Pelosi channels her inner Mussolini?

November 30, 2009

Nice to know that Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of shoving nationalized health care down our throats:

As Harry Reid’s health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn’t the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are “nonsensical,” because “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

Anyone with a modest knowledge of the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution (Okay, okay. That lets out 98% of the population) should be aghast at reading that. Her assertion isn’t just questionable; it’s not merely wrong. No, Speaker Pelosi’s belief in the unlimited power of Congress is utterly antithetical to every principle on which this country was founded. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s anti-constitutional. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams would be doing a collective face-palm if they were around to hear this.

For Pete’s sake, Nancy, our Revolution was fought against the tyrannical actions of the national legislature in London. Do you really want to be the George Grenville of the 21st century? Should we be comforted to know that the third-highest officer in our government is a constitutional illiterate and a barely concealed statist?

The Constitution established the federal government as a limited government of defined powers; those powers not expressly granted to it were reserved to the States or the People. It was intended to check and limit the power of the legislature, not grant unlimited authority to remake the nation according to your progressive fantasies, you nitwit! Article 1, section 8 defines Congress’s power. You might try reading it sometime.

I’ve finally figured it out: the use of the word “democratic” in “Democratic Party” is an ironic joke.

And the joke’s on us.

(hat tip: Weekly Standard)


This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

November 29, 2009

An excellent summary in The Telegraph of what happened in ClimateGate and why it’s significant. The money quote:

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Do read the whole thing.


Who’s who in ClimateGate

November 29, 2009

You can’t tell the players without a program:


The dog ate my data!

November 29, 2009

The scientific-fraud scandal that’s rocked the Global-Warming Cult is rapidly moving from outrage to farce. First the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) refused for years to release their raw data and programming code, conspiring to resist UK FOIA requests. Then, after emails and code were leaked indicating extensive data manipulation and efforts to corrupt the peer-review process, word comes today that CRU has agreed to release their data. A victory for transparency, right? It’s the beginning of the restoration of trust in science, no?

No.

In fact, the London Times Online reports that the data, if it is released, is not the raw data. The CRU threw that away.

Climate change data dumped

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

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

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

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

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

In other words, “Sure we’ll share the data. And, aren’t we nice? We cleaned it up and made it all pretty for you. Look! A hockey stick!

I’d ask how dumb they think we are, but they’ve already answered that question.  Waiting

The CRU data set has been one of the primary sources for researchers around the globe conducting their own investigations into global warming. The refusal to share the raw data itself is bad enough (Good science depends on letting others test and challenge your theories.), but then to admit you tossed the original data, that only the manipulated data is available and that others will just have to trust that your corrections were appropriate is nothing short of appalling. Without the original, raw, unadjusted data to test against, the CRU data set is worthless and likewise any research based on it

And yet these are the same people who demand we regulate and massively tax the world’s most productive economies to deal with a crisis they claim is proved … by this same data.

The real crisis is when crooked science meets stupid politicians.

RELATED: More on the revealing comments hidden in the CRU’s program code; Hot Air on weird science; Michael Mann, the originator of one of the now-discredited hockey sticks, is now under investigation by his employer, the University of Pennsylvania, in the wake of the CRU revelations. Information on the other debunked hockey stick. Climate Skeptic translates the double-speak in the CRU’s announcement that it had destroyed the raw data. Sister Toldjah wants a show of hands to see who believes the CRU’s excuse.


Climategate’s Perry Mason moment

November 28, 2009

Quote of the day, from Steve Milloy:

First, by admitting that we “are nowhere close” to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.

That’s case closed, right there. But there’s more.

To find out what else there is, and why this is a “Perry Mason moment,” read the whole thing.

After these last few revelations (and you can bet there’s more to come), the “science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming has about as much credibility as a game of three-card monte.

TRANSPARENCY: Don’t take my word (or anyone else’s) for it – search the emails in question for yourself.


A trillion for ObamaCare? Piker!

November 28, 2009

I’ll see your measly one-trillion dollars and raise you five-and-a-half trillion more:

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019).  Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Here’s where things get really ugly.  TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.”  Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

And this yet another example of why the progressives in Congress don’t want anyone to actually read the bills before voting on them: we might actually learn what disasters-in-waiting they really are.

(hat tip: Hot Air)


Good Climategate reporting from the MSM?

November 28, 2009

Yesterday I took a couple of well-deserved potshots at the American media for doing its best to downplay the growing scandal over the ClimateGate emails. Well, in the “to be fair about it” department, CBS posted a very good article at its web site: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails.

Color me surprised.


Climategate and the significance of the emails

November 28, 2009

PJTV‘s Allen Barton interviews Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the implications of what’s been found in the emails leaked from the UEA Climate Research Unit:

RELATED: The CEI is suing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies to force it to release its raw data regarding climate change. Like the CRU, NASA/GISS has refused to make its data available.

What are they afraid of?


ClimateGate links

November 27, 2009

It may be a holiday here in the US, but the news and revelations about the scandal that may sink the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming didn’t take the weekend off. Here are some of the more interesting links to cross the Public Secrets case desk:

There’s never just one:

The biggest item, and the one that has to have cultists and alarmists worldwide burning candles to Al Gore, is news that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit may not be the only site to have manipulated data to fit a preferred result. New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been accused of manipulating data to show a warming trend where none existed. Lawrence Solomon of Canada’s Financial Post reveals a connection from NIWA back to the corruption-tainted CRU, while James Delingpole comments on the deepening shame.

It seems the arrogant priests of the AGW cult have at last met their Nemesis.

The Silence of the Lambs American Media:

You would think that a scandal of this potential magnitude would be on all the networks and in all the major papers of the United States.

You would be wrong. They are doing their level-best to ignore or downplay this crisis in AGW orthodoxy. In fact, the Russians are covering this more honestly than the American press:

Hang your heads in shame, MSM. The Russian press has more integrity than you.

Update: The New York Times refuses to publish the leaked emails, citing ethical concerns, yet it had no problem releasing national secrets in wartime. Ethics. Yeah. Sure.  Waiting

Other Links:

Senior members of the opposition Liberal Party in Australia have resigned in protest of the Party leader’s support for a cap-and-trade scheme. Though no direct link to ClimateGate was drawn, it’s a reasonable inference thanks to the timing.

Perhaps this is a good time to reread the late Michael Crighton’s speech about environmentalism as a religion.

Oh, my. The revered BBC had the CRU’s files a month ago and didn’t say a thing. Media bias at the Beeb? Say it ain’t so!

An excellent summary of the significance of the CRU email and program files. I disagree with the author’s conclusion after item four (I think this sets AGW theory back to square zero), but the summation itself is good.

I have to ask: without utter and complete transparency on the part of advocates of man-caused climate change, how can anyone trust their claims in the future? They have to release all raw data and make available the raw code of their programs. If they’re right, why hide anything? Nothing else will do.

Their credibility is in ruins.


Eric Holder lies

November 26, 2009

I don’t have any proof of that, of course, but I find it absolutely incredible -as in, “I don’t believe it”- that he didn’t tell the President about his decision to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City for trial in a federal court until after the President was in the air, heading for Asia:

Second, we have learned since the announcement that Holder apparently did not consult Obama before deciding to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists back to Ground Zero. No further evidence is necessary that Holder regards the war on terrorism as a law enforcement matter. In a decision with obvious national security implications, the attorney general consulted with neither the commander in chief nor the secretary of defense. He employed a process that might be more appropriately applied to the trial of a mafia kingpin or a serial killer.

And what a process. In an interview on Jim Lehrer’s NewsHour, Holder described consulting with Justice and Defense department prosecutors and staffers. The rest of the interview deserves to be quoted at length:

Lehrer: Did you run [the decision] by President Obama?
Holder: Just informed him of the decision….
Lehrer: So you just told him what your decision was; you didn’t say, “What do you think about it, Mr. President?”
Holder: Nope. Told him last night, or had relayed to him what I was going to do last night while he was on Air Force One on his way to Asia.
Lehrer: Did you talk to anybody outside the government?
Holder: I talked to my wife —
Lehrer: Yes? Okay.
Holder: — about what she thought. And I actually talked to my brother, who’s a Port Authority police officer who served —
Lehrer: Oh, is that right? Yes.
Holder: — in New York, New Jersey, and who lost friends and colleagues on 9/11 in the towers. And I talked to them about what — was it appropriate to bring it in New York, the symbolic significance of it, the possibility of getting a good and fair, detached jury.

Michael Gerson, the author of the article, rightfully calls this “embarrassing.” And he also justifiably excoriates Holder for his miserable, incompetent performance in front of a Senate committee explaining his decision and rips him a new one for his mind-boggling decision to give jihadists a public stage in Manhattan, not to mention the security risks such a trial poses for the city

But, I’m sorry, I don’t agree with Gerson’s acceptance of Attorney General Holder’s story. The man may not give a damn about voting rights, he may be corrupt as hell, he may be a far-Left ideologue bent on a witch hunt against the CIA, but he is not so stupid as to be unaware of the political risks to his boss, the President, in any move to try KSM in civilian court – especially just blocks from Ground Zero. It’s inconceivable. Does he really expect us to accept his word that he only consulted his wife and brother, and then only about jury selection and symbolism?

How dumb does he think we are?

No. In my opinion, he consulted the President before this decision was announced, and Obama gave his blessing, with the understanding that Holder takes the fall if (and when) something goes wrong. Already the polls are running massively against this move, and Obama’s own numbers are tanking, probably partly as a result of this. Holder is the designated sacrificial lamb donkey. He’ll take the heat for this decision, but the real responsibility is President Obama’s.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I suppose it is possible that Holder is telling the truth about how he made the decision and when he told Obama, but what does that tell us? First, that Holder really is incredibly stupid, if this is true. Anyone in the corridors of power in DC who could not see the ramifications of this move has a cranial density far surpassing that of lead. Second, it means President Obama is both incompetent and weak. His chief law enforcement deputy makes a decision of this magnitude without any significant consultations with other departments or the president, and then blindsides Obama with it after he’s off on a major foreign trip? And Obama didn’t fire him on the spot?? Is he too weak to fire his own Attorney General or too clueless to see the mess Holder dumped on him? Regardless, if Obama was not consulted and didn’t override Holder on the spot when he found out, it makes the President look very bad.

Thus, I still lean toward the first explanation (Obama knew and approved), if only because the implications of the second are in their own way scarier.


Climategate the music video

November 24, 2009

You just knew it was coming:

Mockery, the best weapon.

(via Watt’s Up With That?)


Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

November 24, 2009

I used to love Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, and I’m glad to see Iowahawk continuing the tradition of documenting wildlife in its natural state. In this episode, he looks at The Secret Life of Climate Researchers:

Within minutes of arriving on campus, the migratory researchers approach the entrance of the Climate Research Unit and perform the secret credential dance, fiercely displaying their prominent curriculum vitae. This signals to the security drone that they can be trusted with the sacred electronic lanyard badge that will grant them entrance to the hive’s inner sanctum.

During the upcoming research season, this hive alone will produce over 6 million metric tons of grant-sustaining climate data guano, but until recently little was known about the elusive genus of homo scientifica living inside. Where do they come from? What strange force draws them here year after year? In order to unravel the mystery, Iowahawk Geographic documentary filmmaker David Burge undertook a painstaking one-week project to finally capture the climate researchers in their native habitat.

In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive’s security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive’s social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive’s internal security tapes and email files. Success.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Read and enjoy the whole thing.  Rolling on the floor

RELATED READING: Background on the scandal some are calling (predictably) ClimateGate here and here.


Quote of the day

November 24, 2009

R. S. McCain on the major media’s continued “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to the growing Inspector-General scandal:

Here you’ve got Johnson, accused of sexual misconduct by three different St. HOPE students, and one of the St. HOPE board members — who also happens to be Johnson’s fiancee — is trying to get the Inspector General to drop his investigation, in the middle of Johnson’s 2008 campaign for mayor. The accused sexual predador is a close friend of the president, and Little Miss Predator-Enabler is the head of D.C. public schools?

On what planet is this not front-page news?

More on IG-gate here and here.


Hope! Change! Cover Ups! The Chicago Way!

November 23, 2009

Today must be Scandal Day: first ACORN and now evidence that the White House lied to Congress about its involvement in the firing of AmeriCorps Inspector-General Gerald Walpin. According to documents released late last Friday and contrary to the fairy tale the White House told last June, there was no broad consultation or investigation conducted before the sudden decision to get rid of Walpin. Byron York of the Washington Examiner tells the story:

Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.

The new documents support the Republican investigators’ conclusion that the White House’s explanation for Walpin’s dismissal — that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go — was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.

Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired.  The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin’s dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice before dismissing an inspector general.

Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him.  According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that “his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a ‘consensus’ in favor of removal.” But Republican investigators later discovered that during that “extensive review,” the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation’s board — the very people whose “consensus” purportedly led to Walpin’s firing.

Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, “no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate,” according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired.  According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that “the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith’s] support for the action.”

The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing.

Read the whole thing, as well as a companion editorial that provides a good overview of the shenanigans at play here. Clearly Walpin was not fired because he was becoming senile and unable to discharge his duties -he’s been cleared of those and other  smears– but because his investigations were uncovering embarrassing and possibly illegal conduct on the part of a major supporter of President Obama.  Apparently a determination was made to just get rid of him in contravention of the law regarding IGs, and a rationale cooked up after the fact. A rationale, I might add, that was both a lie to Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa – and a blatant attempt to smear Walpin and ruin his reputation.

The question is, how far up the chain does this go? Who authorized the lies to Congress? Who ordered the illegal firing of Walpin? Who was trying to protect Sacramento Mayor Johnson? Stay tuned for these and other questions (and, one hopes, some answers) in our next episode of Cook County on the Potomac!

LINKS: Reporter Robert Stacy McCain has also done extensive work on what’s being dubbed IG-gate. More from Sister Toldjah and Hot Air.


Grinding the ACORN

November 23, 2009

Oh, dear. It looks like Breitbart isn’t done beating ACORN like a redheaded stepchild. This time, they’ve been caught dumping thousands of sensitive documents ahead of a possible investigation by the California Attorney-General’s office:

On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN’s activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.

Although ACORN has denied any wrongdoing, some of the employees involved were terminated, and ACORN has publicly stated that they would fully cooperate with any investigations that followed.

(…)

Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit.

BigGovernment.com has learned that not only did this document dump occur, but the documents in question were irresponsibly and brazenly dumped in a public dumpster, without considering laws and regulations as to how sensitive information should be treated.

(…)

Documents shared with BigGovernment.com include information exposing not only the inner workings of ACORN in California, but also personal, sensitive information belonging to employees, members and clients of ACORN. ACORN and its few remaining defenders insist that the “good” ACORN provides outweighs the transgressions exposed in the recent undercover video sting. But, ACORN’s massive dumping of these documents and the cavalier manner in which it betrayed the trust of its supporters betrays that talking point. (Unlike ACORN, we have redacted sensitive and personal information.)

ACORN’s political agenda is also exposed, with thousands upon thousands of documents revealing the depth of the political machine that is ACORN, and its disturbing ties to not only public employee labor unions but some of the most radical leftist organizations.

Read the whole thing. You’d think they’d at least have learned from Enron to shred the documents they’re illegally disposing of. That they didn’t means this promises to be another bad week for ACORN and its allies, which in turn means more entertainment for us.

Pass the popcorn.


Even the MSM cannot ignore it

November 22, 2009

You know a scandal may have legs when even the mainstream media, which has generally hewed to alarmist line regarding global warming, reports on the evidence of scientific fraud:

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“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!

(Emphasis added)

The highlighted segment of the Post article reiterates the point I made yesterday: results had become more important to significant players in the “climate alarmist community” than truth, leading to a willingness to corrupt the scientific process by excluding contrary articles from scientific literature. Again, this revelation and the others contained in the leaked emails should call all pro-alarmist research into question. As the article points out, most politicians in the US have been unquestioning sheep about anthropogenic climate change. Maybe this time they’ll develop a healthy skepticism.

(hat tip: Hot Air)

Further reading: Fausta has several good links, while Power Line presents a case-study of how alarmists do science.


Well, that’s good to know

November 22, 2009

There’s not a bit of evidence to prove that President Obama is a jihadi.

Whew. Whew


Saturday funnies

November 21, 2009

The latest NewsBusted, starring Jodi Miller:


Global warming fraud exposed?

November 21, 2009

These are dark times indeed for true believers in the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming: not only is the empirical evidence going more and more against their Inconvenient Truths, but now there have come revelations of scandal within the walls of one of the Holy Places of the Faith. A hacker broke into the computer systems of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and stole over 60 megabytes of emails and other documents and released them to the public.

The significance of of these files is that they strongly indicate deliberate fraud and the illegal destruction of data by researchers seeking to bolster the case for AGW. They also speak of plans (at least) to corrupt the peer-review process by smearing skeptical scientists in order to blackball them, thus creating a review process slanted favorably toward research that supports the anthropogenic thesis of global warming and ignores any problems with that research.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph has a good overview of the ethical roaches uncovered by this (let’s be blunt) theft. Let me quote from one of the emails dealing with the corruption of the peer-review process:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Talk like this should mortify anyone concerned for the integrity of science. The peer-review process is crucial to maintaining this integrity. For any scientist to try to game and shape this system in their favor should lead to calling into question the whole body of their research, especially when global-warming alarmists, such as the scientists at the CRU, are demanding governments take extreme measures to fix a problem the scientists claim is incontrovertible fact.

If half of what was revealed is true, then any credibility possessed by the pro-AGW faction in the scientific community, national governments, and the UN is crippled or outright destroyed. The Senate should call an immediate halt to any further consideration its version  of the Waxman-Markey bill, passage of which would be disastrous for the US economy, until the truth about these revelations from CRU can be determined.

Besides Delingpole’s article, here are a few other links you’ll want to read to get an idea of the scope of this scandal:

The mind boggles at the possible scope of the fraud revealed today. For the sheer magnitude of its potential effect on the world’s economy, it dwarfs other scandals, such as fake fetal stem cell research. If true, it could be fatal to the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement.

Let’s hope it’s true, then.

LINKS: Others writing on this include Michelle Malkin, Gabriel Malor, Ed Morrissey, Stacy McCain, Climate Skeptic, SBVOR (which calls this the “Watergate of Global Warming”), Sister Toldjah, Big Government, and Blue Crab Boulevard. At Power Line, attorney John Hinderaker looks at the emails and thinks they reflect not so much an active conspiracy as a bunker mentality among true believers.

(hat tip: Watt’s Up With That?)


What’s a little sex scandal when Hope and Change are at stake?

November 20, 2009

Congratulations, Mr. President, you now have the first open scandal of your administration! It’s a good one, too. There’s the corrupt use of public funds, trumped up charges and a smear campaign to get rid of a troublesome priest an Inspector General who asked too many questions, and even charges of sexual harassment and a cover-up thereof.  Well done. You’re a rookie president no more.

Congressional Report: Rhee did ‘damage control’ after sex charges against fiance Kevin Johnson

A congressional investigation of the volunteer organization AmeriCorps contains charges that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled “damage control” after allegations of sexual misconduct against her now fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent ally of President Obama, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The charges are contained in a report prepared by Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.

Walpin was looking into charges that AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for him, washed his car, and took part in political activities.  In the course of investigating those allegations, the congressional report says, Walpin’s investigators were told that Johnson had made inappropriate advances toward three young women involved in the St. Hope program — and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women money to keep quiet.

Read the whole thing; it goes straight back to the White House and its Chicago Way politics.

RELATED: The scandal regarding the the administration’s attempts to suborn the Inspector-General system has been brewing for several months now. Maybe this will be the incident that blows it wide open.  I wrote earlier about the connection to pork and rats and their use in recreating Cook County on the Potomac. Stacy McCain has written extensively on the war on the watchdogs. More from Ed Morrissey.

UPDATE: Iowa’s Senator Grassley, a “patron saint” of the Inspector-General program, thinks there is clear evidence of a political motive in Walpin’s firing.