The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for February, 2010

Unionized Rhode Island Teachers Refuse To Work 25 Minutes More Per Day, So Town Fires All Of Them

Posted by iusbvision on February 28, 2010

Via Business Insider:

A school superintendent in Rhode Island is trying to fix an abysmally bad school system.   

Her plan calls for teachers at a local high school to work 25 minutes longer per day, each lunch with students once in a while, and help with tutoring.  The teachers’ union has refused to accept these apparently onerous demands.

The teachers at the high school make $70,000-$78,000, as compared to a median income in the town of $22,000.  This exemplifies a nationwide trend in which public sector workers make far more than their private-sector counterparts (with better benefits).

The school superintendent has responded to the union’s stubbornness by firing every teacher and administrator at the school.

A sign of things to come?

Mish Shedlock has the details at Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis:

Central Falls Rhode Island Fires Every High School Teacher

Here is an interesting email from “Jason” regarding high schools in Central Falls Rhode Island. Jason writes:

Hi Mish,

As I’m sure you’re aware, Rhode Island has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Central Falls is one of the poorest towns in the state. It looks like the pictures everyone’s seen of Detroit or Flint. There are lots of boarded up windows, abandoned buildings, decrepit factories with broken windows, etc. It’s an absolutely depressed community. According to Wikipedia, the median income in the town is $22k.

Teacher salaries at the high school average $72-78k. Apparently 50% of the students at the school are failing all of their classes, and the graduation rate is also under 50%. In an effort to turn the school around, the superintendent requested some changes be made whereby the school day would be slightly extended, teachers would perform some extra tutoring, etc.

The union balked and refused the terms, so now she is firing the entire teaching staff of the high school and replacing them. This is yet another example of unions digging their own graves by refusing to negotiate or accept reasonable terms. Sentiment is on the side of the superintendent, at least among the folks I have discussed the issue with.


With that backdrop, please consider Central Falls to fire every high school teacher.

The teachers didn’t blink.

Under threat of losing their jobs if they didn’t go along with extra work for not a lot of extra pay, the Central Falls Teachers’ Union refused Friday morning to accept a reform plan for one of the worst-performing high schools in the state.

The superintendent didn’t blink either.

After learning of the union’s position, School Supt. Frances Gallo notified the state that she was switching to an alternative she was hoping to avoid: firing the entire staff at Central Falls High School. In total, about 100 teachers, administrators and assistants will lose their jobs.

Gallo blamed the union’s “callous disregard” for the situation, saying union leaders “knew full well what would happen” if they rejected the six conditions Gallo said were crucial to improving the school. The conditions are adding 25 minutes to the school day, providing tutoring on a rotating schedule before and after school, eating lunch with students once a week, submitting to more rigorous evaluations, attending weekly after-school planning sessions with other teachers and participating in two weeks of training in the summer.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101 | 2 Comments »

Watch a brain dead Member of Congress in action.

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2010

Maxine Waters is priceless.

How can she be in Congress for decades, sit on that committee and not understand the difference between the discount lending rate, the federal funds rate and the prime lending rate?

Bernanke is being quite generous here and it seems clear that Waters really doesn’t get it.

Someone never took Macroeconomics …. well name me the neo-marxist or progressive that really understands macro anyways. Robert Reich and Paul Krugmann claim to be economists but it amazes me just how much basic macro they have to forget to write the nonsense they do every week…. and then there is Christina Romer, who has written some good stuff, most of which she had to forget as soon as she took a job at the Obama White House.

Not that Bernanke is a great Federal Reserve Chair, he is incompetent. There are several econ profs here at IUSB who could do a better job and do it more ethically.

Not that I like to just name call, but those who understand macro know that Waters just got the dunce cap of the year award, if you don’t understand macro just move on to the next post ;)

Hat Tip Hotair.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | 1 Comment »

Why is Tower 7 rebuilt and the rest of the WTC site is a pit?

Posted by iusbvision on February 26, 2010

Nine years later…hello?

My friend Steven Crowder explains with his usual creative flare.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Bush Was Right About Iran. MSNBC, the Left, and Partisans in the Intelligence Community Were Wrong

Posted by iusbvision on February 26, 2010

Iran has announced that they have achieved the 20% purity mark in purifying Uranium. This is important because the greatest leaps of technology are needed to achieve the 20% mark. Once 20% is achieved time is all it takes to have weapons grade uranium. Uranium for nuclear reactors can be less than 5% pure.

Do you remember when Bush told Iran that under no circumstances would they be allowed to build a nuclear weapon? immediately the left said that Bush wanted war with Iran and that Bush must be stopped. Partisans in the CIA who had engineered the Valerie Plame non-scandal scandal tought the other politically motivated people Bush let stay in the intelligence administration that they could pervert intelligence for partisan purposes as well.

So the next National Intelligence Estimate that came out said that Iran was no longer a nuclear threat and was dismantling its nuclear program and the left was calling Bush a liar when he stated his believe that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. History has made its judgement, Bush was right and once again our intelligence community has been used for a partisan hit job.

Read the following very carefully.

Despite Obama’s personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad’s announcement last week that Iran is now a “nuclear state.”

Gee, that’s weird — because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians — even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) — all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence — and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation’s intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who — amazingly — was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: “We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail.”

And so they did.

So now, our “spies” are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It’s like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn’t anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven’t had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can’t spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran’s nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE’s conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of cited Iran’s operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, “Iran Now Loves Israel.”

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report “a declaration of the Iranian people’s victory against the great powers.”

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted “intelligence” agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report “appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House’s bomb-Iran brigade — and especially that of Vice President Dick Cheney.”

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, “No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it’s clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake.”

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother’s housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

“Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago,” Olbermann thundered, “instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled.”

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: “Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess … in response to Iran’s anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?”

Bush had “smeared” Iran!

Olbermann’s Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush “has zero credibility.”

Olbermann’s even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility “has suffered another serious blow.”

Poor Iran!

Olbermann’s most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know — with delightful originality — “what the president knew and when he knew it.” This was on account of Bush’s having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that’s on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report “liars” and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE’s laughable report.

Even if you weren’t aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn’t notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn’t any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!

Ann Coulter

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

British Govt Hospital Causes “Unimaginable Suffering”: Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets… yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one’s to blame.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

Bureaucracies in the British National Heath Service are no different from the International Luge Federation or American public schools; the bureaucracy is only really excellent at one thing and that is shirking responsibility and accountability.

UK Daily Mail:

  • Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
  • Labour’s obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
  • Patients were ‘routinely neglected’ at hospital
  • Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal

Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.

Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.

Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months’ salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.

He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.

The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles’ laid waste to Labour’s decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables.

The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was ‘routinely neglected’. Others were subjected to ‘ inhumane treatment’, ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’ and ‘rudeness’.

Bosses at the Trust – officially an ‘elite’ NHS institution – were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.

But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.

The inquiry found that:

  • Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;
  • Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;
  • Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;
  • Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made istleblowers too frightened to come forward.

Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases.

Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful ‘local’ scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour’s approach to the NHS.

It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they ‘lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care’.


UK Times:

Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.

The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.

Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”


I think you got the point. More from the UK Independent HERE.

And to think that the left still tries to defend this system in the comments section HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Paparazzi out of control, using telephoto to take nude pics of teen girl in George Clooney’s home.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

Any regular reader of this blog knows that we are committed to the integrity of the First Amendment. With that said your rights end when you do harm, violate someones realistic expectation of privacy or physically endanger others.

When paparazzi fly up to Britney Spears car on a motorcycle to film her mere inches away at 60 miles per hour that is dangerous. When paparazzi pokes their telephoto lens over your privacy fence to take pictures of what you are doing in your bedroom or livingroom they are violating someones realistic expectation of privacy.

It is time to bring this behavior to an end.

UK Times Online:

The actor George Clooney is reported to be selling the villa on Lake Como that he shares with his Italian girlfriend after their privacy was invaded by paparazzi and fans.

Potential buyers of the 18th-century Villa Oleandra at Laglio on Lake Como, which Clooney bought in 2002 for a reported $8 million, include the footballer David Beckham, who plays for AC Milan.

Clooney’s girlfriend, Elisabetta Canalis, a former Italian showgirl and television hostess, was reported to be “furious and exasperated” last summer when the villa was staked out by paparazzi. The couple were particularly angry when photographers climbed over the villa wall and took photos of an under-age girl while she was changing clothes in one of his guest rooms, as well as photos of Clooney and Canalis.

The actor said at the time: “I don’t know about the law in the United States but in Italy it’s illegal for photographers to climb over my wall and to take long-lens pictures of a 13-year-old girl in her bedroom. I draw the line of privacy at that.”

Guests at the villa have included Hollywood stars such as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and scenes for the film Ocean’s Twelve were shot there. Property prices in the Como area have risen since the actor’s arrival.

Clooney and Canalis are said to be looking for “somewhere more private”, possibly in Le Marche or Sardinia.

Twenty years in the slam… and for those who buy the pics?

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

After Lecturing Us on Deficits and Frugality Obama Defeats FDR (in Spending Other People’s Money)

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

After said lecture at the announcement of his new deficit reduction commission he sent a whopping 3.8 trillion dollar budget to Congress.

While most politicians spin and lie normally there is some connection to what they say and what they do, until now.

Read this carefully. 

CNS News:

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.
“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”
To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.
They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.
Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.
In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)
FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.
In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.
In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.
Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.
And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — when Germany and Japan surrendered.
The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 — and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.
So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.
Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.
The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Denial, Lies? President Says Stimulus Bill Greatest Recovery Evah!

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

In spite of the latest bad economic news and just 6% of Americans believe that the stimulus package has delivered the private sector jobs promised the Obama Administration insists that it was the greatest recovery plan of all time.

To add a little perspective, understand that 6% of Americans think Elvis is still alive.

Talk about denial – wow.. and no earmarks…. The stimulus funds are mostly being spent to preserve government union (SEIU) jobs, hire IRS agents etc. This means that the majority of the money is being spent as a political slush fund. In a way that means it is a giant earmark.

But fear not, right after he signed the stimulus he signed another massive spending bill that had over 8,500 earmark spending provisions in it.

The earmark process is bad because it allows politicians to spend millions with next to no checks and balances. Many of these earmarks go to the clients of lobbyists and some of that money circulates back to the campaign coffers of politicians.

Don’t forget it was the stimulus that reversed the Clinton/Ginghrich welfare reform bill that was such a huge success, it was the stimulus that was carefully worded to preserve those Bonuses for AIG and Fannie Mae.

Steven Crowder goes on a “Stimulus Package Road Trip” to see what you and your kids and grandkids just bought…

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Housing Down Again 11%, Consumer Confidence Down, Underemployment Up, Elite Media “Surprised” Yet Again that Unemployment Claims Rise..

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

You have seen most of the press spin on how great the economic recovery is. The AP, at least online pointed out that the 5.7% GDP growth really wasn’t a turn around in the economy and I explained why that was. Now the evidence is in and once again the numbers show that our analysis was correct.

Karl at had some of the same fun we have had as of late:

Media shocked by totally predictable “unexpected” rise in jobless claims

When it comes to the establishment media — and the economists in their address books — their chief weapon is surprise (and a fanatical devotion to The One):

The number of U.S. workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly surged last week, while producer prices increased sharply in January, raising potential hurdles for the economy’s recovery.


The rise in jobless insurance claims dealt a setback to hopes the economy was on the verge of job growth and could increase political pressure on President Barack Obama, who has made tackling unemployment his number one priority.

This surge in claims puts a damper on the last report, in which the unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly. However, it is consistent with the recent trend of unemployment news being “unexpectedly” bad again and again and again and again and again and well, you get the picture.


No consumer confidence means no investor confidence which means people spend less and people get laid off from work. As my teenager might say “DUH!” But as usual the elite media doesn’t want to get it.

Bloomberg News:

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — Confidence among U.S. consumers fell in February to the lowest level in 10 months, a sign that concern about job prospects may hold back the spending needed to sustain the recovery.

The Conference Board’s confidence index slumped to 46, below the lowest forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of economists, from 56.5 in January, a report from the New York- based private research group showed today. A separate report showed home prices rose for a seventh month.

Stocks fell and Treasuries gained after the confidence report also showed attitudes about current conditions fell to the lowest level in 27 years and the outlook for wages dimmed. The survey reinforces expectations Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will repeat the central bank’s pledge to keep interest rates low for “an extended period” in testimony to Congress tomorrow.

“Consumer spending is going to disappoint throughout most of the year,” said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. The economy “may not be out of the woods.”

Economists forecast the confidence index would decrease to 55 from a previously reported 55.9 January reading, according to the median of 68 projections in the Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 50.9 to 59.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 1.2 percent to 1,094.6 at 4:05 p.m. in New York. The 10-year Treasury note rose, pushing down the yield 11 basis points to 3.69 percent.


Associated Press:

New home sales drop 11 percent in January, new low

New home sales plummet 11 percent in January, the 3rd monthly decline in a row

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sales of new homes plunged to a record low in January, underscoring the formidable challenges facing the housing industry as it tries to recover from the worst slump in decades.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales dropped 11.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units, the lowest level on records going back nearly a half century. The big drop was a surprise to economists who were expecting a 5 percent increase over December’s pace.

While winter storms were partly to blame, home sales have fallen for three straight months despite sweeping government support. Economists were already worried that an improvement in sales in the second half of last year could falter as various government support programs are withdrawn.

“There is no doubt that January and February are going to be messy months for housing, given the severe weather conditions, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the housing sector has taken another big step back, even with the government aid,” Jennifer Lee, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a research note.



Gallup’s new daily metric estimates that 30 million U.S. workers were underemployed in January

by Jenny Marlar

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Gallup’s daily measure of U.S. employment reveals that 19.9% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed during the month of January, translating to close to 30 million Americans who are working less than their desired capacity. Those who were underemployed reported spending 36% less than those who were employed, $48 per day versus $75 per day.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

How not to criticize a fellow conservative

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

I have been a fan of for some time now. Ed Morrissey is one of the very finest political writers there is. AllahPundit can be a bit goofy sometimes and lets his emotional quirks occasionally get the better of him, but still he is a very good political reporter and analyst.

I have never seen a piece that I was so royally disappointed with, that just didn’t deserve to be on until now. The piece was long on accusations and invented narratives and short on verifiable facts.

The following is the “meat” of a piece on by CK McLeod:

You can be a fan of Glenn Beck’s – you might even be Glenn Beck himself – and acknowledge that his rhetoric is sometimes irresponsible. You can be thankful to Glenn Beck for his contributions to American conservatism – for helping to keep the political flame alive, even build it, during a bleakly dark time – and yet still wonder whether, going forward, his pet themes, favorite arguments, and customary stances aren’t counterproductive and divisive, where not embarrassing. In short, you can agree with everything J.E. wrote, yet still be concerned about the way that Glenn Beck habitually brings vindictive hatred and a self-destructive and dangerous extremism into conservative discourse.

As someone who at least halfway listens to Beck’s TV show almost every weekday, I well recognize that he and his fans are more used to getting this kind of thing from the likes of Arianna Huffington or Media Matters robots than from conservative bloggers. But please check the transcript of his CPAC speech (or cue the video to 5:20): Nearly the first words out of his mouth were “I have to tell you, I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me…” (emphasis added). Defenders of Beck’s will be quick to point out that the words were obviously offered in self-consciously exaggerated good humor, as you will see if you view the video, and note the smile on Beck’s face. Furthermore, he was jokingly responding to a specific statement from David Keene’s introduction, in which, while congratulating Beck for conduction a national political seminar, Keene referred to having written an article in college naming Wilson, along with Hitler and Lenin, as one of “the three most dangerous people of the 20th Century.”

Now, jesting about one’s hatred for a relatively remote historical figure, even a duly elected president, wouldn’t amount to much on its own – who cares how anyone feels about Millard Fillmore? – but any Beck viewer or listener knows that, hard as it may be for the uninitiated to believe, Beck is joking on the square here. Indeed, he has seemed obsessed with exposing a purported clear and very present danger of progressivism, which he identifies both with historical figures like Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Margaret Sanger, and with modern day progressives like the Republican 2008 presidential candidate or our current Secretary of State. (If you happened to watch Beck’s hour-long New York harborscape interview with Sarah Palin, then you might recall her reluctance to respond to his anti-progressive spiel, especially when applied to her former running mate. Beck later described her demeanor as remarkably “guarded” – as against criticism from her legion of detractors. My personal opinion is that, though she likes Beck and wishes to appeal to his fans, her political antennae, and perhaps her common sense and personal decency, were functioning efficiently.)

When Beck inveighs hatefully against Woodrow Wilson, he’s also inveighing against John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and many millions of other people, in both parties, and I would question the honesty of any regular Beck viewer who denied the evident fierceness of Beck’s feelings on this subject. If you think I’m exaggerating, then how do you explain away statements like the following, also from the CPAC keynote?

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To progress past the Constitution.

…and, again on cancer, while reacting to a statement of Theodore Roosevelt’s on income inequality:

[T]his is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America.


It is big government – it’s a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it. It cannot co-exist. And we need big thinkers, and brave people with spines who can make the case – that can actually say to Americans: look it’s going to be hard – it’s going to be hard but it’s going to be okay. We’re going to make it.

This kind of language is not just exaggerated (and cliché): It’s pure demagogy, and it’s dehumanizing. Beck’s delivery and self-deprecation take the edge off… and I’ll now refrain from making the kind of historical reference that I tend to doubt Beck himself, in my place, would resist – much. I’ll just ask you to imagine the above with a few exclamation points, hand gestures, and a throbbing throng of the newly educated – live and in person, not across a warm TV screen.


Look at this piece very carefully and take out the word Beck and put in Limbaugh, Malkin, Huffington, or any other name and it really changes nothing.

Beck says that progressivism and traditional Americanism cannot ultimately coexist. Beck has used the evidence from countless history books, biographies, economists, historians, legal scholars and others to make his case.  McKleod, who admits that he only “half listens to Beck” says that Beck’s critiques of progressivism are pure demagogy, and yet provides us with verifiable fact ZERO that Beck is factually or historically incorrect about what he says. hired a bunch of professors to “fact check” Glenn Beck on his history of communism/progressivism documentary and found no errors.

I ask you Mr. McKleod, your observations of Beck are based on what?? You don’t like his sometimes flamboyant style? If you don’t like his style just say so, but to attack his factual credibility, when story after story he has broken was proved true after the elite media and White House called him a liar and all sorts of names. Yet you conveniently leave that out.  

What we have here is the typical nonsense that is often posted at the Daily Beast; XXX is this and XXX is that, what he says is this and what he says is that. XXX’s motives are this and XXX’s motives are that. Appeal to authority A said this about XXX and appeal to authority B said that.

Yet, we are left with no facts to verify for ourselves, there is not even the attempt to provide objective evidence that we can see and judge for ourselves. So what are we left with? XXX (Beck) is all these bad things because CK McLeod says so. I could take most of Mcleod’s column, take out Beck’s name and insert Malkin, or Huffington, or McLeod’s name and it would be just as valid/invalid.

Fortunately the commentors at Hotair, who are a very smart bunch, totally destroyed this piece by the numbers and it deserved it.

Here is my comment:

Mr./Ms. MacLeod,

This is not a very good column.

I see the same tactics in this column that are used on the Daily Beast. Glenn is this, Glenn is that, Glenn has bad motive a or bad motive B, the other guy says that Glenn will have bad result A or bad result B.

This all avoids the key argument. The truth.

Glenn hates Woodrow Wilson, you build a narrative around that lone snippet that is convenient for you, but you avoid the key question. WHY does Beck hate Wilson?

Could it have been that Wilson had thugs that were violent, that he was a proved racist who resegretated government, that he was steeped in social darwinism who thought that the Constitution was obsolete nonsense that got in the way of his dream of an engineered society?

Anyone who loves freedom and limited government should hold many of Wilson’s views with a certain degree of contempt.

What I don’t see from Beck’s critics is “Beck’s argument is wrong because of verifiable evidence X and verifiable evidence Y”.

I love Mark Levin, and he is right that the political consequences of the Tea Party and Beck in some cases maybe that the vote is split 3 ways and the leftist wins.

But this is also a reflection of a greater truth, the Republican Party is not entitled to my vote simply because I oppose statist leftism, like any candidate and any party they will have to earn my vote on merit and performance period.

Voting for you just because you are not the other guy is no longer good enough. The GOP needs to perform, keep its promises and show real leadership.


Scholar Jonah Goldberg on Woodrow Wilson:

GOLDBERG: Well, he creates the first propaganda ministry, he unleashes 100,000 propaganda agents on the United States where he sends them out sometimes without revealing their identities to give these speeches in all public places to persuade people to support the war, to distrust Germans, to hate immigrants. Wilson creates these, under Wilson, the Justice Department creates the American Protective League at a time where 250,000 badge-carrying goons who were allowed to beat people up in the street, arrest people in mass arrests, do home break-ins without warrants, spy on people, do government background checks, carry badges. They were just basically what, you know, what were called a bunch of sort of street gang political goons who could do the Government’s bidding at will. Wilson closed down scores of newspapers and magazines, threatened thousands of others with closing them down, used the mail service, which back then was like the Internet and mail combined. I mean, it was where everyone got their information, used the postal service to clamp down on all dissent. One woman who spoke in her own home about how she liked Lenin was given six months in jail. One guy refused to stand up for the Star-Spangled Banner at a baseball game, was shot in the back. Another guy refused to sing the national anthem at a liberty bond drive, was beaten senseless. These guys were not convicted of anything because they were just doing their patriotic duty. Even if you buy the caricature of George Bush and Joseph McCarthy, if you buy the cartoon version of what’s out there, they still, still look like co-hosts of romper room compared to what Woodrow Wilson did in this country.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Huffington Post Advocates “Breaking Kneecaps” Against Political Opponents.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

We wrote about this story HERE when a CNN analyist advocated that the president “Go Chicago Style Al Capone Gangsta” on his political opponents. Imagine the elite media reaction if a Republican had said this.

This is not that unusual for the left. I wrote about how the left justifies violence against their political opponents HERE at Poligazette.

Via Big

CNN, Huffington Post Urge Violence Against Republicans

by Kristinn Taylor

Two of the most popular liberal news sites are calling for violence against Republicans for obstructing the radical agenda of President Barack Obama.

CNN and Huffington Post have each published op-eds this past week by regular contributors with headlines that explicitly call for Obama to use violent gangland tactics against his political opponents.

CNN published a column by Roland Martin on February 11 with the headline, Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP.

Martin concluded the article with a plea for Obama to emulate the violent tactics of the Prohibition-era Chicago mob boss Al Capone.

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

The Huffington Post followed-up with their own call for gangland violence against Republicans with the publication on February 14 of a column by David Bourgeois with the title, Obama Better Start Breaking Kneecaps.

Bourgeois concludes his article with this call for gangland violence.

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

In case the message wasn’t clear, Huffington Post illustrated the call to violence with a wooden baseball bat with Obama’s first name on it in large letters.
Huffington Post publisher Arianna Huffington recently excoriated Fox News chief Roger Ailes for allegedly provocative rhetoric by Fox host Glenn Beck.

HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it’s not a question of picking a fight. And aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree…

…It’s not about the word police. It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there.

Ailes defended Beck, saying he was accurately talking about the governments of Hitler and Stalin.

Violent rhetoric such as that espoused by CNN and the Huffington Post is usually found in the bowels of Internet discussion forums, not as sanctioned op-ed headlines on news sites with White House press passes.

CNN and Huffington Post would be well-advised to retract the calls to violence and issue apologies to Republicans before Obama supporters are incited by their violent rhetoric and start going gangsta and break kneecaps of Republicans.

If they won’t do that of their own volition, then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs should shame them into doing so. Surely the Obama administration does not countenance violence against their domestic political opponents.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »

Tea partiers to MSNBC: Your all-white lineup is cordially invited to experience our diversity! UPDATE: Brilliant Black Man Calls Out Olby.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2010

Via AP at

Katrina Pierson invites Janine Garafolo to America’s Tea Party!

I attended two local tea party events and there were all sorts of people there; white, tan, black, hispanic, asian and hey I am Swedish!

UPDATE – Brilliant Black Man calls out Olby for his lies.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

How a Riley High School Teacher Threatened My Special Needs Daughter

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2010

I have seen abuse of position and violations of the law by college administrators and professors before. I have seen enough of it that I decided to research a great deal of it for an upcoming book. When Indiana University caught wind that I was writing my own book they stopped trying to censor me, harass me, censor the student newspaper and the student bulletin boards. I was hopeful that the previous abuses I saw, at least at IUSB were over. I was also comforted by the fact that IU knows that I am watching, as are my friends at the Indiana ACLU and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which stand eternally vigilant to protect the First Amendment rights of all of us.

I was ready to finish the semester, write my book and try to once again find gainful employment all drama free….. and then today happened.

I found out that a science teacher at Riley High School had intended to show the now debunked Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth”. So I sent my child to the school with a message to have her teacher, Miss Ganzer, call me.

The conversation started out quite pleasant. I asked Miss Ganzer if she was planning to show the film and she said yes. I asked if she had planned to show her students the data that shows that the film has many mistakes. She said no.

At this point I figured I would just print off about two dozen articles from the foreign press showing how many of the claims from the IPCC are unsupportable and/or fraudulent by their own admission. The IPCC Report is largely what Al Gore’s claims are based on in the movie. Many of the IPCC’s own authors have come out against the IPCC report. To see a short list of the evidence which is irrefutable click HERE.

I asked Miss Ganzer if she reads the foreign press and she said that she did because she has a relative that works at the EU. I asked her if she was aware of how the foreign press was all over the story of how much of what the IPCC has now claimed has demonstrated to be wrong or unsupportable and she said no. This surprised me because the foreign press is having a feeding frenzy of reporting on this story.

I asked Miss Ganzer if she was aware that the BBC aired a documentary that debunked some of the claims in Al Gore’s film called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. She said no.

I asked Miss Ganzer if she was aware that the British courts ruled that the film cannot be shown to children without a packet of information showing the demonstrable inaccuracies in the film. Her answer was a flippant and attitudinal, “Oh well this ain’t Britain”.

Still, hoping to be helpful, I said that I would be happy to bring all of the foreign press coverage and information that she needed to demonstrate that what I was telling her was true, to show that the IPCC authors themselves are admitting fault. She said, “I wouldn’t be interested in that.” I asked, “Why not don’t you care about the truth?”

This is where it gets interesting….

Miss Ganzer says, “My family owns an environmental consulting company” and I said, “So what you’re telling me is that you have a financial interest in pushing the global warming agenda.” She said quite boldly, “That’s right.”

It was at this point when I began to realize just what I was dealing with. I told her, “What about the truth, as a teacher and a scientist your first duty is to the truth” and with even more brazen in her voice she said “I am not interested in the truth”.

It was at this point where my mind went into high gear. I realized that her position was quite clear. She likely knew that short of causing direct physical harm to a child that the Teacher’s Union would protect her. She is accountable only to the union and to bureaucrats which are faceless to me, so she figured that she had the power and could be as brazen and flippant as she liked.. and boy was she. The now puffy and brazen tone of her voice left no doubt, she was enjoying this and behaved as if  she had the power and there was nothing in the world I could do about it.

So I decided to show her that I am not quite as powerless as she assumed. I decided that this behavior could not go unchallenged.

I said, “You realize that I am going to have to write about this”

She said, “What do you mean?”

I said, “I am a reasonably well-known writer and I am authoring a book on academia and congratulations you just got in it.”

She said, “I don’t give you permission to use my name or write about me.”

I said, “I don’t need your permission. You’re going to be in the book and that’s that.”

At this point some of the puffiness was taken out of her voice and the threats began.

She said, “My brother is a lawyer and I will have him deal with you.”

I said, “Fine, I got an A in First Amendment Case Law and I know that a libel claim has to meet seven legal tests just to have standing and I know full well that you can’t meet them. Unauthorized biographies are published all the time and there is nothing they can do. You said in no uncertain terms that you are not interested in the truth (at this point I paused a moment to give her an opportunity to back pedal or take it back, she did not).

At this point I realized that if she tried to take any legal action against me it was a win/win for me and for students. She would have no chance to prevail in such a suit and the result would just be good publicity for me and bad publicity for her. As many people need to know what this teacher is as possible.

I said, “So if you want to try to sue me……In fact, please consider this your personal invitation to try.”

It was at this point where she panicked.

She said, “Well you had better get your daughter out of my classroom.” It is difficult to express tone in a text medium such as this page you are reading but I want you to try to understand, the way she said this was truly vile, it was dripping with hate, evil. There was no question at all, my daughter had just been threatened.

I said, “You just threatened my daughter…..You just threatened my daughter”.

It was at this point where I started to get a bit upset, I was a bit shocked. We had some cross talk interrupting each other for a moment and I remember saying again, “I can’t believe it, you just threatened my daughter” while she was again trying to threaten me with legal action over my book. I remember asking myself, “what am I going to do now”.

I said, “I guess I am going to have to file a police report”.

When I said that she stopped talking as I could tell that my statement had taken some of the wind out of her sails.

I said, “You threatened my daughter. I want her out of your classroom and never to return.”

It was at this point she started to back pedal and said, “I got my copy of the Al Gore film from the school board. If you like you can donate a copy of the BBC film to the school and some teachers could show that alongside the Gore film.”

I am finishing a degree in communications. I realized that she had chosen her words quite carefully, she didn’t say that she would show the film and I was quiet confident that she wouldn’t.

I said, “Thank you I just might look into that” but still my thoughts were largely on my daughter and just how vile of tone Ganzer’s threat was.

[UPDATE – I have come to find out through hearsay that it was at just before this point in the conversation where other people in the room started to pay close attention to the conversation, at this point it may not have been the mention the possibility of filing a police report that changed her attitude, but rather the fact that she had an audience.

I have also heard via hearsay that Ganzer told others that she offered to show the BBC documentary in the class and she cannot understand why at all that I would put her in my book, as if she was trying to be totally compliant. Of course I cannot prove these statements at this time but it certainly seems in line with someone trying to manipulate a situation in their favor. How many people have we known who behaved one way when others might not be looking, only to have an apparent reversal when an audience is tuning in? – Editor]

She said, “I realize that you are passionate about this issue…”    […another statement for the audience? – Editor]

I interrupted, “This has nothing to do with passion, this has everything to do with the truth. I offered to provide you with good evidence and you made it crystal clear to me and in no uncertain terms that you are not interested in the truth” again no denial or back pedal from her.

I said, “I mean it. You threatened my daughter. I want her out of your classroom permanently.”

She said, “Fine and you can call my boss”.

I said, “I will.”

[afterthought – not once did she even deny that she threatened my daughter – Editor]

End of phone call.

I immediately called the principal’s office at Riley. The man who answered the phone was very nice and listened very well. I explained to him that Miss Ganzer had threatened my daughter and that I want her out of her class permanently. I said that we may have to get the police involved. The man said that he would leave instructions to have Bonnie moved from Miss Ganzer’s class and he would leave a note for the principal because he is in a business meeting.

It is likely that a meeting with the principal will be arranged and I have decided to wait until the school has spoken with my family before I decide if I will file a police report.

Later this evening I thought that it is highly unlikely that I am the only parent that she has spoken to in this way. She stated that she is not interested in the truth, words which will be etched on my mind forever. I wondered how many students she has misled or possibly even abused with some form of academic malpractice. I thought that it might just be karma, or perhaps God’s poetic justice, that she decided to pick a battle with the parent who is authoring a book on academic abuses. Think about how many parents are treated this way and are powerless in the face of the teachers union or bureaucracy to do something about it.

I am willing to file an affidavit stating that what I presented here is accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

UPDATE – I heard via hearsay that the environmental firm she spoke of mostly does stuff like asbestos removal, but who knows as I have no way to verify hearsay. If it is true than she said what she said just to be flippant. I ran into someone I know who works at Riley and knows Miss Ganzer. He/she was not surprised by this story.

UPDATE II – My daughter was moved to a different class permanently. I am told via hearsay that a couple of the teachers are speaking ill of me behind my back, but since this is hearsay I am not going to publish their names here, for now; besides when you do the right thing expect people to be upset with you. They have been sent the message that if any teacher has any interest to see the other side of the story they are welcome to call or just read it here, but being aware of how union teachers often feel about parents (as a problem rather than a resource) I am not hopeful.

UPDATE III – My daughter now tells me  that a certain teacher has told her that when she has a problem with something in class, to come to said teacher rather than her father. Is this not typical of the teachers union mentality? The idea of union teachers asking students to keep things from their parents is nothing new and is perhaps a primary reason why the teachers union mentality needs to be broken. [I ask my daughter about her day, almost every day at school like a good parent should, in fact I asked her directly to tell me anything teachers say about this situation to her; as this was exactly what I expected. My research shows it is common among union teachers to try to hide information from parents who expect teacher accountability – Editor]

Said teacher, according to my daughter, also said that Miss Ganzer has a “right” to teach her curriculum however she likes. Think about this statement for a moment. The scientists who put forth much of the information for Al Gore’s movie have now admitted that much of the data and claims are wrong. So for a teacher to tell a student that another teacher has the right to teach something that is easily proved wrong with just a few minutes of research; is that a view designed to benefit the student or protect the teachers union? In each case said statement from the teacher was designed not to benefit the student or to foster academic excellence, but to benefit and further the aims of the teacher. Hopefully this update, which I am sure will be read, will be enough to prevent such ghastly behavior in the future.

After I publish my book I may consider running for school board.

Woodrow Wilson (first progressive president) said the chief job of an educator is to make — and he says this to parents — your children as little like you as possible. That is the agenda and that is still the agenda that we have today.  –  Jonah Goldberg

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. – Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2010


UPDATE IV – UK Bans Global Warming Ads:

TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.

The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.

It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.

The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks.

They attracted 939 complaints — more than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.


Be sure to examine our previous coverage  (LINKS  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).

The University of East Anglia emails show how climate scientists tried manipulate and cover up dats and censor and punish other scientists who published data that went against the alarmist orthodoxy. The climate scientists agreed via email that if confronted with a FOI request for the raw data that they would destroy it rather than give it up. The scientists stayed true to that pact and now much of the raw data that global warming alarmism is supposed to be based upon is gone. That research data was mostly paid for by taxpayers.

This is contrary to the basic tenets of the scientific method, where other scientsist look at your raw data and see if your results can be duplicated.


UPDATE – UK Parliament Launches Fraud Investigation! British Institute of Physics scathing report:

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation [when faced with FOI requests for the raw data the global warming alarmists delayed till legal remedies were exhausted and then in flagrant violation of the law destroyed the data – IUSB Vision Editor] . Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

The Royal Society of Chemistry also reports HERE.

Hat Tip!

UK Times 27 Feb 2010:

University tried to mislead Parliament on climate change e-mails

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act. [Just as we have stated from minute one – IUSB Vision Editor]

Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down while an inquiry takes place into allegations that he manipulated data to avoid scrutiny of his claims that manmade emissions were causing global warming. Professor Edward Acton, the university’s vice-chancellor, published a statement he sent to the committee before giving evidence to MPs at a public hearing on Monday. He said a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter said: “The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

The letter also confirmed the ICO’s previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data. The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.

The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement …The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. [This means that the only reason they are not being prosecuted is because the university managed to delay all of this until the statute of limitations ran out – IUSB Vision Editor]

“The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.”

The ICO cannot prosecute the university because the complaint about its rejection of the information request was made too late. The ICO is seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach of the act.

Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Committee, said: “It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy.


UPDATE IIIn their words:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

“A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
– Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Dr. Jones Admits Emails are True – Breitbart News March 2 , 2010:

A British climate researcher at the centre of a row over global warming science has admitted he wrote some “pretty awful” emails to sceptics when he was refusing their requests for data.

But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, defended Monday his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not “standard practice” to do so.

“I have obviously written some pretty awful emails,” Jones told British lawmakers in response to a question about a message he sent to a sceptic in which he refused to release data saying he believed it would be misused.

The admission from the scientist, who has stood aside as director of the climate centre while investigations take place, came at a parliamentary hearing in Britain into the scandal.

The leading research centre came under fire ahead of key climate talks in Copenhagen in December, after more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.


UPDATE III – Report to UK Parliament: Climate Research Unit Software Did Not Meet Professional Standards

The report is HERE.  Anthony Watts comments HERE.



UK Guardian 9 Feb 2010:

Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to ‘censor’ their critics

Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

The Guardian has published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

AP February 18, 2010:

Top U.N. Climate Official Yvo de Boer Resigning

De Boer’s resignation comes in the wake of the continuing Climate-gate scandal — a story that began with the leak of stolen e-mails from top climate scientists and led to revelations of sloppy science, efforts to suppress dissenting opinions and ultimately flaws in the U.N.’s top climate policy document.

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal recently dropped a bombshell of his own, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

UK Daily Mail 14 Feb 2010:

Phil Jones is the head of the climate unit at the University of East Anglia which was a primary source of the IPCC data.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

  • Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing.
  • There has been no global warming since 1995.
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

UK Daily Express Feb 15 2010:


Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

UK Times Feb 14 2010:

World may not be warming, say scientists.

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

We covered the story of the ground stations as well. They were put in parking lots, asphault, next to building heat vents etc.

UK Telegraph 13 Feb. 2010:

Read this VERY carefully.

One more alarming claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report is disintegrating under closer examination.

Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC’s 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence – including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report. Even more tellingly, however, this particular claim has repeatedly been championed by Dr Pachauri himself.

Only last week Dr Pachauri was specifically denying that the appearance of this claim in two IPCC reports, including one of which he was the editor, was an error. Yet it has now come to light that the IPCC, ignoring the evidence of its own experts, deliberately published the claim for propaganda purposes.

One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent. Dr Pachauri not only allowed this claim to be included in the short Synthesis Report, of which he was co-editor, but has publicly repeated it many times since.

The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for “carbon credits”. As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote. The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, “agricultural production will more than double by 2020”. Yet it was Agoumi’s claim that climate change could cut yields by 50 per cent that was headlined in the IPCC’s Working Group II report in 2007.

What made this even odder, however, was that the group’s

co-chairman was a British agricultural expert, Dr Martin Parry, whose consultancy group, Martin Parry Associates, had been paid £75,000 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for two reports which had come to totally different conclusions. Specifically designed to inform the IPCC’s 2007 report, these predicted that by 2020 any changes were likely to be insignificant. The worst case they could come up with was that by 2080 climate change might decrease crop yields by “up to 30 per cent”.

British taxpayers poured out money for the section of the IPCC report for which Dr Parry was responsible. Defra paid £2.5 million through the Met Office, plus £330,000 for Dr Parry’s salary as co-chairman, and a further £75,000 to his consultancy for two more reports on the impact of global warming on world food supplies. Yet when it came to the impact on Africa, all this peer-reviewed work – including further expert reports by Britain’s Dr Mike Hulme and Dutch and German teams – was ignored in favour of a prediction from one Moroccan activist at odds with his own cited sources.

However, the story then got worse when Dr Pachauri himself came to edit and co-author the IPCC’s Synthesis Report (for which the IPCC paid his Delhi-based Teri institute, out of the £400,000 allocated for its production). Not only did Pachauri’s version again give prominence to Agoumi’s 50 per cent figure, but he himself has repeated the claim on numerous occasions since, in articles, interviews and speeches –such as the one he gave to a climate summit in Potsdam last September, where he boasted he was speaking “in the voice of the world’s scientific community”.

UK Guardian 21 Feb 2010:

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

UK Guardian 20 Jan 2010:

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

Senior members of the UN’s climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded.

The UN’s climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 – was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph “refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”

Newsweek – Which has been well invested in global warming alarmism published the following. For Newsweek to go this far in critiqueing the IPCC is stunning. Newsweek has changed its business model to move more towards NBC style leftist advocacy journalism. There is no question that Newsweek wants the global warming orthodoxy to be accepted because it would allow the kind of central control of socioety and the economy that Newsweek has been advocating.

Iceberg Ahead. Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. “The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired,” says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

The first thing to fix is the institution that has borne the brunt of the recent public-relations disaster: the IPCC itself. Recently there have been several minor revelations of sloppiness. A line in the group’s 2007 report stating that glaciers in the Himalayas will melt entirely by 2035 turns out to have come not from the peer-reviewed literature, but from a 1999 article in New Scientist, a popular magazine in the U.K. More damaging, IPCC chairman Pachauri has been acting as a consultant to financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank and Pegasus, an investment firm [those firms had a financial stake in global warming being true – IUSB Vision Editor]. Although he says he has donated the proceeds to the nonprofit organization he founded in Delhi to promote charitable programs in sustainability, many people have wondered whether the head of a scientific organization that calls itself “policy neutral” should be consulting with banks. Some have called for his resignation.

Herald Sun of Austrailia 15 Feb 2010:

Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia climate scientist at the centre of the Climategate scandal, concedes to the BBC we’ve had warming bursts just like the last one that the IPCC claims was probably man-made:

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?…

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

He agrees that any warming since 1995 is “statistically insignificant”:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Jones also agrees there has been cooling since January 2002, but insists it’s statistically insignificant because the period is too short:

C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

And he is prepared to agree at least that even he’s not yet sure that it’s warmer now than it was in the Medieval Warm Period (which the IPCC pooh-poohed):

G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

So the recent rate of warming isn’t unprecedented when likened to recent warming periods that are not blamed on man. There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years, and even cooling since January 2002. The world may, even in Jones’ view, still be cooler now than it was 1000 years ago,

And these facts, agreed to now by one of the scientists most responsible for the man-made warming theory, is behind the greatest mass panic in modern history.

Feel you’ve been had?

Here’s how Jones still justifies his belief that man is warming the world dangerously:

H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

It seems the belief is based more on an absence of knowledge than the presence of proof.


More questions about the science that was once “settled”:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution…

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC…

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site…

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.


Joseph D’Aleo, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, is not impressed with the reason Jones gives for dismissing natural factors for the warming between 1975 and 1998. First, here’s the question put to Jones, and his answer:

Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998?…

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.


He said the solar was flat. Here, it actually depends on what and whose measure of solar output you use.

Some, like Judith Lean, show flat solar output, but others like Hoyt/Schatten/Willson show an increase in line with recent decadal warming. Also, the other solar factors like ultraviolet (Shindell and Labitzke) and geomagnetic (Svensmark, Friis-Christensen), which can influence Earth’s temperature through ozone chemistry or cosmic ray cloud cover variations, were ignored by Lean and the IPCC (though they were discussed at some length in the IPCC science chapters). Scafetta and West have shown that, depending on which reconstruction is used and assuming that they are proxies for the total solar effect, you can explain up to 69% of the government (inflated) warming since 1900.

Anthony Watts 11 Feb. 2010:

New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower

This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 327, Issue 5967, Food Security dated February 12 2010, is now available at:

Fox News 22 Feb 2010:

New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama’s new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department’s new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will “help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we’ll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.”

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked “climate-gate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions. [Now the NOAA ground station data is known to be rigged, see other parts of this post – IUSB Vision Editor]

According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was “one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area.”

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC’s most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many  factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing “recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures,” and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl “has actively opposed views different from his own.” And on his Web site last week, he said Karl’s appointment “assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science.”

The UK Register 15th February 2010 11:00 GMT

IPCC hurricane conclusions unsupportable

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as meteorologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.

Claims and data

Thre IPCC’s WG1 paper states: “There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.” Hatton points out the data quality is similar in each area.

The IPCC continues: “It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.

“The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,” Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. “This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it’s due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other – then that’s interesting to me.”

Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.

“It’s an open invitation to tell me I’m wrong,” he says. He was prompted to look more closely by the Climategate emails, and by his years of experience with computer modelling. All code and data on which policy conclusions are made should be open and freely downloadable, he says – preferably with open tools.

You can download both the paper and the code and tools from here.

UK Times 28 Feb 2010:

National Hurricane Center: IPCC Hurricane Claims Wrong

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.

The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.

The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.

The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist’s impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could get slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A storm is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds in excess of 150mph.

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

Anthony Watts has more on this story HERE.

Wall Street Journal 16 Feb 2010:

The Continuing Climate Meltdown. More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there’s no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC’s headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state.”

But as Jonathan Leake of London’s Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, “did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning.”

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the “transformation of natural coastal areas,” the “destruction of more mangroves,” “glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches,” changes in the ecosystem of the “Mesoamerican reef,” and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its “research” reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell’s corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.

The IPCC report made aggressive claims that “extreme weather-related events” had led to “rapidly rising costs.” Never mind that the link between global warming and storms like Hurricane Katrina remains tenuous at best. More astonishing (or, maybe, not so astonishing) is that the IPCC again based its assertion on a single study that was not peer-reviewed. In fact, nobody can reliably establish a quantifiable connection between global warming and increased disaster-related costs. In Holland, there’s even a minor uproar over the report’s claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It’s 26%.

Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.

All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby’s regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC’s shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

Australia Herald Sun 16 Feb 2010:

Climatequotes discovers another supposedly impeccable, peer-reviewed source for the IPCC’s alarmist claims in its 2007 report. The claim in question:

Climate variability affects many segments of this growing economic sector [Tourism]. For example, wildfires in Colorado (2002) and British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses by reducing visitation and destroying infrastructure (Associated Press, 2002; Butler, 2002; BC Stats, 2003).


That’s two newspaper articles and one tourism statistics newsletter. I can’t find the first two articles, one is an old AP story and the other was in a newspaper that folded last year.

That doesn’t sound very scientific. And, in fact, the one source able to be checked – and the only one dealing with the impact of fires in British Columbia – shows no evidence for the IPCC claim. Here is the relevant passage from BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. [Accessed 09.02.07: :]]:

Tourism is a seasonal phenomenon. The wildfires unfortunately burned mostly during July, August and September, the three months of the year when most room revenues are typically generated. More precisely, establishments generated 38% of their annual room revenues in these three months between 1995 and 2001. Moreover, the forest fires were at their peak in August, also
the peak month for tourism. Despite this bad timing, the peak of the 2003 season does not appear to be lower than the peak of previous years.

Climatequotes rightly concludes:

Once again, I am not saying that their claim is wrong. I am only underlining that their sources don’t match their claims. This shows that the IPCC already had a point of view, and they simply wanted a source to back up their claims. They found this BC Stats, probably didn’t read it because they figured it must show that fires reduce tourism, and cited it as the source of their claim. The IPCC makes a conclusion, then looks for evidence that supports their claims, and cite it. Sometimes they even cite evidence that doesn’t support their claims. Since no one read it for 2 years, they almost got away with it. This isn’t how a reputable scientific organization works.

World Climate Report 16 Feb 2010:

Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%.

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree.

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic. [Sources ar listed so follow the link and continue reading for this piece – IUSB Vision Editor]

Richmond Times-Dispatch 17 Feb 2010:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.

On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.

Cuccinelli had no comment beyond a brief e-mail to news organizations. A news conference on the issue is scheduled for this afternoon.

Gov. Bob McDonnell supported the moves.

Author and Senior Fellow at CEI Christopher Horner 17 Feb 2010:

Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn’t comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long. (Click here for the NASA files. This is Part One of a four-part series.)

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

[After this point the article gets a bit arcane in explaining the details, follow the link above for the raw data. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Australian Herald Sun 21 Feb 2010:  – New Report shows Antarctic  sea Ice Increasing

Orange County Register 12 Feb 2010:

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We’re on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

The Examiner 6 Feb 2010:

European Parliament Member Godfrey Bloom Rips Global Warming Hysteria:

New Study:  Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles and Carbon Dioxide

The latest submission to by Gerald E. Marsh


It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II [the warming that initiated the Eemian, the last interglacial] ; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earth’s albedo.
The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

Download Paper Here.

Globe and Mail 5 Feb 2010:

The great global warming collapse. As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement.

Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.

For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”

Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri’s own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri’s resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

New study using satellite data: Alaskan glacier melt overestimated – Anthony Watts – 7 Feb 2010:

From a press release provided by Centre national de la recherche scientifique in Paris, France:

Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS – CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.

Canada Financial Post 8 Fen 2010:

IPCC faces another desertion – its own past chair!

The past chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has joined the growing list of IPCC critics. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Rajendra Pachauri, the disgraced current IPCC chair, now faces criticism from his immediate predecessor, Robert Watson. The Telegraph reports that Watson “stressed that the chairman must take responsibility for correcting errors.” In another indication that Watson is taking pains to distance himself from the organization he once headed, the Sunday Times, in a story entitled Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility, reports that Watson warned the IPCC that it must tackle its blunders.

Watson’s comments come on the heels of another glaring embarrassment to come out of the IPCC, this time a claim that global warming could cut crop production in north Africa by up to 50% by 2020. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change,” Watson stated. “I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report.”

In this latest high-profile IPCC gaffe, which has been repeated around the world, including by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the IPCC seems to have relied on a 2003 report from a Winnipeg-based think tank called the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The report, which was not peer-reviewed, in turn seems to have relied on submissions to the UN by civil servants from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, which also appear not to have been peer-reviewed.

Apart from his post as past IPCC chair, Watson is also the UK’s highest level environmental scientist, as Chief Scientist at the UK’s environment ministry. Prior to his current position, which he assumed in 2007, Watson was Chair of Environmental Science and Science Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, the same university caught up in the Climategate scandal.

Watson’s new-found scepticism of the science being produced by the IPCC represents an ironic reversal. In 2002, he remarked that “The only person who doesn’t believe the science is President Bush.”

American Thinker 8 Feb 2010:

Droughtgate: Study Finds IPCC had Temperature – Drought Connection Backwards

Add another to the growing list of IPCC outrages.

As I mentioned in last week’s IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks, in Chapter 9 of Assessment Report 4’s (AR4) Working Group One (WG1) Report, the IPCC claimed that manmade CO2-driven higher temperatures drive higher evaporation, and thereby cause droughts. As readers are all too aware, droughts are favorite ingredients in most alarmists’ recipes for manmade climate disaster. But a paper published last month in Geophysical Research Letters lays out a compelling argument that the IPCC has it completely backwards – that droughts are actually causing warming, not the other way around.

[Follow the link above to read the rest of this article as it gets into arcane nitty gritty of the science – IUSB Vision Editor]

Canada Free Press Dr. Tim Ball 8 Feb 2010:

IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization

Cost of the corruption of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is likely a trillion dollars already and there is no measure of the lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies. Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU. Some  articles mention both but don’t make the connection. A recent article in the Globe and Mail is a good example.

The article is a small shift because the Globe has consistently promoted human caused warming and attacked skeptics. However, failure to make the connection allows people involved to develop defenses, withdraw from associations or go into hiding.

A Very Large Cast

Universities and governments are already whitewashing the behavior of prominent individuals like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Nobody else involved with the scandal is facing even biased internal investigation. Many are not mentioned in the limited media reports on the scandal. People like Mike Hulme, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Raymond Bradley, John Holdren, Jonathan Overpeck, Caspar Amman, Michael Oppenheimer, Tom Crowley, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley, Tim Osborn, Thomas Karl, Andrew Weaver, Eric Steig, and all names on the CRU emails require investigation. They had to know what was going on, partly because they all used the same vehicles of attack and deception. By investigating only two individuals the collective culpability of the CRU and the IPCC goes unchallenged. Investigation of two individuals underscores the false claim there are one or two “bad apples” but the overall science is unaffected. The IPCC received a Nobel Prize collectively; they must bear the blame collectively.

There are also those in government who acted in extremely questionable ways. Chief among these are members of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) including John Mitchell. He was review editor of the IPCC and initially denied access to information then claimed it was erased. The UKMO later said the information existed but said it was protected information. The Telegraph newspaper said of this, Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

[Be sure to read the rest of Dr. Ball’s important article at the link above – IUSB Vision editor]

American Thinker:

CRU was the tip of the iceberg NOAA deleted and manipulated data too.

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that:

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

[Read the rest of the article at the link above, it contains scientific data, charts and graphs for those wishing to see the raw data. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Australia Herald Sun 25 Jan. 2010:

The IPCC scandal: the African data was sexed up too.

Yet more evidence that the IPCC cooked the books. Here’s its 2007 claim that global warming could devastate African agriculture:

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period…

In fact, that claim comes from a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper which looked at just three African countries, and was produced by a sustainable development lobby group. How did this end up as IPCC gospel?

Woooeb News 26 Jan 2010 :

Climate scandal grows as scientists detail “horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data”

Washington, DC 1/26/2010 06:31 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

An extensive survey of the literature and data regarding ground and sea surface temperature records uncovers deception through data manipulation, reports the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).

Authors veteran meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.

That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

The researchers found –

  • All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
  • All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
  • Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
  • There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
  • Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper station sitting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate warming.
  • Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
  • Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
  • In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
  • Satellite temperature monitoring has already taken the place of terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record.
  • The terrestrial global-temperature databases on which so many important policy decisions based are entirely inadequate and unfit for further use.
  • NOAA, not CRU, was the driving force behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming” – a warming that has been exaggerated in level and rate.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “The entire case for alarm about ‘global warming’ is of course predicated on the assumption that ‘global warming’ has actually occurred. D’Aleo and Watts sampling of horrifying examples of deliberate tampering with the temperature data from all parts of the world raises very serious questions not just about how much ‘global warming’ occurred in the last century but also about whether there was any significant warming at all.

“The serious question now arises: do these transparent data manipulations by self-interested government agents add to cascading revelations of worldwide scientific and financial fraud?

This paper shows the question to be far more than merely academic or rhetorical. Unless climatology cleans up its act, it will discredit not only itself but science as a whole. Certainly there is now no scientific basis for any of the policies recommended by the UN’s climate panel or Western governments, now being pursued at catastrophic cost to national economies and personal liberties of a once sovereign citizenry.”

Read Full Paper Here

UK Telegraph 30 Jan 2010:

UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

UK Times 31 Jan 2010:

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.

Kansas City Star 1 Feb. 2010:

Climategate: ‘The global warming movement is dead’

By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Walter Russell Mead writes that while the evidence of global warming is troubling — and deserves more intensive research — it wasn’t convincing enough to compel governments to do what many thought necessary to deal with the threat. Knowing this, the scientists hyped the evidence, even to the extent of breaking the law.

The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the global warming [community] with much of its key data, had violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isn’t just ‘science as usual,’ as the global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have something to conceal.

The unraveling is well underway, as we see in recent reports that the UN’s supposedly unimpeachable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had only flimsy evidence for its claims of melting Himalayan glaciers and looming rainforest destruction.

We shouldn’t forget that the people who preened as climate saviors sought to impose measures, like the cap-and-trade plan, that would have jacked up energy prices and crushed economic growth. If you’re going to do that — if you’re going to argue that we face a threat that requires paying a price in diminished opportunity — you better have good evidence, and the IPCC simply didn’t have the goods.

TBR 1 Feb 2010:

NIWA reveals New Zealand original climate data missing.

More major embarrassment for New Zealand’s ‘leading’ climate research unit NIWA tonight, with admissions that it “does not hold copies” of the original reports documenting adjustments to New Zealand’s weather stations.

The drama hit the headlines worldwide in late November when serious questions were raised about the “adjustments” NIWA had made to weather records. The adjusted data shows a strong warming trend over the past century, whereas unadjusted records had nowhere near as much warming.

NIWA promised to make its data and corrections fully available, but responding to an Official Information Act request their legal counsel has now admitted it cannot provide copies of the original adjustment records.

Now, a news release from the Climate Science Coalition is blowing the NIWA climate scientists out of the water:

[Read this carefully – IUSB Vision Editor]

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.

“Late last year our coalition published a paper entitled ‘Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?’ and asked NIWA to disclose the schedule detailing the dates and reasons for the adjustments. The expressed purpose of NZCSC was to replicate the calculations, in the best traditions of peer-reviewed science.

“When NIWA did not respond, Hon Rodney Hide asked Oral and Written Questions in Parliament, and attended a meeting with NIWA scientists. All to no avail, and the schedule of adjustments remained a secret. We now know why NIWA was being so evasive – the requested schedule did not exist.

“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy.

Pittsburg Tribune Review 4 Feb 2010:

Penn State opens probe into climate-change researcher’s work.

Fearing erosion of public confidence in research climate-change scientist Michael Mann conducted, Penn State University officials said Wednesday they will formally investigate the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

School officials dismissed three allegations against Mann that questioned whether he suppressed or falsified data, deleted or concealed e-mails, or misused privileged or confidential information.

But three authors of a Penn State internal inquiry could not “make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence” that Mann deviated from accepted research practices, said a report they published yesterday.

“I fully support the additional inquiry, which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts,” Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and a meteorology professor, said in a statement. “I intend to cooperate fully in this matter, as I have since the beginning of the process.”

Five Penn State professors will investigate whether Mann violated the school’s research misconduct policy, the report said. The panelists must submit findings and recommendations within 120 days.

Controversy embroiled Mann in November when a hacker stole e-mails from computer servers at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and published them on the Internet.

The e-mails contained at least 10 years of communication among climate-change researchers, including Mann. He won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with several hundred other scientists for his work on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In one e-mail, Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit who resigned after the e-mails became public, specifically asked Mann to delete e-mails he wrote to another scientist. Mann did not comply with that e-mail, he said, and did not delete any e-mails.

Penn State officials thought the e-mail incident “raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity,” and those questions could undermine confidence in Mann’s science, in climate science specifically and in science generally.

“There has been more than a whiff of corruption that has followed Mann for years,” said Marc Morano, executive editor of Climate Depot, a Web site published in Washington skeptical of global warming. “The fact that even his own university could not clear his name does not bode well for Mann.”

Morano said “Mann represents everything that is corrupt and unethical in climate science today. He is one of the prime reasons that the global warming movement lay in tatters. Mann will go down in scientific history as a statistical charlatan.”

[What fascinates me is that the leaked emails and files prove that  Mann was a part of the inner circle of fraudulant climate scientists. Let us for a moment assume that Mann never did anything unethical with his data, the emails prove that he knew other climate scientists were, and that he also knew how they conspired to slander and censor other scientists who produced inconvenient data and he knew how they were manipulating the peer review process. Mann said nothing; he should have blown the whistle and he didn’t. This is likely because he pulled in millions of dollars for himself and his university in research grants. Penn State has a massive financial interest in clearing Mann. – IUSB Vision Editor]

Via Anthony Watts:

Christy and McKittrick in the UK Times: doubts on station data.

A new story by Jonathan Leake in the Sunday Times puts the spotlight on surface temperature data.

Rome Airport Weather Station Behind Jet Engine Wash

Above: Rome’s airport weather station. Here is the interactive view.

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Too see more pictures of the outrageous places some of the ground weather stations are placed click HERE.]

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

PJTV 23 Feb 2010-

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

Daily Telegraph Australia 19 Feb 2010:

Prediction of Droughts never Materialized

The Guardian, February, 2009:

The world’s pre-eminent climate scientists produced a blunt assessment of the impact of global warming on the US yesterday, warning of droughts that could reduce the American south-west to a wasteland and heatwaves that could make life impossible even in northern cities.

In an update on the latest science on climate change, the US Congress was told that melting snow pack could lead to severe drought from California to Oklahoma. In the midwest, diminishing rains and shrinking rivers were lowering water levels in the Great Lakes, even to the extent where it could affect shipping.

“With severe drought from California to Oklahoma, a broad swath of the south-west is basically robbed of having a sustainable lifestyle,” said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science. He went on to warn of scorching temperatures in an array of cities. Sacramento in California, for example, could face heatwaves for up to 100 days a year.

“We are close to a threshold in a very large number of American cities where uncomfortable heatwaves make cities uninhabitable,” Field told the Senate’s environment and public works committee.

ABC News (US), February, 2010:

In the span of just a couple years, the U.S. has gone from very high drought conditions to the lowest amount of drought in the last 10 years, [Doug LeCompte of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] says. “It’s only a few times, really, in the last century that we’ve had this little of the country in drought. That is unusual.”


$500,000 in Stimulus Funds to Climate Fraud Professor

The latest example of this is a $500,000 grant to Michael Mann, Professor at Penn State University and unintended c0-star of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal. The leaked e-mails revealed collaboration among scientists to stifle dissenting views on the extent of man-made global warming.

Mann is also the creator of the “Hockey Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a three-year $500,000 to further study the climate’s response to human activity.


Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101 | 2 Comments »

Breitbart Warns Leftist Academia: I am sick your your Alinsky tactics and leftist indoctrination. When are you going to accept the consequences of your bad ideas? We are going to have video cameras in your classrooms and expose you.

Posted by iusbvision on February 22, 2010

Andrew Breitbart is called the new media news mogul. If you have searched for news on a variety of subjects like movies, books, culture, music, politics, economics etc odds are you have come across Breitbart content many times.

Breitbart was behind the exposure of ACORN’s corruption on tape where his people showed ACORN in city after city conspiring to aid in prostitution , child sex trafficking, tax fraud and bank fraud.

After Breitbart established his internet news empire, he started a series of web sites focusing on certain areas. Big and to use people on the inside to report and expose hidden agendas. These web sites were a huge success. Breitbart has recently launched where he is exposing media bias from the inside and out, confronting the worst offenders and very publically humiliating them and putting their lies on video for all to see.

At CPAC Breitbart has announced the coming of

If you are a part of the neo-Marxist left and are a college administrator or a professor Andrew Breitbart is very interested in you. When he says he is going to put hidden cameras on students and other investigative journalistic techniques, he isn’t kidding and he has the resources to do it. Breitbart has had enough of leftist Saul Alinsky tactics in education and spoke of some of his plans at CPAC.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Mike Pence Takes NBC’s David Gregory to School

Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

I like Mike Pence, not only because he walks the walk, but he walked it when it wasn’t considered cool. There are so few politicians who say when they mean and mean what they say.

With that said, Mike Pence goes out of his way to be a very nice guy. He is sometimes a bit too charitable.

Today Pence out boxed the royally biased David Gregory. I am just going to tell it like it is, David Gregory is in the tank for the Democrats and always has been as he routinely frames questions and rhetoric for the partisan set up or hit. Anyone who deals with David Gregory should be prepared for this, and today Mike Pence was.

So if you like the Tea Party, which several pools say that the majority of Americans do, your “Anti-government”. That is the same word that they used to describe Tim McVeigh and that is no accident.

Yet when Bill Ayers, who ghost authored one of Obama’s books, was his employer and helped launch his political career, and Ayers wife Bernadine Dohrn, are treated as the darlings of leftist academia, the term “anti-government” is never applied to them, even though they actually attempted the violent overthrow of the United States government and install a communist one.

The Tea Party is no more “anti-government”, than the average schmo who voted for Obama is a hardcore socialist/corporatist. The Tea Party people and those who sympathise with that movement want government that lives within its means, is smarter, small, less intrusive, less corrupt, behaves as if the Constitution matters, and isn’t such a burden that it is chasing wealth and industry out of the country as it is now.

The Orwellian manipulation of the meaning of words and rhetoric is a powerful tool that the far left has learned to abuse well. When we were reading 1984, they were taking notes. We need to be bold and colorful and in their face when we see it.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Must See Video – Newt Gingrich at CPAC: Orwellian Government from 1979-2010

Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

The good stuff starts near the end of video one when he starts talking about Poland.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Leftist Hate in Action, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Dick Armey at CPAC: The left would damage our economy and institutions to get control of them

Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

…And for many progressives who are statists bent on social engineering and elitism this is very true. This would include most leftist academics and many in the leadership of the inner beltway of the Democratic Party, and some progressive Republicans. They are convinced that freedom isn’t “fair”, they are our betters, that can do better and all we have to do is follow them. Every generation has people who think this way, they never learn. They are the reason for the phrase “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”

If you wish to unbderstand what the statist progressive is willing to sacrifice in the name of central control, watch this video.

Which brings us to what has become known as “Armey’s Axiom”: There is nothing so arrogant as a self-righteous “income redistributor.”

By the way, when he mentioned “10,000 of us that showed up on September 12th”  THIS is what he was referring to.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Health Law, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »


Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

If you are anywhere on the fence between leftism and traditionalism this is the moment that will set your trajectory forever.

Funny, entertaining and more valuable than a semester of macro-economics training in 30 minutes.

By the way, when George Will talks about the failure of the New Deal he isn’t kidding 1, 2, 3. Non farm unemployment never dropped below the 20% margin during the New Deal. No one can honestly call that a success buy any stretch.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

FUNNY: Ann Coulter at CPAC 2010

Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

Funny and with a point. Vintage Coulter.

After hearing the left call everyone at the Tea Parties ‘racist’ –  the last time I heard so much race bating invective is when I sat in my usual front row pew of the United Trinity Church in Chicago – ouch :-)

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

AWESOME – Glenn Beck Keynote at CPAC – Blasts Republican Establishment

Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2010

I love how Glenn always incorporates a history lesson into almost everything he does. He teaches you history, policy and economics and you don’t even realize it because you are having such a good time.

Glenn Beck is now the second most popular talk personality in the country.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War | 1 Comment »

Islamic Leader and former CAIR Board Member Deported for Terror Ties

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself to be the moderate voice of Muslim Americans, yet repeatedly they are using lawsuits and politically correct pressure tactics to undermine national security, call any critique of Islam racist (Islam is not a race, it is a politic and a religion rolled into one) and its member have been caught on numerous occasions supporting terror groups. For details on this please visit

Notice how they quote Ibrahim Hooper from CAIR. During an interview with Michael Medved Hooper said that he wanted to see Sharia Law replace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. 

NBC Dallas/Ft. Worth:

An immigration judge in Dallas on Friday ordered an outspoken Islamic leader deported after the U.S. government alleged he had ties to terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Nabil Sadoun, a Dallas resident and former board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was deported to his native Jordan after he failed to appear at his immigration hearing. He entered the U.S. in August 1993.

Sadoun’s attorney, Kimberly Kinser, said he was already in Jordan and was unable to return to Texas because the government had taken his permanent resident card, or green card.

She denied he was tied to any terrorist groups.

In the hearing, Judge Anthony Rogers of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, said Sadoun “made a decision to leave the U.S.” and forfeited his right to fight his deportation. He said the decision was final and could not be appealed.

In court, the judge made vague references to the government’s voluminous motion to deport him, including alleged involvement with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The judge concluded Sadoun lied on government forms when he denied he was a member.

The judge also indicated there was evidence Sadoun contributed to the Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. Prosecutors convicted the group of funneling money to terrorist groups and several of its leaders were sent to prison. In the case, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator.

The judge’s comments in court provided the only window into the allegations against Sadoun. The documents detailing charges made by the Department of Homeland Security were not publicly available.

Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, said Sadoun left the organization several months ago.

Asked the reason for his departure, Hooper said, “Board members come on, (and) they leave.”

Over the years, Sadoun made public comments critical of Israel, but Rogers said he considered the remarks free speech and gave them no weight in the decision to deport him, “no matter how distasteful they are to this court.”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Israel, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Andrew Breitbart Calls Out New York Times Reporter Kate Zernike’s Racist Lies & Smears at CPAC

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

Reporters who engage in such royal media malpractice should have their poster on the wall at events like CPAC. These reporters should be mocked and laughed at.

This particular NY Times reporter called my friend Jason Mattera a racist for “talking like Chris Rock” when talking about Obama. Chris Rock and Jason Mattera both have a Brooklyn accent and that is how Mattera really talks. The charge was based on nothing more than that.

So new media news mogul Andrew Breitbart has been taking them on. Breitbart has been on a roll lately. The video below is one you should not miss.

Via Newsbusters:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Our Own Chris Chocola Speaks at CPAC: “Can Republicans be trusted with a renewed majority?”

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

Watch this speech. It is smart and informative.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101 | Leave a Comment »’s Ed Morrissey Named Blogger of the Year!

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

AP at Hotair comments HERE.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Media Malpractice: Washington Post carefully edits IRS airplane attacker manifesto to falsely tie him to the Tea Party. Bomber hated Reagan tax cuts & praised Karl Marx.

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

Special Update – The Pentagon Shooter, Mr. Bedell, is a registered Democrat. His online communications show him to have full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome such as Bush Bombed the towers on 9/11 etc.

Links to his online communications can be found at the link below.


This is one of the worst cases of media malpractice I have ever seen. The Washington Post is simply lying through their teeth and well know it.

As I was preparing this post I see that some of the best of the blogosphere has already responded, but before I go on, Joseph Stack, the IRS plane bomber, made it clear in his manifesto that he hates capitalism, hated George Bush and even quotes Karl Marx with praise.

Amy Bishop, Bill Ayers, ELF, Ted Kaczynski, Bernadine Dohrn, all leftists who have used violence and all are hard left wingers, yet that isn’t news; it is Tea Partyers who quote Karl Marx and hate capitalism….. what?

Washington Post:

Joseph Stack was angry at the Internal Revenue Service, and he took his rage out on it by slamming his single-engine plane into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas. We now know this thanks to the rather clear (as rants go) suicide note Stack left behind. There’s no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

The Post than publishes the end of Stack’s manifesto thusly:

Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)


But here is what it ACTUALLY said:

Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)


The difference is only all of the difference in the world. Stack also railed against Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and hated religion….. but oh ya… he is a Tea Partyer. The simple fact is that these stated views by Stack are not dissimilar from most of far left academia and the Washington Post well knows it. blasts the Washington Post for their lies – LINK – As does Michelle Malkin – LINK.

Glenn Beck blows the Washington Posts’s lies out of the water:

UPDATE – The Washington Post has now rewritten their piece realizing that it was such blatant media malpractice, and made it so it is a less blatant piece of media malpractice by still smearing Tea Partyers, who are now the mainstream of America according to polls. blasts the Washington Post again – LINK.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »

Famed Business Man and Author Herman Cain Addresses CPAC

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Vice President Cheney Appearance at CPAC

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Why Leftist Intellectuals Fail: Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell – Book Review

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

If you are a teacher or professor, this may be the most important video you may ever see. Read the book.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Andrew Breitbart takes on Maddow, leftist academia and “post-modernism” at CPAC – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010 interviews new media news mogul Andrew Brietbart at CPAC. A bit harsh in his rhetoric, but what Breitbart says has a great deal of truth and cannot be ignored.

Via Gateway Pundit and

Andrew Breitbart slammed failed MSNBC host Rachel Maddow at CPAC yesterday.

Breitbart accused Maddow of being “part of a propaganda campaign to attack the last president … and make him out to be the worst human being that ever walked the face of the earth. And, at the same time, you promoted Barack Obama as the greatest thing that ever walked the earth.”

“The tea party movement and the rebellion that you’ve seen in Massachusetts and across the country, is not because Barack Obama stinks as bad as he does. It’s because you oversold him and you undersold the last president. In the era of new media there’s checks and balances for the type of propaganda you serve up and if you think you can unring this bell… you’re wrong.”

Gateway Pundit was very kind to link us in his post.

UPDATE – Breitbart outs media malpractice by the “elites” –

UPDATE II – Andrew Breitbart Calls Out New York Times Reporter Kate Zernike’s Racist Lies & Smears at CPAC-  LINK

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Bill O’Reilly Supports Gun Confiscation During Weather Emergencies – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

O’Reilly blew it here. The National Rifle Association (NRA) sued New Orleans and won over those gun confiscations. New Orleans broke the law and ended up paying the price for it. President Bush also signed an executive order forbidding the confiscation of firearms in a declared emergency.

The Second Amendment exists for events just like Katrina when civil enforcement breaks down and the law of the jungle takes over in the chaos.

What is even more interesting is that I specifically remember Bill O’Reilly stating that Katrina changed his views on gun control because of Katrina he learned that the government can’t protect you and you have to protect yourself. It seems O’Reilly changed his views to skewer this man from the Oathkeepers.

I called the NRA public relations office today and informed them of this. They were unaware of this because they were all at CPAC. They assured me that they will take action.

O’Reilly also took the position that it should never be the position of the soldier to determine what orders are legal and what orders are not. The man from Oathkeepers was correct in pointing out the Nuremberg trials where soldiers were prosecuted for following orders.

I am surprised that O’Reilly went into this interview so unprepared. I don’t know anything about this Oathkeepers group and if they are extreme or not, but on these two particular points of law the man with Oathkeepers is quite correct. The man from Oathkeepers should have been more assertive in the face of O’Reilly’s ignorance in this matter.

I sent the following letter to Bill O’Reilly:

Dear Bill,

When I was in basic training the military training instructors beat it into our heads that it was our duty to disobey an unlawful order. We were told with no ambiguity whatsoever that it was the individual soldiers responsibility to know the Constitution and the UCMJ (law and military law). We were also told that orders should never be an excuse for mission failure. In several wars plans and orders were rendered ineffective upon contact with the enemy, and that in the battlefield we may have to violate orders and improvise or come up with new plans on our own to complete the mission if circumstances demanded.

Chuck Norton
South Bend, Indiana

UPDATE – Wow the ignorance continues. There is no excuse for O’Reilly’s staff to have missed that a court of law ruled that the New Orleans state of emergency doe not allow the government to confiscate guns. A simple call to the NRA would have given them all the info they need, as would a lexis/nexis search. There is no excuse for O’Reilly and his staff to miss this. Tonight O’Reilly doubled down on this ignorance.

O’Reilly uses the example of Abe Lincoln revoking Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. The Constitution gives Congress the power to revoke Habeas Corpus not the President. Lincoln acted illegally and there is no excuse for blowing it on this simple point of history as well. O’Reilly’s argument is now basically thus, “you must obey an unlawful order until a court of law says that order is wrong”. That argument absolves the soldier and the police officer and the public servant from responsibility to their oath…until a court says so. That defense didn’t work in Nuremberg and it doesn’t work here.

I do not believe that a few years ago mistakes compounding mistakes that a few minutes of records and history searches would resolve would happen on the O’Reilly Factor. Someone is getting lazy and needs a kick in their complacency. This is journalistic incompetence in action.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Firearms, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Just how corrupt, biased and unreliable is the elite media? Investigative freelance journalist Hanna Giles speaks out. UPDATE –’s Max Blumenthal Outed for Making False Racism Allegations

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

Flashback  – Andrew Breitbart exposes how CNN deliberately misreported the story.

Breitbart was sick of the CNN hit pieces in Giles-O’Keefe who should get a Pulitzer for their work exposing the ACORN story. So he offered to let Giles and O’Keefe come on CNN even for a hit piece, provided that CNN showed the video’s to let the viewers decide for themselves. CNN refused.

UPDATE –’s Max Bluementhal  making it up again. This is a must see video:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Mortgage Crisis | Leave a Comment »

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

I have never witnessed polls like this, Americans are showing a clear contempt for both political parties and after seeing this it becomes clear why Tea Party is polling ahead of both Democrats and Republicans. Also note the massive disconnect between the political class the the governed.

Speaking as a political scientist, these numbers show that the government is losing its legitimacy (please be sure you know hat that word means in poli-sci terms before you comment). This can only mean big changes are ahead.

There is also an indicator that independents may be more conservative than Republicans now, if this trend continues it changes everything.

Rasmussen Reports:

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Congressional Report: ACORN/SEIU a Criminal Conspiracy – Connected to White House – Played roll on mortgage collapse! UPDATE: Obama lies on camera about ACORN affiliation.

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

The report also says what we have stated since the beginning, ACORN had a role to play in the mortgage collapse (LINKLINK – LINK). The Congressional Report is HERE and woerth the read.

UPDATE – In this video Obama says that his only affiliation with ACORN was to help represent them in a “motor voter” lawsuit. Hmm what about the bank lawsuits hmmm? And what about the previous bragging you did on video talking about your long history with ACORN and all the political races you worked with them on? What about when you used to train their community organizers? What about the fact that ACORN/SEIU share facilities and the SEIU President has visited the White House on numerous occasions?  Well the video speaks for itself.

UPDATE II – Gateway Pundit has a very good post on this issue LINK.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Trump: You can’t have a good economy with $80 oil – China is laughing at our stupidity – Global Warming a “Con”

Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010

The left will just say that Trump is stupid or something, but any competent observer knows that Trump didn’t get to where he is from being a fool.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »