Warung Online

Minggu, 29 November 2009

9+6=4...Climate Scientist Fudge the Numbers!

 with excerpts from RealClearPolitics

"For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in."
_______________________________

In early October, evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming were brought to light. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit(CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia had  played part in cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."


 On Thursday 19th November 2009 news began to circulate that hacked documents and communications from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) had been published to the internet.The information revealed how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise (and grant money) that man-made factors are driving climate change. Hackers, over a period of a month, gathered thousands of e-mails and tons of incriminating data from the CRU and made them available on the Internet from servers in Russia.Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine. Yes, this is a theft of data and a few things must go without saying: (1) Hacking into someone's emails and private files is obviously wrong, and it should be prosecuted. (2) that global apocalyptic alarmists have been exposed as fear-mongering chicken little liars (not to mention hypocrites) for decades, but rarely has it been on a level where you actually have “scientists” and their associates caught on paper attempting to suppress data that is contra to their pre-desired result. And it looks to me some of these “scientists” have been clearly exposed.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realize just why the (experts) at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

Read for yourselves: Climate Research Unit Emails
These emails, exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the email messages contains gloating  over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
Now that's freakin sick!  But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline in temperature.

"Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
>>>>
These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.


But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.


This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money- Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

These revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory. This very well could be the scandal of the century, and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

It seems clear that the Obama administration, and the folks in traditional media, think this is a story better ignored. It won't work. While Big Media folks ignore the story, the alternate media are all over it. Polls have shown growing public skepticism, both in the U.S. and abroad, even before the Climategate revelations. That is now likely to grow.

Minggu, 22 November 2009

You're Making Us Proud, Mary.

 Is ObamaCare Important Enough to Buy Your Vote?
  
To get Senator Mary Landrieu's  (D-La.) vote, just to proceed, just to go across the starting line, language was inserted in the Senate Health Reform bill that gives the state of Louisiana up to $300 million. To get Senator Ben Nelson's vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to drop a request that you take away the antitrust exemptions for insurance companies. I ask again.....Is healthcare reform important enough to buy votes?


This got us to day one of the debate. Is this the way to do things Mary? The central promise of the Obama campaign was to change the way Washington works, remember? This is Washington as usual, is it not? 


I will  reminded you that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) claimed Saturday "very partisan Republican bloggers" were making the case that she voted for cloture as a result of the provision added to the bill giving her state additional healthcare funds.
 
I Can't speak for the Republican bloggers, but you can add me to the list that think you were bought out by the Senate leadership! Congress is full of gutless people without integrity, and doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea, Senator.
  
 But a least your trained to do something when 
we boot you out of office next election!





Selasa, 17 November 2009

Even More Nonsense from the Obama Administration.

 Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration Recovery.gov to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts. Discrepancies on government web site call into question stimulus spending.

The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program.

The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding an explanation.
"Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen," Obey said in a statement. "Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."
The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant. I'll repeat that.....$18 MILLION DOLLARS. 

ABC News reported it was able to locate several examples on the government's Web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified or non-existent.  For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.

The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.

In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.

In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.

In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.

$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.

$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.

Has anyone asked where the money actually went? Some of it could have been honest mistakes but that’s a lot of money floating around unaccounted for. The same “mistakes” happening again and again in several states?  It might be possible to claim human error in not knowing that a particular district doesn't exist (99 congressional districts in the Virgin Islands?) Please! However, a light should have gone off in someones head when they input the data showing we've spent 19 million dollars to create or save only 15 jobs!

In the mean time, the media reports  phony numbers and wah-la , we got us a economic recovery!  But hey, with tingles going up their legs when Obama speaks and that crazy Palin chick running around loose, guess they just  don't have time to really check it out.

BTW, how's that hope and change working for ya?

_______________________________________________




Jumat, 06 November 2009

Obama's Unique Insensitivity

President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner."

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should have occurred.

What happened to all the intelligence and intellect I keep hearing about, eh Barry?
You're Commander and Chief....AND THEY WERE SOLDIERS!!

Did the President not realize what sort of image he was presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing. Guess he had to work that Native American vote a little, after all  he has the dead people vote pretty much in the bag.

Just one more reason  for Obama's detractors to call him "an empty suit".

It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this?

Some Congressional Democrats must wonder if the White House has burdened them with an overly  ambitious, extremely expensive  policy agenda of disastrous consequences.

 And supporters across the country have real reason to panic..... it looks as if the empty suit has no coat tails.

 ________________________________


 

Secret Service Copyright © 2012 Fast Loading -- Powered by Blogger