The arrogant, incompetent, ideologically perverted and anti-American Obama Administration had submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Commission in which it detailed its concern with the purported “civil rights violations” of Arizona SB 1070 (see Obama Administration Submits Report to the UN Claiming Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070 Violates Civil Rights). In the process and not unexpected whatsoever given his track record, Obama never had the courtesy to notify Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of this action.
One more egregious and inexcusable action (or inaction) by the United State’s worst “president?”
AZ Governor Learned News of Obama’s UN Human Rights Report on Internet
In an absolutely outrageous move which further substantiates the Obama Administration’s anti-American and divisive philosophy, the State Department submitted a report to the UN that was critical of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070.
Isn’t the President supposed to support and positively represent this country?
If he was so incensed with Arizona’s law, why didn't the federal government’s lawsuit against the state mention racism or abridgment of rights?
Even more reprehensible, he had the audacity to allow such a specious report to be submitted to an organization that is saturated with vile human rights abuses.
Interestingly, he also had the suit adjudicated in a District Court in Arizona where the judge was a known liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. This approach is constitutionally not legal and the ruling should be nullified.
Why? The US Constitution enumerates specifically that in cases where the Federal government sues a state, only the Supreme Court can hear and rule on such matters.
This is all part of Obama’s radical agenda to denigrate and destroy America and render it mediocre at best.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Brewer condemns State Department for mentioning Arizona law in human rights report to UN
August 27, 2010 Associated Press
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
If it is possible that some Americans are still oblivious to Obama’s true allegiances, the recent events off the coast of Israel should clarify it further. Of course, one just has to examine his long, though intentionally suppressed (by him and the sycophantic news media) history of radicalism and associations with individuals of such ilk to understand that his actions comport completely with this ideology. Like his long friendships and reverence of Weatherman domestic terrorist William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, the pro-Palestinian and erstwhile PLO spokesperson and supporter – just to name a few.
The first article below, written by Aaron Klein, reveals the duplicity of Obama and his close associates and friends in the Middle East situation. Their intentional provocation of Israel has provided Obama the story line to publicly rebuke that country and galvanize support for the Palestinians which is, of course, where his sentiments lie. This position contravenes that of a vast majority of Americans and the position that the United States has taken since that country’s founding in 1948.
This is another example Obama’s despicable and egregious treatment of our longtime Allies.
Noting this, we also need to look at the big picture, particularly his pattern of behavior.
Is this a President who we could trust to protect our rights and freedoms and who is there to serve us all?
Most definitely not!
Virtually everything that he has done points to a consolidation and aggrandizement of government powers with ever increasing restrictions of our rights, freedoms, choices and confiscation of the fruits of our labors. Furthermore, he has encircled our Constitutional government around 40 appointed radical czars who answer to no one but him. In the trenches among us are his ideological and corrupt armies comprised of ACORN and union members, especially SEIU, who serve as enforcers. Coverage, exposure and critical analysis of nearly all of this is being suppressed by the fawning but also unwittingly controlled news media.
Unless we all respond appropriately and thwart his (and others, of course) radical agenda, the future of a free America appears bleak.
All aboard! Obama pals back violent Gaza flotilla Activists from president's circle of friends top supporters of anti-Israel protest ships
By Aaron Klein May 31, 2010 WorldNetDaily
The group behind the Gaza flotilla that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli commandos today counts among its top supporters the friends and associates of President Barack Obama, namely the founders of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink.
Obama pals, flotilla backers: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn
Earlier today, Israeli navy commandos raided the six-ship flotilla, encountering heavy resistance and live fire from the activists. Several activists were killed and dozens of others were reportedly injured, as were several of the Israeli commandos.
The flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement, a coalition of leftist human rights activists and pro-Palestinian groups engaged in attempts to break a blockade imposed by Israel on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Ayers, Dohrn and Evans' Code Pink have led several recent Free Gaza Movement initiatives, including attempted marches into the Gaza Strip. Dorhn was in the Middle East just last month on behalf of the movement.
Ayers and Dohrn were close associates for years with President Obama, while Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama's presidential campaign.
In January, WND reported Ayers, Dohrn and Evans were involved in provoking chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory's population and leadership.
The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas' former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
At the time of the march, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter in support of a "humanitarian delegation from Massachusetts" to Gaza. Members of Ayers', Dohrn and Evans' group documented on their blogs how Kerry's letter was used at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo while attempting to pressure Egypt to let their group into Gaza.
Images of the letter were also posted on the Electronic Intifada website run by Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans' group in Egypt and who, WND previously reported, spoke at pro-Palestinian events in the 1990s alongside Obama. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian "refugees," Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage.
Kerry's office previously met with Code Pink members, WND has learned. Sarah Roche-Mahdi of Code Pink also is a member of the United for Peace and Justice Palestine Task Force, which met with Kerry's staffers.
Kerry last year became the most senior U.S. politician to visit the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, although at the time he did not meet with Hamas leaders.
Dohrn later wrote on a blog that she was briefly detained at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo following the January protests there by her group: "Bill and I went to the American Embassy at 10 a.m. and asked to see the ambassador. We were ushered into a holding pen a block away from the embassy building where we joined 35 people already there, surrounded by Egyptian soldiers," she wrote.
Deadly clashes
Israeli Naval Forces intercepted the flotilla today attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip.
An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson told WND commandos boarded the ships after numerous warnings from Israel requesting the ships redirect toward the Israeli port of Ashdod, where they would be able to unload their aid supplies, which could then be transferred to the Gaza Strip after undergoing security inspections.
During the boarding of one of the ships, the Marmara, activists onboard attacked IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs, the IDF spokesperson said.
"The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose," said the spokesperson. "As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces first employed riot dispersal means, followed by live fire.
"IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack them," said the spokesperson.
The IDF released a YouTube video clearly showing activists attacking Israeli commandos, including attacks with live fire.
Close Obama associates
Evans formed Code Pink, a far-left activist organization, in 2002 to protest America's war in Iraq. The group previously met with Hamas and with leaders of the Taliban. Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama's presidential campaign.
Abunimah traveled in some of the same political circles as Obama in the 1990s. Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist. Khalidi was also a close associate of Obama.
"[Obama] came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him," Abunimah recalled. "It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."
According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."
"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.
Abunimah said Obama urged him to "keep up the good work" at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.
Ayers, meanwhile, became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years.
Ayers helped launch Obama's political career with a fundraiser in his home. Obama served on the board of a Chicago nonprofit alongside Ayers. The terrorist later hired Obama to serve as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a job Obama later cited as experience that helped qualify him to run for public office.
While at the CAC, Obama and Ayers both granted funds to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama's award-winning autobiography, "Dreams from My Father."
Ayers and Dohrn were two of the main founders of the Weather Underground, which bombed the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. The group was responsible for some 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.
Characterizing the Weather Underground as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers recalled in his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days." "The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
Ayers brandished his unrepentant radicalism for years later, as evidenced by his now notorious 2001 interview with the New York Times, published one day after the 9/11 attacks, in which he stated, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the New York Times piece that showed him stepping on an American flag. He said of the U.S.: "What a country. It makes me want to puke."
Why Didn't Obama Order Veto Of U.N. Security Council Resolution Condeming Israel?
Hugh Hewitt June 01, 2010
The president's hostility to Israel flared again yesterday, with his concurrence in a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel.
There is simply no way the United States or the other members of the Council are in a position to know what happened with sufficient detail to allow for such a resolution except for reflexive anti-Israeli sentiment. Peter Beinart can proclaim with certainty that the guilt lies with Israel's leaders and Israel's U.S. supporters, and there are plenty of voices inside Israel blasting the decision to stop the convoy.
But it is the job of the United States to prevent the Security Council from becoming just another "bash Israel" forum and make sure that all of the facts are known and that Israel --our most reliable ally in the region and the front line against the mullahs in Iran and their operatives in Lebanon and Gaza-- is not unfairly pummeled with the aftermath of an intentional provocation that ought not to have occurred in the first place given the embargo. Israel's response is just beginning to emerge, but already the U.S. has joined with the usual enemies of Israel to denounce the country.
How would the U.S. respond to an overland convoy of aid material to the heart of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan that is intended for the benefit of the forces carrying out war against the government of Afghanistan and their U.S. and western allies? Would Beinart urge that we allow such convoys to simply enter the area? If the convoy refused to stop at checkpoints, would he shrug his shoulders and say fine?
Beinart says the embargo of Gaza isn't working. But there are far fewer rockets falling on Israel today than there were before the Gaza incursion last year. There are still occasional attacks and fatalities, so there is no basis for claiming that Hamas has reformed or is evolving into something other than a terrorist organization.
Of course the world would prefer that Israel be able to interdict resupply of terrorists without loss of life, and the ship should have gone to the Israeli port for inspection. It is a complicated, dangerous situation.
But President Obama advances resolution of the situation not one inch by joining in the pounding of Israel. The unprecedented level of hostility to Israel from an American Administration continues, and Israel and its supporters must recognize that President Obama is not a reliable supporter when the going gets very tough indeed.
Colorado State University's William Gray, who has been labeled as the most famous hurricane expert, indicated that the Climategate scandal is evidence of a conspiracy among a group of global warming adherents who feel that human actions may precipitate catastrophic changes in the earth’s climate.
He stated that "There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster."
Gray’s assessment of those behind this unsubstantiated claim is that "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.
Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg'
Bob Unruh in WorldNetDaily December 08, 2009
The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.
"The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.
His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists.
One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."
His comments are posted at Climate Depot.com as world leaders are conferencing in Copenhagen to discuss taking drastic economic measures to curb "global warming."
Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."
"We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."
He said he probably would have been concerned about the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events."
"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.
"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."
Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.
He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."
"The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.
Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.
He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
Myron Ebell of the GlobalWarming.org website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."
"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.
The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."
"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."
Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed the documents appeared authentic. He has temporarily stepped down while an investigation is taking place.
Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."
The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.
But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.
Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Paul later cited the petition results in statement to Congress.
"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."
The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.
There has been a tremendous and increasing amount of suspicion regarding the validity of the global warming data and related theory. The vitriol, threats, power maneuvering by proponents of global warming and their heavy handed suppression of opposing views strongly intimated that something was amiss in all this. The predicted climactic manifestations of this warming theory have been no shows. Instead, record temperature lows are being set around the globe and we have had the quietest hurricane season in years. (See The Lies, Deceptions and Suppression of Information in Order to Facilitate Passage of the Cap and Trade Fraud)
Governments, some businesses and selected individuals (Al Gore) combined stand to make trillions of dollars and further aggrandize their power by perpetuating this green movement fraud. If the Cap and Trade were to pass and be implemented, we would be paying thousands of dollars more per year in taxes and have countless restrictions in rights, freedoms, choices and activities of daily life. Our standard of living would plummet.
Through perseverance and ingenuity, possibly by hacking into critical computers containing climate “data” and correspondences, this whole fervent (self-serving) global warming movement has been exposed as a massive fraud, a scientific corruption of unparalleled magnitude.
The following article outlines this major discovery of the “smoking gun” evidence of fraud and cover-ups regarding global warming.
The Great British Climate Fraud
by James Delingpole
It has been described as the "greatest scientific scandal of the modern age." The story broke last Thursday when a person unknown -- some say it was a hacker, others an inside-leak job -- broke into the servers at Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and published at least 61megabytes of confidential data on a Russian website.
Despite efforts in liberal quarters to play the story down as a criminal issue of no great consequence, the blogosophere almost instantly recognized it as political dynamite: perhaps even the final nail in the coffin of Al Gore's increasingly expensive theory that the world is rapidly overheating due to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Why? Because the Climate Research Unit in the windswept fenlands of Eastern England -- together with its sister unit in the West of England, the Hadley Centre in Exeter, Devon -- is one of the primary information sources used by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Not only have its resident scientists, computer modelers and statisticians been heavily involved in drafting the IPCC's three reports; but its global temperature records (known as HadCrut) are one of the IPCC's four official sources of data.
If the CRU's data and scientific staff were shown to be unreliable, it would call into question the very basis of the IPCC's doom-laden predictions of rising sea levels and inexorably-rising temperatures due to man-made CO2.
And to judge by the leaked data -- over a decade's worth of documents and emails -- "unreliable" may be a rather polite way of putting it. As Australian blogger Andrew Bolt puts it, the CRU may well be guilty of "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
The emails reveal a variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research institution lavishly funded by the UK government. These include:
1.) Manipulation of evidence. In one email, the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones apparently confesses to having played with data – most unscientifically – in order to achieve his desired end. "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." (Professor Jones has defended himself, somewhat disingenuously you might think, by saying that "trick" – in the world of science – has no negative connotations).
2.) Concealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up. One scientist expresses his frustration that the global temperatures are not behaving as he feels they ought to behave: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
3.) Destruction of evidence (following a Freedom of Information request – almost certainly an illegal activity): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
4.) Fantasizing violence against prominent climate sceptic scientists: "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.'
5.) Gloating over news of the death of a prominent climate-change skeptic, Australian John L Daly, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site: “In an odd way this is cheering news.”
6.) Attempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): "……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
7.) And, perhaps, most damningly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority: “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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
Climate change "skeptics" have long had their suspicions about the reliability of CRU. Among the first to voice these was Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the “Hockey Stick” curve – the now utterly discredited graph initially used by the IPCC (and Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth) to suggest that global temperatures had risen more sharply at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the previous thousand years. (This meant ignoring the Medieval Warm Period – hence the email quoted above).
Over a period of several years, McIntyre sought to acquire from the CRU the raw data used to fuel its computer models of climate Armageddon but was constantly rebuffed. (At one stage, CRU told him that the data had been "lost"). When finally he did get hold of it, he discovered the samples used to have been flawed; just as years earlier, he had showed that the Hockey Stick computer model had been programmed with an algorithm so that whatever information you put into it, it would always come up with the same scary-looking Hockey Stick shape.
But the "Climategate" scandal is a step beyond this. Where before it was only possible to accuse the CRU of being foolish, what these emails prove beyond reasonable doubt is that it has been guilty of conspiracy too. And it is a conspiracy which implicates a good many of the world's leading AGW-promoting scientists, not just in Britain but in the US and beyond.
Besides Professor Jones, the director of the CRU (and a doughty defender in several papers of the Hockey Stick curve) the emails implicate many more of those scientists most deeply involved in drafting the IPCC's reports. They include Dr Keith Briffa, a 'lead author' on the IPCC's 2007 report; Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Ben Santer, a pro-AGW scientist at the US government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – and the man responsible for the notorious claim in the IPCC's second report that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on climate change"; and Dr Michael Mann, the physicist-turned-climate-scientist at the University of Massachusetts who created the infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph.
What is commonly misunderstood amid the IPCC's vaunted claims that its reports are approved by "2,500 scientists" is that only a tiny number – perhaps 53 in all – were actually responsible for drafting the sections predicting global eco-disaster due to AGW. These 53 scientists are a close knit circle, peer-approving one another's pro-AGW papers, banding together to shut out any dissenting voices. Almost all of them are close to the CRU; many are implicated in the offending emails.
This is what makes Climategate so significant. It is the smoking gun that climate "skeptics" have long been searching for. Or indeed, as one retired US climatologist Dr Tim Ball puts it, a "whole battery of machine guns".
The eminent climate change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, gave a presentation in St. Paul, Minnesota on October 14th. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009 by Obama. There has been considerable debate raging about Monckton’s premise that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments