38% Correct

Spike that climate change football! The mainstream media has spent the past few days doing a victory dance in the endzone because of the announcement that 2014 was the hottest year on record based on instrument observations that the earth’s temperature might have increased by a factor of two-hundreths of a degree centrigrade with a margin of error of a tenth of a degree centigrade….meaning that a decrease in temperature was also well within the margin of error. However, that fact did not diminish the triumphal certitude of the temperature increase “fact” by many MSM outets such as the New York Times as chronicled by Newsbusters’ Clay Waters or General Electric Vox which flat out declared, It’s official: 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

The Agenda is The Agenda and the truth doesn’t matter!

Actually, a much more accurate Vox title would be, “It’s official: 62% chance 2014 not the hottest year ever recorded.” Why? Because the NASA scientists who were cited in the reports now claim they are only 38% sure which is another way of saying they were probably wrong. The U.K. Daily Mail tossed the cold water upon the numerous MSM happy dances about 2014 being the hottest year on record with this sobering reality check report.
   DailyMail: Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’


Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued. Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.

NB: It turns out there is only a 38% chance that this latest global warming (later change to “climate change” when the preceding didn’t materialize) “fact”  is true which means probably wrong. Here is the sad truth for the MSM global warming triumphalists as reported by the Daily Mail:

    The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

    In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

    The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

    Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

WAAAAH! I want my global warming delusions back!

If it makes you feel better, one of the NASA scientists is trying to ease your pain:

    As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

Exit question: What is the probability that all those MSM outlets that reported as a flat out fact that 2014 as the hottest year on record will soon cite the fact that they were probably 62% wrong according to the NASA scientists? 38%? Nil? None? (NB)


Anything else,especially the truth, is a Thoughtcrime!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

The Future’s So Bright…

NASA astronaut and “the first mother to fly in space” Dr. Anna Fisher took a veiled shot at President Obamaand his space policies Tuesday during an interview with a local anchor at Dulles International Airport where Discovery was making its last flight before being retired at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The local anchor Kristin Fisher pulled a little boy named Ethan out of the crowd who was dressed up as a NASA pilot and asked him if he wanted to be an astronaut when he grew up, which he answered in the affirmative.

“Any advice for Ethan, an aspiring astronaut?” she asked her mom.

“Study Russian,” Fisher quipped, to laughter. (Mediaite)

Or Chinese.🙂

There is truth in comedy.


A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House would make it mandatory for all new cars in the United States to be fitted with black box data recorders from 2015 onwards.

Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so.

“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.

Although the text of legislation states that such data would remain the property of the owner of the vehicle, the government would have the power to access it in a number of circumstances, including by court order, if the owner consents to make it available, and pursuant to an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation.

Given the innumerable examples of both government and industry illegally using supposedly privacy-protected information to spy on individuals, this represents the slippery slope to total Big Brother surveillance of every American’s transport habits and location data.

The legislation, which has been given the Orwellian title ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, sailed through the Senate after being heavily promoted by Democrats Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and is also expected to pass the Republican-controlled House.

Given the fact that the same bill also includes a controversial provision that would empower the IRS to revoke passports of citizens merely accused of owing over $50,000 in back taxes, stripping them of their mobility rights, could the mandatory black boxes or a similar technology be used for the same purpose?

Biometric face-recognition and transdermol sensor technology that prevents an inebriated person from driving a car by disabling the automobile has already been developed, in addition to systems that refuse to allow the vehicle to start if the driver is deemed to be overtired.

The ultimate Big Brother scenario would be a system whereby every driver had to get de facto permission from the state to drive each time they get behind the wheel, once it had been determined from an iris scan that they were good citizens who have paid all their taxes and not misbehaved.

The push to pressure car manufacturers to install black box tracking devices in all new cars has been ongoing for over a decade. In 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encouraged but did not require automobile manufacturers to install the systems.

However, in February last year NHTSA administrator David Strickland said the government was considering making the technology mandatory in the wake of recalls of millions of Toyota vehicles.

Earlier this year it was reported that the NHTSA would soon formally announce that all new cars would be mandated to have the devices fitted by law, which has now been codified into the MAP-21 bill.

And now 10 years later what is there argument, “it would take 10 years”…Funny how that worked out.

  • There would be no production out of [ANWR] for at least 7 years.” -Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
  • “Oil extracted from [ANWR] would not reach refineries for seven to ten years.” -Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  • “No oil will flow from ANWR…until from 7 to 10 years from now.” -Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
  • “Oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years.” -Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
  • “Even if we started drilling [in ANWR] tomorrow, the first barrel of crude oil would not make it to the market for at least 10 years.” -Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Ten years later, oil and gas production on federal lands is at a nine-year low, a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline costs an average $3.90, and the president is busy blaming “speculators” for high oil prices – a scapegoat that even a former Democratic Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner rejects.

1086 Days later!

What you’re looking at is a view of today’s Senate Budget Committee meeting, at which Chairman Kent Conrad conducted a faux “markup” of his party’s FY 2013 budget resolution.  The near side of the table is where Democrats were supposed to sit.  Granted, this entire exercise was somewhat academic because its resulting product would receive neither a vote in this committee, nor in the Senate at large.  Details!  Throughout much of the session, all 11 Republican members were present to, you know, do their jobs.  Of the 12 committee Democrats, no more than 3 or 4 were in attendance at any given time, according to sources inside the meeting.  “[The Democrats] showed absolutely no interest in discussing our big picture problems or offering solutions,” a GOP budget aide tells Townhall. “Those who were there showed up only to make a brief statement for the record, then took off.  The photo speaks for itself.”  That it does.  In fact, in this particular photo, every single Democrat seat is vacant, except for that of Chairman Conrad.  What to make of this?  On one hand, why bother participating in a total farce?  On the other, these Dems could have at least feigned interest in a requirement of their own public service.  Senate Democrats have effectively renounced all pretense of responsible governance.  They have done so in an attempt to avoid losing their precious majority — the very purpose of which, I thought, was to govern.  We face a debt crisis that threatens to obliterate the America we know and love, yet an entire American political team has willfully and deliberately decided to eschew productive solutions in favor of sitting on the sidelines and shouting insults at their opponents. 

“Give it a rest, Guy,” I can practically hear you saying, “you’ve been beating this dead horse for months.”  Yes.  Guilty as charged.  This is a disgrace, and I’ll keep flogging this story every chance I get — especially as the MSM largely shrugs and offers its preferred party a pass.  Here we have an entire house of Congress intentionally ignoring the law for political gain, as our nation approaches a terrifying solvency rubicon.  Conservatives cannot, and will not, shut up about this.  Parting thoughts:  (1) Since the year 2009, not one single Democrat or Democrat-aligned member of the United States Senate has voted “yes” on any budget.  They’ve refused to present their own ideas, of course, but they’ve also unanimously voted down every last alternative, from both Republicans and their own party’s president.  Think about that.  (2) Here the Democrats on the upper house’s Budget Committee, other than its retiring chairman.  Name ’em and shame ’em:

(1) DSCC Chair Patty Murray (D-WA)
(2) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who has at least worked with Paul Ryan on a solid Medicare reform plan.
(3) Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is in a tough 2012 re-election fight.
(4) Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who also faces re-election this year.
(5) Sen. Ben Cardin (D- MD)
(6) Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
(7) “Moderate” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
(8) Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
(9) “Moderate” Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
(10) Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)

(11) Last but not least, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who did manage to find the time to blather on behalf of the defeated “Buffett Rule” on the Senate floor this week.  During his speech, Whitehouse all but conceded that the measure serves no practical purpose beyond electoral positioning and “fairness:”

“The Senate Republican Leader has described the bill as yet another proposal from the White House that won’t create a single job or lower the price at the pump by a penny. Well, the Minority Leader is absolutely right that the aim of this bill is not to lower the unemployment rate or the price of gasoline.”
Party of ideas Folks!  (townhall.com)

The Future’s so bright I have to wear Blinders!🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Dark Days

Forty-two years ago yesterday, Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ascended from the surface of the moon and rendezvoused with Michael Collins in the command module Columbia for their trip home from mankind’s maiden voyage to the moon. All three men are now in their 80s, and no human being has been on the moon since each of them was 42 — and now even the space shuttle has had its last liftoff.

Americans, however, do not seem to be content with this state of demise. A new CNN poll reminded Americans that, for the foreseeable future, “all manned U.S. space flights will take place in spacecraft that are owned by other countries” and then asked whether “the end of the space shuttle program” would be “good” or “bad” for the U.S.” By a margin of almost 3 to 1 (50 to 16 percent), Americans answered that it would be “bad.”

Moreover, by a margin of slightly more than 3 to 1 (75 to 23 percent), Americans think that we “should,” rather than “should not,” “develop a replacement spacecraft that will be capable of sending U.S. astronauts into space and returning them to Earth.” And by a margin of 28 points (64 to 36 percent), Americans think that it’s at least “fairly important” for us “to be ahead of Russia and other countries in space exploration.”

It’s interesting that President Obama effectively nixed the Constellation program — the program to take us back to the moon and eventually on to Mars — which would have cost about $10 billion a year, because we allegedly couldn’t afford it.  But he has felt no apparent hesitation in pushing a $787 billion “stimulus” that (even according to his own economists’ estimate) has stimulated job-growth at a rate of $278,000 per job, a health care overhaul that would cost more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023), and now a $2.4 trillion debt ceiling extension — which is roughly the same amount of money, even in inflation-adjusted dollars, that we borrowed to fight World War II.

Put otherwise, Constellation would have cost about 4/10ths of 1 percent as much annually as a debt ceiling extension that’s designed to get Obama through his reelection bid next year — or $1 for every $240. Perhaps the eventual Republican nominee will see fit to set our national horizons a little higher — and restart this program that Obama has left for dead.  (Jeffrey Anderson)

Oh, and don’t forget if you don’t raise $1 Trillion Dollars in taxes we won’t have enough to pay for Social Security and Medicare (even if we take in enough every month to pay it!)

But that’s not a scare tactic, remember that.🙂

July 21 (Bloomberg) — Democrats reacted angrily to reports that the White House is cutting a deal with House Republicans to boost the U.S. debt ceiling and reduce deficits by about $3 trillion over 10 years without immediate revenue increases.

President Barack Obama’s team has told congressional leaders it is pursuing such a deal, according to two officials familiar with the talks, as the White House and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio denied one was at hand.

The officials, who described outlines of the plan on condition of anonymity, said the leaders were told it would cut spending while calling for a future tax overhaul that could raise $1 trillion in additional revenue.

“The president always talked about balance, that there had to be some fairness in this, that this can’t be all cuts,” Reid told reporters at the Capitol. “There has to be a balance, there has to be some revenue with the cuts. My caucus agrees with that. I hope the president sticks with that. I’m confident he will.”

“revenue” = $$ Tax Increases by the way. (Orwellian translation).

The Democrats are even cowardly about what they really want, to Tax & Spend!!

In Congress, both Republicans and Democrats,  remind me of Wimpy, a character in the old Popeye the Sailor Man cartoons. Wimpy liked hamburgers and he frequently said,

I’ll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.

However, with Wimpy, the payment on Tuesday never comes.  With Congress, spending cuts never come.

So don’t hold your breath…

But at we have the Chinese & the Russians to fall back on for Manned Space Flight!!🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


The Incredible Rightness of Being

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Dr. Charles Krauthammer folks: The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do – in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.

And the Liberal Media will be right there 24/7/365 to pound on you for it relentlessly.

Grandmas with her dentures she borrowed from her dead sister who get thrown out in the cold and is living on dog food and even that is being hurt by the mean,evil republicans!

Remember the new Orwellian Precept, “Spending is INVESTMENT

No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn’t even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.

Freezing the budget heat at historically over the top levels is no decrease. It’s like saying, Today in Hell it will be 4998 degrees instead of 5000 enjoy the cool weather!

Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That’s an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the past two years is deeply unserious. It’s spillage, a rounding error.

The debt raises $33,333.33 PER SECOND in 2010. PER SECOND!

As for entitlements, which are where the real money is, Obama said practically nothing. He is happy to discuss, but if Republicans dare take anything from granny, he shall be Horatius at the bridge.

He is happy to let the Republican propose so the Democrats and the Liberals can blow them up for it. After all, that politics. Let your enemy take all the slings and arrows and come in and claim the victory for the people!

So what if entitlements ARE the real problem. The Democrats figure they can win politically if they let the Republican step on all the land mines and then go after them for it gleefully and relentlessly.

And if the Republicans don’t step on every single land mine the Democrats will point it out and ask them if they were “chicken” or protecting someone politically. Then when the Republicans go there, the Democrats and the Media will flash 24/7 “Can you believe what they did?!!” That’s just cruel and heartless!!

Just watch.

This entire pantomime about debt reduction came after the first half of a speech devoted to, yes, new spending. One almost has to admire Obama’s defiance. His 2009 stimulus and budget-busting health-care reform are precisely what stirred the popular revolt that delivered his November shellacking. And yet he’s back for more.

Liberals, especially this President, are oblivious to reality. They just figure if they just keep going it has to work eventually because they are always right and they are so vastly superior to everyone.

There is not even a conception by The Left that they could be wrong on any level.

It’s as if Obama is daring the voters – and the Republicans – to prove they really want smaller government. He’s manning the barricades for Obamacare, and he’s here with yet another spending – excuse me, investment – spree. To face down those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink yet more monies into yet more road and bridge repair, more federally subsidized teachers – with a bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will show the Chinese.

Man the battlements!, Castle de Liberal is under seige! The Ego Defense is inflated and ready to deflect all attacks.

And of course, once again, there is the magic lure of a green economy created by the brilliance of Washington experts and politicians. This is to be our “Sputnik moment,” when the fear of the foreigner spurs us to innovation and greatness of the kind that yielded NASA and the moon landing.

NASA? are they still in business??

Apart from the irony of this appeal being made by the very president who has just killed NASA’s manned space program, there is the fact that for three decades, since Jimmy Carter’s synfuel fantasy, Washington has poured billions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole in vain pursuit of economically competitive renewable energy.

And the food shortages caused by Ethanol (made from corn) are just because of greedy capitalists!!

This is nothing but a retread of what used to be called industrial policy – government picking winners and losers. Except that in a field that is not nearly technologically ready to match fossil fuels, we pick one loser after another – from ethanol, a $6 billion boondoggle that even Al Gore admits was a mistake, to the $41,000 Chevy Volt that only the rich can afford (with their extended Bush tax cuts, of course).

And is a fake electric car (since it can only go 30 miles on electricity and 300 on GAS!) that also has proven that it can’t operate in extreme cold (like this winter) but at least the charging stations will be provided GE (chairman now the “Job Creation Czar”).

Perhaps this is all to be expected from Democrats – the party of government – and from a president who from his very first address to Congress has boldly displayed his zeal to fundamentally transform the American social contract and place it on a “New Foundation” (an Obama slogan that never took). He’s been chastened enough by the election of 2010 to make gestures toward the center. But the State of the Union address revealed a man ideologically unbowed and undeterred. He served up an insignificant spending cut, yet another (if more modest) stimulus, and a promise to fight any Republican attempt to significantly shrink the size of government.

Indeed, he went beyond this. He tried to cast this more-of-the-same into a call to national greatness, citing two Michigan brothers who produce solar shingles as a stirring example of rising to the Sputnik moment.

“We do big things,” Obama declared at the end of an address that was, on the contrary, the finest example of small-ball Clintonian minimalism since the days of school uniforms and midnight basketball.

From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?

But it’s all evil, greedy “rich” Corporate America’s Fault!

Oh by the way, Brother can you spare a job!🙂

Mind you, Michael Moore is suing people for profits on one of his movies and Arianna Huffington just sold The Huffington Post for $315 Million.

Evil Capitalists!🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency’s computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a “controversial opinion,” according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed “inappropriate for government access.”

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging

• Controversial opinion

• Criminal activity

• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content

• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a “controversial opinion.”

There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy.

The TSA did not return calls seeking comment by publication time.

Notice PORN wasn’t mentioned. Darn tooten!!

So what’s the TSA’s definition “controversial”?

After all they are under the wing of Big Sis Napolitano who last year called ‘right wingers’ “terrorists”.

“Hope and Change”🙂


NASA = National Allah-Supporting Administration

If you think NASA’s mission is to explore space and do aeronautics-type stuff, you’re behind the times! Byron York reports:

From moon landings to promoting self-esteem: It would be difficult to imagine a more dramatic shift in focus for an agency famous for reaching the heavens. Bolden’s words left supporters of space exploration astonished. “Everyone had the same impression: Is this what he is spending his time on?” says a Republican Hill aide who tracks the space program. “A lot of people are very upset about it.”

NASA is not getting out of the space business, at least not entirely. But Bolden’s words, together with the president’s decision to scrap much of NASA’s mission and include the agency in the “Cairo Initiative” — that is, the White House outreach program outlined in Obama’s June 4, 2009, Cairo speech to the Muslim world — show that the NASA of the future will be little like the past.

Obama released his plan for NASA a few months ago, and to many it seemed a blueprint for disaster. The moon program will be scrapped, replaced by a hazy hope to visit Mars. The space shuttle will die, too, leaving America with no way to put a man in orbit.

Obama’s proposal stunned U.S. space heroes Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan — the first and last men to walk on the moon — who, along with Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, made a rare public statement denouncing the plan as a “devastating” scheme that “destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature.”

Even John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth who later became a Democratic senator and Obama supporter, was dismayed by the president’s plan to rely on the Russians to ferry American astronauts to the international space station. “We’re putting ourselves in line for a single-point failure ending the whole manned space program,” Glenn said.

The Muslim outreach at NASA is the result of the White House’s preparation for Obama’s Cairo speech. Staffers found that many Muslims admire American achievements in science and technology, so Obama used the speech to announce the appointment of U.S. “science envoys” and a new fund “to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries.”

Obama appointed Egyptian-American scientist Ahmed Zewail as the first science envoy to the Middle East. Just last week, Zewail argued that the U.S. can build better relations with the Muslim world by “harnessing the soft power of science in the service of diplomacy.” The NASA initiative is part of that.

Last month, Bolden himself traveled to Cairo to mark the first anniversary of Obama’s speech. In an address at the American University, Bolden cited Zewail’s work and stressed NASA’s role in improving relations with Islamic nations. Beginning with a hearty “Assalaamu alaykum,” Bolden explained that in the past, NASA worked with countries that were capable of space exploration, but now Obama has “asked NASA to change … by reaching out to ‘nontraditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia and in particular in Muslim-majority nations.”

“NASA is not only a space exploration agency,” Bolden concluded, “but also an Earth improvement agency.”

At the same time, Bolden gave a bleak assessment of the space part of NASA’s mission. More than 40 years after the first moon landing, he told al-Jazeera, the U.S. can no longer reach beyond Earth’s orbit without assistance from abroad. “We’re not going to go anywhere beyond low Earth orbit as a single entity,” Bolden said. “The United States can’t do it.”

Its space initiatives junked, its administrator rhapsodizing about helping Muslims “feel good” about themselves: That is the new NASA. (Washington Examiner).

Do this sound like what Liberals have done to schools where grades are considered bad because they make kids feel bad and where competition of any kind is bad for kids self-esteem.

Where success is measured in PERCEIVED self-esteem rather than actual results.

Every nation should be in space, or else no one should be.

It’s just NOT FAIR! 🙂

Even More Global Warming Fraud

Bet you won’t see this on The Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media).

(Times of London)The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 – an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999, Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

The “Glaciergate” affair has seen Pachauri come under increasing pressure in India, prompting him to call a press conference yesterday (Saturday) where he dismissed calls for his resignation and said no action would be taken against the authors of the erroneous section of the IPCC report.

He said: “I have no intention of resigning from my position,” adding the errors were unintentional and not significant in comparison to the entire report.

Sound Familiar?🙂

In India questions are also being asked about Pachauri’s links with GloriOil, a Houston, Texas-based oil technology company that specialises in recovering extra oil from declining oil fields . Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor.

Critics say it is odd for a man committed to decarbonising energy supplies to be linked to an oil company.🙂


“This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

“It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,” he told AFP in an interview.

But then he went on to say, “But its overall conclusion that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ remains beyond reproach, he said.

A Doublethink. Believing two contradictory ideas at the same time and believing both are true.

Massive error….Unequivocal Conclusion based on that Massive error…🙂

So you Want More:🙂

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

Well, you couldn’t very well promote Heresy now could you.🙂

“We should also remember the overwhelming evidence still shows global warming is real and manmade,” adds Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change. (UK Guardian)

How the claim ended up in a report whose authors are supposed to scrutinise “every statement in every sentence” is a mystery. Worse was the IPCC’s reaction to the geologists who first questioned the panel’s glacier claim last year. IPCC chairman Pachauri dismissed this work as “voodoo science” and argued it was not peer-reviewed. In fact, it was his own panel’s report that had not been properly peer-reviewed. “At that point, the glacier claim ceased to be an appalling cock-up and looked more like a systematic failure on the IPCC’s part,” says Fred Pearce, the New Scientist journalist who first reported the glacier story. A seasoned climate change writer, he adds: “Deniers will now be on a hunt to find more errors like these and if they get them, Pachauri will be in real trouble.” (UK Guardian, a pro-global warming newspaper)

And that ain’t all folks: (IBD)

In a report on global warming on KUSI television by Weather Channel founder and iconic TV weatherman John Coleman, that reticence has been traced to the deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data by NASA.

As Coleman noted in a KUSI press release, NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, are accused of “creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based.”

Joseph D’Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.” The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

To us, it looks like just another example of ideologically driven climate deceit following the Climate Research Unit scandal and the fraudulent claim by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would soon vanish.

But don’t worry, the Faithful will soldier on. And they Major media will ignore this one too.

After all, The Truth is Heresy.🙂

I’m a Flat-Earther and Proud of it!

I just had to point this out. The childishness of it made me chuckle.

Embattled British Prime Minister, George Brown (UK Telegraph): People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said.He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

Now that’s a persuasive argument!🙂

It has also been disclosed that the Government’s chief scientist, John Beddington, was forced to defend controversial claims in the television campaign, which features a father reading his daughter a frightening bedtime story about global warming.

Clearcast, the body that vets adverts, questioned the scientific evidence used in the campaign. Part of its role is to ensure controversial topics are kept impartial

Dr Beddington and Robert Watson, the energy department’s main scientific adviser, responded to Clearcast with a furious letter leaked to Channel 4 news, which states: “We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material.”

Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Regardless of what happened in one place, it doesn’t undermine the totality of what we know.” (Washington Post)

The religion roles on.

Ed Millibrand, Environmental Secretary: “The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people. The sceptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner. There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.”

So now the truth is “sabotage” and anyone who disagrees is a saboteur. I guess I will have to add that one to my list of childish liberal ad hominems.

Ed Markey, chairman, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (D-MA): “We can no longer allow our climate and energy policy to be hijacked by the government of Saudi Arabia, ExxonMobil, and the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo,” he said.

Oh, really Senator? How about hijacked by Global Warming Religionists and Profiteers from the “Carbon Credits” scam like Al Gore?

I’m guess ExxonMobil is not on your Campaign gift lift then….:)

UK Guardian: Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, said it would be disastrous for the planet if sceptics were able to undermine support for a climate change deal. “Ideological dinosaurs, whether in Saudi Arabia or in the Conservative party, who deny climate change must not be allowed to hide behind some leaked correspondence to support their outdated theories,” Clegg said.

Then There’s NASA: (IBD) Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA if by year-end the agency doesn’t honor his FOI requests for information on how and why its climate numbers have been consistently adjusted for errors.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data fudging, manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit. “These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

They may have good reason. NASA was caught with its thermometers down when James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country’s hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest.

NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest. In fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country’s 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.

Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October’s readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running. Was Hansen, like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to “hide the decline” in temperatures?

Goddard now says it got the data from another body and didn’t have the resources to verify them. There’s a phrase for this: garbage in, garbage out. Goddard’s figures are one of the four data sets used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to come up with its doomsday scenarios. Britain’s CRU is another.

Hansen has said in the past that “heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues?

London Times: Hansen has clearly led a sheltered life when it comes to politics and history. He argues that dealing with climate change is like dealing with slavery — and that Copenhagen is our last chance to tackle global warming. “On those kinds of issues, you can’t compromise,” he says. “You can’t say, ‘Let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%’.”

Now that’s REAL Science for you!🙂

IBD: We recall the unguarded admission of climate alarmist Steven Schneider of Stanford, printed in Discover in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

The warm-mongers at CRU and NASA may be neither. Let’s open their books to find how well they may have been cooked.

Over Cooked I suspect.🙂

There is little to deter former U.S. Vice President Al Gore from projecting his belief that humanity is doomed if something is not done urgently to tackle the global warming challenge – a catastrophe that Mr. Gore sees as one that has been caused by mankind. The specter of any “climategate” investigations is a mere sideshow in Al Gore’s eyes, as the scientific debate – Gore believes – has been concluded.

The Lord of Doom speaks: “Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” Gore told The Times. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Stick you head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye, The Lord of Doom has proclaimed it!

While the audience of environmental journalists were largely in agreement with Mr. Gore’s presentation and his positions, one Irish journalist and filmmaker asked Gore about the many scientific errors that were found in Gore’s global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “A judge in the British High Court, after a lengthy hearing, found there were 9 significant errors,” said Phelim McAleer, director of Not Evil Just Wrong. “This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings and have you done anything to correct those errors?” Gore did not provide an answer, saying: “The ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools.” When Mr. McAleer sought to press an answer to his question, McAleer’s microphone was cut off and he was escorted away. (Digital Journal)

You actually wanted to debate the your Lord and Master of Doom!  How dare you, peasant!🙂

Chris Horner wrote in The National Review. “The closest the Court came to supporting the movie was to say that it was grounded in the science . . . and spends the rest of its opinion detailing how it then egregiously departs from the science.”

UK Guardian: Even if an investigation into the university emails were to show evidence of wrongdoing, scientists and politicians say there is an overwhelming body of evidence that humans are causing climate change.

“I think there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of (global warming),” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this week.

So even if we’ve been lying up our ass the evidence is overwhelming.

So, just like the fake letter on George W Bush’s war service, “The letter is fake but what it says is true.”

So the evidence is fake, but the conclusion is true.

Now that’s REAL science for you!!🙂