The Significance Of Fanaticism And Incompetence In The Climate Research Unit Of The University Of East Anglia
As various observers extend their study of the data that spilled out when a whistleblower opened the CRU files to public view, the extent of the scandal emerges. The rot reaches into all subdisciplines and areas of climate research, tainting data, making previously unquestioned information suspect, producing hopelessly inaccurate projections, and closing off corrective research (because original, unmanipulated data have been destroyed). Climatologists around the world took their lead and drew confirmation for their ideological position from the CRU. Without the contributions of the CRU, the IPCC report would not be what it is.
For a glimpse of just how fundamentally important the CRU’s corrupt science was, see this article. If you have friends who are ignorant of the scandal, direct them to this fine video. Then consider this careful examination of the damage, and finally spend a few minutes on arevealing look at the computer code (which non-computer types will still understand).
The impact of these facts has not been lost on the AGW cult and its apologists, of course. They are circling the wagons, and Al Gore continues to whine about carbon dioxide. Remember: there has been no statistically significant overall temperature increase in fourteen years (in spite of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere); CO2 can not drive planetary warming as is claimed by the cult; Gore’s award-winning film is burdened with multiple errors of fact; and recent research on the troposphere gives the lie to claims of a powerful greenhouse effect. All these truths have been reported (with references) in this newsletter. Here is an extract from the fourteenth number:
…the human contribution to total CO2 levels in the atmosphere is five percent. Both sides in the debate over anthropogenic global warming accept that figure. This Hansen fellow wants to cut 385 ppm (the current level) down to 350 ppm, which means he is asking for a reduction of almost nine percent. That would require humankind not only to stop all production of CO2, but somehow manage to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in quantities virtually equaling its current contribution.
By all means read Prof. Lindzen of MIT on the current dispute over climate.
There is a lot more here, including a large file you can download and study; it gives a comprehensive overview of the current AGW scandal.
You must be wondering how science could deteriorate to such a wretched state. One explanation would say simply that this is just “something we always do.”
The rascals are starting to hiss and spit at each other.
This may seem worth considering, but TLB says it’s nonsense.
The Goreacle backs out. Why?
If you want to keep up with all the freak shows on the midway, you don’t need this newsletter — just check here every day.
Meanwhile the gatekeepers of the three major US electronic news media go their way unperturbed. Make of that what you will; TLB will never forget it. It is unimpeachable evidence of bigotry so profound and corrupt that it absolutely disqualifies ABC, NBC and CBS as deserving of trust. For this deliberate betrayal of the common weal, the blatant propagandists (and the politicians who have tamed the watchdogs) should be put out of business.
And what about this, then? This newsletter, deeply skeptical of both the BBC and the UN, was immediately inclined to consider the post a hoax, but if it can be verified, then it represents welcome movement. Caution: it’s glacial movement, and no, it’s not to be mistaken for a change of mindset, but…it’s some evidence that the two rascals may be behaving uncharacteristically.
A Point To Ponder
Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate.
Found here. The entire commentary deserves your consideration.
Most Freedom Of Information Legislation Is A Failure
The idea is ethical, clear, and admirable: interested parties can use the law to obtain data from governmental agencies and instrumentalities that hold them. This process supports honesty in governance.
Freedom of Information (FoI) laws do not work well, however, and they need to be strengthened.
The recently released documents in the University of East Anglia scandal contain evidence of conspiracy to evade FoI requests, including destruction of incriminating or embarrassing data. Wherever FoI laws are in place, people who attempt the use them often report stonewalling, foot-dragging and the provision of partial data.
Begin your tour of the ineffectiveness of the well-intended legislation with this first-hand account of how FOI laws are shamelessly flouted. If you click on the links in this article and read further, you will come to passages like this:
After half a year of trying to obtain the information from QUB (Queen’s University Belfast, a British government-supported institution), I appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is charged with ensuring that the FoI Act is enforced. My appeal to the ICO was submitted on 24 October 2007. The ICO notified me that an officer had been assigned to begin investigating my case on 14 October 2008. Such a long delay is clearly incompatible with effective working of the Act.
The ICO then contacted QUB, asking for further information. QUB then admitted that almost all the data was (sic) stored in electronic form. Thus QUB implicitly admitted that its prior claims (that the data were on paper — Ed.) were untruthful.
QUB now asserted, however, that the data was (sic) on 150 separate disks and that it would take 100 hours to copy those disks. (These were floppy disks — the type that slide into computers and, prior to the internet, were commonly used to carry electronic data.) It takes only a minute or two to copy a floppy disk, however; so the claim of 100 hours to copy 150 floppy disks is an unrealistic exaggeration.
QUB also said that it considered photocopying a printed version of the data, but that this would take over 1800 hours. As noted above, all my requests were for data that is (sic) in electronic form; moreover, I have repeated this point in subsequent correspondences with QUB. The statement from QUB about photocopying is thus not relevant.
On 22 December 2008, the ICO sent me a letter rejecting my appeal, on the grounds that the time needed by QUB would exceed an “appropriate limit” (as stipulated in the FoI Act). The ICO had accepted QUB’s explanation for refusing to release the data without question, and without discussing the explanation with me. I telephoned the ICO to raise some objections. To each objection that I raised, the ICO case officer gave the same reply: “I’m satisfied with their [QUB’s] explanation.”
I also offered to visit QUB with the case officer, to demonstrate how quickly the data could be copied (e.g. from floppy disks), and to copy the data myself. This seemed particularly appropriate because the officer had told me when she started on the case that she would visit QUB as a standard part of investigation, yet she had not made such a visit. The officer, though, declined my offer, again saying that she was satisfied with QUB’s explanation.
There is a mechanism to appeal an ICO decision, to a tribunal. I told the case officer that I wanted to do so. The officer replied that, in order to file an appeal, I would need a formal Decision Notice from the ICO. I requested a Decision Notice. The officer then informed me that the ICO would send a Notice, but that, because they were busy, it would take about two years to do so.
Source for the above here.
Madding run-arounds like this are all too common. Clearly, bureaucrats of all stripes loathe FoI requests, and fend them off if possible. Stalling and making the applicant jump through numerous hoops and batter down closed doors (which have been illegally closed) are just some of the tactics employed to avoid work — or, in the case of AGW junk science, to hide the truth.
Reform is desperately needed. FoI as it stands is nearly everywhere far less effective than it should be.
No, it is not always a failure, and yes, some governmental agencies do comply in a timely fashion and with complete data. Perhaps the best-known example of FoI success is the Florida election that put G. W. Bush in office and gave Al Gore a new lease on life. A coalition of journalists used the USA’s FoI act to get all the ballots. The newshounds then counted every one, carefully and with strict monitoring; they were sure they would prove that Bush lost. Every precaution was taken to be totally accurate, and the result of the recount was clear. Bush defeated Gore in Florida.
That story was reported once, and never on the front page. Imagine…. Enough said.
Meanwhile the struggle goes on, as reported here. (Don’t forget: the Washington Times is owned and run by a man who claims to be Jesus Christ; whether this impacts the accuracy/integrity of any reports and commentaries in the WT is for you to decide. TLB almost always refuses to link to WT items.)
This Newsletter’s Islamophobia
It is a commonplace that anyone who denounces international Islam and Koranic fundamentalism as rigorously as does TLB will be called islamophobic. The charge is apt.
Its implications are seldom correct, however. The word actually means fear of Islam, not hatred of the faith. There is a difference. And there are substantial differences between Muslims and Islamic sects, as well. Those who ignore these finer points are bigots.
A rational taxonomy of Islam and Muslims will allow an understanding of TLB’s view. Facts:
The beliefs that the Koran and hadith are inerrant records of commands the creator deity issued to mankind, and that those commands are to be taken literally, are causes of religious strife. These fraudulent books — written or inspired by a sociopathic charlatan — are incendiary in the extreme, and those who follow them slavishly are very dangerous. The True Believers’ hatred of most of humanity is madness.
Evolved, moderate Islam does exist, and it can be as respected as are many other religions. There are Muslims who ignore the Koran’s command to hate Jews, and violence is not understood by all Muslims as the mandate of heaven. In those respects, truly sophisticated Muslims are like most Christians and Jews: they simply ignore the bloody-minded nonsense in their “holy” books and live by decent standards.
Fear of Islam comes from the predominance of fanatical elements in the faith, the horrific internecine violence within Islam, and perhaps most of all from the complicity of the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims in one form or another of lunatic jihad.
This alarming tolerance of the murder of non-Muslims contrasts sharply with the attitudes of ethically evolved cultures. In a non-Muslim religious community that is divided into fundamentalist and moderate elements, the moderates are typically vocal and active in opposing the doctrinaire literalists. This is not at all the pattern found in virtually all Muslim regions.
Recall that peaceful Pakistani immigrants in Great Britain have reared children who become engineers, physicians, professionals — and murdering terrorists who are hidden by the Muslim community’s code of silence.
Having adopted misguided immigration policies, Western governments put themselves at a severe disadvantage, for Muslims tend not to assimilate. Instead they are likely to work to bring down the Liberty that shelters them. In instance after instance, the diverse Muslim community, including its ethically evolved members, supports its Islamofascist elements with passive-aggressive resistance to law enforcement. Muslims are very often more loyal to their violent radical co-religionists than they are to the secular authority that seeks to prevent violence.
This apartness, the demarcation drawn not by the greater non-Muslim society but by the minority Muslim community, is severely inimical to good citizenship. Too, it illustrates the error made by those who believe that Muslims are in all significant ways just another religious subdivision within the tolerant community, rather like Presbyterians or Methodists.
What answers are there? Depending on the specific problem posed by various segments of the Islamic world, Western Civilization can cope with the challenge of Islam if it looks to three strategies:
First, violent jihad must never and nowhere be permitted to succeed. It must be opposed with force and its exponents must be targeted. The fanatics can never be totally defeated, but they must be shown always to be unable to reduce the resolve of their victims or gain ground on them. However long it takes, violent opposition to Islamofascism must be prosecuted until Muslims stop initiating hostilities.
Second, the authorities and the citizenry must understand that Muslim citizens, while they deserve the benefit of the doubt, are genuinely distinct and do pose unique problems for peace officers. Those problems will involve how law enforcement can be aware of events without violating the constitution, how to interpret public behavior correctly, and how to refine procedures so search warrants can be issued and executed to good effect. Privacy must be defined more precisely, and the right of the public and authorities to know what is going on behind closed doors will have to be debated.
The great danger here is that necessary caution will give rise to bigotry and discrimination. Unfortunately, Muslim immigrants can bring out the worst in their hosts. Note that many of them plan to exploit that fact.
Third, further Muslim immigration to Western nations should be halted. Until and unless it is clear that acculturation proceeds more often than not, and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims genuinely seek to become partners in enhancing and defending Liberty, there is no reason to admit more Muslims to the West.
The operative but overlooked fact is that nowhere in Muslim teaching is there a valid analogue to the Western concept of Liberty.
In Islam, the prime value is the submission of the individual to the will of a supernatural entity whose puerile, bloodthirsty bluster betrays the hoax.
While a religious test for admission to Western society is not a congenial concept, an ethical test should apply. Those who wish to become residents of free societies must first love and seek to defend the foundational principles of those communities. Unfortunately not all people can qualify.
Some have shown that because of their misunderstanding of reality, their mere presence puts our culture at a unique and extraordinary risk. These genuinely alien beings have no standing to demand to be admitted to Western society.
Excellent news: Fowler is back, and, according to this critic, better than ever. This is the perfect Xmas gift for anyone who considers literacy a goal.
Israeli (?) bugs listening in on UN meetings in Switzerland? Just like those pesky Jews. Has anyone considered that of all international organizations that claim to be fair and objective, the UN is by far the biggest enemy of Israel, and that if the Israelis are not spying on it, they are out of their minds?
The FBI uses undercover informants to gather information, and, according to some sources, makes a mess of some of its efforts. Two claims of FBI blunders have been lodged, and they have some credibility.
Hidden in this article about cyber-warfare is a fact most readers will miss: it’s not patriotic to use Microsoft products on the internet. No, really.
Olympics effort redux?
A photo of a “secret” plane raises more questions than it answers. The story is interesting, though.
What, this again? Yes. You see, the major media won’t touch it — because it involves an Obama crony. Who’s Obama’s role model, anyway? Is it Woodrow Wilson, or Ferdinand Marcos?
Remember when the snotty elite laughed at Sarah Palin for saying that her son had gone to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda? (He had done exactly that, and this newsletter proved it.) Now even Obama is admitting, albeit tacitly and in a low voice, that the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is nothing new. Was it a significant fact when Bush imposed regime change? Yes. The success of the invasion not only put an end to AQ agents finding safe haven and training recruits in Iraq, it told bin Laden and Company that the fight had been carried not only to Afghanistan, but to the Muddle East. Moreover, it was proof that the USA meant business — for the long haul, not just for a hit and run raid or two. Centrally located Iraq was and still is crucial in the defense of Western Civilization. Ask any Israeli.
Canadians, untrustworthy? Canucks spying on the USA? Well, any nation that has human rights commissions like those tolerated in Canada can’t be all good. Keep an eye peeled, Uncle Sam — your neighbors to the north are, well, peculiar. As this newsletter has made clear, folks who think the freedoms of speech and press are alien concepts can’t be fully-fledged members of Western Civilization.
Addendum to the above link: How did the Canadian news media do in their handling of the AGW scandal? Find out here.
Californians, pay attention! Your state is a mess, and a lot of that is due to the fact that you often elect morons. For the sake of rational governance, dump bloviating bovine Barbara Boxer before she does yet more damage. She’s a train wreck.