More on Climategate

Climategate: Falsified Research Scandal Rocks the UK

By Robert Romano

"[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."—Karl Popper, "Science as Falsification," 1963.

Karl Popper must be rolling over in his grave.

As world leaders prepare to meet in Denmark next month to discuss the implementation of the Copenhagen Protocol (the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol designed to cap carbon emissions in industrialized nations) one topic certain to be the buzz amongst attendees—at least unofficially—will be the growing "Climategate" scandal that currently rocking the United Kingdom.

Apparently, computer hackers broke into the servers of the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit. There, they found and published emails showing that researchers deliberately manipulated climate "change" data to hide the actual decline of the Earth's temperatures.

What makes this highly significant is that, according to UEA's website, the Climatic Research Unit's data sets are "widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system."

The site also boasts that the "Climatic Research Unit is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change." At least, they were.

According to the UK Telegraph, "Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics. Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers."

The hackers also published an anonymous note alongside the emails: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

Amongst the gems released is one email from the Unit's director Phil Jones in 1999: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Apparently, the agenda is more important than the facts.

Lord Nigel Lawson, a Conservative politician and journalist, and long-time critic of the "science" used to justify radically reducing the carbon emissions of industrialized nations, has called for a public inquiry into the Unit's practices. "They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," said Lawson.

The UK Climategate scandal comes on the heels of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressing a paper by Dr. Alan Carlin highly critical of the "science" behind the "global warming consensus".

According to Carlin's paper, "the EPA's "Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act" (TSD) uses data that is out-of-date and ignores the decade-long decline in the earth's temperature despite CO2 levels rising and CO2 emissions accelerating.

The EPA's official findings, Carlin reported, are based largely on the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) AR4 report published in 2007. That report's data, according to Carlin, "is at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field."

Carlin wrote that the "IPCC projections for large increases [in temperature] are looking increasingly doubtful" in light of "recent substantial decreases in global temperatures".

Making matters worse for the Hot Earthers, the bulk of the data that has been used by the International Panel on Climate Change in its computer models projecting "climate change" has repeatedly (and conveniently) been destroyed.

And that data was compiled by none other than the UEA's Climatic Research Unit, as was revealed by National Review's Patrick J. Michaels in September.

In the real scientific field, there is a principle called "falsifiability," pioneered in 1963 by Karl Popper. It asserts that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Therefore, the only way to prove that a theory is not true is to show that it is false. For example, the only way fully reliable way to prove that all swans are not white is produce one that is black.

It is now clear to all that the folks at the Climatic Research Unit took a decidedly different slant on "falsifiability." They decided that the only way to prove that their theory was true was simply to falsify the facts. And in so doing, they exposed themselves—and their adherents—to be nothing more than shameless frauds of the highest order.

Naturally, that renders the Copenhagen Hot Earther's love fest a groundless exercise in contrived futility—unless, of course, they intend to falsify their findings there, too. Which is likely the precise protocol they have in mind.

Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor.

Original article available here: http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1788

An Important message from the Senate Majority Leader

This message going out to the people who pay for the insanity going on in Washington...



Nothing to see here.. move along..

Indian Naming conventions... Name of the day

Came across this on Twitter..

Native American Chiefs gave BO name: Walking Eagle (that is a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly)

And there are those who say twitter has no value..

Time to Jump to Some Conclusions

By Carter Clews

Thirteen brave soldiers are dead today because the United States Army decided to put the tender sensibilities of radical Muslims above the personal safety of the American people.

An overstatement? Not hardly. And to make matters worse, it is now clear that under Commander in Chief Barack Hussein Obama, the Army intends to continue this lunacy – no matter how many innocent lives are lost. And no matter how thoroughly it devastates our army's ability to combat terrorism both abroad, and at home.

Lest there be any doubt about the Obama policies, consider his admonition immediately following Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist attack on U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood. No sooner had Hasan finished mowing down the unarmed "infidels" … no sooner had the assassin's screams of "Allah Akbar" faded from his lips … than Barack Obama warned the American people "don't jump to conclusions."

Now, lest anyone think that by this, Obama meant not to jump to the conclusion that Hasan was the shooter, such, unfortunately, is not the case. Said the President shortly after the massacre, "This past Thursday, on a clear Texas afternoon, an Army psychiatrist walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, and began shooting his fellow soldiers."

No, what this President meant is clear to any who listened as he soft-peddled radical Islam throughout his presidential campaign. His words are clear to any who heard his speech to the Egyptian parliament apologizing for America's intolerance. They are clear to all who know that his first call to a foreign leader was to Palestinian strongman Mahmoud Abbas They are clear to those who recall that his first formal interview was to Al Arabiya, when he condemned, not Islamic terrorism, but Israeli settlements.

And they are abundantly clear to any who remember Obama's own words from page 261 of his self-adulating autobiography Audacity of Hope. Apologizing for what he considers the horror Muslims have suffered at the hands of everyday Americans, he writes:

"They [the Muslims] have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Little wonder, then that Obama has, at best, consented with his silence as his Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and his top military commanders clear Nidal Malik Hasan of any radical Islamic motives. And even less wonder that he has allowed his Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, to take such patent idiocy a far step further.

Indeed, asked by ABC's George Stephanopolous if the Amy had "dropped the ball" by not recognizing any of a hundred and one different warning signs that Hasan had become a dangerous radical, Casey recited the Obama Administration's official mantra. We shouldn't "jump to conclusions," he intoned, based on "early tidbits."

And what were those "early tidbits?"

In 2001, Hasan attended the notorious Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, where he listened in rapt attention as the fiery, anti-American imam Anwar Al-Awlaki encouraged his followers to attack the infidels. Not so coincidentally, among Hasan's fellow attendees at the Center were two of the September 11 terrorists.

During his time at Walter Reed Hospital and the Uniformed Services University, Hasan, according to the New York Times, became increasingly hostile towards the War on Terror and Americans who defended it. Wrote the Times:

"A former classmate in the master's degree program said Major Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation about a year ago in an environmental health seminar titled "Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam." He did not socialize with his classmates, other than to argue in the hallways on why the wars were wrong … [S]ome students complained to their professors about Major Hasan."

Even more recently, according to an ABC News Online article, intelligence sources had a level of knowledge that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda assets abroad. And according to the highly reliable web site, the Northeast Intelligence Network, "this and information similar but not directly related to such communications became a 'political issue' between government agencies and officials 'at the policy making levels' of the administration."

So, in view of all this – and the 13 martyred soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas -- are the Obama Administration and the U.S. Army, at last, ready to start heeding reports of radical activity among Muslim soldiers – before more shots are fired and additional lives are lost?

Not a chance. Here is the Obama Administration's official response, as enunciated by Gen. Casey on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning: "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

That, of course, is sheer idiocy. And it is time for Barack Hussein Obama to step to the fore and declare once and for all – honestly and openly – whether he still intends to "stand with" the radical Muslims even to the extent of protecting "diversity" over American lives. If not, we have every right to "jump" to our own conclusions.

Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1738

Giraldo is an Idiot.

Giraldo Rivera is bending over backward to try and clear the Muslim Murderer Nadir Hasan of being anything but "crazy.."

The question he asks.. "Doesn't TERRORISM imply a conspiracy?"

Does it?

Could not that conspiracy be between a belief and the man? Then we find out (not from our press of course) the connections between Hasan and the 911 perps?

Thanks to Michelle Malkin whom I read Daily for this GEM

Seriously, why is he on the air again? Oh yeah.. Al Capone.. Riiiight...