(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.

The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.

However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document.  Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.

Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.”  It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”

This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.

Mr. Roberson sent his email on Oct. 31, 2009:

The revealing email to and from Okubo reads as follows:

Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,

Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).

Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,

1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and

2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.

Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???

I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:

1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)

2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?

3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,

4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?

If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.

Respectfully yours,

 

IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:

“Aloha Mr. Roberson,

Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.

Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”

Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.

Okubo’s response also now makes her liable for criminal charges of conspiracy to use her office under color of the law to defraud the general public.  Because in the fulfilment of her official duties she is legally obligated  in State Law to explain what terms used on official documents mean, or at least to direct citizens to the published documents which explain these.

But numerous general inquiries for copies of such documents have been refused by the Deparment of Health for nearly 3 months

However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document.  Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.

Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.”  It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”

This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.

Jonathan Leake

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

.timesonline.co.uk

How Allstate treats people…

“I left Allstate in 2000 when they fired us all.  I was with the company 23 1/2 years and was 53 years old.   I suspended my health coverage at that time.  Last year my wife’s company liquidated so we lost our health coverage.   Because we had preexisting medical problems, we had to go with Allstate under my suspended coverage.

This year they had us with United Healthcare for $870.50 per month.  Next year (1/1/2010) they are putting us with Blue Cross/ Blue Shield.  Out premium will be $957.00 per month.  That is a killer but what other choice do we have?”

You gotta love this guy! I freaking roll with laughter at how ridiculous these liberals are in their reasoning.but with ol’ Bill Clinton though, you have to get up pretty early in the morning to be able to discern what the meaning of the word “is”, is. And of course there is this one: “[I]t depends on how you define “alone” … there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.” Or, (I’m on a roll here) this one: “You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” And just one more to demonstrate just how silly Mr. Clinton is: “African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.”

Okay here’s the link to the above quotes as I’m sure my liberal ‘friends’ won’t do the work to look up any facts. (can’t let facts get in the way you know!)

And the mainstream media cannot hold back with the Observer providing not only one opposing voice but six for fuck’s sake.  I for one am ecstatic that Mr Griffin will be among the EU delegates at the Copenhagen meeting in December.  While the rest of the Eurocrats are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of another reason for taking more cash from our pockets, Nick has stated publicly what most of us plebs think, that AGW is nothing more than a scam.

Climate change denier Nick Griffin to represent EU at Copenhagen

The Observer, Sunday 29 November 2009

Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, is to represent the European parliament at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which opens next week.

Last night politicians and scientists reacted furiously to news that the far-right politician and climate change denier should be attending the summit on behalf of the EU.

Griffin, who was elected to the European parliament in June, confirmed last night that he would attend as the representative of the parliament’s environmental committee. World leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, are hoping to forge a new global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

Without such a deal, scientists warn that world temperatures will increase by more than 2C by the end of the century, triggering ice cap melting, sea-level rises, widespread flooding, the spread of deserts and devastating storms.

In a speech in the parliament last week, Griffin denounced those who warn of the consequences of climate change as “cranks”. He said they had reached “an Orwellian consensus” that was “based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics”.

“The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.”

Griffin will be one of 15 representatives chosen to speak on behalf of the EU in Copenhagen. The shadow climate change secretary, Greg Clark, condemned the move last night. “It is utterly ridiculous that someone who doesn’t even believe in climate change should be seeking to represent Europe in Copenhagen. The BNP does not command the support of the people of Britain, let alone of the rest of Europe,” he said.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Membership of the European parliament’s delegation to Copenhagen is a matter for the European parliament. Its delegates do not represent the UK government or its views. Nick Griffin will not be part of the UK delegation.”

Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons environmental audit committee, said the decision to choose Griffin showed the “bizarre way” the parliament operated. He added: “If the future prosperity of the human race, in the face of climate change, depends on the contributions of people like Nick Griffin, there is little hope for any of us.”

Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, said Griffin’s claim that thousands of scientists dispute the existence of man-made global warming was simply not true. “The intergovernmental panel on climate change draws on the views of most of the world’s leading climate scientists and they have been quite clear that the evidence shows, with a high degree of certainty, that human activities are now having a substantial effect on the climate. It is simply not the case that there is a substantial number who do not accept a link.”

Bob Ward, of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: “Griffin denies the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. This appears to be driven by a dogmatic strand of right-wing ideology that opposes any form of environmental regulation, usually hidden behind the dishonest claim that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy.”

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman and a former MEP, said the European parliament always divided up positions on such delegations according to the parliament’s political balance. “Griffin was bound to get something at some stage. It is just a shame they didn’t send him to Iceland instead.”

Critics say Griffin addresses environmental issues when he believes he can use them to advance anti-immigration policies. His party claims that it would improve Britain’s transport infrastructure and reduce carbon dioxide levels by reducing the number of immigrants in Britain using roads, cars, trains and buses.

Gerry Gable, publisher of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, said Griffin once tried to win over environmentalists in the 1980s. “His core beliefs – that the white race is being threatened by an invading minority – are the so-called principles that have run through his nasty career.”

This is just one of many takes on Copenhagen the main stream media are pumping out preparing us for the upcoming event that the Elites hope will seal the deal on Earth’s total enslavement.  The Corruptibles wish to label all those who disagree, ‘deniers’ which will surely lead to a criminal offence of heresy if they get it their way.

The Daily Mail are going with “BNP leader Nick Griffin to represent Europe at climate talks” while the snobbish Telegraph article is entitled “BNP leader Nick Griffin will represent Europe at Copenhagen climate change summit”.

With all this flak, at least we know the BNP are on target.

Judge for yourself whether T-Mobile is in bed with the spammers and phishers.

For example,take one form smtzli@messaging.sprintpcs.com reading First City CU Has Limited Your Debit Card. Call To Reactivate.” A phone number is given. I and every member of my family received the same message, including the children, despite the fact that no one has any account or any credit or debit card with First City CU (Credit Union?) or any institution with a similar name.

Such messages are clearly part of a scheme to trick the consumer into calling the phisher who will then attempt to extract valuable financial information from the T-Mobile customer; stuff like their debit account number and password.

It seems, and I may be mistaken but I think not, that T-Mobile not only thinks it has no legal or moral duty to do anything to protect subscribers from being conned by similar messages, but I have to wonder if T-Mobile’s failure to act has something to do with the T-Mobile’s bottom line. If you add up all those $.20 charges multiplied by the millions of customers who are often paying for several similar crooked calls per billing cycle, one has to wonder if they constitute a nice little profit center for the cell phone company.

This guy made the mistake of calling T-Mobile about blocking the scammers messages. Actually, there were several calls. Some a couple of months ago and more this month.

Was T-Mobile really concerned with protecting its subscriber of several years? You decide.

The only solution the cell phone company offered was to suggest that I place a block on all e-notes. Sorry, but I didn’t talk about that.

My understanding is that an e-note is a text note that T-Mobile sends me, when an e-mail is sent to my e-mail address. That address is, you guessed it, my T-Mobile telephone number. It seems the scam is for phishers and spammers to send e-mails to lists of computer generated sequential telephone numbers belonging to T-Mobile accounts.

It may be just $.20 per message and I assume that T-Mobile is keeping within the letter of the law, but I have to ask if something smell like day old fish left out on in the middle of August.

depending on one’s plan, T-Mobile charges subscribers for the ability to receive text messages and e-notes on their cell phones. For instance, if you have a basic family plan and haven’t paid for limited or unlimited texting, a subscriber is charged 20 cents for each message sent, which is on top of what the consumer is paying for their plan.

In other words, essentially the phone company told me to protect my daughter from receiving e-mail, a service that I pay for as part of a basic monthly charge as well as a per message fee, was to cancel the service while I continue paying the pro rata share of the monthly fee allocaable to the service.

Finally, the representative, who would not forward me to Legal or to Customer Service, said she was customer service; at which time I asked to speak with a supervisor.

The supervisor had a solution of sorts, which was that I could change my T-Mobile e-mail name; that could be easily done on the internet and if I needed assistance I should call T-Mobile back.

It couldn’t be done over the internet. So I called and eventually gave the rep permission to go into my account to see why I couldn’t change mu e-mail name over the internet. She determined that she could change it on her system, but didn’t understand why when I clicked the correct icon the system kept looping back to the same page I was on.

So I asked her to change my e-mail name. She said that she was authorized to do that. She said there must be a problem with my computer (there is none) and told me to use a computer at a public library. That’s service!

Again, I asked for a supervisor. The super quickly grasped the problem and told me she would report a technical problem. Meanwhile, she offered to change my e-mail name for me, wich is just what I asked the rep to do.

That sort of solves the problem, but if someone needs to send an e-mail to my cell phone we are out of luck, unless I give them and they remember my e-mail name.

Back to the basic issue, which is why T-Mobile isn’t doing more about the problem. I told its reps that I thought hay should be able to automatically monitor unusual calling frequencies and identify spammers almost instantly, and then block those messages. First, I was told they didn’t have the technology and then I was told it would be too expensive. I doubt either excuse.

What no one claimed was that T-Mobile doesn’t have the right to interfere with delivering these calls to its subscribers. Had they done so, I would question if it has the right to warn subscribers about potential injury from such calls/messages and ask the subscriber if they wish the company to monitor call frequency and volume and block calls.

I just don’t get it and have to wonder if T-Mobile is more interested in charging those $.20 p[er item fees than fixing a problem. I am not suggesting that it created the problem or is conspiring with the spammers and phishers, but it isn’t dong much to cure the problem that its system exposes its customers to.

Am I wrong? I apologize if I haven’t clearly explained the above, but I think T-Mobile is flat wrong. T-MObile is almost a tacit co-conspirator with the creeps sending out those fraudulent e-mail messages. (Not to even go into similar deceptive voice calls, which we are charged for if our monthly minutes are exceeded).

One last thing, why didn’t T-Mobile suggest changing my e-mail name moths ago when I called about the problem and why did the first representative,with whom I spoke the other day, tell me that I could do that.  She said the only solution was to block all e-mails.

You may want to look at what you are being charged for by your cell company; even if it isn’t T-Mobile.

The only real solution I can think of is to look for another cell phone service provider.

Conspiracy theories have become a hallmark of modern life. The modern conspiracy theory probably can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the belief that undiscovered gunmen actually killed the president. Another long lasting conspiracy theory is the belief in a government cover-up of an alien spacecraft’s crash in Roswell, New Mexico. More recently, conspiricists on the left and right have been busy promoting theories that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake.

From time to time, however, proof of an authentic conspiracy emerges. This was the case with the recent publication of hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. After years of hearing about climate science being “settled” and that there was a scientific consensus supporting the belief in human-caused global warming, the leaked emails present a very different picture. Ironically, the story has received scant coverage from most media sources in spite of the implications to the upcoming Copenhagen conference and cap-and-trade debate.

The conspiracy was revealed when an unknown hacker penetrated the Climate Research Unit’s computers and forwarded thousands of documents and emails to a server in Russia. Shortly after, a link was posted to the documents along with the message “”We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it” [1].

Global warming skeptics quickly learned that the documents revealed two important things about global warming proponents. First, much of the data that “proved” the reality of global warming was corrupt. As global temperatures flattened or declined in the years after 2000, climate scientists were at a loss to explain the lack of warming. For example, an email from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, a scientist at the US Center for Atmospheric Research, said “This means we can’t fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why….”[1].

Second, the documents confirmed the belief that there was a widespread conspiracy to discredit dissenting scientists and deny publication of scientific papers that pointed out the flaws in global warming theory. Scientific journals rely on peer review of scientific papers to ensure their validity. The climate conspirators would use their status as article reviewers to prevent scientific journals from publishing articles critical of global warming theory. In one email, Phil Jones of East Anglia University writes of dissenting articles, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [4].

In 2003, after a paper questioning the extent of warming in the 20th century was published in the journal Climate Research, Dr. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, sent emails to his colleagues to boycott the publication: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal” [3].

The scientists also discussed ways to mislead opponents. In one discussion of the medieval warm period, a period of extremely warm weather from AD 800-1300 which led to an economic boom, Dr. Trenbarth suggested creating a blog on a neutral web site and then referring inquiries to his own blog [5].

The email trail extended as far as the White House itself. One email was authored by President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren had sent an email in 2003 defending Dr. Mann’s research. Dr. Holdren was working at Woods Hole Research Center at the time.

Since many of the scientists who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were implicated in the email scandal, the conclusions of the report itself have been cast into further doubt. The inability of climate change scientists to explain the lack of warming also casts global warming and the need for expensive government programs to combat it into doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency has been on the verge of regulating carbon dioxide due to the conclusions of the IPCC report.

Global warming defenders have decried the leak of the emails claiming that not all emails were released; only those that were the most damaging. They do not, however, deny the validity of the emails.

Already, the release of the emails has sparked legal action. In Congress, Republican lawmakers have launched an investigation into the role of the implicated scientists in the formulation of the IPCC report. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also announced the intention to sue NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for failure to provide climate-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious question is how the revelation of the climate fraud will affect the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen and President Obama’s attempt to pass a cap-and-trade energy tax in the United States. Hopefully, diplomats and lawmakers will step back and examine the science on both sides of the debate before rushing into climate policies that would be potentially disastrous for the economies of the world.

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
-James Taranto

Sources:
A complete database of the emails can be found here: www.eastangliaemails.com
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Secaucus NJ

Conspiracy theories have become a hallmark of modern life. The modern conspiracy theory probably can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the belief that undiscovered gunmen actually killed the president. Another long lasting conspiracy theory is the belief in a government cover-up of an alien spacecraft’s crash in Roswell, New Mexico. More recently, conspiricists on the left and right have been busy promoting theories that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake.

From time to time, however, proof of an authentic conspiracy emerges. This was the case with the recent publication of hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. After years of hearing about climate science being “settled” and that there was a scientific consensus supporting the belief in human-caused global warming, the leaked emails present a very different picture. Ironically, the story has received scant coverage from most media sources in spite of the implications to the upcoming Copenhagen conference and cap-and-trade debate.

The conspiracy was revealed when an unknown hacker penetrated the Climate Research Unit’s computers and forwarded thousands of documents and emails to a server in Russia. Shortly after, a link was posted to the documents along with the message “”We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it” [1].

Global warming skeptics quickly learned that the documents revealed two important things about global warming proponents. First, much of the data that “proved” the reality of global warming was corrupt. As global temperatures flattened or declined in the years after 2000, climate scientists were at a loss to explain the lack of warming. For example, an email from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, a scientist at the US Center for Atmospheric Research, said “This means we can’t fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why….”[1].

Second, the documents confirmed the belief that there was a widespread conspiracy to discredit dissenting scientists and deny publication of scientific papers that pointed out the flaws in global warming theory. Scientific journals rely on peer review of scientific papers to ensure their validity. The climate conspirators would use their status as article reviewers to prevent scientific journals from publishing articles critical of global warming theory. In one email, Phil Jones of East Anglia University writes of dissenting articles, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [4].

In 2003, after a paper questioning the extent of warming in the 20th century was published in the journal Climate Research, Dr. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, sent emails to his colleagues to boycott the publication: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal” [3].

The scientists also discussed ways to mislead opponents. In one discussion of the medieval warm period, a period of extremely warm weather from AD 800-1300 which led to an economic boom, Dr. Trenbarth suggested creating a blog on a neutral web site and then referring inquiries to his own blog [5].

The email trail extended as far as the White House itself. One email was authored by President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren had sent an email in 2003 defending Dr. Mann’s research. Dr. Holdren was working at Woods Hole Research Center at the time.

Since many of the scientists who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were implicated in the email scandal, the conclusions of the report itself have been cast into further doubt. The inability of climate change scientists to explain the lack of warming also casts global warming and the need for expensive government programs to combat it into doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency has been on the verge of regulating carbon dioxide due to the conclusions of the IPCC report.

Global warming defenders have decried the leak of the emails claiming that not all emails were released; only those that were the most damaging. They do not, however, deny the validity of the emails.

Already, the release of the emails has sparked legal action. In Congress, Republican lawmakers have launched an investigation into the role of the implicated scientists in the formulation of the IPCC report. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also announced the intention to sue NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for failure to provide climate-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious question is how the revelation of the climate fraud will affect the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen and President Obama’s attempt to pass a cap-and-trade energy tax in the United States. Hopefully, diplomats and lawmakers will step back and examine the science on both sides of the debate before rushing into climate policies that would be potentially disastrous for the economies of the world.

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
-James Taranto

Sources:
A complete database of the emails can be found here: www.eastangliaemails.com
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Secaucus NJ

Who’s Who of the ClimateGate scandal.

All men communicating with a woman’s profile online from any country through any website or marriage agency, need to be aware of the biggest scamming techniques now on the Internet.  The scope of outright theft by major international web site owners make men like Bernard Lawrence Madoff, Kevin Trudeau, and Barry Minkow look like school boys compared to John Adams and many others.  Many of these scams have been on the Internet for years without solid proof to shut them down or without legal protection for the consumers who have been bilked out of millions.  Many scamming operations are still alive and well, doing what these dishonest people do everyday to thousands of men and women around the world, stealing millions from unsuspecting victims by people who claim to be honest.

While there are many types of scamming, in the area of international dating, a mans emotions and the promise for love and happiness forever, are key to this type of scam.  Marriage Agencies and International Dating web sites are nothing but money machines.  They all make money by impersonating pretty faces through so-called Marriage Agencies, sending letter after letter to unsuspecting lonely men, paying girls to chat while making endless promises, promoting tours and socials in foreign countries and much, much more.

A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grit, hustle, scam or scamming, scheme, or swindle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.  The victim is known as the mark and his accomplices are known as shills.  Much of the time, promises made and paid for are never written down in formal documents, but are made verbally so there is no way to later confirm what was actually said.

In the International Social Tour and Matchmaking business, the hustler and main confidence man is also known as the pitch man. He or she is the person who represents the company and is able to convince a man that there is something real about his or her services and makes unlimited promises and possibilities to meet an honest sincere mate searching for the same.  The claim is that, if you pay a lot of money to this confidence man, he will somehow introduce you to Mrs Right.  He will often act like he knows hundreds of women who want to meet you.  He will claim that he has the ability to introduce you to women who are desperate to leave her country and will fall in love with the first man she sees.  He will claim that there are thousands of women who want to leave poor and poverty stricken countries due to poor economic conditions.  He may even use his own life history from years ago to describe what is happening in today’s world.  Unfortunately, all of the statements made, are created to make you believe what he is trying to peddle is true and honest when the real truth is a million miles away from reality.

A confidence trick exploits everything from greed to physical emotions.  Lack of experience and knowledge in a certain field or subject creates an additional level of one’s inability to fully understand how a scammer takes advantage of any situation.  Many men and women do find each other from around the world.  Unfortunately, social events in foreign countries where women are often forced and paid to meet men from first world nations are nothing more than another day at the office for the women.  Social events in foreign countries also put at risk a man’s physical and monetary safety.  Girls at these events look at foreigners as a meal ticket for money and a way out of her country and nothing more.  Meeting real women at any social event in a foreign land has a ninety nine percent failure rate.  If a representative from any company offering social tours tells you any different, he is lying.

The other critical element to the success of this type of scam is the placement of shills inside each group of men who attend Social Tours and Events.  A Shill is a person who appears to have joined the tour for the same reason a man has paid thousands for, but the Shill is actually paid the be there.  His all expense trip is paid for by the tour company to monitor the behavior of the men on the tour.  The shill is also paid commissions and bonuses to encourage men to come back for more.  He is also responsible for making a man believe that there is something legitimate to all of the activities and events that take place.  Most of these men have been on many tours and will attempt to create strong friendships with the men while on the tour and afterwards.  This is done to market products and services at web sites for membership fees and gifts sent to ladies in the future and to validate the scammers activity.

Just as there is no typical profile for swindlers, neither is there one for their victims. Virtually anyone can fall prey to fraudulent crimes. … Certainly victims of high-yield investment frauds may possess a level of greed which exceeds their caution as well as a willingness to believe what they want to believe. However, not all fraud victims are greedy, risk-taking, self-deceptive individuals looking to make a quick dollar. Nor are all fraud victims naive, uneducated, or elderly.

Government authorities in many countries including Canada, The United States and Great Britain have had many International Dating Web sites, Marriage Agencies in foreign countries and companies offering Overseas Social Tours under investigation for some time.  If you or someone you know has been the victim of this type of crime, please contact the authorities listed below.

If you are planning to go on a Social Event in a foreign country offered by any web site or tour company, protect yourself by alerting authorities of scamming activity.  Ask all women in attendance at any social if they work for the tour company or at any web site or marriage agency.  Ask all tour participants to show you his or her international passport to determine how often that individual has travelled to a foreign country.  If a participant in your group has travelled to many countries, be aware that they could be part of the scheme.  Be aware of promises made in writing and make audio recordings of all conversations with company officials.  Keep strict records and documents pertaining to all monies paid before, during and after the social event.

Report all suspicious activity to the authorities below.

Complaint Referral Form

Internet Crime Complaint Center

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).

IC3’s mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, local and international level, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes. read more >>

Prior to filing a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), please read the following information regarding terms and conditions. Should you have additional questions prior to filing your complaint, view FAQ for more information on inquiries such as:

• What details will I be asked to include in my complaint?
• What happens after I file a complaint?
• How are complaints resolved?
• Should I retain evidence related to my complaint?

The information I’ve provided on this form is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that providing false information could make me subject to fine, imprisonment, or both. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001)

The IC3 is co-sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). Complaints filed via this website are processed and may be referred to federal, state, local or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies for possible investigation. I understand any investigation opened on any complaint I file on this website is initiated at the discretion of the law enforcement and/or regulatory agency receiving the complaint information.

Filing a complaint with IC3 in no way serves as notification to my credit card company that I am disputing unauthorized charges placed on my card or that my credit card number may have been compromised. I should contact my credit card company directly to notify them of my specific concerns.

Go to http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx to learn more about how to file a complaint with authorities.

“All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them.

All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil.  At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it.  But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer.

In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.

What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.“……….. Henry David Thoreau

Is there still a War in Iraq?

INTERNET BILLBOARD

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

November 29, 2009

Attention: Glenn Beck, Fox Network

It is not a conspiracy theory. Using the term “birther” in a condescending, Orwellian manner to discredit decent, hard working Americans who believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land, will not be tolerated.

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

2. Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British citizen.  “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was explicitly written to deal with the issue of foreign allegiances at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

3. Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance was further tainted when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

4. Some combination of the above allowed Obama to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was restricted to US citizens.

5. The only document presented by the Obama camp is a Hawaii COLB. There has been no substantiation that it is authentic and it does not establish country of birth. As Lou Dobbs stated, “It is a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper.”

6. All other documentation, all school records, that would establish country of birth have been kept hidden and restricted.

7. No authentic documentation has been presented to establish that Barack Obama was born in the US.

8. The records of all hospitals in Hawaii have been searched. There is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.

9. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother in Kenya has stated on multiple occasions that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa.

10. Others have stated, including multiple family members, officials and press, that Obama was born in Kenya.

This has been presented in a manner that a fifth grader can understand. However, if you have any questions, please contact me on this blog.

Failure to learn more about and understand this critical issue and take appropriate measures can only be construed as apathy,  ignorance or having an un American agenda. This includes the Mainstream Media and the Fox network.

Obama Eligibility Controversy Du Jour

From John Charlton, The Post & Email.

“HI Dept. of Health admits Obama’s COLB is faked”

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/hi-dept-of-health-admits-obamas-colb-is-faked/#comment-2895

Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.

“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,”

Here’s the story from Steve McIntyre. (H/T Story from Watts Up With That via ECM)

Excerpt:

“Hide the decline” refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century, a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. (I’m going to analyze the letters on another occasion.) In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, IPCC “hid the decline” by simply deleting the post-1960 values of the troublesome Briffa reconstruction – an artifice that Gavin Schmidt characterizes as an “a good way to deal with a problem” and tells us that there is “nothing problematic” about such an artifice (see here.

Not only were the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction not shown in the IPCC 2001 report – an artifice that Gavin describes as being “hidden in plain sight”, they were deleted from the archived version of the reconstruction at NOAA here (note: the earlier Briffa 2000 data here does contain a related series through to 1994.)

Here’s the graph, with the decline added back in.

Hide The Decline

Wow, look at that decline that somehow wasn’t included in the graphs made the global warming alarmists. Did they use a trick to hide the decline?

Hide the decline

And here’s a catchy video to help you remember all of this. (H/T Lex Communis)

The scary part is that two of my leftist friends still kept their faith in global warming after this scandal broke. It’s a religion, but one that is diconfirmed by the evidence.

Related posts

• Climate Research Unit servers hacked, e-mails made public
• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

I remember in school some 10 years ago having this interesting debate on whether or not paparazzi have a right to haress the celebrities in Hollywood as they do always. And to what extend this should be considered to be an infringement of those people’s privacy. Pretty heavy stuff for a 15 year old I know. I don’t really know what was the conclusion of the whole thing but I do remember thinking that if they are rich and famous and have all the things they do there must be a price they need to pay. You know, like a hazard of their job and they should stop complaining about their privacy and all that because it’s what they chose.

But now we are living a time in which the same situation applies to the whole consumption world of capitalism, you have the marketers which in this case are the paparazzi and then again you have the consumers who are the “poor” movie stars. Think about all the databases of every company you have ever purchased from, and try to count in how many your personal information is stored in. Marketers constantly chase you and try to find out your inner most thoughts so that they can produce what you actually want. Everyone is talking about one-to-one marketing, personalization, even Burger King allows you nowadays to personalize your burgers. And we like it, we want everything special, made just for us, even communication, we want everything when we need it and where we need it. And yet we are not willing to give out any personal information or at least we do not like the thought of someone tracking and analyzing us as if we were some sort of lab rats. So should our privacy be the price that we pay for a “civilized” and comfortable life, and are we willing to pay the price?

I am pretty sure most people pay the price without even thinking about it too well. But there are institutions and organizations, such as the already mentioned EPC GLobal, and EU as well as for instance EPIC that are dedicated to protect the privacy rights of consumers when it comes to RFID technology, and not only. But what is really the point of all of this fuss when it comes to RFID and our privacy?

Well the issue begins with the fact that the EPC (Electronic Product Code) identifies every specific item, individually, unlike the bar codes which were the same for instance for every product category that belonged to a certain manufacturer. That is to say that if you buy in Barcelona an Armani perfume, the same perfume located in Andalusia for instance will have exactly the same bar code. However if the perfume is caring an RFID tag, the Barcelona perfume is uniquely identified and so is the one in Andalusia. So what, you may say. Well yes, but if you are the one buying one of the perfumes how comfortable would you be knowing that if you use a credit card or a loyal customer card to pay for the product, the store owner will know exactly when you bought the product, what product did you buy, who you are, what is your address etc.  In the minds of privacy advocates this can lead to identity theft and bank fraud.

But unfortunately these are not issues of today. We are in no more danger with RFID tags than we have been with bar codes or using the internet. The biggest issue however with RFID and that gives most people this feeling of a “worldwide conspiracy” set up by companies, is that the items carrying RFID tags can be tracked whenever, wherever. So if you buy the perfume and the tag is left in an active state, or it’s not removed then anyone with a reader can follow all of your moves as long as you carry the perfume with you. It is even more dangerous in cases of shoes and clothes for instance, that you are wearing and that have an active RFID tag on them. The key word in this case is “active”, because what happens is that in every care retailers are obliged to put in a dormant state or permanently destroy the information on the chip the moment the customer bought the item. Again, the issue about the dormant state raises some concerns. Companies prefer because this way they could reactivate the tag in case they item is returned, but at the same time, those dormant tags can be reactivated at any time with relatively low effort.

The truth of the matter is that in my opinion there is no danger from RFID, at least not any more than from any other technology we are currently using. It is true however, that this needs to be regulated accordingly, since companies need to use the date they gather in a responsible manner. In the same time the public needs to be properly educated and informed regarding the technology and we also need to be given the choice when it comes to buying RFID tagged products. We should also keep in mind the benefits that this new technology can bring for us and whether or not they are worth the risk we are assuming when accepting RFID as part of our lives.

Not to spend too much time on this NYTimes article about how the Iraqis are letting us down by being too dead, disabled, or abroad to run the cool factories and hospitals we built for them just ’cause we’re nice like that. Most of the people who read this blog probably already read that article and commented on it on a bigger blog. So here are just a few choice bits:

BAGHDAD — In its largest reconstruction effort since the Marshall Plan, the United States government has spent $53 billion for relief and reconstruction in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, building tens of thousands of hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges.

But there are growing concerns among American officials that Iraq will not be able to adequately maintain the facilities once the Americans have left, potentially wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and jeopardizing Iraq’s ability to provide basic services to its people.

The projects run the gamut — from a cutting-edge, $270 million water treatment plant in Nasiriya that works at a fraction of its intended capacity because it is too sophisticated for Iraqi workers to operate, to a farmers’ market that farmers cannot decide how to share, to a large American hospital closed immediately after it was handed over to Iraq because the government was unable to supply it with equipment, a medical staff or electricity.

Stuart W. Bowen Jr., inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said his watchdog agency had “regularly raised concerns about the potential waste of U.S. taxpayer money resulting from reconstruction projects that were poorly planned, badly transferred, or insufficiently sustained by the Iraqi government.”

The blame is shared, officials said. While Iraq has often been guilty of poor management, American authorities have repeatedly failed to ask Iraqis what sort of projects they needed and have not followed up with adequate training.

And whether or not the American-built health centers and power plants are ever used as intended, the American companies that won the lion’s share of rebuilding contracts from the federal government have been paid.

Exactly. They got paid, defense industry folks got rich, that’s what we went into Iraq for. Done and done.

Despite the $53 billion spent by the United States, many Iraqis have criticized the rebuilding effort as wasteful. Ali Ghalib Baban, Iraq’s minister of planning, said it had not had a discernible impact. “Maybe they spent it,” he said, “but Iraq doesn’t feel it.”

Iraqis, for whom bombed-out buildings are an unremarkable part of urban existence, also say they have seen little evidence of rebuilding.

“Where is the reconstruction?” asked Sahar Kadhum, a resident of Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. “The city is sleeping on hills of garbage.”

Indeed, despite the billions in American funds, more than 40 percent of Iraqis still lack access to clean water, according to the Iraqi government. Ninety percent of Iraq’s 180 hospitals do not have basic medical and surgical supplies, according to the aid organization Oxfam. Iraqis also have disproportionately high rates of infant mortality, cerebral palsy and cancer.

Exacerbating the problem, Iraqi and American officials say, is that hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s professional class have fled or been killed during the war, leaving behind a population with too few doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists and the like.

Buried on the second page, of course. I’d have put it in one of the first two paragraphs, personally.

Also on the subject of health in Iraq, here’s a Guardian article on a huge rise in birth defects in Fallujah.

Doctors in Iraq’s war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants, compared to a year ago, and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

The extraordinary rise in birth defects has crystallised over recent months as specialists working in Falluja’s over-stretched health system have started compiling detailed clinical records of all babies born.

Neurologists and obstetricians in the city interviewed by the Guardian say the rise in birth defects – which include a baby born with two heads, babies with multiple tumours, and others with nervous system problems – are unprecedented and at present unexplainable.

Other health officials are also starting to focus on possible reasons, chief among them potential chemical or radiation poisonings. Abnormal clusters of infant tumours have also been repeatedly cited in Basra and Najaf – areas that have in the past also been intense battle zones where modern munitions have been heavily used.

Falluja’s frontline doctors are reluctant to draw a direct link with the fighting. They instead cite multiple factors that could be contributors.

“These include air pollution, radiation, chemicals, drug use during pregnancy, malnutrition, or the psychological status of the mother,” said Dr Qais. “We simply don’t have the answers yet.”

I am not a doctor and have no medical training, but I don’t believe that the psychological status of the mother can cause birth defects.

Falluja was the scene of the only two setpiece battles that followed the US-led invasion. Twice in 2004, US marines and infantry units were engaged in heavy fighting with Sunni militia groups who had aligned with former Ba’athists and Iraqi army elements.

The first battle was fought to find those responsible for the deaths of four Blackwater private security contractors working for the US. The city was bombarded heavily by American artillery and fighter jets. Controversial weaponry was used, including white phosphorus, which the US government admitted deploying.

“Setpiece battles”?

Despite fully funding the construction of the new hospital, a well-equipped facility that opened in August, Iraq’s health ministry remains largely disfunctional and unable to co-ordinate a response to the city’s pressing needs.

On the bright side (just kidding, really), our system of prisons in Iraq (specifically, sweeping up every able- and semi-able-bodied male between eleven and ninety-nine years old and dumping them in a filthy jail with no recourse to the law) has been judged such a success by military commanders that they intend to do the same thing in Afghanistan. Tehran Times article here. Entire article:

Following with the trend of trying to shoehorn the dubious Iraq War strategy onto Afghanistan, the US Army says that it intends to copy its prison strategy from Iraq in Afghanistan.

Brigadier General Quantock touted the Iraqi prison system as a great success, citing the relatively small percentage of released detainees who were re-captured.

It may come as a considerable surprise that the general considers America’s prison strategy in Iraq such an unabashed success, particularly since it wasn’t that long ago that they were scrambling to reform the disastrous system.

And in fact, the recidivism numbers cited are misleading, as one of the most common complaints was that the U.S. tactic of mass arrests had led many innocent people into the prison system simply for being near a militant attack and eventually released without ever being charged with any crimes.

Moreover, Iraq’s police have long complained that the U.S. detention system, with its brutal reputation, amounts to a series of “terrorist factories” where innocent detainees and petty criminals are radicalized.

Brig. Gen. Quantock dismissed these claims and was quick to lay the blame on Iraq’s legal system. Yet if this is a problem in Iraq and will be doubly so in Afghanistan, one of the most corrupt and lawless nations on the planet.

If you’re a fan of snotty NYTimes articles where we deride the Iraqis as being inferior to us, here’s an article for you.

The same US Army that brought you the men who stare at goats is making fun of Iraqi law enforcement for spending a lot of money on bomb detection equipment the US thinks is worthless.

The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

Still, the Iraqi government has purchased more than 1,500 of the devices, known as the ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Nearly every police checkpoint, and many Iraqi military checkpoints, have one of the devices, which are now normally used in place of physical inspections of vehicles.

The Iraqis, however, believe passionately in them. “Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior’s General Directorate for Combating Explosives.

Dale Murray, head of the National Explosive Engineering Sciences Security Center at Sandia Labs, which does testing for the Department of Defense, said the center had “tested several devices in this category, and none have ever performed better than random chance.”

Love it! The scorn! “The same principle as the Ouija board.” What does this remind me of? Oh yeah, it reminds me of the US Department of Defense’s reliance on polygraph tests!

The accuracy of polygraphic lie detection is slightly above chance. Nevertheless, State and local police departments and law enforcement agencies across the United States are devoted proponents of this unscientific and specious device.

I don’t want to quote too much of this article here, but please read it if you are interested in how US law enforcement uses voodoo science, our modern version of phrenology.

The APA is a professional organization for polygraph examiners who have complete faith in the accuracy of the test. They have their own trade journal Polygraph in which they report scientifically worthless studies and brandish anecdotes of the wonders of their trade. The majority of these members can pride themselves on completing a 6 week to 6 month post- high school training course in the art of polygraphy. They have no formal training in medicine, psychology, physiology, or behavior; the very disciplines on which the testing is based. The majority of them cater to the legal system wherein their economic livelihood depends.

Since they are primarily paid to identify guilty suspects, motivational factors may play a part in their eagerness to find the guilty suspect. (Kleinmuntz, 1987)

The polygraph examiner likens his “skill” to that of the radiologist reading a chest X-Ray or a cardiologist interpreting an EKG. (Barefoot, 1974) This analogy is not only ridiculous but, in fact, if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine. They will cite the fact that the polygraph has been used in the United States for greater than 70 years as if longevity is directly related to validity. They will state that they have personally administered hundreds or thousands of these tests, and have almost never been wrong, as if total number of tests given constitutes accuracy.

They are so convinced of the accuracy of the polygraph that they regard opponents of polygraphy as communists and do-nothing professors. (Arther, 1986) It doesn’t occur to them that someone with a Ph.D. and years of research experience, in the very subjects they ignorantly dabble in, may know something more than they do.

It is astounding that the criminal justice system has institutionalized and perpetuated a so called “technology” that lacks scientific evidence and is in fact rejected by the scientific community. It is as ludicrous as procuring the so called “love meter” machine from the amusement park which measures galvanic skin response and placing it in the courtroom. But in a backward legal system which has been known to use psychics to help with unsolved murders and has allowed the mentally retarded to serve as jurors, it is not entirely surprising.

You just have to laugh at those unsophisticated rubes in the US Department of Defense paying good money to polygraphers. As antiPolygraph.org says:

The reliability of polygraph testing for employee screening is widely disputed on scientific grounds. But many government security officials nevertheless insist on its value and utility, and the practice persists.

Significantly, the new directive tightens control over DoD agencies’ use of any “credibility assessment” technology other than the polygraph. This seems a likely reaction to the post-9/11 debacle wherein some DoD components began using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) to interrogate prisoners. The manufacturer of this quack device, the so-called “National Institute of Truth Verification,” has admitted in court that CVSA “is not capable of lie detection,” and the company was recently the subject of an ABC News exposé. DoD eventually put an end to its use of CVSA. The new directive ensures that henceforward, DoD agencies will use only officially approved pseudoscientific techniques for “credibility assessment” purposes.

For more about what we did (wrong) in Iraq, I recommend: Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side. Buy them here.

Came across a brilliant little piece regarding the World Famous Rothschild Brand in an Indy article from 2004 written by Paul Vallely.  Has some great background on the Dynasty that has featured so heavily in our History of blood, work and tears, keeping Governments in debt since the 1700’s.

“The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty”

The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington’s advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition – the ability of the family which has founded one of the world’s largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.

Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

As the paterfamilias became more successful he despatched four of his five sons to different European capitals to take advantage of the rise of capitalism and the growth of international trade. Nathan he sent to London, James to Paris, Saloman to Vienna, and Carl to Naples, keeping the eldest, Amschel, at home with him in Prussia. Of these the two most important proved to be London and Paris, where the two main branches of the family developed a friendly rivalry, with the English branch developing the edge in business and the French in philanthropy, the arts and winemaking. But then in 1996 Amschel Rothschild, a 41-year-old man who had lived in the flamboyant style of many of his ancestors, hanged himself in a Paris hotel room. He was the Rothschild who had been groomed to take over as head of the English arm of the dynasty.

So when the bank’s chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild retired earlier this year the succession passed to the French side of the family. Baron David de Rothschild, who had been running the family’s Paris-based bank, inherited.

None of the Rothschild enterprises have been banks in the sense as understood by the man or woman in the street. What Mayer Rothschild founded in the 1760s was a business which grew from the humble beginning of selling rare coins to becoming the prime moneylender to greedy and spendthrift governments across Europe. One German contemporary quipped that Mayer was “the pride of Israel … before whose money box kings and emperors humbly bow”. And the novelist Thackeray said of Nathan that he was “not king of the Jews, but the Jew of the kings”. The brothers financed both sides in the Napoleonic wars and in the Austro-Prussian war too.

It has long been supposed that Nathan increased the family fortune 20-fold by speculating on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The Rothschilds had a network of agents throughout Europe who, using fast boats, coded letters and carrier pigeons, got information to the family ahead of official sources. Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that.

Certainly, for all the family motto of Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Unity, Integrity, Industry), Nathan’s ability to depress stock prices by using the network of agents to spread rumours, true or false, and then buy the stock up after people panicked, was legendary.

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded – at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government – and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply,” Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: “Take a chair.” His caller, affronted, said: “You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis.” To which Rothschild replied: “Take two chairs.” At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of “the slow murder of 600,000 people” on the continent “we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time.” And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today’s terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Still, the family has moved down only from fabulously rich to enormously wealthy. And they adjusted to the times. They made billions in the 1980s from Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations of state-owned industries on which they advised. In France after their bank was nationalised by the Socialist president Francois Mitterrand they slowly built a new business which, under Baron David de Rothschild, has risen to the top ranks of the merger and acquisition league tables. They have pulled out of retail fund management – into which they went with much fanfare only three years back – and now they are pulling out of oil and gold in favour of the higher-margin areas of private banking and wealth management.

Do not spend too many tears. In 1997 the family’s Swiss holding company increased its profits by 66 per cent. The firm is not called Rothschild Continuation for nothing.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812), Founder of the family business

• Mayer, orphaned at the age of 12, was forced to make his own living with the help of the good name of his father in Frankfurt. He carved out a self-taught career as a dealer in coins and medals, branching out into state loans and trade in general commodities. He established the family name by placing a Roman eagle on a red shield (Rothschild in German) over the door of his counting house.

• Mayer established one of the Rothschild firm’s principles: to settle for less profit to ensure long-term business ties. A brisk market in English textiles prompted him to send one of five sons, Nathan, to England.

Jacob, 4th Baron Rothschild (b. 1936), Head of the English side of the family

• Chairman of NM Rothschild before resigning in 1980 to run Rothschild Investment Trust. He chaired the National Heritage Memorial Fund, handing out £1.2bn of lottery grants. He restored Waddesdon Manor, right, the family pile, and chairs Yad Hanadiv, the family foundation in Israel, which donated the Knesset and Supreme Court to the state

David de Rothschild (b. 1942), Head of the French family

• The head of the French family, David de Rothschild has escaped two catastrophes in France: he was born in New York after the Luftwaffe seized the family home in Paris and his mother fled from Nazi Europe; and, in 1981, President Mitterrand nationalised the French financial empire, Banque Rothschild. David and his cousins started afresh with PO Gestion, renamed PO Banque and thenRothschild & Cie Banque.

Seven Generations and two Centuries of Banking

• 1760s The orphaned Mayer Amschel Rothschild starts a coins and medals business in Frankfurt
• 1789 Mayer appointed an agent to William IX of Hanau
• 1798 Mayer’s son Nathan leaves Frankfurt to become a textile and general merchant in Manchester
• 1812 Nathan’s brother James establishes a banking house in Paris
• 1815 The English branch of the Rothschilds supply gold to the Duke of Wellington’s campaign at Waterloo
• 1820 Nathan’s brother settles in Vienna; his brother Carl starts a business in Naples
• 1836 Nathan dies
• 1840 NM Rothschild and Sons becomes one of the Bank of England’s bullion brokers
• 1850s Great houses are built. Bordeaux vineyards of Mouton and Lafite are acquired
• 1875 Lionel de Rothschild raises finance for British stake in the Suez Canal
• 1887 Rothschilds funds the creation of the diamond dealers De Beers
• 1901 With no male heirs, the Frankfurt dynasty comes to an end
• 1919 NM Rothschild & Sons chair new daily fixing of the gold price
• 1926 The company finances the spread of the London Underground
• 1929 Beginning of difficult years for family. Wall Street crash; rise of Nazi Europe
• 1960s Rothschilds look to US; start of Rothschild Inc
• 1981 France nationalises the highly successful Paris House but the family refuses defeat and starts new business.
• 1985 Rothschilds advises on British Gas privatisation

You’ve got to give it to Mayer, he was one smart bastard of a man.  Domination of the Nations is the goal of the Owners of Earth Plc, and I doubt the Rothschild’s Dynasty is alone in that goal but has certainly been a major player.

I bring up the Rothschilds’ as the present one has been making large donations to the Conservatives (again) and there has been rumours of tolls on motorways or some sort of road pricing GPS model of charging per mile, and of course the Rothschilds’ will have their cut.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially a multi-million £££ lunch.

Argus Joseph Thompson, insane, presents the following on MBS. Its veracity as well as its merit are, as always, subject to question.

On the tenth of November, S. B. Hemmingsford was arrested by the FBI. A 47-count indictment handed down by a New York Federal Grand Jury charged Hemmingsford and three Wall Street brokerage house executives with insider trading in the stock of General-O Dynamics and 14 of its subsidiaries. The New York Times reported that Hemmingsford and his three co-defendants had allegedly amassed illegal profits exceeding $3.5 billion. All four defendants were immediately released on their own bonds.

Although the government claimed Hemmingsford was a criminal, the government saw him as a special kind of criminal entitled to special privileges. If you’ve illegally hoarded large sums of money before being caught illegally hoarding more, the presumption exists that you are responsible and can be turned loose on your signature to await trial…while Leroy, who is penniless and homeless and who robbed the 7-11 for $23 to get a quick fix, has his bond set at a $100,000, which he; his twelve brothers and sisters; and all of their known spouses; offspring; current and discarded soul mates and their pushers; along with their friends on Twitter and Facebook collectively could not gather.

Crime is a sport reserved for the rich.

Persons of equal loot, moolah and scratch are equal—that’s what Jefferson should have written if he was going to be truthful about it, not that worn out aphorism that he dumped in the Constitution —All (not including women) men are created equal. But why should some wino whose total assets never exceeded half a bottle of cheap Tokay and a three-month growth of whiskers have the same rights as me?

I once knew a rich man who I thought wasn’t a criminal. He bought a second-hand mattress at Orville’s Store for the Homeless, and when he was looking for bedbug larvae he found where the mattress had been sewn up. When he cut it open he found $423. Since wealth is always comparative, compared to me, he is rich. I am not mentioning names because this man did not pay taxes on his windfall. Once more that proves the age-old truth that behind every great wealth is great crime.

Anyway, a few days after Hemmingsford was released he appeared with his lawyer, Rutherford P. Benyon, before the federal magistrate where he entered pleas of “Not guilty,” and “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”

The Times filed a follow-up story, the headline of which read:

HEMMINGSFORD ACCUSES TERRORISTS

An attorney for S. B. Hemmingsford, chairman of the board of General-O Dynamics, today claimed his client was the latest victim of the newly discovered personality disorder known as Moral Burnout Syndrome (MBS), a disease said to plague high-ranking corporate and public officials operating under extreme stress and recently described by the Nobel Prize winner, Solomon P. Goldberg.

Benyon said his client was a victim of MBS and has been in the acute throes of the disease since the recent attacks on his company’s logging operations by a radical environmental organization known as The Children. Benyon said Hemmingsford took The Children’s invasion of the company’s timber sale, where thousands of trees were spiked to prevent their harvest, as an assault levied against him personally. It was the classic “final stressor-straw,” a term invented by Goldberg to denote an identifiable last emotional trauma, which, when combined with prior stresses, at last pushes the victim into the disorder.

Benyon said, “The action of these terrorists was allegedly to save trees, but their true motivation was to shove my client over the edge into the full throes of Moral Burnout Syndrome.”

The Times’ cover story recorded the history of Goldberg’s discovery of MBS, a breakthrough lauded by social scientists as the long-sought connecting link between science and morality. In part the article read:

Already some experts are proclaiming Goldberg’s identification of the disease as a contribution to modern psychology comparable only to Freud’s The Ego and the Id. Goldberg discovered that wealthy or powerful self-made men approaching the summit of their careers often suddenly plummet into the gaping hole of moral decadence. At the time of the onset of the disease most of the victims have already achieved what Goldberg called “their three primary P’s—power, prestige and position, and their secondary P’s, their plethora of playthings—their Porsches, their private psychiatrists, their personal pushers and their sultan’s assortment of blond pubescents.”

In short, the victims have it all. Yet quite without warning, many inexplicably leap over the edge into a life of crime.

The Times writers observed that the victims’ crimes were pathetically unimaginative—common thefts, ordinary bribery, artless payoffs, embezzlements, even mundane murders for hire. They embezzled when they didn’t need the money and illegally manipulated the markets when they didn’t know what to do with the cash they already had.

The Goldberg article asked by its subtitle, “Is Moral Burnout a Crime?” A picture of the distinguished professor receiving the Nobel Prize from the Royal Caroline Medico-Chirurgical Institute in Sweden accompanied the lead story in which the Times writers, in their usual imperious style, traced the psychological progression of the disorder as described by Dr. Goldberg :

The archetypical MBS victim, the high- pressure executive, having existed under fire for years, is one day heard to begin screaming, “It’s war out there, man! War! Your competitors want to kill you. Your customers want to kill you. Your board of directors wants to kill you. Your employees want to kill you. And when you get home, the old lady wants to kill you. It’s war, and it’s hell!” The victim begins to complain of autonomic anal tightening and other vague symptoms that are often precursors of the disorder.

Goldberg likens the disease to a soldier in combat who, after suffering extreme stress from fear and physical exhaustion, gets a letter from home saying John Wayne, his hero, was the secret lover of Rock Hudson. It’s the “final stressor-straw” that pushes the soldier over the edge into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

MBS is a disease in the full sense of the word, Goldberg claims. “We would never permit the criminal courts to punish our leaders for having suffered a heart attack. To the same extent we cannot allow our criminal justice system to deal with this subtle and complex syndrome.” When asked about his willingness to testify in Hemmingsford’s case, Dr. Goldberg said, “It will be my privilege to convince the jury that this man was not responsible for his crimes but was, instead, a helpless victim of the insidious side effects of MBS.”

Argus concluded his presentation on MBS by claiming that MBS was merely collateral damage in a system engaged in the eternal and holy wars of American capitalism.

I find his logic and his conclusions unsupported by fact or logic but fully in support of his claim that he is insane.

UN IPCC’s Eduardo Zorita: ‘By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication’

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes: “Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
“In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research,” Zorita explained. [Zorita's full statement is reprinted below.]

http://climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process–They-are-not-credible-any-more

This is another wake up call… when you cannot trust science, what do we do??? Is everything the Elites do based on a Lie??? i have to say yes yes yes… From our Liar in chief, To climategate, to the UN, down to the lowly Charlie Rangel… they lie, and steal, and take Our very Freedoms from us with a smile… I do not need the Government to provide for me… I need the Government to get the F out of the way so i can Provide for myself….

A bit like closing the barn doors after the cows got out!

From Secondhand Smoke:

So now the University of East Anglia, either the victim, perpetrator–or both–of Climategate, has done a “U-turn” and agreed to release raw data that it has heretofore fought assiduously to keep secret. From the story:

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full. The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics. In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

We should not be too hopeful that this will amount to anything useful since further stories infer that the data has already been destroyed.

Read the whole thing here.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal.  In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball.  “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature.  It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge.  Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

Protesters disrupt Gore book-signing event in Chicago
Article: Truth Is Contagious

Justin Mangano, from Australia, was beaming after Al Gore signed his book Tuesday when his star-struck moment was interrupted by a protester being hauled out of the Borders bookstore in the Chicago Loop.

Gore was at the book store promoting the just released “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” Fans were there to get his autograph and opponents came to challenge his message. Members of the group, We Are Change, were the most outspoken of Gore’s naysayers at the former vice president’s appearance at 150 N. State St. Gore’s security guards escorted the protesters from the store.

The We Are Change group contends that Gore’s message of global warming is a hoax, that he is a puppet of a new world order and that he is propagating a eugenics program.

The group claims it is “a citizens based grassroots peace and social justice movement working to reveal the truth behind the events of September 11th, as well as the lies of the government and corporate elite who remain suspect in this crime.”

“We need to wake up to this now, or it’s going to be too late. They want to tax the air we breathe and the meat we eat,” said activist Saad Ali, one of about 30 protesters at the event. ‘There are 30,000 scientists trying to sue this bum,” he screamed as he was escorted from the building.

But Gore’s fans weren’t interested in what the protesters were shouting.

Monika Hinterman, who got Gore to sign her book, said she was impressed that he was paying so much attention to climate change.

Gore’s fans weren’t interested in what the protesters were shouting because? Because they’re probably a bunch of mindless liberal drones who don’t care about facts, scientific evidence, and anything that proves that “global warming” is, in fact, a complete hoax. Just like “Barack Obama is BLAAAACK” is a lie. He’s so not. Of course Monika was impressed he’s paying so much attention to climate change. Teen fiction literature is one of today’s hot topics. He’s been busy writing these fictional books and making up fraudulent evidence… it takes a lot of work to fool this many people. Well, actually it doesn’t. It takes a lot of work to educate the libtards on the TRUTH.

“I think he’s trying to make people more aware of the issues that have gone unnoticed for too long,” Hinterman said.

Some who came to meet Gore at the book signing said that while they support free speech, the event was not the best place for a protest.

“If you have a point of view, put some facts and figures to it. Express yourself with support behind it,” said Sabolch Horvat, who carried a signed copy of the book under his arm.

Nicole Lynch bought the book to make up her mind about the science that the protesters questioned. She said she approves of his efforts to get people to take better care of the planet.

“I’m not saying he’s perfect, and I would call him out if I knew he screwed up,” Lynch said. “I’m not afraid to speak my mind.”

Well, Nicole; allow me to help you. Read my post on Al Gore and his fraudulent global warming scam HERE: An Inconvenient Al.

- BBC has found that we have not observed any increase in global temperatures for the last 11 years. Yes, that’s over ONE DECADE

- The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth’s oceans has significantly cooled since 2003