Climategate Scientist Hid More Information? February 8, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Cassy Fiano
Even before Climategate, a lot of people were skeptical about global warming. The most fanatical cultists like Al Gore and Laurie David insisted we conserve energy and drive fuel efficient cars, all while they fly around the country in private jets and live in mansions using more energy in a day than most of us do in a year. It was hard to take a movement seriously when the leaders of that movement didn’t even do what they said needed to be done in order to save the planet. It was common sense to most of us that the Earth gets cooler and then warmer in cycles. But, we had to endure years and years of global warming hysteria, which ultimately led to the “green” movement which is still persisting today, even as less and less people believe in global warming. Almost everything we’ve been told about global warming has turned out to be false. Oceans are actually cooling, not warming. The ice caps did get smaller… and then grew again. The largest contributor to global warming was cows farting, not soccer moms driving SUVs. Then Climategate happened. A global warming advocacy group, Real Climate, was hacked and hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails stolen. Those e-mails confirmed that scientists had been manipulating data to fit their global warming theory and ignoring the data that disproved it.
Well, Climategate just took another interesting turn. It turns out that it doesn’t stop just at some hacked e-mails.
Professor Phil Jones, the former director of Climatic Research Unit, allegedly went further than just trying to hide the truth in some e-mails — and the UN might be involved, too.
Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
… Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
… The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
More and more information is coming out that makes global warming look like a hoax, a scare invented by a select group of scientists who engineered the data to make it fit what they wanted it to be. And even if none of this explicitly disproves global warming, it certainly casts a large shadow of doubt over it. If this is the kind of work that leading global warming scientists are doing, how can we trust it? How can we trust them? The answer is, of course, that we can’t. When there are accusations of scientific fraud floating around, then clearly there isn’t solid, reliable scientific work being done. If the science itself is shoddy, then it’s even harder to believe that the science they say is real is actually true. It’s looking more and more like they just wanted global warming to be real, and wanted it so badly that they lied and manipulated data and hid information.
Sadly, even if these scientists had the best of intentions the outcome could have been — and really, still could be — disastrous. Most global warming fanatics are out to use the cause for their own personal gains. Al Gore, for example, is poised and ready to make millions, some of which he’s already making with his film and his carbon credit company. The government is already using global warming as an excuse for even more intrusion into our lives, with cap and trade, for example. The global warming scam could have a horrible effect on us. The sad thing is that the science here is far from settled, and it’s looking more and more like a group of men basically made it all up.
Unfortunately, it could still have very real repercussions. The Guardian, for example, is doing its own investigation of Professor Jones and sees for themselves that the science is shaky at best. But they still just don’t want to let global warming go.
With Scott Brown, America Chose the Pickup Truck Over the Prius February 8, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Jim Hoft
Scott Brown was sworn in as the 41st Republican in the United States Senate.
One of the many players who contributed to Scott Brown’s victory is Ken Pittman from WBSM in Massachusetts. Ken interviewed Democrat Martha Coakley the week before the Massachusetts election. It was during this interview that Martha told Ken that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic then…
“You probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”
That was the wrong answer.
America Chose the Pickup Truck Over the Prius
In what has to be the most important non-presidential election race in many decades, Scott Brown won a most unlikely race in the state bluer than Frank Sinatra’s eyes, Massachusetts. So much weighed on the outcome outside of our state that the RNC finally heeded to the desperate cries for help from those of us here who have fought behind the enemy lines, praying for the cavalry for a half century.
On Tuesday night, January 19th 2010 at the Boston Park Plaza, I felt something like what the fictitious shipwrecked character Robinson Crusoe must have felt after seeing a mast come over the horizon for the first time.
To his credit (as a politician) it is clear that Senator Ted Kennedy was the glue that bonded the cohesiveness of this impenetrable synergy of liberal progressiveness in Massachusetts. With his death it appears that many notes were paid off. Allegiances broke and rival camps formed within the same party. Ted never allowed that on his watch.
While all that is true, it cannot alone explain what we witnessed last Tuesday. Governing from the left as Massachusetts has been doing, has built an under the radar, untapped resentment that never worked as a collaborative. The resistance has always been poorly articulated, fragmented and apparently unaware of the alliances that never formulated.
Never, that is until around Christmas of 2009. A little known state senator from the almost forgotten political party called Republican campaigned tirelessly in town after town building support in liberal working class cities as well as bedroom community towns. Scott Brown didn’t fear the 30 point lead his opponent Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley enjoyed and enjoy she did.
Coakley’s abysmal campaign came with as many errors as Brown’s came with momentum.
The week she took off between Christmas and New Year’s Day will be discussed in poli-sci classes for many years to come and I believe there to be a story behind that worthy of investigating. Some will say the Christmas Eve vote on healthcare by the senate caused a backlash. Was it an antagonistic move against the Christian right by secular progressives? Was it the Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit by an al Qa’eda pawn? Was this a reminder of how Democrats in the 1990s ignored national security threats made by radicals? I think all of the above may be in the equation.
Martha Coakley antagonizing devout Catholics, if not all those of moral principle, with her remarks about who should and shouldn’t be working in emergency rooms revealed a radical in the candidate that really didn’t plan on showing that side of herself until the 20th of January. Calling an ace pitcher of the Boston Red Sox “another Yankee fan” was a tad unwise. Curt Schilling? Accusing that local hero who helped to deliver the first World Series championship for Boston in 86 years wasn’t classic strategy for most observing pundits.
However, living in Massachusetts broadcasting from Barney Frank’s district on the south coast qualifies me to say that all of the above still doesn’t explain what happened.
The lesson which must be learned is that when the ideological pendulum swings hard, right or left, it also comes back with a lot of momentum. Republicans need to learn this truth as well. If the agenda of those governing isn’t executed and articulated successfully , the governed will eventually turn on the plan and the planners.
The ideological bigotry which plagues this nation is hamstringing progress and prosperity but the corruption and demonization by opponents clouds this problem by filling the room already on fire with thick, choking black smoke.
Scott Brown is a man who naturally migrates toward conservative ideals but is thoughtful enough to be inclusive for those who care about political issues yet disagree with his specific path. This has produced in Massachusetts a man who has designed a truly centrist platform.
He doesn’t shy away from disrobing the radical left’s plans but doesn’t visibly side with the conservatives in any monolithic fashion (the key word was visibly if you are wondering).
As a result we are seeing a dream realized here that only months ago seemed years away.
President Obama’s candy coated promises have produced bitter results and the veil seems to have been lifted. The trance has been broken. The instrument is Scott Brown. The people have decidedly chosen to side with the candidate who calls for sterner treatment of enemy combatants and who is sending the healthcare plans back to the kitchen. Martha Coakley ran on the Obama agenda of nationalized healthcare and climate change.
Democrats have made a potential fatal error politically in not identifying the mainstream movement dubbed “The Tea Parties”. It is nothing close to fringe. They have decided to apply the ‘us against them’ tactic and find themselves on the threshold of obscurity. To this day, they don’t seem able to identify this.
Give Scott Brown credit though. He is a disciplined attorney. A JAG in the Army Reserves with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He has climbed the political ladder one rung at a time and is an experienced legislator. He is also the candidate who redirected the conversation from the clenches of an heir apparent opponent. National security, the economy and healthcare became his issues and not hers. He never got off message like so many can and often do once they get momentum.
Americans in Massachusetts have chosen the guy in his truck who tried to earn their vote and asked for it and they or should I finally say “WE” have shown the door to the Prius driving elitist who felt entitled to their votes with the promise of pushing through Obama’s agenda.
The Most Resistant Guy to Change in Washington Appears to Be the Very Guy We Elected President February 7, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Ed Bagley
Dick Morris and his frequent appearances on Bill O’Reilly’s top-rated FOX News program have been a thorn in the side of President Obama and the Democratic Party’s majority members in Congress.
Morris never misses a chance to point out what he perceives as any Obama misstep, or the majority party’s failure to get issued-oriented legislation passed. Here is an example following the President’s recent State of the Union Address (1-27-10):
“Any president, at any time, can choose to embody the consensus his nation has reached after it has engaged in a period of extended debate,” said Morris. “That process, called triangulation, involves the embrace of the elements advanced by the right and by the left that Americans have found valid, and the rejection of those from which they have turned away.
“When our nation encounters a new problem, we welcome vigorous debate and encourage each side to articulate its views and elaborate its solutions.
“But, after a time,” continues Morris, “we have heard enough and want resolution, consensus and implementation. If Obama heeds that call, he can, indeed, turn his Presidency around. But if he continues to pursue his leftist, socialist agenda and uses a feigned moderation as a guise for his radicalism, we will not be fooled again. We have been down that road with him before.”
Morris offers as an example the current healthcare proposal that a majority of Americans have rejected because they do not want to nationalize our healthcare system, suffer cuts in the Medicare benefits for seniors who have paid into the system for years, require businesses to have mandatory insurance coverage or pay a penalty, and reduce the pay for physicians who provide the actual services.
But will Democratic members of Congress—with President Obama’s blessing—actually negotiate with the opposition after literally locking Republicans out of the process, holding closed-door meetings with outside stakeholders, cutting secret deals with stakeholders, and getting embarrassed in the process? Morris does not think so.
“But will Obama do it?” questions Morris. “Will he emulate Clinton and save his presidency by moving to the center? Certainly not before he has lost his control over Congress. It was not the defeat of healthcare that impelled Clinton’s change of course, but his defeat in the elections of 1994. Even then, it took six months to turn the battleship around.
“And after he loses Congress? Probably not even then. Clinton was a lifelong moderate who moved to the left when expediency dictated. Obama is a lifelong liberal who pretends to move to the center when he has to. A committed socialist, one doubts that Obama would sacrifice his cherished transformative goals for incremental policies.”
Morris points out that “there is a basic difference between the circumstances that surround the Obama and Clinton administrations. Clinton faced relatively minor problems while Obama is neck deep in recession, deficit and stagnation. Clinton could reshape his presidency by positioning, posturing and passing moderate legislation. But Obama can only succeed by altering outcomes. Americans want jobs, lower unemployment, economic growth, a reduced deficit and an end to the recession.”
Morris does not cut anyone slack. “Just as George W. Bush could not recapture his popularity with new programs for Iraq—voters demanded a reduction in casualties and then withdrawal—Obama cannot save his (popularity) by announcing new ideas,” says Morris. “He has to produce. All the spin in the world will not save Obama.”
Morris says the voters will not tolerate much more Obama rhetoric, they demand results. My view is that the voters, even the independent voters who were vital in electing Obama, do not want government control and management of the health care industry, and do not want more government expansion of any kind controlling our lives.
They want Congress and the government to do a better job of regulating and controlling the institutions we already have in place to serve our needs.
I listen to and watch Dick Morris a lot because the only other political commentator I know who is as savvy and accurate as Morris about what is really going on is Charles Krauthammer. New York Times columnist David Brooks has called Charles Krauthammer “the most important conservative columnist” in the nation today.
FOX News may be fair and balanced, but the network is also conservative in every important issue of debate. That said, the other major networks (MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and PBS) are over-the-top liberal. They frequently fail to report news that does not ideologically suit them, or that they feel will hurt the political figures and beliefs they support, which is why there are so many liberal political commentators with mediocre minds.
In the main, the liberals sound to me like a bunch of confused and partisan commentators with little thought power compared to Krauthammer, who comes across as rational, logical and brilliant with a real intellect. Krauthammer can actually deliver compound, complex sentences on cue that explain a situation, provide brilliant insight, and make coherent sense at the same time.
This is why I will listen to everyone, but I am real careful about whom I believe gives valuable information. Until someone can outperform and out-predict Morris and Krauthammer, they remain among my most favored and trusted political commentators to best describe a current political situation.
A Message for Senator Mary Landrieu… It’s “Too Late to Apologize”: A Declaration February 6, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment
Mary Landrieu, D-La., was the recipient of a $300-million Medicaid bonus for her state during health overhaul negotiations, spawning a wave of criticism that Democratic leaders needed to make the so-called “Louisiana purchase” to secure her support for their reform bill. On Thursday, she defended the action, saying during a Senate floor speech, “I make no apologies for leading this effort,” Landrieu said. “Nor do I back down an inch from the yearlong effort that we have undertaken.”
Democrats Protecting the Backroom Deals February 5, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentBy Carrie Budoff Brown & Patrick O’connor
Sens. Carl Levin (left) and John Kerry (right) are among those whose states have benefited from pot-sweeteners added to the health care bill by Sen. Harry Reid.
The health care bill is in trouble, but a series of narrow deals — each designed to win over a wavering senator or key interest group — is alive and well, despite voter anger over the parochial horse-trading that marked the rush toward passage before Christmas.
With the exception of Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback,” which alienated independent voters and came to symbolize an out-of-touch Washington, none of the other narrow provisions that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inserted into the bill appear to be in any kind of danger as Democrats try to figure out the way ahead.
Not only that, House liberals want to reopen the labor deal struck just days before Democrats lost their 60-vote majority — not to dial it back but to provide more generous protections from the tax on Cadillac insurance plans.
“For those of us who, in principle, are opposed to it, this gives us another chance to push for our basic principle,” said Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat with strong ties to organized labor who sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. “It remains unsatisfactory.”
The flurry of last-minute deals helped sour Americans on the entire process, and the Massachusetts Senate election altered the trajectory of reform.
But Washington being Washington, none of that has cooled the appetite of senators and House members to tailor the bill to their specific needs — even though some Democrats worry that it could help destroy any chances of resurrecting reform, if lawmakers seem oblivious to voters’ concerns.
Nelson sacrificed his agreement with Reid to have the federal government forever pick up Nebraska’s share of a proposed Medicaid expansion, bowing to critics that included some in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has singled it out, saying her members will not consider the bill unless the Nebraska deal is removed.
But there is no visible movement to erase a Medicaid deal with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that she has said is worth $300 million, three times the amount of Nelson’s agreement.
Or to strike a line item that exempts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from a 40 percent tax on insurers that provide expensive health plans. Or to remove a provision that sends an extra $500 million in Medicaid funding to Massachusetts and $600 million to Vermont for being leaders in providing health insurance to their residents.
“It is very clear from the process that took place in the final days of the bill that Americans are disturbed about the process,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “I believe it would be important for us to take out the egregious items.”
Does that mean he might forfeit the money for Massachusetts?
