Archive for November, 2009

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.

  • By L. GORDON CROVITZ

Columnist's name

For
anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness,
the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a
secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of
the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was
brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional
files were published online, many of which boasted about how they
suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name
"FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile
campaigners for the theory of global warming.

The findings from East Anglia have
been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but
compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the
evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim
routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

The IPCC stresses honest science.
According to its Web site, its goal is to "assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts
and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now
faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated
scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit’s director,
Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University,
promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between
human activity and global warming. "I can’t see either of these papers
being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out
somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is!"

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the
danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the
‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to
that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have
to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed
journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this
journal."

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate
Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of
the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which
Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann’s "trick" to "hide the decline"
in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line
"IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have
had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of
Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI
request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed
years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This
may be one reason they’ve fought information requests. They say they’ll
release the data they still have some time next year.

The emails showed how the
global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review
process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review"
as evidence of their "consensus." One of the dissident scientists,
Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the
emails show the "collusion to suppress other scientifically supported
views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a
systemic problem with the climate assessment process."

These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. "Opaqueness and
secrecy are the enemies of science," wrote George Monbriot, a leading
British environmentalist. "There is a word for the apparent repeated
attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific."
Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has written on climate
change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others "must have felt
that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions,
to develop ‘trick’ procedures, to ‘balance’ the needs of the IPCC, and
even to ‘redefine’ peer review."

This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who
review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and
lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the
anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the
years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused
peer review to block contrary evidence?

Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency
in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global
warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now
have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws is
hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our
digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no
scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in
secret.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement
and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies,
please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

Advertisements

Leave a comment

7 stories Obama doesn’t want told


By: John F. Harris
November 30, 2009 05:45 AM EST

Presidential
politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline,
voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information
into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election
in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The
pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young
idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This
easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic
Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was
letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his
image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the
Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining
momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines
are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are
fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency
to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the
president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum
were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more
than a trillion in stimulus spending
and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many,
though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions
helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.

Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political
consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate
spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts
with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were
necessary.

The flight of independents away from Democrats
last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year
elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among
these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending.
The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak
on cost-control will compound the problem.

Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that
he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal
discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger
substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal
discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would
cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.

Too much Leonard Nimoy

People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”

The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before
becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the
concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as
abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by
name.

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the
nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a
growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom
principles.

Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review
Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results
on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic
of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more
visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No
soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.

That’s the Chicago Way

This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.

It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of
themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington
Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina,
referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”

The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he
talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of
governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in
cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly
reverted to campaign hack mode.

The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public
battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig,
the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama
team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional
Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in
exchange for their backing his health care plans.

The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants
to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that
perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a
new style of political leader.

He’s a pushover

If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the
benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to
view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.

It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that
began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross
them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better
not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew
him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in
settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News
— which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real
news organization — then got interview time for its White House
correspondent.

In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this
unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen
as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict
with Iran over its nuclear program. 

He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

That line belonged to George H.W. Bush,
excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a
continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always
been to be an American exceptionalist.

Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country —
because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a
singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if
the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline
in U.S. influence or position in the world.

On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his
lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive
implications.

On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from
human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that
he is more interested in being President of the World than President of
the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he
stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an
international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.

President Pelosi

No figure in Barack Obama’s
Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will
than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that
hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party
discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the
stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed
climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care
reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting
the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.

The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude —
as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive
than Obama’s or come at his expense.

This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.

But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more
nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his
predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror

No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?

It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed.
He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with
Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses
his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for
The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White
House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.

White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right
strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly
fragmented media.

But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of
personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to
tangible achievements.

That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan
jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best
hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted
in public perceptions of his effectiveness.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Leave a comment

Global Warming Consensus: Garbage In, Garbage Out

By Michael Barone

As
Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it
will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate
Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England.
But perhaps it should.

The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a
hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global
warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

Michael Barone RealClearPolitics
climategate environment
global warming

[+] More

The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures,
relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the
e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and
misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting
views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent
e-mails:

"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!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"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) and from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t."

"I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
temperature station data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the
UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have
seen comes from The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle. "The CRU’s main computer
model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more
blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged,
diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of
information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded
data for independent examination."

Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that
the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I’m dismayed
and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the
CRU director. All of which brings to mind the old computer geek’s
phrase: garbage in, garbage out. The Copenhagen climate summit was
convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions — and thus sharp reductions in almost all
energy usage, at huge economic cost — in order to prevent disasters
that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific
consensus.

But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to
take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the
more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.

Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that
they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the
world’s elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific
consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks
(and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they
had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an
omelette.

For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific
models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking
quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the
CRU e-mails are not so surprising.

Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather
observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make
confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now?
Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs
on the American and world economies?

Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama’s presence, seems sure to be a bust
— there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions.
Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective
than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China
and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to
please Western global warming alarmists.

The more interesting question going forward is whether European and
American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced
global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the
scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page
Printed from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/30/global_warming_consensus_garbage_in_garbage_out__99333.html
at November 30, 2009 – 09:40:44 AM PST

Leave a comment

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

  By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, November 30, 2009

Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball

The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.

Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged.
People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their
involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history,
identify the people involved and provide context. 

The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey  Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper).   As
analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of
individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our
perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism
and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can
hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
 Wegman
identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from
the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”. They are still
reinforcing each other and refuse to acknowledge the severity of their
actions. Mainstream media helps by downplaying the significance or
deliberately closing their eyes. It’s deeply disturbing to learn
scientists have deliberately twisted science for social and political
ends. I watched it happen, now I can set out the history and identify
those involved. 

Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction

As recently as June 19th 2009, they gathered and reinforced each other at a Symposium to honor (?) Tom Wigley.

In a measure of bureaucratic involvement Univeristy Corporation of
Atmospheric Research (UCAR) President Rick Anthes’ opening slide
ridiculed McIntyre and McKitrick who broke the hockey stick. “The reply, by Wigley and Jones, is a monument of obfuscation, irrelevance and spite.” (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick October 2, 2005). This was followed by a quote that said, “This doesn’t sound like the Tom Wigley we know and love…What’s going on here.” Well, Mr. Anthes the avuncular Wigley fooled most of the world. I know. I watched him.

I’ve written about poor climate science and political machinations.
Now disclosure of the scientists involved at the CRU and beyond allows
me to describe who and how they did it with the support of Maurice
Strong. He established the political framework through formation of the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists provided the science
through the IPCC. Strong took their claims to the green movements
through the 1992 Rio Conference. Strong’s powerful connections in
Canada were apparently used to involve Environment Canada (EC) in
development of the IPCC and CRU connections. These bureaucrats drew in
other government agencies who easily convinced politicians desperate to
appear green. Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at EC,
chaired the 1985 Villach Austria meeting when formation of the IPCC was
planned. Here are the two major players in the CRU scandal, Phil Jones
and Tom Wigley, in Villach in a series shown at Wigley’s career
Symposium.

             
Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.
Source:

Jones’ innocent look belies his actions. In one email he wrote to Michael 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!”

Wigley Takes Control of CRU

While doing my doctoral thesis, I went to CRU for a meeting with the
founder Hubert Lamb, justifiably considered the father of modern
climatology. These events would mortify him because his diligence and
integrity were beyond reproach.

Lamb worked every day almost to the end, but the real power was
emerging in the person of Tom Wigley (Figure 2). Lamb knew what was
going on because he cryptically writes in his autobiography, “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of,
“…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and
the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of
the research.”
 

         
Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU.
Source :

Wigley is the grandfather figure and in control throughout as the emails illustrate. They seek his advice as in this email, which ends, “I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful” The originator was seeking ideas for a National Academy of Sciences plan.

Other comments are more direct and frightening. Bishop Hill summarizes, “Tom
Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers
getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the
publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the
journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is
true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to
resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.”

In another push to have someone removed Wigley supports Michael
Mann’s attack on the journal editor of Geophysical Review Letters (GRL)
who published McIntyre’s 2005 paper. Again Hill’s summary, “Mann
has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is
concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with
U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers
is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him
ousted.) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]

This quote illustrates the problem for the public. Unless you
understand the science and the events the comments make little sense.
Apart from comments like how to avoid Freedom of Information (FOI)
requests it is easy to divert attention.

A Channel 4 (UK) documentary released in 1990 titled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” is relevant today.

PBS refused to show it arguing it was biased. I saw a pirated
version with senior management of a public utility who wanted
explanation and commentary.

Wigley’s appearance explains why CRU and National Centre for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) were indebted. In response to a question
about the research, he coyly says he has many research students to
fund. This attitude, that the end justifies the means, pervades his
commentary in the exposed emails. He’s the intellectual force but more
important the bagman as this photo from the Symposium implies.

               
Figure 3: No wonder Prince Charles says we have 100 months left, he has a ‘reliable’ source.

The IPCC Connection

Wigley is prominent in the IPCC from the start. Graduate students are
prominent names in the emails and the IPCC. Phil Jones is the focus as
current Director of the CRU, but as Figure 1 shows he was alongside
Wigley from the start. Another prominent CRU graduate is Benjamin
Santer seen here with Jones and Wigley.

             
Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Source:

Santer was lead author of Chapter 8 for the 1995 IPCC Report and involved in the first major controversy.
He altered contents of the Chapter so it agreed with the Summary for
Policymakers (SPM) without consent of other authors. The emails show
how the Reports similarly achieved political not scientific objectives.

Of course, IPCC rules were carefully written to achieve this end.

Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/symposium/ ” title=“Source”>Source:

The people in the picture are connected with East Anglia or the
IPCC. In another photo (Figure 6) they are unsure of source or time but
it puts Wigley and Jones together early with leading figures like
Syukoru Manabe, whose computer model was the basis of the IPCC models,
and Bert Bolin first chairman of the IPCC (now deceased).

Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC
Source:

All the people in the emails are listed in the various author lists
of each of the IPCC Reports. For example, the 2007 list includes these
names Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Keith Briffa, Jonathan
Overpeck, Andrew Weaver, Martin Parry among others.

Naturally, they are responding in feeble and predictable ways. For example UCAR President Rick Anthes said, “E-mails,
by their nature, are quickly and sometimes thoughtlessly written and
therefore open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation,” he said.
“It’s unfortunate that this illegal hacking and invasion of privacy has
generated such headlines and bad will. It doesn’t alter the fundamental
scientific fact that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are changing our climate.”

So it’s the hacker’s fault; a common theme from Jones and others.
Ignore the fact Anthes’ statement is completely wrong and a circular
argument based on the false information of CRU and IPCC. They all claim
the comments are out of context. Wigley picks a devastating email to
say, “This e-mail was directed to Phil Jones only, and Phil knew exactly what I was talking about,” So do I, Tom! “It
does not at all refer to making some arbitrary correction to existing
data in order to make such data fit some preconceived ideas about
global warming.”
Yes it does. Wigley knows that most people
including the mainstream media will not understand and liberals won’t
want to see. They’ve used this lack of understanding all along.

Government Funding Enlarges the Monster

Political exploitation will delay condemnation. Business and political
opportunities created by CRU and IPCC, both heavily funded by
government, will not yield easily. I spoke with five farm groups in
Alberta recently and at one a company selling carbon credits gave a
presentation. The person involved said he didn’t care about or even
want to discuss the science. He saw a business opportunity. Farmers saw
income. I told them the cost of carbon strategies would put money in
their left pockets by taking a greater amount out of their right
pockets. Sadly, I’ve known all along it’s based on false and falsified
science. Now the world knows.

Share
| (4) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columns

Copyright © 2009 CFP
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364

Leave a comment

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

  By JB Williams  Saturday, November 28, 2009

On June 10, 2009 I wrote about formal treason charges filed against Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, in – Is Obama Guilty of Treason? I followed that column up with – Why Commander Fitzpatrick Is NOT Guilty of Mutiny! on June 13. Since then, numerous others have filed similar treason charges against Obama/Soetoro with little or no fanfare…

If Obama is indeed guilty of treason – then we have a growing list
of folks who are also committing treason. Namely, every member of law
enforcement and the justice system who have taken an oath to uphold and
defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic –
along with every individual in Washington DC and beyond who has chosen
to look the other way while denying American citizens their day in
court – claiming that no citizen has the “legal standing” to ask who in
the hell Barack Hussein Obama really is…

After visits from the Secret Service and months of rejection by the
courts, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick may get his day in court.

On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy
Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his
treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

The road to justice has been bumpy, to say the least. Commander
Fitzpatrick has been ridiculed, blocked in court house halls,
threatened, accused of mutiny and labeled a “crackpot” by Obama
supporters who see no need for a standard background check for the most
powerful office in the world.

Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges
against Grand Jury Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the
court.  Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on
December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.

Now, this places the Tennessee Grand Jury squarely in the middle of
the biggest Constitutional Crisis in U.S. history. Fitzpatrick will be
under oath before the Grand Jury on Tuesday. If the Grand Jury has any
doubts about Fitzpatrick’s testimony, they must arrest him for perjury
on the spot. If they don’t arrest him for perjury, they are accepting
his testimony as true and accurate…

If Article II—Section I—Clause V of the U.S. Constitution
means nothing—then no part of the Constitution means anything today. On
the other hand, if the Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury follows its
oath to uphold, protect and preserve the Constitution and apply the law
equally to all, then the charge of treason must be allowed its day in
court.

The Monroe County Grand Jury appears ready to act on its oath and
authority. But if they don’t, they could become thirteen new members of
a long list of folks equally guilty of treason, for turning their heads
the other way and denying the American people access to the courts in
what might be the greatest case in U.S. political history.

Thirteen members of the Monroe County Grand Jury hold the future of
Constitutional Law in their hands. Come Tuesday, they will have an
opportunity to keep their oath to the American people – the citizens of
Monroe County and state of Tennessee. Of course, they will also have an
opportunity to do what several civil and criminal court judges have
already done on the matter. They can turn their heads and deny citizens
their right to be heard…

But with each passing day, the stakes get higher and higher in the
case over who Obama/Soetoro really is and whom he really serves. Atop
the growing list of unconstitutional acts by the Obama administration is the Samson Alabama story in which—
An Army investigation has found that the use of armed military
policemen from Fort Rucker in response to mass murders in Samson
violated federal law.”
—reports the Associated Press.

“The Army earlier confirmed that 22 military police
and an officer were sent to Samson after the mass slaying of 10 people
on March 10. – The Department of Army Inspector General found a
violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restrains the use of the
military for civilian law enforcement purposes.”

Yet ten months after inauguration, Obama’s entire past remains a
mystery under lock and key. Obama has spent almost $2 million in legal
fees to keep his life Top Secret, not counting millions in tax-payer
funded road blocks thrown up by Obama’s Justice Department, which has
sent numerous federal attorneys into court after court to file
dismissal requests on the basis of “standing” – with great success.
They don’t want the courts to ever decide Obama’s Constitutional
eligibility on “merit,” because if discovery ever goes forward and
Obama’s filed are opened up, Obama is finished and so is his Marxist Global Agenda!

Make no mistake… The courts have clearly ruled that NO AMERICAN
CITIZEN has the “proper standing” to ask even the most fundamental
questions about Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro). The American
press has not only ignored these facts, but mocked anyone willing to
ask the right questions – of the right people – in the right way.

Tuesday, the Monroe County Grand Jury will get an opportunity to
make history and reverse the modern trend of denying citizens their day
in court. The people have a right to know who and what Obama really is.
Let’s see if the Monroe County Grand Jury has the backbone to force
Obama to answer that question.

When an unconstitutional resident of the White House rushes a
laundry list of unconstitutional policies through, including the use of
the Military against U.S. citizens—against the demands of the American
citizens, it’s time to ask some very serious questions and the American
people deserve no less than honest answers.

The Monroe County Grand Jury will hear these and other charges Tuesday December 1st.
God help this nation if they lack the courage to take a stand with the
citizenry of this great nation.  The future of American justice hangs
in the balance! The people deserve much more than a simple birth
certificate. They deserve a legitimate government – limited to its
constitutional authority – and they deserve a justice system willing to
uphold those foundational principles and values.

All eyes across this nation will be on Monroe County Tennessee this week!

Share
| (0) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a
father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics,
American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide
and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/

JB Williams can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by JB Williams


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17303

1 Comment

The whole “global warming” myth is a scam, a fraud, and most significantly, a crime

 

Climategate Criminals, and Getting Our Money Back

 By Jim O’Neill  Friday, November 27, 2009

“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks
who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S.
taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.” —Lord Christopher Monckton November 23, 2009

In a recent article,
Lord Monckton pointed out that, far from suffering from global warming,
the planet has experienced “rapid and significant cooling” over the
past nine years.

That bears repeating.  Over the past nine years the world has
experienced “rapid and significant cooling.”  There has been no global
warming—it is a Big Lie.

The whole “global warming” myth is a scam, a fraud, and most significantly, a crime.

We need to start throwing some of the people responsible for this
outrage into jail.  And we need to start suing to get our money back,
and stop this swindle by corrupt politicians, Marxist ideologues, and
their dupes.

I say “Marxist ideologues” because behind the veneer of
Progressivism, Communitarianism, Statism, Global Collectivism, et al.,
is an agenda that is rooted in Marxist/Communism.

When the Cold War ended, the old bugaboo of Communism didn’t just go
away—it hid for awhile, and then reemerged in new clothes.  People
wearing those “new clothes” are now running the U.S. government, and
“we the people” are increasingly waking up to that fact.

In the “boiled frog” scenario, a frog in a pot of water is cooked to
death if the temperature is slowly increased by small increments, but
jumps out of the pot, if the temperature is abruptly increased.

America was being “boiled alive” quite nicely, thank you, until the
Obama Administration came along and cranked up the heat.  Now the
“frog’s” awake—and wants to get the heck out of the pot.  Our lives
depend on it.

These wolves in sheep’s clothing are hell-bent on “social justice,”
“sustainable development,” and “redistributing wealth.”  They are
dedicated to wiping out America’s middle-class, destroying America as a
world power, and installing a repressive planetary regime that will
quash individual liberty, and freedom of expression.

One of the chief ways that they are going about doing this, is
through crippling America’s production capacity, by making it
exorbitantly expensive, illegal, or impossible, to produce food and
goods. 

Agenda 21, Carbon Credits, Global Warming Scam

The Cap and Trade bill is designed to put the finishing touches on a
process already well underway, via the UN’s Agenda 21, and laws enacted
because of the “global warming” scam.

Corporation shareholders should be insisting that their CEOs
instigate lawsuits to recover funds paid for “carbon credits” and other
expensive nonsense. 

Taxpayers should be instigating class-action lawsuits to reclaim the
money that has been misspent in various bogus “global warming” agendas.

And yes, people who were instrumental in propagating the “global warming” fraud, should be sent to jail.

The “global warming” lie, is the largest rip-off in history.  It is
nothing less than the criminal attempt (largely successful) to defraud
the public, and bilk us out of billions, possibly trillions, of dollars.

The LSM (Lame Stream Media) is doing their best to sweep Climategate
under the rug—hoping that by ignoring it, it’ll just go away.  “We the
people” must insure that it is put on the front burner, and stays there.

Let’s get out of the pot, and put them in it.

Laus Deo.

Share
| (0) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe

Jim O’Neill Most recent columns

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from
1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team
Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters
off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the
University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First
Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in
Journalism Ethics Award.”  The annual contest was set up by Carol
Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National
Enquirer for libel.

Jim can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com


Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17294

Leave a comment

Marxist-run ObamaGov Declares Death of US Republic

Crushing The Godly

 By Stephen Eichler
Forced Medical Insurance Will Violate The Faith Of Many

On Mammogram Guidelines, No Fact Checks for Sebelius or Durbin

 By Michael Bates
As long as the target is George W. Bush, no fact checking is necessary

Marxist-run ObamaGov Declares Death of US Republic

 By Sher Zieve
Obamacare, Cap and trade

Senate Health Bill has Cloture Success

 By Mike Konkel
Buying Votes, Population control


American Politics

Stimulus Stimulated Much of Nothing in Illinois

 By Warner Todd Huston
None of these “jobs” are real, useful, and economically real jobs

The Obama Headship, The USA Death And Resurrection

 By Rev. Lainie Dowell
America’s Elected and Appointed Leaders Are At War Against Americans

The Dead End Quest for Peace

 By Daniel Greenfield
A year into Obama’s first term dedicated to multilateralism and soft power, the world is more unstable than ever

Obama Flubs Job Count: Why Trust His Health Care Numbers?

 By John Lillpop
Creation or salvation of jobs in non-existent congressional districts and other anomalies

Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen Announcement

 By EPW Blog
No amount of lofty rhetoric or promises of future commitments can save Copenhagen climate conference

Has Obama Forgotten About That Nobel Peace Prize in His Trophy Case?

 By John Lillpop
President Obama plans to send another 34,000 American troops to Afghanistan

How Many Lies Is Enough?

 By JR Dieckmann
Obama’s and Holder’s statements have already prejudiced the jury pool and could cause the trial to end in a mistrial

Cracks of Transparency Daylight Appear as Congress Puts Spotlight on the Fed

 By Jerry McConnell
A light has been directed into the deep, dark secrets of the Federal Reserve

The End of History or a History of the End?

 By Warner Todd Huston
Liberal democracy had won the debate over which system was best and, therefore?


American Freedom

Congress Must Stop the Trial in New York City

 By Phyllis Schlafly
The U.S. Constitution can rescue us from the Obama Administration’s latest push toward "remaking America."

The Manhattan Declaration – To Every Thing there is a Season

 By Rev. Michael Bresciani
The Manhattan Declaration is in some ways a declaration of war

Why Drug Companies are Working to Control Natural Supplements

 By Tom Deweese
Drug industry works to get the FDA to take control of supplements

Sustainable Development Law: S-1619

 By Henry Lamb
Senator Christopher Dodd, Livable Communities Act


American Life

America’s Photo Gallery

 By Editor
America in Pictures

Giving Thanks

 By Jeff Lukens
Living in a land of freedom, and the prosperity it makes possible, is an extraordinary gift

America The Valiant

 By Claudia Rosett
This is a great country–vast, beautiful, rich and free

200,000 Christian Shoppers Wear Buttons That Tell Retailers ‘It’s OK Wish Me A Merry Christmas’

 By Christian Newswire
Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign

Leave a comment