Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report
In the wake of Climategate, common sense deniers like to say that there is lots of other evidence for global warming, in addition to that which has been debunked by the East Anglia whistleblower. Actually, however, the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak. At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:
In the post-dawn hours on Thursday the Senate passed ObamaCare 60 to 39, in the first vote on Christmas Eve since 1895 and after the longest consecutive session in Congress since World War I. We are thus heading toward the first U.S. entitlement program dragged across the finish line on a straight partisan majority, a bill that even its most fervent supporters admit is "flawed" but better than nothing. It is far worse than nothing.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who may be unaware that he is currently enjoying his final term in the U.S. Senate, claims to have the 60 votes he needs to muscle ObamaCare through his chamber. God help us if he does. The current iteration of ObamaCare is classic Mussolini-style Fascism (i.e. corporatism). It forces Americans at gunpoint to purchase health insurance, a requirement never before imposed on the American people.
Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.
His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone
Former Vice President Dick Cheney returned fire Wednesday after the Obama administration claimed it had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush White House hadn't any key questions about the war and left it "adrift."
Obama's "safe schools"...that's right, SAFE SCHOOLS...czar, Kevin Jennings
When I was a teenager, my friends and I joked about NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
Until I was in my twenties, I thought my friends had just made it up. Surely there was no such organization that campaigned to allow open sexual relations between boys and men — a concept that did not just involve statutory rape, but offended the profound decency of a moral public.
Sadly, NAMBLA is very real and today steps right out of the darkest pits of immoral human behavior and straight into the White House. Sean Hannity has been all over this story and we are just now coming to terms with how sick and demented the thinkings and associations of White House Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings are.
Yes, there are death panels. Its members won't even know whose deaths they are causing. But under the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, death panels will indeed exist - oh so cleverly disguised as accountants.
The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare payments to doctors. The key sentence: "Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization." Translated into plain English, it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent.
More>>> FOX News Poll: Opposition to Health Care Reform Grows
A majority of Americans oppose current health care legislation and think the plans being considered cost too much, give too much power to Washington and take decisions away from them and their doctors.
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."
Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
It's been a long time since James Carville said the most famous thing he ever said: It's the economy, stupid. That famous phrase was in fact part of a sign hung in the Clinton campaign headquarters in 1992. There was a sense among the electorate in the fall of 1992, not entirely accurate, that the economy was foundering under George H.W. Bush. Bush lost control of the public's perception of the economy, and then he lost the presidency.
Why with unemployment heading above 10% was Barack Obama on TV last night draining a dwindling reservoir of presidential capital on health care? Redesigning the 17% of the economy that is health care appears to be the siren song of Democratic presidencies. Mr. Obama's crew has famously said it wouldn't make the mistakes the Clintons made on health care. How calling forth both houses of Congress in prime time to join him in betting the ranch on health care qualifies as smarter politics than the Clintons is a mystery.
Unfortunately, Indians are not getting healthier under the federal system. In 2007, rates of infant mortality among Native Americans across the country were 1.4 times higher than non-Hispanic whites and rates of heart disease were 1.2 times higher. HIV/AIDS rates were 30% higher, and rates of liver cancer and inflammatory bowel disease were two times higher. Diabetes-related death rates were four times higher. On average, life expectancy is four years shorter for Native Americans than the population as a whole.
Rural Indians fare even worse, as data from Sen. Baucus's home state show. According to IHS statistics, in Montana and Wyoming, Indians suffer diabetes at rates 20% higher, heart disease 12% higher, and lung cancer rates 67% higher than the average across all IHS regions in the country. A recent Harvard University study found that life expectancy on a reservation in neighboring South Dakota was 58 years. The national average is 77.
We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation – or, at any rate, its "mainstream" media culture – declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's passing, America's TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household
On Monday the Obama administration released a 2004 CIA inspector general's report on the agency's detention and interrogation program. Yesterday, the New York Times reported some gruesome abuses on its front page, above the fold: "Excessive physical force was routinely used, resulting in broken bones, shattered teeth, concussions, and dozens of other serious injuries over a period of less than two years, a federal investigation has found. . . . [D]espite rules allowing force only as a last resort. 'Staff at the facilities routinely used uncontrolled, unsafe applications of force, departing from generally accepted standards,' said the report."
Actually, these abuses were not committed by the CIA. They were committed by officials at four juvenile residential detention centers in New York state. The details came from a Justice Department report that recounted how "workers forced one boy, who had glared at a staff member, into a sitting position and secured his arms behind his back with such force that his collarbone was broken."
While officials at the New York state detention facilities failed to report the abuses ("the ombudsman's office charged with overseeing the youth prison centers had virtually ceased to function," the Times reported), the CIA inspector general's report describes a well-run, highly disciplined CIA interrogation program, where clear guidelines were established and abuses or deviations from approved techniques were stopped, reported and addressed.
We're still sorting through the health-care deal Henry Waxman struck with Blue Dog Democrats recently, but one 11th-hour revision stands out. Namely, veterans will now be "exempt from the requirements of the legislation."
That's how Mr. Waxman's staff put it in a memo to reporters earlier this month, announcing amendments that the House Energy and Commerce Committee included before passing the bill 31 to 28. These changes were designed to assuage the "grave concerns" of the American Legion, Amvets and others about how their members could be penalized by new taxes and insurance regulations.
We're delighted service members will be let off this particular hook, but why doesn't everyone else warrant the same dispensation? Or to put it another way, Mr. Waxman is conceding that his plan will interfere with all insurance arrangements that aren't exempted, including private options that are working well.
As the old Irish toast goes, may your sins be judged by the Senate ethics committee. Actually that's not an Irish toast but it must be the fervent hope of every politician who received a "Friend of Angelo" loan from former Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo. Late last week the six Senators on the ethics panel dismissed complaints against Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd with a mere admonishment about the appearance of impropriety.
The three Republican and three Democratic Senators say they conducted an exhaustive probe and inspected 18,000 pages of documents. They say they found "no substantial credible evidence as required by Committee rules" that the Senators received mortgage rates or services that weren't commonly available to the public, and thus did not violate the Senate gift ban.
We'll have to take their word that the evidence wasn't "substantial," because they didn't release those documents, nor did they encourage Mr. Dodd to release any of his records. Readers will recall that in February Mr. Dodd staged a peek-a-boo release with selected reporters but did not allow anyone to have copies of the documents. If the evidence was so clear-cut, why the months of stonewalling?
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That's right — $100 million with an "m," an imponderably small slice of this year's expenditures.
When Blue Dog Democrats revolted over the cost of ObamaCare 10 days ago, the White House quickly came up with a plan to give them political cover: a government board that would tell Congress how to restrain costs. Well, so much for that, as the Congressional Budget Office has now exposed this idea as another false economy. But it’s worth understanding the reason because it also exposes the core problem with government-run health care.
The White House just keeps bumping up against a little thing I like to call reality. [HT: Hot Air]
Update: Ed at Hot Air has a new post in which he notes that Orszag appears to be attacking the CBO directly now, saying the following on Friday:
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said the CBO’s analysis — which it relayed to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday — could feed a perception of the office’s bias toward “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.”
Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.
In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made.
And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."
Does Obama's science adviser advocate compulsory abortions and putting chemicals into the water supply to sexually sterilize human beings? Some well-known conservative bloggers and columnists have recently been repeating this information, based on revelations on a website strangely called Zombietime. But an analysis by Accuracy in Media has determined that some of the most sensational charges against Dr. John P. Holdren fall short of the mark. Still, he has a lot to answer for, including his belief in a "Planetary Regime" to manage the world.
That Holdren endorsed the concept of a "planetary regime" is shocking, considering that he is now a top White House official. In fairness, however, it doesn't seem much different from Pope Benedict XVI's endorsement of a "World Political Authority," which was included in his recent encyclical. Devotion to some form of world government seems popular in religious and government circles these days, especially in the age of Obama.
The difference, of course, is that Holdren was confirmed by the Senate of the United States and his salary is paid by U.S. taxpayers. However, Senators may not have been aware of many of his views
After two days of hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, it appears that her strategy for confirmation is to contradict herself at every turn. She spent much of yesterday claiming not to have meant the things she actually said or not to have ruled the way she actually ruled. For the first time, therefore, it is not just her judgment but also her integrity that is in question.
The U.N. has been rocked by scandals involving U.N. "peacekeepers" who sexually abuse women and children, the failure to protect populations in danger of genocide, and financial corruption. It is an anti-American institution founded by a Soviet spy that is currently headed by a Communist Catholic Priest, U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto, who recently gave a speech at a U.N. financial conference on the need to protect "Mother Earth."
So when the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI, endorsed a "World Political Authority" in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, it was big news that could only be understood in the context of the growing power and influence of the U.N. The timing was also significant. The Papal statement was issued just before a meeting of the G-8 nations, including the U.S., Russia and China, and before the Pope's meeting with President Barack Obama.
Behind The Meltdown: Many Americans are unaware of the causes of the greatest economic calamity of our lifetime. A new congressional report details how government politicized housing, wrecking the economy.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has released a report that every American should read.
The analysis details how powerful Democrats in Congress insisted that government-subsidized housing be geared to serve the purposes of social justice at the expense of sound lending.
Here are some highlights of Issa's blow-by-blow account:
The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.
The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such "disparate impacts" on test results could be used to show discrimination.
In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.
The court's conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.
('The "conservative majority" said...' Well, gee, Barnes, such a shame that the liberal minority still fails to see the injustice in discriminating against one group to correct the past wrongs done to another group. Great decision, SCOTUS. It was the only correct one. - Roland)
After being briefed today on President Obama’s firing last week of Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the president did not abide by the same law that he co-sponsored – and she wrote – about firing Inspectors General.
“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.”
McCaskill, a key Obama ally, said that the president’s stated reason for the termination, “Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason
Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky while at Wellesley College. The following excerpt is from that paper...“Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’ His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers.”
Perhaps in your world, Madam Secretary—certainly not in mine.
The point here is that “Rules for Radicals” has had a far reaching impact, especially on “community organizers” from Chicago—Alinsky’s home turf. America’s current POTUS, for example, is no doubt familiar with Alinsky’s “blurred vision.” This is a term I’ve taken from the book, where Alinsky describes the organizer’s mental map as a “blurred vision of a better world.” Blurred indeed.
Running throughout “Rules for Radicals” is a whiny refusal to take personal responsibility for anything. It is always “their” fault.
Who “they” are, and what “their” faults are, changes from scenario to scenario, but one thing is constant—the “haves” are to blame for the state of the “have-not’s.”
Energy: Exxon Mobil's surprise decision to join Trans-Canada on a vast Alaska gas pipeline project is a big step toward making the U.S. self-sufficient in domestic energy. By defying naysayers, Sarah Palin is now vindicated. It must be sweet vindication for Alaska's governor.
The march away from a credible, accountable judiciary took another leap yesterday, as a 5-4 Supreme Court majority gave federal judges unprecedented oversight of state court recusal standards. This is more damaging than it sounds.
West Virginia's Massey coal company CEO Don Blankenship spent some $3 million in 2004 on the judicial election of Brent Benjamin to the state Supreme Court of Appeals, including donations to outside groups. When a case involving Massey later came before Judge Benjamin's court and he ruled in favor of Massey, the loser sued and claimed a denial of due process because the judge didn't recuse himself. According to the Supreme Court's majority in Caperton v. Massey, a judge who receives support that has a "significant and disproportionate influence" on his election can't then be trusted to be neutral on the bench.
Heretofore, judges needed to recuse themselves on due process grounds only if they had a direct financial interest in a case, and in criminal contempt cases in which the judge provoked the original courtroom outburst. Under Justice Anthony Kennedy's Caperton standard, judges must now recuse if there is a "probability of bias." But this would seem to be open to, well, judicial interpretation. If $3 million in donations meets the probable bias test, what about $1 million, or $10,000? For that matter, should we assume judges feel a "debt of hostility" toward those who contribute to opponents?
In recent years, astronomy went over to the dark side and has yet to return. Baffling entities called dark matter and dark energy are the two biggest mysteries facing 21st-century astronomers. Their arrival is enough to turn Darth Vader dark green with envy.
It has been a jolt to learn that the universe we've become so familiar with -- all those planets, stars, swirling galaxies and glowing gases -- is just 4 percent of the overall content. Six times more consists of another type of matter altogether, possibly a subatomic particle yet to be discovered. The remaining three-quarters? A bizarre energy -- an anti-gravitational pressure -- that permeates space-time and has the potential to rip our cosmos apart in the distant future. We are mere flotsam within this covert cosmic realm
Shortly after his release from Guantanamo Bay prison in 2004, Mohammed Ismail was quoted as saying, “They gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons.”
Ismail was repatriated to Afghanistan but recaptured in May 2004 for participating in an attack against U.S forces in Kandahar. He was carrying a letter confirming his membership with the Taliban.
Said Mohammed Alim Shah (also known as Abdullah Mahsud), after his release from Guantanamo in March 2004, kidnapped two Chinese engineers that October and directed a suicide attack in April 2007 that killed 31 people, according to the Pakistan government. He blew himself up after this attack to avoid capture by Pakistani officials.
Those are just two former Gitmo detainees who were released and confirmed to have returned to terrorism.
(Surprise, surprise. Well done, Mr. Obama. Sixteen months before we can start electing adults to office again, people. Sixteen months. - Roland)
Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
The content on Thesaloon.net, except all Submissions (defined below) is owned by or licensed to Thesaloon.net, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the United States and international intellectual property laws and conventions. Content on Thesaloon.net is provided for personal use only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any purpose without the prior written consent of the respective owners. You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of Submissions of third parties obtained through the Thesaloon.net website for any commercial purposes.
Thesaloon.net permits the submission of text, photographs, opinions, comments and/or other forms of communication submitted by you and other users ("Submissions") and the hosting, sharing and publication of such Submissions. You agree that you are solely responsible for your own Submissions and affirm, represent, and/or warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize Thesaloon.net to use all patent trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the Submissions in the manner contemplated by Thesaloon.net. You retain all ownership rights in your Submissions. However, by submitting the Submissions to Thesaloon.net, you hereby grant Thesaloon.net a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Submissions in connection with Thesaloon.net and Thesaloon.net’s business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of Thesaloon.net (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels/outlets.
Thesaloon.net does not permit or allow copyright infringing activities and/or infringement of intellectual property rights on Thesaloon.net's website, and Thesaloon.net will remove any and all content and Submissions if properly notified that such content and/or Submission infringes on another's intellectual property rights.
