NASA-Gate? More evidence of climate foul play

What's become known as "Climate-gate" involving Phil Jones of the CRU, may be about to explode right here at home. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA by the end of this year if the agency doesn't honor his Freedom of Information (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 manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

NASA has been stonewalling any effort to obtain their climate data for over two years blaming oil and coal companies for trying to discredit their reports. Jim Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not only refused to release his data to global warming naysayers but to other researchers as well; a curious strategy for someone that claims to have found the smoking gun linking global warming to the activities of man. One must remember that even though they wear the NASA logo, the GISS is located in the liberal bastion of Colombia University, one of Obama’s support centers for his socialist and globalist policies. Through Columbia’s collection of think tanks on public policy and political science, they have collectively endorsed nearly every ideological pursuit of this President and his radical inner circle of czars.

Hanson and NASA may have a good reason to try to shift public attention away from their “work” and onto the people that question the science behind the claims of global warming; after all….

1- NASA’s 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 despite authoritative climate data collected by other government agencies that refute those claims.

2- 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.

3- 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.

4- 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.

Is Hansen, like his British counterpart Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks the Investor’s Business Daily? 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, asks IBD?

Michael Mann was also implicated in the Climate-gate scandal, his name appearing in messages from Phil Jones, suggesting that damaging e-mails and data be deleted before any Freedom of Information Act requests could be processed. Fortunately for the western world, those scandalous e-mails were released by a yet, unknown, whistleblower. Mann’s e-mails contain his ideas to discredit skeptics of global warming by downgrading the status of scientific journals that publish dissenting views. The idea being that if those journals are no longer considered “peer reviews” then the dissenting views no longer possess scientific credibility.

Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. Much of Mann’s work including his famous “hockey stick graphs” appeared prominently in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Sources claim that Mann specifically selected tree rings that enhanced his theory of global warming and ignored those that didn’t fit his climate model. The “hockey stick” graph that showed a sharp rise in global temperatures beginning with the industrial revolution is apparently the result of the careful selection of data to reinforce a pre-determined model and is not a graph based on the actual compilation of data from a complete and unfiltered source.

While NOAA’s data disproves many of NASA’s climate reports, they are not completely innocent themselves. NOAA recently removed satellite data input into their model of ocean temperatures and boasted that the move showed an immediate jump of two tenths of a degree Celsius in ocean temperature readings. Somehow, NOAA does not see the exclusion of real data previously used to refine the accuracy of their computer model as manipulation. I find that troubling that since the importation of real data did not show the warming they predicted, they simply stopped using real data. In fact, some evidence has recently appeared that indicates that NOAA embarked on its own mission to silence climate critics using Mann’s idea of discrediting peer reviews that contain contradictory analysis.

So why would government agencies intentionally misrepresent scientific data? Well, the economy has certainly turned the heat up on law makers to trim the Federal budget. Now that climate alarmists like Al Gore, The IPCC and the UN have stated how sweeping climate initiatives are key to the survival of the planet; any government agency that performs climate research is guaranteed billions in funding at a time when they would ordinarily be struggling to validate their very existence. Funding, like drugs, can make the addict say or do anything to guarantee another dose and an agencies research that supports a President’s chosen agenda is likely to receive more funding that those results that do not.

Then there are the Phil Jones’s, the James Hanson’s and the Michael Mann’s of the world. Their religious devotion to the theory of global warming is obviously no longer a search for truth; it is however, the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Climate change skeptics, in their eyes, are heretics that must confess their sins or be destroyed. The Church imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life because his science disputed established doctrine. He looked through his newly created telescope and saw moons orbiting Saturn. Church teachings said that the Earth was the center of the Universe but Galileo speculated that this could not be true if moons were circling other planets. Much like the CRU or the IPCC, the Church was not interested in Galileo’s evidence or in a true understanding of the Universe; they were interesting in preserving the unchallenged power the Church held over the people for centuries. If Galileo were not a man with great reputation he would most certainly have been killed for his beliefs. Instead, the Church chose to destroy Galileo’s evidence and secluded him in an attempt to prevent his ideas from spreading. Hmmm? That sounds familiar.

I am all for clean air and pure water but if we are chasing red herrings based on false science aren’t we diverting needed resources away from addressing real hazards? There is nothing in the Copenhagen proposals or in our own Climate Bill that does anything about the climate. It does take $145 Trillion dollars from western industrial nations and gives it to developing nations in what can only be called a “global welfare scheme”. No, this is not about pollution or global warming; this is just more socialist philanthropy. Capitalist philanthropy is the when the wealthy offer some of what they have earned as a gift to the society that allowed them to succeed. Socialist philanthropy, like the philanthropy of our own Democratic Party, is the perverse habit of governement leaders to hand out gifts of everyone else’s money. I suppose that’s a lot more palatable than using their own money but it just doesn’t seem as noble, now does it?

Paul

The Theater of The Absurd

The air was thick with apprehension as the United Nations General Assembly prepared to meet in New York this week. Some of the most distasteful, if not outright eccentric figures in the world arena traveled to the United States to attend.

There was a general mood of distain throughout America as several leaders that are openly hostile to the United States were allowed entry into this county so they could engage in yet more angry ridicule of America and her allies.

While one could easily predict the hateful rhetoric of these “gentlemen”, there were a few surprises. Moammar Gadaffi, leader of Libya since 1979, tore up a copy of the UN charter and demanded an investigation into the assassination of John F Kennedy during his ninety minute rambling dissertation.

While he was giving us a surreal look at his personal quirks he did take a few moments to heap praises upon American President Barack Obama calling him “our son” and expressing the hope that he would remain President forever. I’m not sure what he meant by saying “our son” but I do wonder if that means he might be in a position to help us settle the Obama birth certificate issue once and for all. Truthfully, I was more disturbed at his hopes that Mr. Obama would remain President of The United States forever since I suspect that given the opportunity, the title of President for life would suit Barack Obama just fine.

Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who remained dedicated to his usual rants to promote socialism had eased his rhetoric of Obama as well. Chavez, who had previously called President Bush a devil that had made the podium “smell” of sulphur, said of Obama, "Yesterday he spoke here and it no longer smells of sulphur. It smells of something better: hope." He then urged Mr Obama to end the embargo on communist-run Cuba and to refrain from deploying military bases in Colombia. "Obama, come and join the socialists," Mr Chavez quipped in the address to the UN General Assembly. "We invite you to join the axis of evil."

Well, why wouldn’t Chavez find Obama a kindred spirit? After all, Chavez and Obama are both Constitutional tinkerers; Chavez to retain power beyond what was lawfully allowed and Obama to place Marxists and radicals in positions within the government that were traditionally off-limits to them. Mr. Obama is not only ignoring the voice of the citizens but the Tenth Amendment itself, to force his vision of healthcare reform and climate regulation on an unwilling nation. His takeovers in the banking and mortgage industries and of General Motors are not really all that different that the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry.

Even Fidel Castro praised President Obama’s speech on climate calling it “brave”. He added "It would only be fair to recognize that no other United States President would have had the courage to say what he said.”

As an illustration as to how ridiculous the United Nations has become, The UN named Castro a “World Hero of Solidarity” at a recent South American conference in Mexico. In giving that award, the President of the U.N. General Assembly stated that Castro was one of a few South American leaders who “embodies virtues and values worth emulation by all of us.”

By far, the most divisive speech given was that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His assertions that Israel is a ruthless aggressor and is responsible for slaughter of innocent Palestinians of the Gaza region was met in silent protest as delegations from several nations including Canada, The United States, France and Great Britain vacated their seats in the General Assembly. He did not restate his incendiary remarks from previous speeches regarding "the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust" nor did he chant his usual call for the destruction of Israel but he did accuse Israel of 'inhuman policies' in the Palestinian territories and of dominating world political and economic affairs. Of course the million dollar question remains unanswered and there was no mention of Iran’s nuclear program or their intention to continue it in the face of worldwide opposition.

The Most compelling speech was that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He spent nearly the first ten minutes of his speech addressing Iran’s repeated assertions that the Holocaust was a manufactured event founded in lies by producing copies of several documents that were given to Mr. Netanyahu by the German government. The documents not only included the plans for the infamous Auschwitz- Birkenau death camp where one million of the over six million Jews lost to the Holocaust were murdered at the hands of the Nazis, but the actual meeting notes that were kept when the operational plans for carrying out Hitler’s “final solution” were discussed. He asked rhetorically “Did all these people lie too?” He recounted the personal losses suffered by his family and added that no family of the Jewish community was spared the suffering of loss.

While he made an impassioned plea for unity to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms his most memorable moment was his assessment of the United Nations in general. He gratefully acknowledged the delegations that left the chamber during Amahdinejad’s speech but added his disgust that the United Nations would offer a forum for someone so hateful, so corrupt and so devoid of civilized morals. He questioned “Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” I would have added, “Have you no soul” but I fear we already know the answer to that. He admonished the UN’s Human Rights Council for ignoring the Palestinian rocket attacks on the civilian population of Israel and then condemning the measures Israel took in self defense; measures that took great care not to inflict civilian casualties on their enemies.

Mr. Netanyahu reminded the assembly that every time that an Arab nation sought a sincere peace, Israel accepted. They have an honorable peace with Egypt and with Syria and no one notices. They would offer the same peace with Palestine but it must be a peace with security for all and not a safe haven for more faceless attacks. He especially emphasized that this is the twenty-first century and we can no longer tolerate those that would try and revert all of our progress back to the ninth century when barbarism was currency of men.

I think what surprised me the most was the choice of language that Mr. Obama used in his speech; calling the Israeli settlements an “occupation” intimating that he would seek concessions in future peace talks with Israel. This past week President Obama alienated Poland and the Czech Republic by backing out of a deal to install a defensive missile shield in those two countries. Not only did he back out of an agreement, but he foolishly announced it on the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. The move was seen by all as weakness in the face of Russian opposition to the missile system.

There are reports that Obama has also snubbed attempts by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to meet with him not once, but three times. Now he has openly insulted Israel at a time when they desperately need reassurance from her allies or face the choice of taking unilateral military action to disable Iran’s nuclear program. If it happens now, the blame for this will be partially Obama’s. If he stood by Israel he might have been able to convince them that military action was not needed but he didn’t. Now if severe sanctions are not imposed and if Iran does not acquiesce to them, I fear a pre-emptive strike by Israel against the nuclear facilities in Iran is unavoidable and I don’t blame them.

Mr. Obama delivered his speech as if he were Harry Truman and the United States is still holding all the cards. We aren’t. We are financially beholding to China, our Federal Reserve is destabilizing the dollar, we have a President that is more concerned with campaigning for healthcare than the needs of his generals and troops in a war zone and the move to appease Russia by reneging on a promise to two of our allies is being viewed across the planet as irresponsible and spineless.

The coup de gras came today when he presided over a meeting of the UN Security Council in which he obtained unanimous approval of a U.S. drafted resolution to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. The resolution outlines the step that would be taken to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world’s arsenals. Mr. Obama is falling flat on his face at home with his healthcare proposal hopelessly stalled and his climate bill facing almost certain death in the Senate. He needed a victory somewhere and this was as good as any. The fact is: it is meaningless. UN resolutions did not get Iraq out of Kuwait, military intervention did. Nor have UN resolutions dissuaded North Korea or Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons themselves. The fifteen members approved the resolution because not one of them has any intention of enforcing it.

I suppose we should just try and guess which of our closest allies he will insult next as he continues to cuddle up to dictators and despots. This is nothing less than a disturbing display of his naivety and inexperience in dealing with people that haven’t read the same childish manuscripts on how we are all one big family with an underlying desire to take care of each other. I suppose that something amazing could happen that would surprise us all if these thugs were to suddenly change their minds on even one of these issues. And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.

Paul