narrative on the climate debate, making senior administration officials available to insist the U.S. will head to the climate change conference in Copenhagen next month with a real plan.

Until now, the United States has resisted setting a specific goal for greenhouse gas reduction, arguing that the international negotiators cannot preempt Congress. And expectations for the talks have fallen over the past few months, a change some blame on the inability of Congress to commit to a concrete target.

“That strategy is untenable,” Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, on an EU website, wrote of the failure of the United States and China to deliver specific targets. “It provides no global answer. It does not solve the threat of climate change.”

But administration officials said that the White House heads into the talks with confidence.

“I think we go into Copenhagen with a very, very strong hand,” said one of the officials. “We have done I think more than anyone could have expected us to do in a short time.”

The targets, said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, will demonstrate U.S. leadership on the climate issue and encourage other nations to make firm commitments.

“The Obama administration will be able to say to the world we are no longer going to preach temperance from a bar stool. We are now ready to begin to make a commitment,” he told POLITICO.

Administration officials rattled off a long list of achievements, like new fuel economy standards, a House cap and trade bill, and a joint statement on climate change issued by the United States and China last week.

But White House officials also acknowledged that the international negotiators would have a stronger position had Congress already passed a climate bill.


“We would have preferred that health care be done a long time ago, and we’d be having an energy debate today,” the official said.

The goals presented at Copenhagen, said officials, will “take cognizance” of Capitol Hill proposals.

The House passed legislation that would cut greenhouse gases 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. A Senate bill that passed the Environmental and Public Works committee last month called for a 20 percent target, but that version of the bill is expected to be significantly changed by other committees.

U.S. negotiators are holding out hope that a bipartisan effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will give them some momentum heading into the climate talks. The trio of senators is expected to release a framework laying out broad principles of their bipartisan proposal before the conference.

Aides and experts suggested that the White House could introduce a provisional target that would be subject to congressional approval.

But environmental advocates say the targets alone will not be enough to get a deal without presidential assurances that the legislation will eventually become law.

International negotiations learned the power of Congress after lawmakers failed to ratify the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty — an international climate treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions that had been negotiated but not finalized.

“They’re looking for that assurance from the president himself that this is going to get done,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Administration officials said Obama would decide over the next few days whether he would travel to the conference. More than 60 world leaders plan to appear at the conference. Obama will be in the region during the talks to receive his Nobel peace prices in Oslo on Dec. 10.

“Why should they negotiate with us when it’s not really clear that this is a huge priority and we are going to put all our political might into making sure we ratify the treaty,” said Keya Chatterjee, director of the United States Climate Change Program at the World Wildlife Fund. “It’s really really dependent on whether they have the confidence on whether there will be some political support on ratifying the treaty.”

Kiwi challenges Gore’s ‘settled science’

Kiwi challenges Gore’s ‘settled science’

Ben-Peter Terpstra

Lesson one: when green Leftists try to shut down a democracy it isn’t because they can defend their arguments, it’s because they can’t.  

Free speech also means nothing, without open public debates. So, what gives Al Gore the right to declare that the so-called “debate is over” in places like New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, or the U.S.? 
In Air Con, Ian Wishart, a critical-thinking New Zealander, dismantles the Left’s worst myths through sharp questions, a good many blow-your-mind quotes, and don’t-try-to-fool-me  arguments.
While the investigative journalist once believed in global warming, he now unapologetically submits (p.12):
The biggest lie in Al Gore’s comments is this: “The science is settled.” It’s what practitioners of the dark arts of public manipulation refer to as a “lizard brain” phrase, that parks itself deep into the subconscious of listeners, thanks to a comforting appeal to authority figures (scientists), and an assurance they’ve got it right (settled). Lizard brains are where instinctive, knee jerk reactions are generated often before the person consciously realises.
And how ethical is it to whine (without evidence) that all AGW skeptics are nefarious millionaires, when Al Gore is jet-setting around the world with his carbon-hungry entourage?
Wishart isn’t afraid to state what so many of America’s anti-investigative journalists prefer to ignore (p.192):
In the case of “follow the money”, it’s important to recognise that both sides in this debate have a financial motivation, but arguably that of global warming believers is bigger. In the scientific community there’s a standing joke, “No problem = no funding.” In other words, to keep getting the research grants scientists have to keep coming up with problems requiring research or solution. In most cases, public tax money funds this and those projects that are seen as the most important get the most funding. Global warming is sex on a stick in the science community right now.
Gore’s I-am-the-king-of-the-world arguments show a lack of maturity and are circular in nature. Can he really read the hearts and minds of all skeptics? Are only Gore-friendly businesspeople saintly carriers of righteous moneybags?
Furthermore, pro-liberty advocates reject the idea that all government-first researchers are pure, sanctified, and cleansed. The former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, praises Wishart’s “timely book.” Likewise, UN IPCC expert reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray believes he’s done a “thorough job.”

Page Printed from: at November 24, 2009 – 11:52:26 AM EST

CBS’s Schieffer Rallys Against Excessive Government Spending… Military Spending


CBS’s Schieffer Rallys Against Excessive Government Spending… Military Spending

November 23rd, 2009 Posted By Erik Wong.


News Busters:

At the end of CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, host Bob Schieffer fretted over massive government spending but avoided blaming current Democratic proposals: “I’m not even talking about the cost of health care….It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor.”

Schieffer also cited reconstruction costs in Iraq: “I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan.” He described his reaction to the war spending: “…last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.”

In concluding his commentary, Schieffer wondered: “…when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars…is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:


BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, during the Johnson administration, the Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen was railing one day against government spending and managed to say ‘a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.’ That’s almost quaint these days and I’m not even talking about the cost of health care. I used to say I had been around so long that nothing surprised me. But last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.

Like yesterday, when I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan. Which you’ll recall was to rebuild Europe after World War II. Sobering but not surprising, many of those facilities may close when we leave because there are not enough trained Iraqis to operate them.

Another number in the news last week that I found astounding. It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor. Which helps explain another shocker that came out last week. That ten years ago we owed the government of Spain more than we owed China. Yet when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars. Yep, old Ev Dirksen was right. A billion here, a billion there and it added up to real money and a big pile of bills. But is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?

9/11 families issue call to action

Lead Story

9/11 families issue call to action

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 23, 2009 10:04 PM

Remember what I said when Obama/Holder announced the 9/11 show trials:

If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide.

Here you go, via Keep America Safe, & 9/11 Families for a Safe & Secure America:

November 21, 2009

Dear Supporter,

Last Wednesday, a group of 9/11 family members and New York first responders attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Attorney General Eric Holder testified about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 9/11 co-conspirators in a New York City federal court. Mr. Holder stumbled through several tough and pointed questions about the dangers of giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens and blurring the mission of our war fighters. He was visibly unnerved by the presence of the families and the first responders. We want to keep the pressure on him, as well as President Obama, who we were shocked to learn was AWOL on this reckless decision.

Nearly two weeks ago we sent a letter signed by 300 family members to President Obama, AG Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. After Mr. Holder’s announcement last Friday, another 120,000 people (as of today) have signed the letter in support of our position. Many of these individuals are family members from all three attack sites, active & retired FDNY, PAPD & NYPD, first responders from throughout the country and active, reserve and retired members of the military.

We are holding a press conference on Tuesday, November 24, at noon in Battery Park, Clinton Castle for the 9/11 families and first responders/survivors. We chose to hold it on Thanksgiving Week in the hope that our fellow Americans will join us in sending our prayers and messages of thanks to our troops and first responders, who bear the brunt of the decisions made in Washington. At that time we will announce the details for a large rally in New York City on Saturday, December 5, at noon at a location to be announced at the press conference.

Going forward, we think it is important that the rally be tightly focused on the issues of keeping 9/11 war crimes trials out of civilian courts, keeping foreign terrorists off U.S. soil, and reversing the policy of returning to pre-9/11 days when the U.S. Government responded to deadly terrorist attacks with arrest warrants.

Please stay tuned as we release more information in the next few days.

Tim Brown

Debra Burlingame* and Tim Sumner
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

*Debra Burlingame is also a board member of Keep America Safe.

Join them here. Find out more on how to take action here. Get involved. Raise your voices. Eternal vigilance requires it.