No Global warming, but a man-made problem of blatant statistical larceny

This planet does not have a man-made global warming dilemma.
However, humanity does have a Mann-made problem of blatant statistical
larceny

No Loophole for Your Soul

 By Joseph A Olson, PE  Saturday, January 30, 2010

The British Freedom of Information Act requires filing criminal
charges with six months of a request being denied.  This time the
‘deniers’ are those who did not comply with requests for their data and
math models.  This was publicly funded research which was required to
be public information.  Withholding requested material was a criminal
act.

This planet does not have a man-made global warming dilemma. 
However, humanity does have a Mann-made problem of blatant statistical
larceny.  The statue of limitations may allow the warmist criminals to
avoid the gallows, but as long as freemen are allowed to seek truth,
the warmist fate is sealed.  They have committed the greatest FRAUD in
all of human history.

Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT had two public debates with a renown
warmist this week and the question of the Hadley CRU emails came up. 
Dr Lindzen was outspoken in his condemnation.  The warmist claimed that
since the emails were ‘private’ and ‘stolen’ it was not proper to read
them.  Out of professional ‘respect’ he said that he had not read the
emails and could not comment. 

The deaf, blind and mute monkey defense was not appreciated and
should no longer be tolerated.  If you chose to be uninformed on this
falsification, suppression and exploitation that has been perpetrated
in the name of science, then you do not deserve a place at this
debate.  You may defend or try to minimize the effect of this behavior,
but you will no longer ignore it.

I turned my disgust to activism.  I wrote a series of articles on
the breech of scientific protocol and then emailed them to over 200 UK
science professors and college administrators (see EAEH) with few
replies.  Professor Mike Hulmes of East Anglia University did send me a
rebuttal to one of my statements.  In an article posted Jan 6, 2010, I
made the comment that “this could be the worst winter in living memory”
based on forecasts by Piers Corbin.

Prof. Hulme stated that December 2009 was the worst since 1996 and
January 2010 was the worst since 1987.  The record cold had let up for
the last week of January so Piers forecasts were wrong.  The coldest
winter in 24 or 13 years was hardly a lifetime.

What is common sense and statistically important is the combined two
month aggregate may be the coldest two months in living memory and
there are several more months of UK winter left to endure.  I hope that
the UK has the salt, grit, coal and gas supplies to endure what is to
come.  I thank Prof Hulme for his reply.  He has been a clear voice of
reason from the East Anglia University.  I look forward to our
continued debate.

This author chose to enter this greatest of human debates on the
side of Geo-nuclear climate forcing.  It is a daunting task to be the
first to project dots and draw lines on a vast blank canvas.  A task
made harder by the limitations of the lack of general science knowledge
and the brevity of each article.  The reader should review previous
material (see MFFACC) unless you have a good understanding of Physics,
Chemistry and Geology. 

More Dots on the Blank Canvas

As mentioned previously, we are standing on 700,000 cubic miles of
fissionable material and each atomic reaction releases 2 million times
the energy of a typical hydrocarbon molecule reduction.  It is not
sunlight or gravity that keeps this 7000 mile diameter sphere of rock
boiling under our feet.  The force that melts this rock is also the
greatest variable in climate and so much more. 

There are two great mysteries that have enormous impact on climate
change and understanding.  The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic
Multi-decadal Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation are all directly
impacted by Geo-nuclear variations described in previous articles.  One
great force in the climate equations is the Earth’s magnetic field. 
This great mystery may now have a new theory.

The Earth’s magnetic field has always behaved in a random manner. 
The poles move in irregular motions, field strength varies constantly
and occasionally disappears or reverses.  In researching the structure
of the Earth’s core, I found startling research on the inner core. 
University of Illinois researchers Xiaodong Song and Xinlei Sun have
found that there is a solid inner core of crystalline iron molecules in
a cubic formation (see ULUC).

Previous research had shown that this inner core was revolving
faster than the Earth’s rotation.  What force could overcome the
resistance of the molten rock mantle and how does this relate to
magnetism?  Iron molecules have a natural dipole and would align as a
liquid prior to crystalization.  Think of the core as a 1500 mile
diameter magnet spinning in a molten rock suspension.

A spinning magnet is a generator, which produces a magnetic field
that varies with speed.  As this enormous iron disco ball spins the
field axis project thru the Earth’s surface and into space.  Variations
in the spin orbit cause the axis to move.  But what force could cause
this motion?

The energy in the ‘equal but opposite’ reaction clause of Newton’s
Laws of Motion are a function of mass and the velocity squared.  NASA
predicts that the vast inner stellar distances can be conquered with
particle beam accelerators.  The high velocity particles from
Geo-nuclear reactions are the only force that could propel the Earth’s
core.

A simple analogy would be a rider on a merry-go-round firing a high
powered projectile in random directions.  The recoil and impacts would
cancel any relative movement unless the projectiles were deflected. 
Now suppose that there is a set of turbine blades on bearings in the
center of the merry-go-round.  Striking the turbine blades would cause
the turbine to spin at a different speed from the carriage.

High velocity particles striking crystal planes in the Earth’s core
would deflect to the relative open space between the planes and this
deflection would provide a force vector.  More detailed discussion of
this theory later, but for now, the connection to climate.

Climate is the aggregate of weather and weather is merely the
visible trailing reaction of a large number of combined nuclear,
geologic and cosmic forces.  Magnetic field strength and orientation
has a tremendous impact on solar radiation, cloud formation and the
planets weather.  The underlying forces for climate are at the limit of
our current understanding and far beyond any human control or impact.

Mea Culpa In-Waiting

Science is seldom settled.  To claim that science is settled is a
sure sign of a charlatan.  Even accepted science is one revelation from
revision, one conflict from a corollary and one set of data from the
dustbin.  To claim that a change of a few parts per million of a
natural atmospheric molecule could have any measurable effect on
climate was the height of hubris.

The Hadley hacking exposed the serious nature of a political agenda
in a charade as science.  Aiding in this fraud was a duplicitous mass
media, a defective peer review process and ineffectual professional
societies.  While we wait for the apologies from the media, the peers
and the societies we can reflect on the new science debate.  This
attempted fraud has awakened the science community and increased the
general knowledge of science, history and government.

This author has entered the debate to insure that the widest
possible set of parameters is considered prior to announcing another
false consensus.  I have no grants, publications, stock offerings or
any personal gain as motive.  If, in the course of humanity’s greatest
debate, I have made statements that are inaccurate or in need of
clarification I will gladly submit.  Truth is too noble a cause for me
to ignore.

 

Joseph A Olson, PE
Jan 30, 2010

 

EAEH are “East Anglia Event Horizon”, “Nullius in Verba” and “Overcoming Climate
    Inertia”  articles by author,  posted at Canada Free Press, Freemen Institute and cross
    linked to hundreds web/blogs in a dozen languages.
     
MFFACC is “Motive Force for All Climate Change” by author, posted at
    ClimateRealist.com

ULUC is….. news.illinois.edu/news/08/031core.html

 

CFP Tools

(1) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us |

Send this page to a friend!
|

Joseph A Olson, PE  Bio

Joseph A Olson, PE Most recent columns The Strange Tale of Green House Gas Gang and Motive Force for All Climate Change are both posted at ClimateRealist.com along with a complete series of articles on the Geo-nuclear climate forcing theory. Joseph can be reached at: houston2000@peoplepc.com

‘Draft Kudlow’ Movement Picking Up Steam

A
rising voice is calling for CNBC talk host and supply-side economist
Larry Kudlow to challenge liberal New York Sen. Chuck Schumer in this
year’s election.

And Kudlow said he is going to give a possible run “careful consideration.”

Newsmax
first disclosed that Kudlow could have political aspirations back in
March 2009, reporting that he was mulling a bid for Democratic Sen.
Christopher Dodd’s Senate seat from Connecticut. Kudlow announced
several weeks later that he wasn’t running.

But
on Jan. 20, Newsmax reported that “the New York political scene is
buzzing with talk of a movement to draft Larry Kudlow” to run as a
Republican challenger to Schumer.

Several
media outlets cited and/or linked to the Newsmax story in the days that
followed, including Politico and The Village Voice in New York.

Then
on Sunday, Jan. 24, the Buffalo News reported that Michael Caputo, who
served as a speechwriter for Rep. Jack Kemp, is leading an online
movement to draft Kudlow for the race, and has set up a Web site at www.draftkudlow.com.

“No
one in New York State deserves to stay home more than Chuck Schumer,
and I really believe Larry Kudlow is the one person who can send him
home,” he told the newspaper.

And Caputo told Newsmax: “It’s time for Chuck Schumer to be sent packing.”

Kudlow
has served as chief economist for several Wall Street firms, and was an
economics adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He now runs his own
economics research firm, hosts CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” and “The
Call” programs, and hosts “The Larry Kudlow Show” on WABC Radio on
Saturdays.

Caputo and his group aim to collect 100,000 signatures online to help convince Kudlow to enter the Senate race.

Nearly
1,000 people signed up on the first day the Web site was up, Newsmax
has learned, and Kudlow’s office has been flooded with calls and
e-mails, almost all of them urging him to run.

A
“Draft Larry Kudlow” site is up and running on Facebook. A typical
entry reads, “Finally, someone with conservative credentials and name
recognition . . . Mr. Kudlow, please consider running.”

New York State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long said he signed up on the Facebook site.

“I would be very pre-disposed to support Larry if he runs for Schumer’s seat,” Long told the Albany Times Union.

“He’s
a pro-growth conservative. He understands how you can create jobs. He
would fight for policies that would create job growth. If he was ever
to go to the United States Senate, he would become the leading voice
for a pro-growth economy that would cut spending, cut taxes, and create
jobs.”

At one point, the prospect of
unseating Schumer in blue state New York seemed a long shot. First
elected in 1998, he serves as the vice chairman of the Senate
Democratic Caucus and is considered the third most powerful Democrat in
the Senate. He won re-election in 2004 with more than 70 percent of the
vote, and is said to have amassed a campaign war chest of more than $30
million for this year’s race.

But the stunning Jan. 19 election win by Republican Scott Brown in blue state Massachusetts has changed that thinking.

Before
that election, “the idea of running Larry Kudlow for the Senate was a
wish,” Caputo told Newsmax. “And thanks to Scott Brown, we now know
that wishes can come true.”

Caputo told
Politico’s Ben Smith: “With Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts, it’s
clear that not even Sen. Chuck Schumer is safe.”

Asked
for his reaction to the move to enlist him against Schumer, Kudlow told
Newsmax early in the week only that he is “honored by the talk and the
consideration.”

But on Thursday, he told
New York radio-host Curtis Sliwa: “I’m going to give all this careful
attention. And I do believe that retiring Sen. Schumer would be a noble
cause, and at the present time that’s about all I can say.”

As Brown’s victory shows, anything can happen.

Under Republicans (12 yrs) ANNUAL deficit 104 Billion, Under Obama, MONTHLY deficit 90 Billion

Fact-Checking the President in Baltimore   [Daniel Foster]

In this video, a bemused President Obama responds to a claim by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) that monthly deficits under the Democrat-controlled Congress exceed the annual deficits accrued by Republican Congresses from 1996 to 2007:

Obama calls for "independent fact check" of Hensarling factual statement

Beginning at about 3:33, the president says: "When you say
that suddenly, I’ve got a monthly . . . deficit that’s higher than the
annual deficit left by the Republicans . . . that’s factually just not
true. And you know it’s not true."

At 5:08, the president says "I am happy to have any
independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation
versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said."

Obama is right. Monthly deficits under the recent Democratic Congresses don’t exceed annual deficits under those Republican Congresses. But they come pretty darn close.

Hensarling’s comments likely emerged from a release issued
by the Republican Study Committee just yesterday, showing that the
total accumulated deficit from Republican-controlled budgets from FY
1996-FY 2007 (and factoring in the substantial surpluses run from
1998-2001) stands at just under $1.246 trillion. The deficit run by
Democratic-controlled Congresses in just three years — starting with
FY2008 and including the latest CBO projections for FY 2010 — is already $3.222 trillion.

That means that over twelve years of Republican rule,
there was an average annual budget deficit of about $104 billion.
Compare that with an average annual deficit since 2008 of $1.074
trillion — or about $90 billion per month.

No need to trust the GOP document either. The CBO has all the data in a handy downloadable spreadsheet here.

Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe

Thank You G.W. For Keeping US Safe

Newsweek
By Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman

For
weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his
plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his
handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going
to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its
ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR),
clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos
of professional-misconduct allegations.

Thats
right you liberal pinko slimballs! You sleep safe in your beds at night
and drive your environmentally safe cars, while eating your tofu…
BASTARDS! G.W. made the REALLY hard decisions while your “light-skinned
Negro parades around like some political drag queen ready too take up
the ass. We Met the enemy on their terms and showed those Muslim
bastards what it feels like to be a virgin… right up the kazoos!

While
the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify
waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK
has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of
the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report
concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court
judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional
obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving
the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for
anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career
veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed
“poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor
judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is
significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to
state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in
Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.

I got your poor judgement… Bamboo Splints

The
report, which is still going through declassification, will provide
many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that
top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who
have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive
document. Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002
memo—including one contending that the president, as commander in
chief, can override a federal law banning torture—were not in the
original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff,
then-chief of Justice’s criminal division, refused the CIA’s request
for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met
at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief counsel,
and then–White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted
a section about the commander in chief’s wartime powers and another
saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could
claim they were acting in “self-defense” to prevent future terror
attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been
rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal
precedent.

Yeah!~ Whomever thought this shit up… Give him or her a raise and a star or
two!

A
Justice official declined to explain why David Margolis softened the
original finding, but noted that he is a highly respected career lawyer
who acted without input from Holder. Yoo and Bybee (through his lawyer)
declined requests for comment.

I have a comment… Obama and crew are setting us up for another attack… REMEMBER, NEVER FORGET!

The Tea Party Movement, The GOP & Making It Work

NewMediaJournal.us

www.NewMediaJournal.us    

Return
to Article    
Kindle Compatible

Frank Salvato,
Managing Editor

January 29, 2010

Only the most partisan and/or
politically ignorant among us would fail to recognize the magnitude, importance
and the consequences of the Tea Party Movement. To be certain, it is a force to
be reckoned with. But, as with the science of storms, there is a danger when two
forces compete to occupy the same space. We of the Right side of the aisle must
recognize this danger and insist that actions are taken, definitions are
designated and roles are recognized, lest we turn an important moment in time
into catastrophic history.

The Tea Party Movement
The first thing we have to do is to recognize and understand exactly what
the Tea Party Movement is, where it came from and why.

Many in the political world have erroneously identified the Tea Party Movement
as a political group not unlike the Democrats, Libertarians or Republicans. In
fact, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Proof to this reality is in the
fact that people who have embraced the Tea Party Movement come from every flavor
of politics. When over a million people

descended on Washington in the name of the Tea Party Movement last Fall, the
crowd was comprised of people from every political party – sans the
Progressives, every social background, every religion and every race. To say
that it is dominated by any one political party is to make a huge
mistake.

The Tea Party Movement – and the name itself is symbolic rather than
manufactured – is, in reality, the re-awakening of the American people to their
obligation to civic responsibility; to governmental oversight. This is nothing
new or revolutionary, as was the original

Boston Tea Party of 1773.

This re-awakening is actually a return to the obligation of citizenry as
envisioned by the Founders and Framers. People like Jefferson, Adams,
Washington, Franklin and Madison took for granted that the citizenry would
understand their role in government: that of the overseer. The Founders and
Framers believed that we would be vigilant in providing governmental oversight,
in understanding just who we were electing to office and in holding them
accountable for their actions. In short, they believed we, as citizens, would do
our part by paying attention to government.

The truth is We the People began to abdicate this solemn responsibility
with the advent of government entitlement and as apathy increased, political
opportunists, ideologues and nefarious elements – such as the Progressive
Movement, the globalists and their proxies – took hold in government. As we slid
ever deeper into the abyss of political apathy we lost out government to special
interest groups and those who would want to “fundamentally
transform” our country from a Constitutional Republic to a cog in a new
One-World Order.

The Tea Party Movement is – for all practical purposes – We the People
re-establishing our rightful place at the top of the governmental food chain,
from whence all the power of government is derived. It is not a political party.
It is the American people re-establishing their constitutional right of
governmental oversight and redress of government.

Re-Establishing the GOP Brand
Understanding that the Republican Party can never “own” the Tea Party
Movement – essentially because the Tea Party Movement is a mindset and not an
entity – there remains the issue of re-establishing the Republican brand.

The fact that the Republican brand is in trouble – and has been since at least
2006 – is attributable not only to the lack of governmental oversight by We
the People, but by the lack of oversight targeting the political party
hierarchy by rank-and-file Republicans. The GOP allowed itself to be co-opted –
to a great extent – by inside-the-beltway political operatives that cared more
about winning elections than advancing Republican principles.

To recap, aside for its staunch stance against slavery and its support of the

Missouri Compromise, the

original platform of the Republican Party circa 1856 establishes that the
Republican Party stood for:

▪ A rededication of government to constitutional principles, philosophies and
limitations

▪ A strong, prudent and principled national security

▪ A well-maintained infrastructure

And perhaps the most important and defining provision,

“RESOLVED, That we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all
parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the
principles herein declared; and believing that the spirit of our institutions as
well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and
equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their
security.”

Simply stated, the platform of 1856 created the “big tent” party that
Republican National Committee members say they quest for today by limiting the
planks in the platform and by employing the understanding that it is more
important to safeguard an individual’s right to advance their own “special
interest” agenda (please understand that the term “special interest” doesn’t
necessarily mean something unsavory) than it is to champion that special
interest as a part of the party’s platform.

This concept is brilliance in practice.

The Republicans who crafted the original platform understood that legislating
the micromanagement of specific societal mores was a no-win proposition. If one
administration choose to advance legislation – or even the establishment of a
constitutional amendment – to champion a specific special interest issue, it was
understood that all that would be necessary to render that legislation moot
would be for a future administration, in possession of an opposing view on the
issue, to simply overturn or craft legislation nullifying the prior legislation.
They recognized that legislated solutions to societal and/or cultural ills would
never – and could never – render the issue resolved. A perfect example of this
comes in the issue of prohibition.

Instead, the Republicans who established the original party platform understood
that protecting the right of the individual – the right of the individual
– to affect societal change and establish cultural mores outside the confines of
government was the singular effective political component in resolving societal
differences. The Republican Party of 1856 stood for defending the individual’s
right to affect society and the societal norms, and they expected that the
citizenry would be self-motivated and self-sufficient enough to embrace that
freedom and the self-ordained civic responsibility to engage on behalf of their
societal beliefs.

Today, aside from recovering from the moniker of spendthrift, the Republican
Party has morphed into a mirror image of the Progressive-held Democrat Party.
They say “black” and the GOP says “white.” They have planks in their platform
about separation of church and state, abortion, gay rights, etc. and the GOP
simply takes the opposite viewpoint. This tactic does not create a choice, it
creates division. It does not advance the principles and philosophy of
Americanism, it advances factionalism with the body politic, something
James Madison and George Washington identified as a direct threat to the
Republic.

In re-branding the Republican Party, the leadership would serve its members –
and the country – best by refusing to expand the platform to include special
interest planks and, instead, returning to the limited plank platform of its
roots, where the party championed individual freedom and individual
responsibility and engagement where issues of societal mores were concerned, not
the legislation of ideological solutions or social engineering. The GOP must
resign itself to defending an individual’s right to affect change, not to being
the vehicle for that change.

The Role of Today’s GOP & The Tea Party Movement
As I stated in the beginning, in the science of storms, there is a danger
when two forces compete to occupy the same space. This is exquisitely
illustrated in the dichotomy of power now playing out between the Tea Party
Movement and the Republican Party, most significantly where candidates for
office are concerned.

I was heartened to hear that Republican National Committee Political Director

Gentry Collins stated the RNC would exercise a “light touch” in the 2010
midterm elections. This approach promises to diminish what could have been a
disastrous confrontation between candidates championed by the Tea Party Movement
and candidates “mandated” by the RNC. But this is simply a commutation of the
inevitable unless a reformation is undertaken by the RNC hierarchy.

In re-branding itself, it would wise for the GOP to take the opportunity
afforded by this unique moment in American history to re-invent itself. The
Republican National Committee – along with Republican organizations at every
level – must re-structure itself to be less the inside-the-beltway command and
control entity (an entity that mandates candidates and strong-arms platforms and
agendas, which it has most certainly evolved into) and re-dedicate itself to
becoming more of a mammoth and viciously efficient support and organizational
tool that embraces candidates sent up from the grassroots; Conservatives
re-awakened to their constitutionally mandated civic responsibility who have
taken it upon themselves to run for office in 2010, 2012 and through the future.

If the Republican Party can wrap its brain around the strategic brilliance of
this re-invention, it will position itself to be the preferred political party
of those in the Tea Party Movement; it will be the avenue and political
structure through which the Tea Party Movement advances their preferred
candidates.

If the Republican Party refuses to understand the dramatically changed political
landscape of the country, if they refuse to evolve from the inside-the-beltway
mentality that allows for the existence of egotistical power-players no
different from the elitists now in control of Congress, should the GOP insist on
maintaining the status quo, they will be compromised, marginalized and, perhaps,
even destroyed by the re-awakening of the American people to their
constitutionally mandated obligation to governmental engagement and oversight.

Simply put, the GOP can either adapt and enjoy a promising future or become
ineffective.

Global Warming Alarmists’ credibility melting

2010-01-28 17:18:58

Successive
disclosures suggesting global warming science has been rigged to
advance political and economic agendas is undermining the theory that
manmade greenhouse gas emissions threaten the globe.

The latest revelation involves an Indian climate researcher
admitting there was no scientific basis for his claim that Himalayan
glaciers would melt by 2035. In a British newspaper interview, he said
his claim was mere speculation, after which he was hired by an Indian
think tank to research the supposedly melting glaciers. Nevertheless,
his bogus assertion was included in the United Nations’ 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and cited as proof
that governments must crack down on greenhouse gas emissions.

Further, in an interview with the U.K.’s Sunday Mail newspaper,
Murari Lal, coordinating lead author of the IPCC report’s Asia chapter,
admitted he knew there was no solid evidence to support the
researcher’s claim, but included it, anyway, to pressure world leaders
into curbing global warming.

These are only the latest evidence of a strategy explained by
Stanford University professor Steven Schneider, who said, in the
nascent days of the global warming movement, that to obtain media
coverage and win public opinion, "[W]e have to offer up scary
scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention
of any doubts we might have."

Despite IPCC denials, analysis of 500 submitted comments suggests
that reviewers of the 2007 report questioned the Himalayan assertion,
but were ignored, according to former British chancellor Nigel Lawson
of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

This follows December’s "Climategate" scandal in which thousands of
e-mails leaked from a U.K. climate research center indicated data were
manipulated and skeptical voices silenced to advance the global warming
theory. Afterward, a Russian think tank alleged climate researchers
cherry-picked that nation’s temperature readings to falsely show
dramatic temperature increases. In the U.S. similar charges have been
lodged about selectively choosing data later used by the IPCC to
falsely show higher temperatures.

IPCC reports have been used to project economic catastrophe from
global warming. But since last December’s Copenhagen climate summit
fizzled amid demands by poor countries that rich nations subsidize them
to fight global warming, "banks and investors are pulling out of the
carbon market," which was intended to buy and sell credits issued by
governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In an encouraging development, a high-ranking Chinese official
Monday urged the United Nations to make its next report, "comprehensive
by also citing contrarian views," noting climate changes can result
from natural cycles. "We need to adopt an open attitude to scientific
research and incorporate all views," Xie Zhenhua said. Not a bad idea
because the science clearly isn’t settled.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name and telephone number (telephone numbers will
not be published). Letters of about 200 words will be given preference.
Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

IPCC Again Shown to Be Liars!

 
By Barry Napier  Friday, January 29, 2010

This is the fourth exposé of IPCC lies and deception to emerge in
the past two weeks. This time the lies are documented in a scientific
paper, issued 27th January, 2010 (‘Surface Temperature Records: Policy
Driven Deception?’ by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, in the SPPI
Original Paper series. Copies from the Science and Public Policy
Institute).

The incriminating paper shows how the IPCC eliminated GHCN weather
recording stations, starting in 1990. In the 1970s there were more than
6000 GHCN stations that helped to give average temperatures. In 1990
the IPCC dropped all but 1500 of these stations. Therefore, the same
method of calculation was used even though the number of stations
providing measurements fell to less than one quarter of all stations.
This is one reason why the Russians warned the figures were fake. I
also mentioned this in my book. So, the facts are indeed out there… but
who wants to bother with mere truth?

Few Stations, More Anomalies

It is a simple fact that if the number of measurements went down by
three quarters, then the size of anomalies must grow with it. That is,
the areas covered by the remaining stations must be huge, with many
variables in between.

But that is only the start. The IPCC then based their fake figures
on stations that were mainly sited in the USA, and in places affected
badly by urban heating! If that isn’t fakery, then what is?

There is plenty of evidence that urban heating is a very real
problem when calculating actual temperatures. It is impossible to
provide actual temperatures for urban heating areas, because one would
have to also provide a very wide adjustment value, which would make
measurements useless. But, the IPCC was desperate to convince us that
big global warming was a reality. So, they literally cooked the books.

You will have to read the paper for yourselves, because it is 111
pages long – but it is an eye-opener. On its fourth page, there is the
claim that instrument data has been “widely, systematically… tampered
with (so that) it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any
significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th century”.

Same page:  “All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit
very serious problems that render them useless.” “All of the problems
have skewed the data so as (to) greatly overstate… warming.”  The same
point as I make about the reduction of stations making accurate
predictions impossible, is also made, but with greater force.

Then there are stations ‘preferred’ by the IPCC, as they remove
“higher-altitude, higher latitude, and rural stations, leading to a
further serious overstatement of warming.” This is further aggravated
by concentrating on urbanly-warmed stations, improper siting, and badly
calibrated instruments, all of which make measurements not just suspect
but ill-used.

Measurements May Be Out By 50%

The paper refers the reader to countless peer-reviewed reports on these
problems that severely affect proper readings, which lead automatically
to bad science, bad research, and fiddling of the books by the IPCC.
“Cherry-picking of observing sites… may make heat-island bias greater
than 50% of 20th century ‘warming’.” And satellite measurements are not
found to be helpful.

As for the oceans: “data are missing and uncertainties are
substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003,
and shows no warming.” From 2003 to now is a ‘nothing’ time scale in
which to claim warming of the seas! I think you will find that any
reports that claim such warming are either written as second-source
articles by gullible scientists who accept prejudiced first-reports, or
by greeny activists, not by genuine oceanologists.

CRU – Major Source, Not One of Many

Though the IPCC claims the CRU was only one of many sources on which it
based its 2007 report, this is shown to be a lie: “NOAA and NASA, along
with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th
century ‘global warming’. “ The CRU, then, was a major source, not just
one of many. And we now know the CRU was involved in fraud and lies.

“Changes have been made to alter the historic record to mask
cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors
like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.” Lies and more lies based on
a deliberate alteration of data! As we keep saying – what we see today
is consistent with natural cyclical patterns, with a few extremes
thrown in… but all are natural. CO2 has nothing to do with it!

“Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no
longer be trusted to assess climate trends or validate model
forecasts.” The paper calls for an independent assessment undertaken by
scientists who have “no vested interest in the outcome of evaluations.”
The last of 15 summaries is that the IPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP require
a “full investigation and audit” of their data.

This recent paper gives details about “alarming findings” and that
“global surface-station data are seriously compromised” (page 5).

Greenies – Justify Yourselves!

So, we challenge all greenies and supporters of global warming to
justify their stance! The data are corrupt; the IPCC has lied;
governments are ruining their countries and paying out vast sums to
Third World countries over a deception!

I repeat my legitimate question – how many more Climategates will it
take to shut down global warming, climate change and CO2 frauds? How
much longer will pro-greens continue to support climate change
theories? And when will you at last oppose governments who want to
strip you of every cent in your pocket, because of these climate
frauds? Obama and Gordon Brown are driving hard to bring about huge
changes to the USA because of fake climate change ideas. This has
nothing to do with your well-being – it is to do with their Marxist
ideals and your demise as free people.

CFP Tools

(0) Reader Feedback
| Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us |

Send this page to a friend!
|

Barry Napier  Bio

Barry Napier Most recent columns ‘The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009. Foreword by Dr Tim Ball. ISBN 978-0-9559908-1-6 Available Amazon and book stores. For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com

---

Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19500

Speech shows Obama in denial over fear of his agenda

Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

In his legendary Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln turned
out to be quite wrong when he said “the world will little note, nor
long remember” his remarks. But in general, presidential speeches are
far from memorable.

We had hoped President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address
last night would be an exception. Millions of the Americans who voted
for him in 2008 are recoiling from Washington’s massive deficit
spending, its bailouts of Wall Street,
insurers and automakers and its attempts to radically remake the U.S.
health care system. These largely centrist, independent voters were not
seeking an administration whose members saw the nation’s economic
crisis as an “opportunity” to impose drastic change. But that is what
they got – and is what they are now rejecting.

We hoped Obama would use his speech to acknowledge his misjudgment
of the national mood. We hoped he would outline a new agenda, focused
on economic growth and a much more sober attitude about federal
spending.

It didn’t happen.

In fairness, his decision to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
on gays in the military, if handled adroitly, could prove a coup. His
push for tax breaks for small businesses that hire new workers is
overdue.

But his claim that “green jobs” are the path to economic nirvana is
fantasy. His attempt to tamp fears about out-of-control spending
flopped. Touting a spending cap on a limited part of the budget while
hundreds of billions of dollars are still forecast to be added to the
national credit card each year isn’t reassuring. And his decision to
blame his health care setbacks on partisanship and poor marketing –
instead of a lack of public support for his proposal – was deeply
disappointing.

It’s as though Scott Brown’s shocking win last week in the Massachusetts Senate race never happened. It’s as if all the polls showing mass pubic anxiety over ballooning national debt didn’t exist.

The president is right when he says the “deficit of trust” felt by
Americans preceded his election. But he only adds to that deficit when
he concludes that what the nation wants is a better-executed view of
his extreme initial agenda. Instead, the public wants a much more
pragmatic, centrist version of this agenda – and a laserlike focus on
reviving the private-sector economy.

“Global Warming” Hoax Scientists broke law, but won’t face prosecution!

This is ridiculous! If a conservative had done this, not only would it
have been front page news for weeks, but they would be in prison in
solitary confinement.

Think that’s going overboard?

What about Ramos & Compean? Remember them?

If these guys broke the law, they should face the consequences.
Especially when their enabling the Global Warming hoax led to the
expenditure of so many billions of dollars globally, they should be
held to account.

If we had real leaders in Washington, D.C. we would be insisting upon
prosecuting them and their collaborators with crimes against taxpayers:

Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal l…


By David Derbyshire

Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law
when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog
has ruled.

The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia
researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling
requests from climate change sceptics.

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes
for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are
too secretive and too arrogant.

It will pile pressure on the director of the university’s climate
change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an
investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.

The ruling followed a complaint from retired engineer David Holland-66, whose Freedom of Information-requests were ignored.

Last night Mr Holland welcomed the watchdog’s decision but said it was disappointing the researchers would not be prosecuted.

‘All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own
professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,’ he said. ‘We
are not trying to show that human beings don’t affect the climate, but
to show that the science is not settled.’

The Climategate row broke in November when hundreds of stolen emails
from the world-renowned Climate Research Unit in Norwich were posted
online.

The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate
historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of
Information Act.
One request came in 2008 from Mr Holland, a grandfather from
Northampton and an engineering graduate. He was seeking evidence that
scientists had cherry-picked research when preparing the previous
year’s UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

After the request was received, a message from one academic to another
on May 28, 2008, said: ‘Oh MAN! Will this c**p never end?’ In other
emails the researchers complained that the unit was being bombarded
with FOI requests from sceptics. And in another, researchers appeared
to be encouraging each other to delete emails.

After the emails were published, Mr Holland complained to the
Information Commissioner’s Office. An ICO spokesman yesterday confirmed
that the UEA breached the Freedom of Information Act.
He added: ‘The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s
requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as
they should have been under the legislation.’

Climate change sceptics welcomed the ruling and called for the
Climategate inquiry to be made public. Lord Lawson, head of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation, said it should also investigate whether the
CRU denied opportunities to scientists trying to publish dissenting
views.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming the
Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years. Critics have also
accused it of exaggerating the risk of tropical storms and hurricanes.

Earlier this week, Britain’s chief scientific advisor, Professor John
Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the
uncertainties of global warming.

Obama Needs “Stupid Ideas” Czar

By John W. Lillpop

America’s
deliberate slide into to a Marxist, third-world abyss can be explained
by the fact that our president is a 48 year old spoiled brat, reckless
and fickle, unfit for command. Clearly, this president needs a “stupid
ideas” czar to filter out his most dangerous ideas before they can be
implemented.

Stupid ideas like closing GITMO and trying KSM in New York City.
Like a trillion dollar stimulus bill that has failed to stop the
historic rise in unemployment. Like flying off to Copenhagen to
campaign for the City of Chicago, only to be humiliated by the IOC.

Like criticizing American policy and leaders while on foreign soil. Like hiring 40 stealth czars accountable to no one.

And on and on it goes. An aggressive “Stupid Ideas” czar would have nipped those Obama blunders immediately.

Unfortunately,
the elected Congressional officials charged with providing “over sight”
of the Executive Branch are too danged old to see their own flaws, much
less those of our dithering president.

Consider the ages of these Congressional stalwarts:

Robert Byrd (93)
Diane Feinstein (79)
John McCain (73)
Nancy Pelosi (70)
Barbara Boxer (70)
Harry Reid (70)
John Kerry (67)

Does
any one honestly believe that a geezer in his 70s gives a tinker’s dam
about running up a federal debt that will be due and payable two
generations hence?

The liberals listed above are interested in one thing and one thing only: Spend as much of your money on socialized medicine,illegal aliens, global warming scams and other foolishness as needed to remain in power!

Period!

Of
course they insist that they are “public servants,” but with all due
respect, just how much service is Robert Byrd providing? The man cannot
walk, and is barely able to breathe.

Seems to me that a real public servant
would do the honorable thing by getting out of the way and allowing a
younger, more able Republican to take his fractured seat in the Senate.

Ala Scott Brown!

The
same applies to Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, McCain, and Reid. Leave
office now and let your career end with an act of grace and dedication
to the best interests of the American people.

Yes,
I know that John McCain is a Republican. But folks the man is more
liberal than some communists, and he is just too old to be trusted with
the awesome power granted to a US Senator.

We need a mandatory retirement age for the weasels in Congress. How about 65?

We the people also need a “stupid ideas” Czar to keep Obama from ruining his family name and America with stupid policies! 
 

John W. Lillpop