If We, At MAXINE, Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ...

A central understanding of why nations fail has found that political institutions and the behavior of ruling elites largely determine the economic success or failure of the countries they operate in. If most Americans have experienced virtually no economic gains for decades, perhaps we should cast our gaze on the Constitutional and political factors in/or out of effect throughout our own society. Image Credit: investorcentric

If We, At MAXINE, Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ...

Today on the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Rush mentioned and played a few snippets of a video produced and posted by FreeMarketAmerica.org. The presentation gave light to the how and why America appears to be going backward and failing on the goals and opportunity that had once been hallmarks to a free and Constitutional America.

Ryan Houck, the Executive Director of FreeMarketAmerica.org, a project of Americans for Limited Government, produced this opinion presentation which was inspired by Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil” published in 1964 and 1996.

Paul Harvey was a cultural and news story commentator that became one of the first to reach millions of people with his presentations. He used the medium of radio in the form of a 15 minute syndicated show that generally aired around noon and The Paul Harvey Show helped to stitch part of the fabric of a true American culture or insight on a way to think or view the world around us.

This excerpted and edited from TruthOrFiction.Com -

“If I were the Devil”
By Paul Harvey

I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;

I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;

I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;

I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;

I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;

I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;

I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and invent machines to make it  convenient;

I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that life of animals are valued more than human beings;

I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit;

I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;

I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the minds of every family member for my agenda;

I would attack then family, the backbone of any nation. I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;

I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movies screens, and I would call it art;

I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;

I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agendas as politically correct;

I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, the Bible is for the naive;

I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;

I GUESS I WOULD LEAVE THINGS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY THEY ARE!
[Reference Here]

So how does this approach to understanding give us insights on how American life has changed under a Barack Obama presidency and have us understand the power of progressive thought as it is applied to our every day lives?

This excerpted and edited from NetRightDaily.Com -

If I wanted America to fail (video)
By Ryan Houck

If I wanted America to fail …

To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream — I’d start with energy.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy.  Of course, I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy.  And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes.  I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables.

I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity. Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them.  That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance — and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights.  I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.  And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones.  I’d devise fictitious products — like carbon credits — and trade them in imaginary markets.  I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

If I wanted America to fail …

For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause. Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls.  When everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins — and not people — it would already be decades too late.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it — easier to kill jobs than create them — more fashionable to resent success than to seek it.  When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them.  And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact.  I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions.

I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.  I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans.  I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good.

If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.
[Reference Here]

If we, at MAXINE, wanted a free and Constitutional America to fail ... we wouldn't change a thing either - Vote Obama 2012! ... click link :) and donate now.


** Article first published as "If We Wanted A Free And Constitutional America To Fail ..." at Technorati **

"Light Up" For Earth Hour On Saturday - Earth Hour Is A Fraud

The incandescent light bulb is abused by environmentalists – but the alternative will only raise energy consumption (costs associated with manufacture, etc.). More and more, compact fluorescent lamps are considered to be an interim technology, awaiting the arrival of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs). Image Credit: krisdedecker.typepad.com

"Light Up" For Earth Hour On Saturday - Earth Hour Is A Fraud

Earth Hour, a rolling grassroots movement aimed at tackling Global Warming (read that as the relabeled "climate change") is getting a bunch of press coverage on having governments and individuals turn off their lights to show support for a reduction in greenhouse gasses.

Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007 (as a reaction to Al Gore's over-reaching movie - An Inconvenient Truth) when Earth Hour founder Andy Ridley convinced 2.2 million people to switch off the lights in their homes, offices and businesses for 60 minutes to make a point about electricity consumption and carbon pollution.

Under the Earth Hour initiative, people and Governments are cowed to switch off their lights and electrical appliances from 8.30 pm to 9.30 pm on March 26, 2011 in the name of Anthropogenic Global Warming (human caused climate change).

The major problem with this Earth Hour promotion is that it is an awareness program in favor of a world solution to a problem that is proving itself to be based upon fraudulent data, data that had been shaped or worse, cherry-picked and/or destroyed to prove a conclusion.

Climategate has shown that when one follows the money, power and influence exerted through and from the United Nations IPCC, that the Scientific Method and the personal freedom of individuals are victims to the powers of entities who wish to CONTROL the world through a socialist agenda.

Since proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - human caused climate change - had become the coin of the rhelm with political progressives throughout the world upon which to create the justification to enact laws to tax and limit human activity (read that as to CONTROL all humans in their pursuit of rights and happiness), and that the proof of AGW had been held by only four datasets worldwide, leaves the political progressives with only one dataset upon which to promote their agenda.

LED's at Time Warner Center in New York. Image Credit: krisdedecker.typepad.com

This excerpted and edited from the LA Times -

Southern California landmarks to join in “Earth Hour” event
March 26, 2011 6:05 pm

Notable Southern California landmarks such as the glowing pylons at Los Angeles International Airport and the Queen Mary in Long Beach will go dark between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Saturday night in observance of international "Earth Hour."

Millions of people from more than 100 countries and territories are expected to participate in the event by switching off lights and nonessential appliances in order to conserve energy and demonstrate an awareness of environmental conservation.

At LAX, the 100-foot-tall pylons will glow solid green an hour before the event and then go dark, according to airport officials. The color-changing LAX Gateway pylons were installed in August 2000. Five years later, airport workers installed a new system of LED fixtures that consume 75% less electricity than the previous lamps and burn for 75,000 to 100,000 hours, compared to 3,000 hours for the original lights, according to airport officials.

In Long Beach the Queen Mary's exterior lights will be turned off. The event will be accompanied by entertainment, such as the ship's captain answering historical questions and local competitive cyclists producing energy for a light display. Participants will also receive vendor giveaways. Hotel guests will be asked to turn off their nonessential stateroom lights.

In Santa Monica, the famous Pacific Wheel on the city's pier will go dark. The ferris wheel's emergency lights will remain on.

At the Home Depot Center in Carson, in partnership with Chivas USA of Major League Soccer, will turn off all nonessential lighting of the 27,000-seat soccer stadium, including all lighting in the venue's 42 luxury suites, according to AEG, the company that owns and operates the venue. The Chivas will be hosting the Colorado Rapids. Other AEG facilities throughout the state will also participate, including LA Live, the entertainment hub in downtown Los Angeles.

Earth Hour is organized by World Wide Fund, one of the world's largest independent conservation organizations.
---
This year, Earth Hour is challenging people to go beyond the hour and think of other ways to make a difference after the lights go on. Reference Here>>

If you are among those who know about this fraud that is being perpetrated on governments of the world and do not want to be among the "millions kept in the dark" ... turn on every light for one hour from 8.30 pm to 9.30 pm on March 26 as a revolt against Global Warming alarmists.

Make Earth Hour 2010 shine brightly for freedom of all peoples across the Earth ... for the freedom to pursue their lives with the rights given to them from GOD … not leaders of nations and control-freaks.

Climategate (which came to light in November 2009) has proven that AGW is a fraud so, unfortunately, since Earth Hour was based upon fraudulent data - put forward by the United Nations IPCC, the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, NOAA, and NASA - Earth Hour 2010, as it is intended, is a fraud (suggestion for Earth Hour 2011 - make the gesture for picking up after one's self, clean potable water, planting a tree near a ravaged rain forest, and the like).

So, we at MAXINE say, light up the sky for Earth Hour 2010 and prove that you know the truth ... AGW is a fraud and that climate change on the planet Earth is a normal function of the Earth and Earth processes (volcano eruptions, fires, deforestation, flatulence, chemical reactions of chemicals found on the surface, etc.) in association with the Sun and surrounding planets.

AGW datasets discovery: 75% of all datasets corrupted

About Weather/Climate Events Data - There is an old saying that expresses the thought that 'climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.' This part of the NCDC web site provides summaries of weather and climate events. In essence, climate is a statistical analysis of weather. A basic example of climate would be to say that, for the month of June in a given location, temperatures should be near 80 degrees Fahrenheit and 5 inches of rain should fall. Such climate summaries are provided in a variety of formats, many based on a 'normal' base period of 30 years. Many U.S. businesses use climate and weather data to make informed economic decisions. Some examples of these businesses include agriculture, real estate, law firms, and research institutions. The links below offer climate and weather information for such parameters as temperature, precipitation, hurricane events, and snow extremes. Image and Caption Credit: ncdc.noaa.gov

AGW datasets discovery: 75% of all datasets corrupted

It has been discovered ... or more properly, uncovered ... that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) made a practice of doing what the principles of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) had been doing in their temperature data. The NCDC made a practice out of not including data from cooler temperature stations and thereby exaggerating a warming illusion in the datasets thus corrupting their data with a less than Scientific Method approach.

Reporters from USA Today had been sitting on this revealation for some time now just as the reporters from the BBC had been sitting on the knowledge that has now become known as Climategate.

Since proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - human caused climate change - had become the coin of the rhelm with political progressives throughout the world upon which to create the justification to create laws to tax and limit human activity (read that as to CONTROL all humans in their pursuit of rights and happiness), and that the proof of AGW had been held by only four datasets worldwide, leaves the political progressives with only one dataset upon which to promote their agenda.

Logo of the Japan Meteorological Agency or JMA, the Japanese government's weather service. Charged with gathering and reporting weather data and forecasts in Japan, it is a semi-autonomous part of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. It is also responsible for observation and warning of earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. Image and Caption Credit: Wikipedia

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media -

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted
With today’s revelation on Pajamas Media, only the Japan Meteorological Agency is left to save the warmists. Don’t bet on it.
March 11, 2010 - by Christopher Horner

The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.

Thanks to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility. Not even NASA’s.
----
NASA’s temperature data is so woeful that James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using … CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. … “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
----
So — Climategate’s CRU was just “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.”

But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent. - Two down, two to go.
----
But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere — Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time, exaggerating the warming illusion.

Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.

Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?
Reference Here>>

Why would reporters from major news organizations sit on information this damaging in the pursuit of the truth? Maybe these corporations that own the news outlets are heavily leveraged in one of Al Gore's carbon trading companies ... just speculating with a "follow the money" scenario.

Fraudulent 'Nature Geoscience' study paper on Sea Levels is pulled

In a NASA "what-if" animation, light-blue areas in southern Florida and Louisiana indicate regions that may be underwater should sea levels rise by 9 meters (roughly 27 feet) -- which may not be as likely as scientists once thought. The study paper concluded that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century. Image Credit: NASA

Fraudulent 'Nature Geoscience' study paper on Sea Levels is pulled

On what the authors cite as having a lack of confidence in the data they used to reach the conclusion that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century, authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark pull a study paper published in the journal, Nature Geoscience.

All of this effort to correct the factual record is additional evidence that the Scientific Method was never a consideration as it relates to the agenda that changes in the Earth's climate are directly related to human activity as opposed to sun spots and other natural forces that effect the Earth's atmosphere.

The media loves to attribute all of this recent activity to correct the record on recently discovered "ERRORS" and "SLOPPY MISTAKES" associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The truth of the matter is that the retraction of articles and study papers are two different activities designed to communicate for different purposes. Articles are ... well, stories whereas study papers are used as evidence of discovery and require a greater level of scrutiny before they are ever published.

This excerpted and edited from FOXNews -

Scientists Retract Paper on Rising Sea Levels Due to Errors
FOXNews.com - Updated February 22, 2010

Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea level were rising thanks to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that undermined the results.

The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the dangerous of man-made climate change.

However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results.

"We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.

Since the leak of e-mails from the U.K.'s top global warming scientists in early December, many other errors and sloppy mistakes have been uncovered in leading report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Flaws in weather stations have led some to question claims of rising temperatures, sloppy math led to holes in postulates that the Himalayas were rapidly melting and fears of a man-made food shortage in Africa seem unsubstantiated as well.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall told the Guardian,, "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Reference Here>>

If retractions of study papers were "a regular part of the publication process" as Mark Siddall, one of the authors of the study paper insists, then why is this the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, Nature Geoscience.

Did Nature Geoscience ask about the validity of the conclusions of this study paper given the fact that weekend before last, Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which was where the information the UN based its activity on AGW, in an interview with the BBC conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon?

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

A key figure of the Climategate scandal, Professor Jones further admitted in the BBC interview that there is no evidence the Earth has warmed recently ... and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims. Just a couple of days later, the top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press Thursday, February 18, 2010, that he was resigning after nearly four years.

One wonders what came first in this chicken and egg situation ... did the authors of the study paper that held the conclusion that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century see their "ERROR" first ... or did the journal, Nature Geoscience?

A lie is a lie - no matter how long it takes to be discovered - AGW is a lie!

Climategate: Money and the global warming Flat Earthers

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998. But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! [ctrl-click to launch video of Ed Begley defending AGW with Stuart Varney] Caption Credit: PrisonPlanet.com / Image Credit: blahblahblog

Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists, the new “Flat Earth” society?

Last week, a hacker revealed that a group of powerful, government-backed European scientists are controlling the results of developing global warming theory, and preventing clear debate or the development of opposing scientific evidence to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It appears that certain more objective scientists run the risk --- if they present solid evidence contrary to the popular global warming theories --- realize they run the risk of being made objects of ridicule and marginalized in efforts to gain monies from Governments for research projects designed to discover facts ... that lead to the truth.

So on one side we have the “flat earther” powerful old-world scientists … and on the other side we have the “world is round” scientific-method based researchers who are continuing to discover facts … and thereby, the truth.

Powerful forces within the scientific community have been purposely shaping information in order to bolster a concept that, at best, is speculative and seems designed to lead to one human activity that these people think is perfectly suitable for their point-of-view ... a one-world Government, based upon a socialist model of CONTROL. This CONTROL is initially focusing on calling us to “Save the Earth From Destruction”, since a fear-based program is the only way to get free people to forsake their rights and their freedoms in the concept of climate stabilization and saving humanity from imminent destruction.

South Park's depiction of Al Gore giving a lecture that will give him greater riches through the selling of "Carbon Credits" based upon a flat Earth, AGW paradigm. [ctrl-click to launch "Al Gore EXPOSED" video]. Image Credit: Malagent

This excerpted and edited National Review Online –

Krauthammer's Take
On the announcement that President Obama will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen
NRO Staff, Friday, November 27, 2009

Comments From Wednesday's Fox News All-Star Panel:

The global warming science is not junk science, but it's speculative. It's based on incomplete data. It's based on computer models that rest on assumptions — that, in turn, rest on an understanding of how the globe’s climate controls itself — that [are] extremely incomplete.

So its projections are speculative. But it pretends that, of course, that it is the hardest of all sciences and anybody who is skeptical is a denier — using a term used normally about the Holocaust, which is of course an event that actually happened as opposed to projections in global warming, which are speculative science.

So what you see in the [leaked global-warming] emails are people that are on somewhat shaky grounds. It is not as if there is no science at all in this, but there is contradictory evidence, such as the flattening of the rise in temperatures, which they cannot explain.

And their response is either suppression or manipulation or, even worse, the delegitimizing of — the personal attacks on — skeptics in an attempt to write them out of the journals, to get them fired, and all kinds of nasty stuff. … It puts a lot of their research in question.

I think what's interesting about Obama is he is going to be at the U.N. [conference in Copenhagen] to announce the [new] policy about climate change on the basis of — nothing. He is going to be proposing what the House has passed — that he knows is not going to pass in the Senate.

And we are actually a constitutional democracy where the president can't announce a policy unilaterally. It actually has to pass the two houses of the Congress, and our allies abroad know that, and they’re going to look at this announcement he is going to make and think it … extremely strange.
Reference Here>>

The United States has established no formal policy, yet our President, if allowed to do so, will gladly sign away our sovereignty in order to achieve the socialist political objectives of control found in the Copenhagen accords.

Further, scientists and Government forces who choose to use or believe in their conclusions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact, are no better than previous generations of leaders in their insistence that the Earth is flat. These people should be known from this moment forward as ... "Flat-Earthers"!

From The Free Dictionary:

1) flat-earth·er (flatûrther)
n.

One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: "If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith ... then you are [considered] a flat-earther" (James Fallows).
[From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.]

2) flat-earther
n.
Informal - a person who does not accept or is out of touch with the realities of modern life.

UPDATE - From Atlanta Journal Constitution, ajc blog:

The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports. Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

At Pajamas Media, which has been producing some of the most in-depth coverage of this story, Charlie Martin examines the code further and concludes:

To put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.

Even if the CRU crew are only guilty of promising more than they could deliver, that’s still a hugely important turn of events in the climate-change debate — and reason enough to put the policy debate on pause while this new information is sorted out.

It is time for the Flat Earth global warming scientists who were gaming the system for more and more money, and thereby, more and more prestige and power to get their "A" (for anthropogenic) in the global warming science out of the equation. In fact, they should take their Anthropogenic and pretty much put it where the data don't shine!

Finally, on a more humorous note, check out this video created for Minnesotans for Global Warming by the folks at JibJab.com.

LA Conservative Examiner>>

Science, Facts, Fraud, & "Climategate"

The AGW Myth: An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires.Image Credit: The Minority Report

Science, facts, fraud, and "Climategate"

What are we to believe? ... what are we to believe?

Is nothing sacred anymore?

The simple answer was spoken by Ronald Reagan in his negotiations with the USSR during the run-up to the end of the "Cold War" ... "trust, but verify"!

Last week, it was discovered to what lengths the science based community (and economy) would go to protect what it held on to most dearly ... the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW).

The conspiracy that was propping up this expensive world CONTROL (Copenhagen) gimmick --- has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.
(ht: Watts Up With That)

These exposed hacked emails, exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory, suggest conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change skeptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

The Gore effect in its full glory: The subject of climate change (formerly known as ‘Global Warming‘ until the planet refused to cooperate) is highly controversial and considered a ‘religion’ in some European circles. This climate change concept has now been exposed as a mass fraud perpetrated to gain money, power, and control over all human activity. Image Credit: CapnBob.us

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media -

Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)
November 25, 2009 - by Ian Plimer - Pajamas Media

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.
----
In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings.
----
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.

Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.

Data was manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.

This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.

The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.

You should be angry. Very angry.
Reference Here>>

We, at MAXINE, say Pull The Plug!

Pull the plug on almost every (public and private) expensive, well meaning, based on fraud CO2 reduction "EXCHANGE" (read that as cap & trade) program that exists. Investigate Al Gore and others who have profited greatly on this public money supported science enterprise and SCAM. Pull the plug on all activity envisioned through accords reached and projected through meetings in Kyoto and Copenhagen!

Let us all demand that the Science community gets back to establishing tested scientific FACT ... and thereby, get its truth back ... while we demand a refund on all of our tax money that has been spent (fleeced) on this concept and myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming - let us demand our money back!