CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus

CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus
Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?

By Mark Steyn

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the “climate change” racket was Stuart Varney’s interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr. — star of the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an “activist.” He’s currently in a competition with Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”) to see who can have the lowest “carbon footprint.” Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn’t get a reality series out of it. Anyway, Ed was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain’s Climate Research Unit in which the world’s leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to “hide the decline” and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. “We’ll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies,” said Ed airily. “Those are the key words here, Stuart. ‘Peer-reviewed studies.’”

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Ed said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don’t have a 76” inch HDTV, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find a talismanic peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection. “If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Ed. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies . . . ”
Got it: Pier-reviewed studies. You stand on the pier and you notice the tide seems to be coming in a little higher than it used to and you wonder if it’s something to do with incandescent light bulbs killing the polar bears? Is that how it works?

No, no, peer-reviewed studies. “Peer-reviewed studies. Go to Science magazine, folks. Go to Nature,” babbled Ed. “Read peer-reviewed studies. That’s all you need to do. Don’t get it from you or me.”

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you!

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The “science” of the CRU dominates the “science” behind the UN’s IPCC, which dominates the “science” behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don’t worry, it’s all “peer-reviewed.”

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “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.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “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!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line, and tree-ring. The e-mails of “Andy” (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose Climate Audit website exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann’s global-warming “hockey stick” graph), “Andy” writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he’s going to “cover” the story from a more oblique angle:


I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does! “Re, your point at the end — you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.”

And that’s what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann’s mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the revelations of the last week, you’re as big a dupe as Begley or Revkin.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask “Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and “Andy” Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning “Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled . . . ”

Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is “the first year of global governance.” Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office.

Hey, but don’t worry, it’ll all be “peer-reviewed.”
Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn

National Review Online –

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.


By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

Who's to blame for Climategate?

CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with ‘Climate Change’ Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

Obama Violates Osama Oath

Obama Violates Osama Oath

November 27th, 2009

by  Rep. Steve King, Human Events

On December 18, 2007, then presidential candidate Barack Obama leveled the first of dozens of heavy criticisms against President George W. Bush.  In a speech in Des Moines, Obama blasted President Bush for taking his “eye off the ball in Afghanistan.” He continued: “It’s time to…increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan.  That’s what…I’ll do as president.”

This was Barack Obama’s first “eye off the ball” speech.  It was the beginning of a barrage of campaign speeches accusing the Bush administration of “taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden” (Denver, 1/30/08).

On July 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C., then Senator Obama vowed to deploy “the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11.”  In fact, Barack Obama specifically used the name of Osama bin Laden at least 40 times in speeches during his Presidential campaign while definitively pledging to focus all necessary resources against bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in the countries where they live and operate.

Read More:

Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

By J.R. Dunn

The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) revelations come as no real surprise to anyone who has closely followed the global-warming saga. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) thesis, to give it its semi-official name, is no stranger to fraud. It is no real exaggeration to state that it was fertilized with fraud, marinated in fraud, stewed in fraud, and at last served up to the world as prime, grade-A fraud with nice side orders of fakery and disingenuousness. Damning as they may be, the CRU e-mails are merely the climactic element in an exhaustively long line.

A short tour of previous AGW highlights includes:
The Y2K Glitch. This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists — a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming “deniers” be tried for “crimes against humanity.”) While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he’d used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.
Once notified, Hansen’s team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an “oversight.” When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were “the warmest on record.” Now 1934 took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WWII, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup.
No explanation has ever been offered. We have a Y2K glitch that behaves like no other computer glitch ever encountered, uniformly affecting a large number of sources distributed almost nationwide. Although the incident trashed all recent data and raised uncomfortable questions about the warming thesis as a whole, NASA itself made no effort at an investigation or inquiry. All that we’re ever going to hear is “oversight.” I guess that’s how they do things at NASA/GISS.
The Arctic Ice Melt. We’ve been informed for the better part of a decade that Arctic ice was melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the North Pole would be ice-free in twenty, thirty, or forty years, depending in the hysteria level of the media platform in question. In truth, ice thinning was due to a cyclical weather pattern in which winds blow ice floes south into warmer water. Everybody involved knew that this cycle occurred, everyone had seen it happen previously since time out of mind. But it was too good an opportunity to pass up. Worse yet, when the weather returned to its normal pattern two years ago, large numbers of scientists put in considerable effort to suggest that the “new” ice was thinner than usual and would vanish in a flash as soon as the temperatures went back up. The media went along with the joke. The Germans have a phrase to cover such eventualities: “this crew should be stripped of their trade.” (Several expeditions setting out for the Pole to “call attention” to the coming Arctic catastrophe had to stop short due to icy conditions. In one case, both women involved suffered serious frostbite.)

The Poor Polar Bears
. Closely related is the saga of the polar bears, staring extinction in the face due to warming, while somewhere beyond the aurora, Gaia weeps bitter tears. This was evidently inspired by a single photograph (you’ve seen it — the entire world has at this point) of a woebegone polar bear crouched on a melting iceberg. That bear had to be sulking over allowing a nice, juicy seal to escape, because it was in no danger. Out of the twenty major polar bear populations, only two are known to be decreasing. Estimates of bear population (there are no exact figures) have increased over the past forty years, from 17,000 to 19,000 to the current number of 22,000 to 27,000. The bears are becoming pests in municipalities such as Churchill and Point Barrow (as clearly shown here). Despite all this, the bear was put on the U.S. “endangered” list just last year.
The Hockey Stick That Wasn’t. The “hockey stick” is a nickname for a chart prepared by Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor and leading warmist. The chart purports to show temperature levels for the past millennium, and consists of a straight line until it reaches the late 20th century, when it suddenly shoots upward, creating the “hockey stick” profile. This chart was a major feature of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming and is a commonly used media graphic.
This chart creates immediate doubt in anyone knowledgeable about the climate of the past millennium, which more resembles a roller coaster than a straight line. It developed — in yet another impressive McIntyre takedown, this time with an assist from Ross McKitrick — that Mann was utilizing an algorithm that would produce hockey sticks if you fed it telephone numbers. (Mann is the “Mike” mentioned in the CRU e-mails, and this is one of his “tricks.”) Despite this disclosure, Mann has never withdrawn the chart, offered an explanation, or made a correction. The chart remains an accepted piece of evidence among warmists.
Tree-Ring Circus. Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize “proxy measures,” such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements utilized by Mann, among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?
The answer is twelve: a number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.
But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the grip of Mann’s hockey stick. Another “oversight”, you understand.
We could go on to mention the automated U.S. weather stations chronicled by the tireless Anthony Watts, which were conscientiously placed next to air-con vents, atop sewage plants, in parking lots, and in one case, in a swamp (as many as 90% may be giving spurious high readings). We could mention the glaciers that are vanishing worldwide…except where they aren’t, or the endless papers demonstrating that the coral reefs — along with various birds, animals, insects, and plants — are facing extinction even though no warming whatsoever has occurred for twelve years. (And in the thirty years before that, the total rise was 1.25 degrees Fahrenheit, easily within normal variation.) Powerful stuff, this warming — it maims and destroys even when it’s not happening.  
It’s within this context that the East Anglia e-mails must be judged. The vanishingly small number of  legacy media writers who are paying attention behave as if the messages comprise some kind of puzzling anomaly, with no relation to anything that came before. In truth, they stand as the internal memos from the East Anglia branch of the Nigerian National Bank, which can save us from the horrors of global warming after payment of a small up-front fee.
There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures — it could be called an algorithm — governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then…
Well, first, let’s cover what you don’t do.
  • You don’t manipulate data (as CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous “Mike’s trick” e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code).
  • You don’t fabricate data (as one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, “I can make it up. So I did.” He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole’s blog.).
  • You don’t deny data to other investigators (as Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another).
  • You don’t destroy evidence (as the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request).
  • You don’t bury contradictory data (as Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period).
  • You don’t secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes (as the CRU staff did with the website, screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis).
  • You don’t secretly undercut your critics (as Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal Climate Research: “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.”).
  • You don’t try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired (as the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters).
What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to thwart your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do — and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin — “a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact” — then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don’t, you throw it out.
None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From this point, we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any “consensus” that can be drawn from it is a consensus of fraud. 
(The late-breaking revelations of temperature manipulations at New Zealand’s NiWA institute — another one of Mike’s tricks? — merely underlines the lesson of CRU. Now that the dam has busted, we’ll be hearing dozens of stories like this over the weeks and months to come.)
The West is a technological society. Science is as responsible for making us what we are as any other factor, including our democratic system of government. The two are in fact complementary, each supporting and encouraging the other across the decades since this country was established. (And yes, I am aware that Britain and Germany were both centers of scientific progress, both of them nations liberalized by the example of the United States. Even the utterly authoritarian Bismarck was forced to heed the voice of the people despite his inclination to do anything but.)
The technology developed from scientific research has created a world that would be unrecognizable to our forebears of even a century ago. Technology has transformed diet, health, communications, and transportation. It has doubled lifespans in advanced countries. Prior to the modern epoch, few ever caught a glimpse of the world past their own farming fields. India, China, and Africa were wild myths, the Pacific and Antarctica utterly unknown, the planets and stars merely pretty lights in the sky. Technology opened the world — not just for everyday men and women, but for invalids, the disabled, and the subnormal, who once lived lives of almost incomprehensible deprivation. Technology was a crucial factor in the dissolution of ancient empires and the humbling of aristocracies.
As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than any of Leonardo da Vinci’s, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after two hundred years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies, with the secret of life itself within reach.
It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor — as they are doing — they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the jihadi terrorists.
Such failings are not relegated only to climatology. The apparent success of the climate hustlers has infected all areas of research. Over the past decade, stem-cell studies have proven a hotbed of fraud. Recall Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean biologist who claimed to have cloned various higher animals and isolated new stem cell lines to worldwide applause. Suk was discovered to have faked all his research, prompting the South Korean government to ban him from taking part in any further work. Nor was he alone. Researchers throughout the field have been caught fabricating and manipulating data, and at least one large biotech company has developed a habit of announcing grand breakthroughs to goose its stock prices.
A number of factors are responsible, among them the grant-making process, which rewards extravagant claims and demands matching results, and the superstar factor, in which media adulation creates a sense of intellectual arrogance — as in the case of Dr. Suk — unmatched since Galileo’s heyday. But the major problem lies in politics, specifically as involves ideology.
In both major recent cases of fraud, science had become entwined and infected with ideology to a point where its very nature was transformed. It was no longer science in the classic mold, boldly asking basic questions without fear or favor. It had become an ideological tool, carrying out only such research as met with the approval of political elites. Stem-cell research became enmeshed with the abortion question. Embryonic stem cells, obtained by “processing” aborted babies, received the lion’s share of funding and attention despite their showing no potential whatsoever. Adult stem cells, obtainable from bone marrow, skin cells, or virtually any other part of the body, were shunted aside despite extraordinarily promising research results. This bias permeated the entire field and distorted all perceptions of it — one of the reasons Dr. Suk was so wildly overpraised was his willingness to attack Pres. George W. Bush for limiting embryonic stem-cell exploitation.
The climatology story is no different. Environmentalist Greens needed a threat — one that menaced not only technological civilization, but life on earth itself. They have promoted an endless parade of such threats since the 1960s — overpopulation, pollution, runaway nuclear power, and global cooling — only to see them shrivel like old balloons. They required a menace that was overwhelming, long-term, and not easily disproven. With global warming, the climatologists gave them one. In exchange for sky-high funding, millennial scientists — the heirs of Bacon, Copernicus, and Einstein, men who bled and suffered for the sake of their work — continually inflated the nature and extent of the CO2 threat by using the sleaziest methods available, as we now know. The result has been complete intellectual degradation. 
Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life — similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense, standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset. And while exceptions existed (read the story of Blondlot and his N-rays, for one example), the public took them at their own valuation.
That has ended. The concept of unblemished scientific integrity is now one with the scholastic monasteries and the academy at Athens. Scientists today are well on their way to becoming an amalgam of the cheap politician and the three-card monte dealer. They are viewed by the less educated as a privileged class making alarming and impudent claims for their own benefit. The better-informed find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to defend something we once admired.
The next set of questions in physics cannot be answered without equipment costing billions at the very least, and possibly much more. Will a disbelieving public pay for that? We are facing serious dilemmas concerning breakthroughs in biology, not only in stem-cell technology, but also in neurology and synthetic biology — breakthroughs that threaten to distort the very nature of humanity itself. Should we leave the solutions up to people who want us to pick a card, any card?
The collaboration between science and democracy is one of the great achievements of human history. It is now threatened by the behavior of people at the very heart of that collaboration. If it is destroyed, a treasure of unparalleled value will have vanished. This treasure will be nearly impossible to replace. If the Western world wishes to continue its magnificent upward journey, then we have to save science from itself. An errant and corrupt climatology is the place to start.

Page Printed from: at November 29, 2009 – 12:29:37 PM EST

A dearth of private sector experience in Obama’s cabinet

A dearth of private sector experience in Obama’s cabinet

Ed Lasky

Can we be surprised that Barack Obama would chose a Cabinet so unreflective of America?

After all, Barack Obama thinks that raising capital gain taxes will not harm economic growth; he taunts bankers with the prospect of pitchforks coming towards them; he condemns “greedy” doctors; who thinks imposing massive costs for each additional hire (think health care, think rules and regulations); he trumpets cap and trade as a panacea leading towards growth ( least in Al Gore’s wallet).

He also thinks that empowering unions who engage in thuggish tactics is the way to encourage business to invest. He believes a regulatory regime will not discourage business optimism. He thinks increased taxes will stimulate a work ethic and spending by consumers – and believes all this and more (particularly hectoring and insulting rhetoric) is a way to encourage growth.

Can one wonder why the Chamber of Commerce, representing small businesses throughout the nation, has some problems with the President and his team who disfavor and disdain the world on free enteprise?


But remember-we were all told how “brilliant” he was, and how his unparalleled judgment would lead us to peace and prosperity.

The lack of private sector experience in his cabinet – the biggest dearth in history – is indicative of Obama’s attitude toward free enterprise.

NRO’s Jonah Goldberg points us to this graph by Nick Schulz that reveals the huge discrepancy in experience outside of government of Obama’s advisors:


When people know only government solutions to problems, we tend to get…government solutions to our problems.

Page Printed from: at November 29, 2009 – 12:27:38 PM EST

President Obama took his massive ego and sparse historical knowledge to Asia last week. The results were so ugly even the New York Times took notice.

Written by Jack Kelly   
Friday, 20 November 2009
  Obama’s Pacific Trip Encounters Rough Waters was its headline over a news analysis yesterday (11/19).

“Has a president ever been less successful on a trip overseas than President Obama has on his eight day excursion to Asia ,” asked Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard.  “I’ve been covering presidents since Gerald Ford and I can’t think of one.”

The trip began at the Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) in Singapore where Mr. Obama declared himself to be America’s first Pacific president, on the grounds that he was born in Hawaii, and lived for a couple of years as a child in Indonesia.

Mr. Obama either forgot or never knew that William Howard Taft had been governor-general of the Philippines before becoming president, or that Richard Nixon — who spent more time in the Pacific in World War II than Mr. Obama spent in Indonesia —  was responsible for the opening to China .

At the APEC conference, Mr. Obama acknowledged he will be unable to obtain the international agreement on curbing so-called greenhouse gases he has sought.  This is good news for the United States , but a setback for him.

From APEC Mr. Obama went to Japan , where he startled his hosts and many of his countrymen by bowing low to Emperor Akihito.

The bow, an academic expert on Japan told Jake Tapper of ABC News, was in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with a “Karate Kid level knowledge” of Japanese customs.

The bow as he performed it did not just display weakness in American terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms, Mr. Tapper’s expert said.  The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak-looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.

The most important stop on the president’s itinerary was China , where things went worse for him than they had in Singapore or Japan .

“When it came to China , President Obama’s famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade,” wrote Barbara Demick in the Los Angeles Times.  “Not only is the U.S. president coming away without definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels.”

Mr. Obama had sought three things in China .  First, he wanted Chinese support for sanctions against Iran ‘s nuclear program.  Second, he wanted China to agree to curbs on fossil fuel emissions.  Third, he wanted China to agree to a more realistic value for its currency.  He got stiffed on all three.

The most important of these is the currency issue.  China pegs the value of the renmimbi (also called the yuan) artificially low in relation to the dollar to boost sales of its exports.  This essentially mercantilist policy (against which Adam Smith railed in The Wealth of Nations) makes it harder for us to sell things to the Chinese, and for our economy to recover.

What Mr. Obama received was a lecture on the danger of U.S. budget deficits, and criticism of the protectionist policies his administration has implemented.

Mr. Obama was treated with far less respect than were Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush when they visited China .

He acquiesced as the Chinese subjected him to the humiliation of a choreographed town hall meeting with student members of the Young Communist League, Mr. Barnes wrote.  And he suffered through a 30-minute news conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which no questions from the media were allowed.

To date, the Obama foreign policy has consisted of efforts to appease America ‘s enemies and to bully America ‘s friends.  Neither has worked.

In remarks reported Wednesday (11/18), Iran ‘s foreign minister said he opposes sending uranium out of the country, effectively putting the kibosh on a deal the Obama administration thought the Iranians had agreed to.

” Iran has very publicly played President Obama for a fool, faking their way through negotiations that were a farce from the get-go,” wrote the Weekly Standard’s John Noonan.

Mr. Obama seems oblivious to the shambles about him.  “I’ve restored America ‘s standing in the world,” he told CNN Wednesday.

 He may be the only person on the planet who thinks so.

 Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

WAKE UP AMERICA! This is powerful! And we are watching this take place right

WAKE UP AMERICA! This is powerful! And we are watching this take place right
now before our eyes!

by Lori Kalner
(Lori’s father was a pastor)

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial
depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs,
just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about
in Thoene’s Shiloh books.

In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by
promising ‘Change.’

He blamed the ‘Zionists’ around the world for all our problems. He told
everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had.
He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be
punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the

So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of
other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he
was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go
along with him.

Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in
praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It
began with praise of the Fuhrer’s programs on the lips of innocent children.
Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the
schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang
these songs as they walked home from school.

My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The
political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and
the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.

I will never forget my father’s face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best
propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children.

That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands
upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from
Jeremiah 1:4-5.

‘Now the Word of the Lord came to me,
saying, Before I formed you in the womb
I knew you, and before you were born, I
consecrated you, I appointed you a
prophet to The Nations.”

Soon the children’s songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the
streets and over the radio. ”With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We
can change the world!”

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly
parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God’s
Word, were ”no longer there.”

Where had they vanished to, while under nationalized health care? It became
an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet
first as ‘mercy killing’ became the policy. Children with disabilities and
those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.

People whispered, ”Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery.
They are no longer suffering. And, of course, their death is better for the
treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a

And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were
”nationalized.” (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of
all Jews were seized.
(Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich

The world and God’s word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people
economic Change?

Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer’s very ancient Delusion leading to

What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in
the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so
horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it.

Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and
white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she
could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her,
”who could bear to read our suffering?”

Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now, in the name of
the Lord, Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed
now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in
song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is
the American Messiah.

Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the ‘mercy
killing’ of tiny babies who are not wanted.

There are so few of us left to warn you.

I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million
Evangelical Christians. Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where
is passion and your vote? Do you vote based on an abortionist’s empty
promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible?

Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb.

”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I
consecrated you.”

I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth. I see
them again now.

Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of

In America, priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak
openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They
cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of
scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative
pastors or they will lose their ‘tax exempt’ status.

And yet I have heard the words of Obama’s pastor Damning America! I have
heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns
because you ”Cling to your religion.”

But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of
fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages
of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked
and condemned by the Left in America .)

I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for
myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble.

I tremble at the hymns to a political leader which your children will sing
at school. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is
against the law in public school!)

I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children
and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived.
The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!

Do not say, ‘I am only a youth, for to all whom I send you, you shall go,
and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I
am with you’, declares the Lord!”

I am in Prayer for you, and for the Chruch! Spoken to you in the authority
of Jesus the Christ, the Name Above All Names.

Lori Kalner

Muslims don’t drink, they only murder.

When a black man is suspected of breaking into a house, and acts disrespectfully to a white police officer, who was dispatched to the suspected break in, The President says “the officer acted stupidly.” However, when a Muslim man murders thirteen unarmed soldiers in cold blood, while heard shouting in Arabic “Ali Akbar”( God is great). The President  says “Let us not rush to judgment”.   I wonder if the murdering major will be invited to the White house for a beer?  Oh, I lost my mind….Muslims don’t drink, they only murder.