By Michelle Malkin

[Editors' Note: The second to last paragraph of the following Michelle Malkin column contains language that some readers may find offensive.]

As we gather round the Thanksgiving table, bow our heads in prayer and feast on the holiday bird, it is only fitting to take a moment to fete the unforgettable turkeys of 2009.

1. The stimulus. Back in February, I wrote that if the trillion-dollar stimulus plan were a Thanksgiving dinner entree, it would be a Turbaconducken — the heart attack-inducing dish of roasted chicken stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a turkey, all wrapped in endless slabs of bacon. And so it has come to pass. After the Democratic majority larded up the massive spending package with earmarks and bribes, President Obama declared it pork-free and has stubbornly touted its job creation benefits for out-of-work Americans.

Reality check? The Washington Examiner reports that more than 10 percent of the jobs the Obama administration claimed were “created or saved” by the stimulus are doubtful or imaginary. ABC News uncovered countless examples of bogus congressional districts listed as stimulus beneficiaries by the Obama stimulus tracking website, Recovery.gov. The money has been lavished on shady beauty schools in New Hampshire, prison inmates in Texas and wind companies in Spain and China. Just this week, a California audit found that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation overstated the number of jobs saved by federal stimulus dollars by upward of 13,000.

While this Generational Theft Act continues to soak up our tax dollars and add to our children’s and grandchildren’s debt, the Democratic majority is in the government kitchen cooking up a second stimulus turkey to provide federal infrastructure money to public-sector unions. Gobble, gobble.

2. President O-bow-ma. The candidate who pledged to restore America’s standing in the world couldn’t figure out how to stay standing in front of world leaders. In April, he crouched before Saudi King Abdullah. This month, he provoked global derision when he broke protocol and performed a spineless blunder in front of the Japanese emperor.

The kowtower-in-chief’s body language reflected the administration’s broader foreign policy prostrations — including scrapping missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland, canceling a meeting with the Dalai Lama to appease China, sitting on its hands this summer during the Iranian election protests and unveiling the 9/11 show trials in New York City that will provide a circus platform for jihadis and international Bush-haters.

The left complained that George W. Bush was too much of a cowboy on the global stage. It’s better than having a waterboy.

3. Green jobs czar Van Jones. This deep-fried turkey was recruited by Team Obama’s Chicago consigliere Valerie Jarrett, who boasted about recruiting the Marxist rabble-rouser from Oakland. He openly crusaded to free Philadelphia death row cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, bashed capitalism with radical revolutionary rhetoric and signed a 9/11 conspiracy petition that he meekly disavowed in a botched attempt to save his job. Jones is now at the Center for American Progress, run by Obama transition official and Democratic operative John Podesta.

The other turkey in the story, Val Jarrett, escaped unscathed and went on to push the Obamas into their failed crony campaign for the 2016 Olympics bid in Copenhagen — a taxpayer-funded, hubris-infused debacle that ties with Van Jones for third biggest turkey of the year. Rio got the Games. America got a closer look at the pay-for-play patrons, power brokers and developers in the Windy City who have put an indelible Chicago stamp on the Potomac.

4. The New York Times. Scooped by Fox News, conservative blogs and talk radio on the exploding ACORN scandal, the paper whitewashed its own role in covering up the community organizing racket’s financial shenanigans last fall when it cut off a reporter’s investigation a few weeks before Election Day. Jill Abramson, the Times’ managing editor for news, acknowledged that her staff was “slow off the mark” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” They assigned a new “opinion media monitor” to track the competition, but refused to identify the watchdog for fear that he/she would get too many mean, intrusive e-mails and phone calls.

More recently, the paper’s website demonstrated that its real motto is “All the inconvenient news that’s fit to suppress.” The Times’ lead environmental blogger, Andrew Revkin, haughtily refused to reprint damning e-mails leaked by a hacker in the burgeoning “ClimateGate” scandal. The documents reveal a long trail of manipulated data, but Revkin balked at the ill-gotten trove. The blabbermouths at the Times had no problem exposing national security secrets to undermine Bush. But shed light on scientific hoaxes that undermine Al Gore? Unethical!

5. Tea Party-bashers. Millions of ordinary, peaceful Americans joined the Tea Party movement to revolt against big government, backroom deals and the Beltway culture of corruption. For their exercise of free speech and free assembly, they were smeared nationwide. Hollywood has-been Janeane Garofalo called them “racist, backward motherf**kers.” SEIU labor thug Dennis Rivera accused them of “terrorist tactics.” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper used a vulgar sexual epithet to describe them. Team Obama’s astroturfers declared all-out war on them.

For refusing to sit down and shut up in the face of such unhinged bigotry, and for exposing the foulness of the political fowl, I have two words for them: Thank you.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2009).

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

By Andrew Bolt

Ilya Somin, associate professor at George Mason University School of Law, explains why the Climategate emails undermine the faith non-experts have about man-made warming:

I thought that global warming was probably a genuine and serious problem because that is what the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists seem to believe, and I generally didn’t doubt their objectivity.

At the very least, the Climategate revelations should weaken our confidence in the above conclusion. At least some of the prominent scholars in the field seem driven at least in part by ideology, and willing to use intimidation to keep contrarian views from being published, even if the articles in question meet normal peer review standards. Absent such tactics, it’s possible that more contrarian research would be published in professional journals and the consensus in the field would be less firm.

The New Atlantis agrees:

The evidence of scientific dishonesty supplied by these communications is so copious it’s hard to know where to begin an attempt to describe them. Many of the e-mails brazenly discuss the manipulation of scientific data either to provide the appearance of greater support for global warming science or to undermine the claims of skeptics.

Deutsche Welle:

German climatologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, remarked that the “unfortunate writing” done by Jones and others has “likely damaged the credibility of climate science.” …But the fallout may not be entirely negative, he writes; in fact he sees a silver lining for climate science: “I would assume that … a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge.”

Debate? In The Age? ABC Melbourne radio?  AM? PM? 7.30 Report?

Indeed, even warming crusader George Monbiot complains about the new deniers:

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away.

Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, sums up:

I cannot endorse the actions of this group and hope that an impartial investigation will bring closure to this difficult matter. Inevitably, the public’s view of science will be affected and this will hurt all of science.

Meanwhile, more evidence of how the debate was rigged. Many computer codes leaked from the Climatic Research Unit show how tree-ring data was tortured into confessing there has lately been a huge rise in temperature. Examples:

Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

And:

‘NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

UPDATE

William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, tells me he reported in Energy and the Environment on another astonishing attempt to stifle sceptics:

As an invited speaker to an international seminar invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to discuss the scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol it was perplexing that the event did not commence on schedule. The delay was particularly odd, as it appeared that the listed speakers were assembled. The program did commence after nearly two hours wait and the reason for the delay became apparent. Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the United Kingdom government, had been lobbying vigorously to have a number of the listed international speakers omitted from the program. He even submitted his own program of speakers! Having failed in his objective, King absented himself from the proceedings for the remainder of the day…

The pre-seminar lobbying by Sir David King further underscored the politicisation of the climate change issue. It became apparent that the objective of the UK delegation was to defend the findings of the IPCC and convince the members of the Russian Academy of Sciences that the science of climate change is settled… The input of independent scientists (at the meeting), who could demonstrate shortcomings in the IPCC findings, clearly would hamper the UK delegation in meeting its objectives and were to be silenced.

Why the UK government would want to take on the role of sheriff in defence of the IPCC is not clear until one remembers that the Blair Government has made the promotion of Kyoto and hence its ‘war against global warming’ a top foreign policy objective for reasons that can only be speculated about.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

By Nick Loris

Before Barack Obama accepts his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the White House announced that the president will swing by the climate change summit in Copenhagen to outline the country’s climate goals. The AP reports:

The president will lay out his goals for reducing the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions, pledging to cut heat-trapping pollution by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. That target reflects the still-unfinished climate legislation on Capitol Hill.”

This comes immediately after President Obama agreed to a green partnership with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a “Memorandum of Understanding to increase cooperation on energy security, clean energy, and climate change.”

Proposed to be the Conference that replaces the global emissions reduction targets of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen may not live up to initial expectations. A large reason for this is the emphatic reluctance of developing countries, despite commitments to ‘go green’, they won’t agree to carbon cuts. Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman writes:

The Obama administration has also echoed its predecessor in recognizing that a post-Kyoto treaty that continues to exempt China, India, and other fast developing nations is futile. Those nations will account for most of the emissions growth in the years ahead. But the developing world insists on maintaining these exemptions, creating a rift unlikely to go away.”

President Obama’s trip may be nothing more than chance to cross something off his checklist and to say, ‘we’re making progress.” He may also be going to avoid criticism for not going. He won’t be joining the other heads of states during the final three days of the climate summit when all the major negotiations take place.

The reality is the economic consequences are too great and the environmental benefits are too small to sign onto an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto demonstrated this and the U.S. wisely avoided it. President Obama shouldn’t put the U.S. economy or sovereignty at stake for the sake of “getting something done.”

For more, check out Heritage’s Copenhagen Consequences.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry

By Alan Caruba

Try not to think about Harry Reid, Obamacare, or the nation’s problems for a day. Instead, think of its great heritage of freedom and rededicate yourself to restoring it.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Popular teen-themed channel 4 television show Skins is due to begin broadcasting its fourth series in January 2010. The show, which began broadcasting on digital station E4 in 2007, has built up a large number of devoted fans. Every two years the cast is replaced with a new set of core characters. About A Boy star Nicholas Hoult starred in the first series as Tony Stonem. The new series will be the last featuring the current cast, which includes Kaya Scodelario as Effy Stonem. There will be eight episodes in the new series. The show is also a hit in the states where an American version, set in Baltimore, is currently in development. A big screen version may also soon be made as it was announced, in May 2009, that Film4 and Skins production company, Company Pictures, are in preliminary talks about producing one. I’m looking forward to the new series and will be disappointed if it proves to be the last one they make. Thanks for reading.

This morning I got up and did 50 mins of cardio.  Then I thought I would go to Kohl’s at 7a when it opened before breakfast but I got kinda hungry.  Insert the gotta go shopping before all the other yahoos get out breakfast.

Yes, I totally measured out the cereal.  You’ll see why that is funny later.

• 1 cup of Kashi Strawberry Fields
• 1 low carb EAS shake
• 1/2 scoop chia seeds

I went on the dessert frenzy!  My favorite food group

One of my blogger peeves is when people say I may or may have not eaten…..

No may or may not...I FREAKIN DID!

Boomer and I went to the “puppy store” aka PetSmart today.  Her tail wagged the entire time.  She got a bath last night…a much needed one.

I feels clean!

Question for all you black lab or mixed lab owners.  Does this happen in your kitchen EVERY day?

No monchichi's were hurt in the making of this picture

I talked with Tony yesterday.  He wants my weight right now between 115-117…easy peasy.  I’m still shooting for 113.

HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING TOMORROW!  IF YOU DIDN’T GAIN 5 LBS FRIDAY MORNING YOU DIDN’T ENJOY YOURSELF

In 2003 i got my hands on a fantastic single from a fantastic new band called The Futureheads! The following year they released their debut self-titled album, with which they saw some success though i thought it was a bit overproduced. The rough edges had been a bit too smoothed out, so I’d like to share the track that i thought so special all those years ago. Here’s The Futureheads with ‘First Day’…

Buy It! Amazon or iTunes

The Futureheads are back again armed with a free download of their newest track. Check it out HERE! It’s only available for a week, so get on it!

They also happen to do a great version of Kate Bush’s ‘Hounds Of Love’…

Buy It! Amazon or iTunes

Tz
Media Producer
PlayNetwork, Inc.

They say about him that´s one of the most famous ” not famous” photographers in the world. I don´t know if you´ll understand the expression, because it´s a bit weird, but i´ll try to explain it.

Born in Winona (MN), and with no formal formal training in photography, Tony Duran managed to travel around the world and to take many interesting photos. They say about him that´s “not famous” because, even if he had photographed many celebrities, many people never heard his name before. There is one fact that anyone who HAD HEARD about him before is that he photographes celebrities the way he photographs people on the street, and surprisingly, anyone who “goes through” his camera comes out better than before, they always look perfect and the ideas he uses for his photos are awesome! Moments and places you´d never expect to see, original poses and a wonderful collection !

Among the celebrities he had photographed: Tom Cruise, Cindy Crawford, Orlando Bloom, even Paris Hilton! .. Victoria Beckam, etc. Do you remember those wonderful pictures of Jennifer Lopez with her twins, just after they were born ? Well, Tony Duran is the photographer for those and many more photos. Why do celebrities like his style ? Because of what i´ve said before, and because the fact that he is the photographer of some of the well-known magazines around USA, and not only.

just… enjoy!

Video

Photos :

Here is where you can find him :

His Website

Youtube

 if any of you knows if he has twitter account, facebook or other things, please let me know. I didn´t find him on twitter, neighter on flickr, but as soon as i find out anything more, i´ll edit the post.

Thanks for reading!

By Emily Vaughan

Coming soon to a rooftop near you. Image Braemac Corp.

Four states this year implemented feed-in tariffs, incentives that pay customers for the renewable energy they produce and “feed” back into electricity grids. Three did it for the first time, joining Washington state and California, which beefed up its law.

The key to feed-in tariffs is a combination of long-term contracts and guaranteed rates of return that gives business leaders enough certainty to invest in constructing systems to feed the grid. Each state’s policy differs slightly, but significantly, providing a multitude of blueprints that advocates hope will lead to growth in renewable industries.

Other states, including New York, Minnesota and Maine, recently considered proposals but have not yet passed laws. And the idea is making strides at the national level. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., introduced feed-in tariff legislation last June. It died in committee, but Inslee and co-sponsor Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., say they will reintroduce a bill before the end of the year.

Hawaii

One of the states most dependent on fossil fuels — it gets 90 percent of its energy from imported petroleum — Hawaii set big goals for renewable energy production, requiring 20 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewables by 2020. Gov. Linda Lingle (R) last year set a nonbinding goal that the state produce 70 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030.

Unlike other states, Hawaii’s feed-in tariff, established in October, was created through the state’s Public Utilities Commission and not passed by the legislature. “A lot of this involved technical issues and detail issues that need to be decided,” said Carl Caliboso, chairman of the commission. “Sometimes that type of thing is more appropriate for administrative agencies.”

California

Finding the right price can mean the difference between stagnation and stimulus. California passed its original feed-in tariff in 2006 but found that the price it paid customers for their renewable energy was too low to encourage a lot of investment. In October, the state passed a stronger feed-in tariff, tying the rate to the market price for electricity produced by a natural gas plant, plus a multiplier intended to reflect the environmental benefit of renewables.

The Golden State’s unique pricing scheme may or may not work. Some renewable energy advocates worry that comparing renewables to low-cost natural gas won’t set the rate high enough to spark investment. But Vince Marchand, consultant to the state senator who sponsored the bill, said he expected the rate to be set above 20 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly double what customers pay for utility-generated power.

Oregon

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) has made renewable energy a central part of his agenda. In 2007 he set a renewable portfolio standard mandating that Oregon get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Kulongoski outlined a broad energy agenda for the 2009 legislative session, including the establishment in July of a feed-in tariff pilot program exclusively for solar power.

Like the other states that have instituted feed-in tariffs, Oregon’s program will be funded by small increases in costs to ratepayers, not from the already strapped state budget. “There’ve been concerns here in the state about the cost of state tax credits associated with various energy projects,” said Lee Sparling, director of the Utility Program at the Oregon Public Utility Commission. If the cost passed on to ratepayers gets too high, Sparling’s agency is authorized to modify or suspend the program.

Vermont

Unlike the California and Oregon laws, which had the backing of green-minded governors, Vermont’s program passed in spite of Gov. Jim Douglas (R). “In Vermont we’ve been taking baby steps forward for the building of a renewable energy system,” said state Rep. Tony Klein, a Democrat and chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which sponsored the bill. “The reason that we’ve been taking baby steps is because we’ve had a governor for the past eight years that really couldn’t see the forest for the trees.”

Douglas said he supports renewable energy but that the bill “will needlessly increase costs to Vermont consumers so as to subsidize this one favored business sector.” But after the legislature twice overrode his veto this year, the governor was forced to allow this bill to become law without his signature.

Washington

Washington enacted a feed-in tariff in 2005 for solar photovoltaic systems, but with an added incentive: Consumers who generate power using components manufactured in-state get paid more. “The legislation is smart enough to say, ‘Why should we jumpstart this industry on our expense, when we can be free riders if we let the Germans and everybody develop the technology?’” said Mike Nelson, director of the Northwest Solar Center at Washington State University, who helped legislators draft the law. Tying the rates to supporting local manufacturers was key to leading the bill toward passage.

Because Washington’s 63 utility companies together wield a lot of power in the state legislature, the support of the Washington Public Utility District Association was essential to moving the bill forward. The group may have been encouraged to get on board, Nelson said, because buying customer-generated renewables is the cheapest way for utilities to reach the state’s renewable energy requirements.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

By Andrew Bolt

Now for the explanations… The University of East Anglia has released statements from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from the CRU, from which the leaked emails of the warming conspiracy were stolen. And they are a disgrace.

The money quotes.

Davies:

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.

No admission of the fact that this “vexatious campaign” has so far resulted in the debunking, for instance, of two infamous “hockey sticks” and the correction of the entire climate record for the United States.

And this denial of allegations of possibly criminal destruction of material under FOI request:

No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.

That’s a denial which seems strongly at odds with the suggestions in the emails themselves, and it’s made before the University has actually done the full check it now promises:

an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests

Nor is there mention of the repeated emails discussing ways to thwart the disclosure of data, scensor sceptical scientists, pay grants into private bank accounts to avoid tax, hide flaws in the work of CRU deputy director Keith Briffa and cheat on deadlines to sneak pro-warmist material into the IPCC. Not a word.

This seems another case of what the emails so clearly exposed – mutual self-protection league of scientists determined to reject even well-founded criticism or scrutiny. Call in an independent investigator.

As for Jones:

First the messianic hype:

we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet

Then this blithe assurance – from a man who sees no debate and acknowledges no sceptic, and seems not to have read all the emails, either:

The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

If so, why do it?

We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

But where’s the explanation for the emails from Jones himself urging colleagues to delete material, and saying he’d rather delete data than hand it over to an FOI request? Where’s the defence against the other revelations – of bullying, censoring sceptics, driving sceptics from science magazines, keeping data from the IPCC, refusing to publicly admit to private doubts and the rest? Again, not a word.

The CRU:

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming. This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

The CRU cites in particular its HadCRU data measuring world temperatures, which was not actually the primary focus of interest in the leaked documents. The Briffa tree-sample “hockey stick” and the cover-up of its flaws was far more damning – but that is not even discussed by CRU.

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.

But those emails are precisely the ones we need answers for. Why is none given?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal.

Yes, we’ve heard that before. But please explain the emails in which IPCC authors privately confess they are frustrated by – and cannot explain – the fact that the world has actually cooled this decade?

This, believe it or not, is the only reference to what was extensively discussed in the emails – the dodgy use of data by CRU deputy director Keith Briffa to compile his now discredit Yamal tree-ring graph:

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data.

Yes, that’s it. No mention of Briffa. No mention that he used an astonishingly small sample to produce “proof” of warming, ignoring a much bigger sample which indicated cooling. No mention of the attempt by Michael Mann to deceive a journalist about the flaws. No mention of the conspiring to produce public solidarity by the scientists in response to the flaws exposed by the Climate Audit blog. No mention of the email expressing surprise that Science even published the work. No mention of the emails in which private admissions of its sloppiness were expressed at the same time that the work was defended publicly.

The only explanation of any substance is of the email in which Jones said he’d “hide the decline” in temperatures indicated by tree rings:

The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline…

Steve McIntyre shows why he doubts that explanation. And where is the defence of the many other references in the emails to hiding evidence of recent cooling, changing data to match our records and the rest?

This is a scandal that needs full and public examination, involving independent experts – by people completely outside the Jones clique. This whitewash will not do.

But here are the full statements:

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.

The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.

Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.

Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.

That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.

Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.

CRU statement

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

By Noel Sheppard

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.

By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:

• ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
• ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
• CBS “Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
• CBS “Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie “New Moon”
• CBS “Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
• NBC “Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
• NBC “Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
• NBC “Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.

It’s not that these aren’t valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?

Also consider that the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast many hours during the day besides their evening programs, and LexisNexis identified no ClimateGate reports in those either (through Monday).

As for CNN, it has been broadcasting for almost 100 straight hours since this story broke, and it appears the so-called “Most Respected Name In News” has yet to devote one second to this scandal.

By contrast, Fox News did at least four reports on this subject on Monday alone. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also done multiple stories on this matter, as has BBC.com.

Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America’s television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy.

Is this a replay of how they ignored September’s ACORN scandal for many days until they were basically forced to cover what had gone viral across the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News?

What is it going to take for these so-called news outlets to begin sharing this subject with their viewers?

On a humorous related note, ABC might not be interested in ClimateGate, but it still is devoted to spreading climate fear.

On Tuesday, ABCNews.com’s top story was, “Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame“

There’s even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

“Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections” made three years ago by the world’s scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

Well, at least ABC is consistent.

Readers are advised that of the cable news networks, only CNN produces transcriptions of all its broadcasts. With this in mind, it is possible that MSNBC has reported on ClimateGate during programs not transcribed. It is also possible that Fox News has reported on ClimateGate more frequently than addressed.

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

By Scooter Van Neuter

(SR) – As the world digests the thousands of emails and documents stolen from Britain’s esteemed East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit that show global warming is as real as new stimulus jobs, the man who got the whole thing started, Al Gore, is nowhere to be found.

Mr. Gore has been the world’s leading proponent of global warming, and his efforts have moved the world community toward industrial restrictions that have exacerbated the global recession. Now many are seeking to question Gore about his part in selling the global warming myth, after the leaked research shows the world is actual getting cooler.

“He was here a few days ago, but then he left. We don’t know where he is,” said an unidentified staff member who answered the phone at Gore’s office. Unofficial sightings of the former vice president have been reported in Mexico, Costa Rica, and most recently, Venezuela.

My comments: As another scientific genius on par with Al once said, “Somebody’s got some ’splain’n to do!” Here’s a tip to finding The Goracle: Look in warm places!

Read More Satire and Humorous Comments at Scooter’s Report

Instinct

(Submitted)

Health Care Hoops

A humorous take on the match between health care providers and the public option. Watch Now…

Obama’s Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Hilarious satire from The Onion… Watch Now…

Story of the week

Turkey on NJ Turnpike causes havoc, evades capture

Authorities have stopped trying to capture a wild turkey that calls Interchange 14B on the New Jersey Turnpike home. The bird has been causing havoc for toll collectors and motorists as it runs across toll booths, plays in traffic, and sits atop toll collectors’ parked cars.  Read More…

And now for cartoons

More Cartoon Humor at Patriot Humor
Read more great articles at The Patriot Post.US

By Alan Caruba

Snow on Palm trees.

The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid.

It means the Kyoto Climate Protocols that nations agreed to on December 11, 1997 and which entered into force on February 16 2005, and all subsequent agreements based on “global warming” have no validity, scientifically or as the basis for public action by any nation, state, province, city or town.

It means that Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist, academician, or politician claiming that something, anything, should be done to avoid “global warming.”

There is no “global warming”, if by that discredited term, you mean a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature, the vast rising of ocean levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the thousands of other things attributed to a massive fraud orchestrated by the IPCC and a vast network of scientists and environmental groups that benefited from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars they received in grants and other payments for their “research.”

Global warming, allegedly the result of rising levels of “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (C02), underwrites the sale of “carbon credits” that industries, utilities, and other entities purchased for the “right” to use energy and as further revelations about the doctoring and virtual invention of false scientific data become known, it means those sales were a complete fraud.

It was never really a secret. You could have read about in “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know” and a dozen other books I can put my hand on this very moment. The only thing missing was the proverbial “smoking gun” and the revelations about the CRU now confirms what the “deniers” and “skeptics” kept saying.

It’s worth keeping in mind that in several Northeastern States, utilities were required by law to purchase these worthless carbon credits and spend millions, not on improvements to the electric grid, not on building more capacity to serve their customers, but on what is worthless paper.

Someone needs to go to jail.

The release of thousands of emails and other data, now believed to be the work of a conscious-stricken CRU insider, will as they are examined in detail reveal what has long been known to those actively opposing the “global warming” fraud. As Christopher Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, recently noted, the CRU and its lead scientists refused for years to release the data which they alleged proved that “global warming” was happening.

This data and the periodic reports of the IPCC are the basis for the existence of the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the “cap-and-trade” legislation awaiting a vote in the U.S. Congress. Horner observed “After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no one can check it.” Horner called it “implausible beyond comprehension.”

And yet the United States and the representatives of many other nations will gather in Copenhagen in December for yet another UN conference on climate change, the now preferred synonym for “global warming.” Basing any international treaty on climate change or global warming is an utterly deceitful act.

The IPCC conference is based on the original Kyoto Protocol and, since there is no global warming, and since the science supporting it has been revealed to be false and misleading, no action should be taken other to disband the IPCC entirely.

All U.S. laws and regulations based on the so-called “global warming” should be reexamined and exorcised from the Congressional Register and from all state bodies of law. Most certainly, “cap-and-trade” should be withdrawn from further consideration.

Beyond that, school books about the environment must now be reviewed to determine how much of their content is invalid as well.

The undoing of this fraud must begin and begin NOW!

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

In the early 90’s i had tickets to see Sade at The Aladdin Theater in Las Vegas. I’d waited years for the chance to see them live (yes, Sade is a band, not just a woman), as back then nobody ever came to Vegas, with the exception of a few crap artists. So this would obviously be something special! Unfortunately, they cancelled the show We were told we could hang onto the tickets in case they rescheduled, or we could return for a refund. Well, with no rescheduled date announced, and my understanding that singer Sade Adu suffered from stage fright, i thought i may as well get my money back. Of course, they did reschedule for later in the year, but when the time came around i was broke.

I will not let that chance pass by again, and maybe, just maybe they’ll come to Seattle to support the new album “Soldier Of Love“? I sure hope so because this clip from the early 90’s just rubs salt in my emotional wound. Here’s Sade and my fave song ‘Cherish The Day’…

Buy It! Amazon or iTunes

Tony
Media Producer
PlayNetwork, Inc.

Stivers and Cagle (center) with M.S. in Publishing students at Entertainment Weekly

“You’re never done,” said Cyndi Stivers, managing editor of EW.com about career trajectories and the importance of staying current.   “Get comfortable with that idea and keep learning. The stuff that comes easily to you may actually be a rare and marketable skill.” Next to her, Jess Cagle, managing editor of Entertainment Weekly (all Time Inc. top editors have this title instead of Editor-in-Chief), nodded in agreement. Both editors had agreed to sit down with NYU’s Master of Science in Publishing students to talk about careers, publishing, and the challenges of entertainment journalism.

Stivers certainly knows what she’s talking about: she began her career during the “hot type” (also known as mechanical typesetting) printing era,  taught her bosses to use computers, and stood at the forefront of the transition to desktop publishing. After launching Time Out New York, she moved to Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and helped found Martha’s 24-hour Sirius satellite radio channel. Now, as top web editor of one of the most popular entertainment reporting brands in the business, Stivers is enmeshed in publishing’s current shift to digital media. In other words, she’s seen the industry in transition and had an active role in those changes. “That’s why I’m not freaked out,” she said. Indeed, the current moment is an exciting one for Stivers, Cagle, and the brand they manage.

For Cagle, who has  been a writer, editor, and reporter both in print and on television, “There’s nothing more gratifying than working on a magazine—that tactile thing that you hold. It was always my first love,” he says. His writing start came during his college stint as an intern and fact checker for People. His secret to success? Barging endlessly into the managing editor’s office and asking to write—until he was finally assigned a music review of a group called Run DMC. Cagle’s take on the emerging rap scene impressed his editors, and he eventually landed key writing, reporting, and editing gigs at People, Entertainment Weekly, and Time.

These days, along with Stivers, Cagle presides over a brand that has kept the pulse of the entertainment industry since the magazine’s launch in 1990, when Time Inc. spun off the popular review section of People into a full-fledged magazine of its own. With just over 12 million readers per month (total paid and verified circulation stands at 1,796,560; the pass along rate is more than six readers per copy; and 60% of readers are female), the magazine today boasts unparalleled access to celebrities. The staff of 80 people includes bureaus in both New York and Los Angeles. Entertainment Weekly does not maintain separate editorial staffs for online and print editions, though the debate over which content shall appear online is an ongoing one. Until recently, the website contained everything the print edition did “day and date,” but now the brand caters to its different audiences more precisely. (Indeed, according to Stivers, there is only an 11% overlap between print readers and those who read the site religiously.)

As savvy editors, Stivers and Cagle maximize every opportunity: with a conference room full of opinionated, eager publishing students, naturally the editors decided to turn the tables and conduct an informal mini focus group. “Tell us what covers you like best and worst,” they said, gesturing at the wall of Entertainment Weekly covers.  Perceptive publishing students quickly came to a pretty clear majority: strong single images (David Letterman with his pants dangling around his knees and Robert Downey, Jr. in costume as Sherlock Holmes or Ironman) won out over cluttered preview covers. Excessive digitization (such as the cover of a manipulated-looking Megan Fox) turned students off; iconic, natural closeups like the Patrick Swayze cover intrigued them.

After Cagle and Stivers headed off to their afternoon meetings, editorial assistant Archana Ram gave students a tour of the offices. Books, albums and CDs of films and TV shows were everywhere, waiting to be reviewed.  Archana showed students one staple of a magazine office that never seems to disappear: the mock-up wall. Editors gather each day for “wall meetings,” a tradition of analyzing and perfecting the order and placement of stories and ads. The wall—a space that existed for editors long before Entertainment Weekly’s launch—was our reminder that tactile, print visuals are still a key element of the media world.

Students on tour at E.W. with editorial assistant Archana Ram (right)

Stivers and Cagle have clearly done a great job of refining entertainment journalism and creating a promising synergy between the magazine and website. For all those who disparage the current fate of the magazine world, Stivers has this strong and clear message: “It is still a very vibrant and exciting space to work in.”

Laura De Silva

This venue has recently been added on Expopedia, the tradefair service finder. Visit our website for more information.

La Halle Tony Garnier
20, pl. Des Docteurs Mérieux
69007 Lyon (France)
More information about La Halle Tony Garnier …

An overview of the available activities for La Halle Tony Garnier …

• Electrical installations / Connections / Facilities
• Stand construction: custom build
• Events / exhibition organisation
• Rental: furniture
• Lettering / Signage
• Floorcovering / Carpet
• Rental: lighting installations
• Webdesign
• Displays (design/fabrication)
• Waste treatment / Refuse disposal
• Cleaning
• Rental: flowers and plants / Floral decoration
• Consultancy
• Rental: audio visual, ICT
• Photography
• Catering / Food & beverages
• Managementsystem / Software
• Translators / Interpreters
• Standdesign / Designstudio
• Communication / Magazines / Online
• Marketing
• Scene construction / Curtains / Decoration material
• Standmaterial / Modular systems / Walls / Woodwork

By Noel Sheppard

Fox News’s Glenn Beck took on the global warming e-mail scandal known as ClimateGate Monday, and really laid into all the high-profile scientists involved.

As NewsBusters reported Friday, hacked e-mail messages to and from folks with direct access to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show a concerted effort on the part of these powerful scientists to manipulate temperature data in order to exaggerate average global temperatures.

As Beck pointed out Monday, those involved also conspired to prevent viewpoints counter to their own from getting published in scientific journals or becoming part of IPCC reports.

“Think about that next time you hear about, oh, ‘the consensus,’ and ‘the science is settled,’ and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals” (Hat Tip Anthony Watts via Bob Ferguson):

GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.

How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, “I have just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn’t stop there.

How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn’t like? Quote “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” end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, “the consensus,” and “the science is settled,” and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals

Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote “…our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted.” But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they’re doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will get Caspar to do likewise.” Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.

So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. “I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one's they're cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims.”

So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn’t intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they’re above that.

Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, “Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam.” Well, I think you’re seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You’d never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.

Indeed.

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

By Nick Loris

1,000 emails and more than 3,000 other documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom publicly revealed by a hacker, or allegedly an inside whistleblower, are rekindling the flame to the global warming debate just weeks before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference where the United States will propose an emissions reduction target. A sample of what the emails exposed, which date back 13 years, includes:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

And:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

And:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Some have argued the quotes have been taken out of context while others say the context is clear as day. Other information was erased completely to prevent it from being obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. And others believe “that this is not a scandal so much as a window on real scientists working on a politicized issue.”

Regardless, it’s not the first scandalous story on global warming and it certainly won’t be the last. John Stossel, on his show 20/20 two years ago, talks to former scientists from the IPCC, the group that said it was a scientific consensus that manmade global warming was a serious threat and must be reversed. One scientist resigned because he disagreed with the study but his name was left on the report; it was only after he threatened to sue that his name was taken off the report. (Check out after the 4:00 mark of the video below).

More recently, it was the Environmental Protection Agency’s suppression of three of its employees. First, the EPA suppressed an internal report from one of the agency’s own, 35-year analyst Alan Carlin – a scientist who specializes in climate change. His report warned that the science of climate change was dubious and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will raise energy prices, hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy without a full understanding of climate change. Later, the EPA suppressed a video entitled, “The Huge Mistake” by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, two lawyers currently working at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – a video that says cap and trade will not work.

It will be interesting to see how ClimateGate plays out, but Superfreakonomics author Stephen Dubner sums up the current state of things: “If you are a fan of science, this is a pretty grim day. If you are a fierce partisan on either side of the global-warming issue, you are either gnashing your teeth or clicking your heels. If you are a government official heading to Copenhagen soon for the climate summit, you are probably wondering what the hell you’re supposed to think now.”

For more information on Copenhagen, be sure to check out Heritage’s Copenhagen Consequences page.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry

By Ronald Brownstein

As the clock ticks down toward the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen next month, a senior administration official said Monday morning that the Obama administration will issue its long-awaited target for U.S. carbon emissions reductions “in the next several days.”

In recent weeks, there has been uncertainty about whether the administration would commit to a specific reduction target before Congress passes climate change legislation, which Senate officials have now acknowledged will not occur until next year at the earliest. But the official said that President Obama’s “view is that as part of a comprehensive accord all the major countries will need to put forward their commitment on emissions.” The U.S. proposal, the official said, “will take cognizance of where we are in the legislative process.”

In June, the House narrowly passed legislation mandating a 17 percent reduction in domestic carbon emissions by 2020. The Senate bill from Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry would impose a 20 percent reduction over that period, but some leading Democrats have already urged that the goal be scaled back. The Obama administration’s failure to identify a goal for U.S. emission reductions has drawn criticism from some other participants in the international talks.

The official also said Obama will make a decision on whether to attend the Copenhagen summit “in the coming days.” Echoing recent comments from other administration aides, the official said that Obama’s decision will turn on whether his participation could help seal an agreement. “If it looks as though the negotiations have proceeded sufficiently that going to Copenhagen would give a final impetus or push to the process, he would be willing to go,” the official said.

The U.S. and other major nations recently abandoned the goal of negotiating a full-scale international climate change treaty at Copenhagen. Instead, they are now seeking to complete a comprehensive but informal agreement that would nonetheless commit the participating nations to pursue emission reductions over the next year while talks on a final agreement continue. Any agreement approved in Copenhagen, the official said, would have “immediate operational impact.”

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal