A new one from CNS featuring Kent Conrad, who’ll be spared a “worst person in the world” award on Olbermann’s show for this bit o’ demagoguery solely by virtue of his party affiliation. Consider this a sequel to Lindsey Graham’s grilling of Holder last week: In both cases, we’ve got a Democrat who’s (a) absolutely confident that civilian trials are the way to go and (b) plainly unprepared to address the rather significant constitutional implications of his preference. The search warrant question here is bait but the underlying point isn’t:

FrumForum interviewed former FBI and CIA agents to get their views on the Obama administration’s explanation on why a federal trial should be held…

Unless Holder and Obama have a crystal ball, they cannot predict how the judge will rule on evidentiary or constitutional issues. In fact, a former CIA official was sure that the defense attorneys will try to change the focus of the trial from KSM’s atrocities to his confession coerced by the harsh interrogation techniques. He and others interviewed used the phrase “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” referring to the doctrine whereby some evidence may be declared inadmissible. He further declared that “I am worried about a civilian judge because if that confession is thrown out the rest of the evidence will be as well. Will the judge allow this nonsense into the courtroom?”

Is it possible, as Holder has stated, that “classified evidence can be protected?” Unanimously, all felt that revealing classified evidence will put America’s national security at greater risk. A CIA operative was very emphatic that “we were able to track and eventually kill the bad guys through means that have not yet been revealed and we’d like to keep it that way. Additionally, we need to ensure that our joint operations with other services around the world isn’t made public.” Richard Marquise, an FBI agent who headed up the Pan Am Flight 103 investigation, said that during the Lockerbie trials, some of the documents turned over by the CIA were put into the defense’s hands and some evidence can get lost.” A former CIA official concurs and frustratingly told FrumForum that during the trial of one of the 9/11 terrorists, the CIA provided recanted documents to the defense. Unfortunately, the true identity of an operative was accidentally left in, showing that “there is always the possibility that classified information will be turned over.”

A new one from CNS featuring Kent Conrad, who’ll be spared a “worst person in the world” award on Olbermann’s show for this bit o’ demagoguery solely by virtue of his party affiliation. Consider this a sequel to Lindsey Graham’s grilling of Holder last week: In both cases, we’ve got a Democrat who’s (a) absolutely confident that civilian trials are the way to go and (b) plainly unprepared to address the rather significant constitutional implications of his preference. The search warrant question here is bait but the underlying point isn’t:

FrumForum interviewed former FBI and CIA agents to get their views on the Obama administration’s explanation on why a federal trial should be held…

Unless Holder and Obama have a crystal ball, they cannot predict how the judge will rule on evidentiary or constitutional issues. In fact, a former CIA official was sure that the defense attorneys will try to change the focus of the trial from KSM’s atrocities to his confession coerced by the harsh interrogation techniques. He and others interviewed used the phrase “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” referring to the doctrine whereby some evidence may be declared inadmissible. He further declared that “I am worried about a civilian judge because if that confession is thrown out the rest of the evidence will be as well. Will the judge allow this nonsense into the courtroom?”

Is it possible, as Holder has stated, that “classified evidence can be protected?” Unanimously, all felt that revealing classified evidence will put America’s national security at greater risk. A CIA operative was very emphatic that “we were able to track and eventually kill the bad guys through means that have not yet been revealed and we’d like to keep it that way. Additionally, we need to ensure that our joint operations with other services around the world isn’t made public.” Richard Marquise, an FBI agent who headed up the Pan Am Flight 103 investigation, said that during the Lockerbie trials, some of the documents turned over by the CIA were put into the defense’s hands and some evidence can get lost.” A former CIA official concurs and frustratingly told FrumForum that during the trial of one of the 9/11 terrorists, the CIA provided recanted documents to the defense. Unfortunately, the true identity of an operative was accidentally left in, showing that “there is always the possibility that classified information will be turned over.”

Remind me, who was that wingnut who opted not to “go somewhere else” three years ago but instead praised the idea of a military tribunal for KSM on the Senate floor? Oh, right.

Hot Air

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

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

“So Mann’s solution [Mike’s Nature Trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

“The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

From CBS?

Media bias is one thing. But we have just witnessed one of the greatest scandals of modern science, and it barely made the front page of the New York Times.

Late last week we got the word: hackers broke into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit server.  The stolen emails and documents were later made public--and while the University claims that some of the emails may not be authentic, the scientists whose emails were hacked admit that they were the authors.

These emails and documents are indeed shocking.  The blog Red State reports the highlights:

1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

   2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.

   3. The scientists block from the UN's report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

   4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

   5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

Again: we're dealing with fabricated and deleted data, and an orchestrated effort to undermine global warming dissidents.  Faked data in particular is a big deal: many politicians are using eco-alarmism based on fear of global warming to assault American freedoms.  So what does this mean for America if it turns out that all that global warming was a sham all along?  What does it mean for America if it turns out that a few scientists at the top were actively involved in scientific fraud to promote their own agendas?

Perhaps it is premature to ask these questions.  Most news sources have barely reported on this appalling scandal.

See the rest at Accuracy in Media.

We've written about the leaked emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Center here, here and here. Another intensely interesting email thread, which doesn't seem to have gotten much notice, relates to the fact that the last decade, contrary to the alarmists' predictions, has tended to get cooler, not warmer.

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists' prediction for 2009 didn't come true. What's interesting is that in January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur:

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting...and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India.... While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading.... Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean.... Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.

Sulphur dioxide, like carbon dioxide, is emitted as a result of industrial activity. Unlike carbon dioxide, it is actually a pollutant. But whereas carbon dioxide tends to warm, sulphur dioxide tends to cool, and MacCracken suggests that SO2 emissions from China and India may well be offsetting the temperature impact of CO2. The net effect of human activity, therefore, may be much closer to neutral than the alarmists have been claiming.

How did the British scientists, whose careers are committed to the proposition that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the globe, respond? Surprisingly, Tim Johns reacted with insouciance:

Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say for sure which is most likely to be "realistic".

The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement - A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but please don't circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.

So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment fine print to that extent).

Cheers,
Tim

Got that? Here is a translation: assumptions about SO2 emissions do have a "quite marked...impact" on global temperatures under the warmists' various models. What impact they have varies from model to model. Which model is correct (if any)? Who knows? But as a result of increased SO2 in the atmosphere, there is "potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C."

That must come as a great relief, since everyone involved in this exchange has been telling the public that global warming is an imminent catastrophe. But no! The prospect of a "distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C[entury]" is bad, because "skeptics" would "love" it!

My my, this is getting interesting.

Read the rest at Powerline.

TOFTE, Norway (AFP) – Norway unveiled the world's first osmotic power plant on Tuesday, harnessing the energy-unleashing encounter of freshwater and seawater to make clean electricity.

"While salt might not save the world alone, we believe osmotic power will be an important part of the global energy portfolio," the chief on state-owned Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen, told reporters.

Statkraft, which presents itself as the biggest renewable energy company in Europe, is running the osmotic power plant prototype on the banks of the Oslo fjord, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) south of the Norwegian capital.

Osmotic energy is based on the widespread natural phenomenon of osmosis, which allows trees to drink through their leaves and plays on the different concentration levels of liquids.

When freshwater and seawater meet on either side of a membrane -- a thin layer that retains salt but lets water pass -- freshwater is drawn towards the seawater side. The flow puts pressure on the seawater side, and that pressure can be used to drive a turbine, producing electricity.

The point of osmotic power is "to use power not against nature but with nature," summed up Sverre Gotaas, in charge of innovation and growth at Statkraft.

Osmosis has been used by industry to desalinate seawater, but the company's prototype at Tofte marks the first time it has been used to produce energy.

Although the plant will for now produce just enough electricity to power a coffee-maker, it could prove to be a great potential clean, environmentally friendly power source.

Neat concept, but an entire Plant to power a coffee maker?

I'm still waiting for my damn flying car...

Y!/AFP

UPDATE: Response from CRU in interview with another website, see end of this post.

The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.

UPDATED: Original image was for Met Office – corrected This image source: www.cru.uea.ac.uk

I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.

Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments" title="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments" target="_blank"http://www.climateaudit.org/?...

I’ve redacted email addresses and direct phone numbers for the moment. The emails all have US public universities in the email addresses, making them public/FOIA actionable I believe.

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)
“
Reported with great sadness

Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union

Moderator: timohame@yxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxx.xx

Home page: [1]personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate .htm

Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)

“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
———&mda sh;———& mdash;——&mdas h;———&m dash;——&mdash ;———&md ash;——— -

References

1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/...
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group...

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

———&mda sh;———& mdash;——&mdas h;———&m dash;——&mdash ;———&md ash;——— -

Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…

I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Cheers, Peck

Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O

_________________________ _________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________ _________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/...

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)

–

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Fa... http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

Developing story – more later

Ooooops.

Watts Up With That?

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Last winter when Chrysler was groveling and crying about having to go bankrupt the Obama Administration took control of the company and struck a deal to justify putting $12.5 B of our tax money in its bank accounts. Chrysler promised it would produce a 500,000 vehicle fleet of practical “electric” cars in just four model years!

Chrysler was merely the United Auto Workers’ bagman. Chrysler got our money then funneled it to the very unions that are killing the American auto industry.

Last week these thieves quietly announced the end of the “electric car” scam which they knew was a fake promise to begin with. The government’s money has run out so there’s no need to keep up the charade.

One more sting

Make no mistake, the greed of this bunch knows no boundaries; they have no shame. In August Obama Motors Chrysler Division (OMCD) and the UAW conned another 70 million dollars out of the rubes at the Department of Energy. Knowing it was all fake they promised a prototype fleet of 220 hybrid vehicles!

The UAW and OMCD have defrauded us and somebody HAS to go to prison for this con job!

This bunch stole 12.5 billion dollars of our tax money and we have to demand some answers! This was nothing more than theft by fraud. We can’t just shrug and let this go. We’ve been victimized by UAW thugs and smooth Chicago gangsters.

This was a con game to deliver cash to the UWA. While the rest of America suffered union families stayed fat and happy on our money. Someone has to investigate and find out where this money went and specifically who stole it. People have to go to prison because of this fraud.

Collins Report

Of the $1 billion in clean-energy stimulus money spent since the beginning of September, $850 million has gone to foreign wind companies. It doesn't take a bunch of experts at a hastily planned "jobs summit" to discover this isn't the way to bolster employment in America.

Indeed, the 11 U.S. wind farms that received stimulus money from the Treasury have imported 695 of the 982 wind turbines to be installed, creating 4,500 jobs overseas. That's far more overseas work than the stimulus money has created in the United States.

On Oct. 29, a joint venture of American and Chinese companies unveiled plans for a new $1.5 billion wind farm in West Texas consisting of 240 Chinese-made turbines. The project is seeking 30 percent of its funding in government stimulus dollars. At best, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will create a grand total of 30 permanent jobs. That's $15 million for each job if the project gets the expected level of federal funding.

Perfect.

The Washington Times

By JEANNINE AVERSA and CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER (AP) – 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Just when it was beginning to look a little better, the economy relapsed Friday with a return to double-digit unemployment for only the second time since World War II and warnings that next year will be even worse than previously thought.

The jobless rate rocketed to 10.2 percent in October, the highest since early 1983, dealing a psychological blow to Americans as they prepare holiday shopping lists. It was another worse-than-expected report casting a shadow over the struggling recovery.

President Barack Obama called it "a sobering number that underscores the economic challenges that lie ahead." He signed a measure to extend unemployment benefits and to expand a tax credit for homebuyers.

Economists had not expected the 10 percent mark to come so quickly and immediately darkened their forecasts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, and Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., predicted the rate will peak at 11 percent by mid-2010. They earlier had projected 10.5 percent.

Unemployment at 11 percent would be a post-World War II record. Only once since then has joblessness hit double digits in the United States — from September 1982 to July 1983, topping out at 10.8 percent.

"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."

The Labor Department, using a survey of company payrolls, said the economy shed 190,000 jobs in October. A separate survey of households found 558,000 more people were unemployed last month than in September. Some 15.7 million Americans are out of work.

The survey of companies doesn't count the self-employed and undercounts employees of small businesses. So the economic picture could be even more dire.

One struggling small business, homebuilder Miller and Smith Inc. of McLean, Va., has trimmed its work force to about 100 from 350 at the height of the housing market in 2005. The company has been hurt by a slowdown in building and surging health care costs.

Troubles for small businesses could have a disproportionate effect on the economy, because they account for about 60 percent of the nation's jobs. They tend to rely on credit cards and home equity lines — both of which banks have tightened — for cash flow.

And the unemployment rate doesn't include people without jobs who have stopped looking, or those who have settled for part-time jobs. Counting those people, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest since at least 1994.

Economists had expected unemployment to rise to no more than 9.9 percent, up just a tick from September's 9.8 percent, and the surprising jump added to fears that the recovery could fizzle if Americans don't spend.

Already, consumer confidence for October came in well below what analysts were expecting. Shoppers' sentiments about the state of the economy are the gloomiest in nearly three decades.

The AP.

Geeze.  Obumble must be REALLY fucking up if the AP is posting stuff like this.

How's that "HopenChange^TM" working out for you progressive dipshits that elected this popinjay?

How's that "Hope 'n Change" working out for you Obama voting assholes?

American Thinker

The first lines of a press release from the NSIDC did state this:

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

Polar ice has only been studied extensively for 30 years.  That small amount of solid data is only part of what many believe to be a larger cycle. It is entirely possible that we have turned the corner, and the recovery of ice has already begun on its own.  Even the EPA had a scientiic report that the planet has been cooling for the past decade, and covered it up.

The NSIDC report continues with this positive statement:

Scientist Walt Meier said, “We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”
The charts and diagrams come directly from the NSIDC report. It does clearly show that since the the record lowers ice in 2005, every year since has shown more ice.
This is called young ice since it is new, and not as thick as the long term polar ice cap. That does make it more susceptible to melting in the summer, yet look at the diagram of second year ice in the slide show below. This crucial point that should not be ignored. If ice can survive one summer, then build upon itself the following winter, that is a sign of regrowth. That is a sign that while over the 30 year average the ice is still low, it is recovering. That is a good thing, and should be celebrated. That is also something that should be the focus of the current research.

So why does the NASA report on this ignore the positive?  Instead, their statement talked about decline as if it was showing no end or stabilization.  

Several recent studies based on data from NASA’s ICESat and QuikScat satellites have shown that, in addition to shrinking geographic ice coverage, the amount of multi-year ice cover – thicker ice that survives more than one summer -- has been declining in recent years.

That is not entirely true, and contradicts the NSIDC statements.  See the first few images in the slide show below.  This comparison shows the increased ice coverage, and in fact less geographic area without ice.  We have a lot of respect for NASA, and honor their accomplishments in this forum often.  But there does seem to be an attempt to not include some aspects of the report which is more widely distributed.  Consider that just last winter, a report came out that Arctic sea ice underestimated by 193,000 square miles.  That is the size of California.  During the winter freeze last winter, arctic sea ice returned to 1979 levels.  Why was that not mentioned in this report as well?

Instead of the overall decline of ice since 1979, new research should focus on what forces are allowing this ice reformation and whether it will continue? In the face of rising CO2, something or many other things act to influence the ice more.
 For the complete images and close up views comparing years see the slide show below.

Folks, this "Global Warming" bullshit is just that; BULLSHIT!  We need to tell these hucksters in no uncertain terms that WE AIN'T BUYING THE SNAKEOIL!

The Examiner (Houston)

By Victor Davis Hanson

For 30 months the nation has been in the grip of a certain Obama obsession, immune to countervailing facts, unwilling to face reality, and loath to break the spell. But like all trances, the fit is passing, and we the patient are beginning to appreciate how the stupor came upon us, why it lifted, and what its consequences have been.

HOW OBAMA WON
Barack Obama was elected rather easily because, in perfect-storm fashion, five separate trends coalesced last autumn.

1) Obama was eloquent, young, charismatic — and African-American. He thus offered voters a sense of personal and collective redemption, as well as appealing to the longing for another JFK New Frontier figure. An image, not necessarily reality, trumped all.

2) After the normal weariness with eight years of an incumbent party and the particular unhappiness with Bush, the public was amenable to an antithesis. Bush was to be scapegoat, and Obama the beginning of the catharsis.

3) Obama ran as both a Clintonite centrist and a no-red-state/no-blue-stat e healer who had transcended bitter partisanship. That assurance allowed voters to believe that his occasional talk of big change was more cosmetic than radical.

4) John McCain ran a weak campaign that neither energized his base nor appealed to crossover independents. McCain turned off conservatives; many failed to give money, and some even stayed home on election day. Meanwhile, the media and centrists who used to idolize McCain’s non-conservative, maverick status found Obama the more endearing non-conservative maverick.

5) The September 2008 financial panic turned voters off Wall Street and the wealthy, and allowed them to connect unemployment and their depleted home equity and 401(k) retirement plans with incumbent Republicans. In contrast, they assumed that Obama, as the anti-Bush, would not do more bailouts, more stimuli, and more big borrowing.

Take away any one of those factors, and Obama might well have lost. Imagine what might have happened had Obama been a dreary old white guy like John Kerry; or had Bush’s approvals been over 50 percent; or had Obama run on the platform he is now governing on; or had McCain crafted a dynamic campaign; or had the panic occurred in January 2009 rather than September 2008. Then the trance would have passed, and Obama, the Chicago community organizer and three-year veteran of the U.S. Senate, would have probably lost his chance at remaking America.

OBAMA'S ASSUMPTIONS
I note all this at length because Obama seems to act as if this right-center country — one that polls oppositely to his positions on most of the major issues (deficits, spending, nationalized health care, homeland security, Guantanamo, cap-and-trade, etc.) — has given him a mandate for a degree of change not seen in nearly 80 years.

Apparently, Team Obama figured that with sizable majorities in both the House and the Senate, Obama would snap his fingers, Congress daily would pass bills redefining America, and Obama would stay in perpetual campaign mode to hope and change the country to accept his agenda. Governing would be like campaigning, as audiences fainted hearing the details of a 1,500-page health-care bill or of ever more sins from America’s past.

But, after just a few months in office, that proved not to be the case. Just as a number of planets had to line up precisely to allow an inexperienced hard-left ideologue to be elected president, so there would have had to be a similar configuration to allow him to govern successfully.

BITTER TRUTHS
1) Obama had to match his unity rhetoric with brotherly action. In fact, he has done the opposite.

At one time or another, Obama and his supporters have, rather scurrilously, insulted doctors, insurers, the police, tea-partiers and town-hallers, opponents of his health-care plan, non-compliant members of the media, and a host of other groups as either greedy, dishonest, treasonous, unpatriotic, moblike, racist, or in general worthy of disrespect.

I love this guy.  Go read the rest.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal submitted his request for additional troops in Afghanistan on August 31.

Here are some of the things President Obama has done since then:

* Deliver remarks at a fundraiser for Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District, and then deliver remarks at a fundraiser to benefit the DNC at the Hammerstein Ballroom.

* Deliver remarks at a DNC fundraising dinner and reception at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco.

* Deliver remarks at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel celebrating the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate.

* Deliver remarks at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner at the Washington Convention Center.

* Attend "In Performance at the White House: Fiesta Latina," a concert celebrating Hispanic musical heritage on the South Lawn.

* Host a picnic for United States Secret Service members and their families on the South Lawn.

* Host an event for local middle-school students to stargaze and conduct hands-on experiments with astronomers.

* Deliver remarks at event with doctors from across the country in the Rose Garden.

* Fly to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid (and meet with McChrystal while he was there).

* Deliver remarks at a fundraiser for the Democratic Governors Association at the St. Regis Hotel.

* Deliver remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative at the Sheraton Hotel.

* Hold a rally on health-insurance reform at the Comcast Center at the University of Maryland in College Park.

* Host a viewing of a portion of the documentary "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" in the White House movie theater.

* Host an event on the South Lawn with the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport, Chicago2016, and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to promote Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

* Deliver remarks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 32nd Annual Awards Gala at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

* Deliver remarks to the AFL-CIO Convention at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center.

* Attend and deliver remarks at a fundraising event and reception for Sen. Arlen Specter at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

* Welcome the Pittsburgh Penguins to honor them for their 2009 Stanley Cup championship victory.

* Meet with the Professional Golf Association of American champions.

* Host a dinner celebrating Ramadan and highlight the contributions of American Muslims in the State Dining Room.

Now, many of these are worthwhile events and/or standard duties of the president. And on many days since August 31, Obama has met with various members of his cabinet, the military, and leaders on Capitol Hill to discuss Afghanistan.

But all those meetings haven't yet generated a decision, and now we're told that there's really no sense of a deadline of when this decision has to be reached. Meanwhile, the president will be attending more fundraisers in the coming days, one in Boston on Friday and at least one in Florida early next week.

A common refrain these days is that President Obama needs to be reminded that it's time to stop campaigning and time to start governing. This presumes he has any interest in the latter, or an ability to cease the former.

NRO

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Senate Democrats think we’re stupid. They actually believe hiding their criminal deals in 1502 pages keeps us from knowing what they’ re up to.

Harry Reid, who is ten points down to two unknown Republicans, has attempted to slip a provision into the Baucus bill exempting Nevada from the skyrocketing of Medicaid costs it will bring. Three other Democrat run basket case states Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan slithered in as well.

Sneaky scheme

All of the Obamacare bills currently being considered “appear” to save money because they shift costs to the states. That way when he gets his bill Obama can claim it “saves” federal money.

Because our country has been handed over to Chicago gangsters by the dopes who voted for Obama and his Democrats, which states pay what will be decided by low lifes like Harry Reid.

Very clearly Democrat states, that can’t survive without extorted funds from other states, will be supported with money ripped away from states run under conservative principles. Oklahoma and Texas come to mind. As has become the expected pattern, this legislation will be used to punish achievers.

States with lower tax rates or unfriendly climates for illegal aliens or invoke States Rights under the Tenth Amendment will be forced to pay “tribute” to king Obama. He’ll need it to feed his lackeys in Michigan and Oregon.

Double edged sword

Fortunately this dirty deal will help kill the Baucus bill and quite likely all other similarly written bills. The Democrats are basically greedy and will not be able to resist the opportunity to over play their hand.

Other greedy Democrats will demand their state be exempted as well. It’s hard to see Arkansas and Louisiana’s Democrat Senators not sticking their hands into this pie. There is no honor amongst thieves after all.

The Collins Report

A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.

The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required. 

The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate. 

Under the normal process, senators can filibuster almost anything and the debate would only be cut off if at least 60 lawmakers vote to do so. For that reason, 60 is considered the magic number in the quest to pass health care reform out of the Senate. 

But under reconciliation, typically used in the budget process, no filibusters are permitted and a bill can pass with just a simple majority. 

Structuring the health care bill in this way allows it to be scooped up in the reconciliation process, which could torpedo the Republicans' trump card. 

"The secret of the week is that Democrats pulled the trigger on the nuclear option," warned Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., top Republican on the House budget committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. "They built their vehicle today."

BOHICA, folks...

FNN

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

Vote these bastards out.

Washington Times

According to the rules of the Nobel Prize nomination, a candidate receives an invitation for submission as a Nobel Peace candidate in September of the previous year, and must respond by the 1st of the subsequent February. That's right, in September of 2008, when nobody had even voted for the current President, Mr. Obama was under the illusion that he was qualified for a Nobel Peace Prize based on a few years as a community organizer, a little time in the Illinois legislature, an incomplete term in the United States' Senate, and a couple of books about his favorite topic -- himself.

By the February 1, 2009 deadline for submissions, before Mr. Obama had even stepped into office, he was no more surprised or humbled then than he is on this ignoble day.

This display is truly the antithesis of humility.

Now we know why he's been waiting so long to determine how to protect our troops in Afghanistan. Or is it too audacious to suggest such a thought?

Learned anything yet, you stupid Obamabots?

The American Spectator

DebbieSchlussel.com has learned that Robert Schoch, the Special Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Los Angeles, is under investigation for alleged embezzlement and/or misuse of ICE funds used in undercover operations.  Mr. Schoch and the Los Angeles Deputy Special Agent in charge, Jennifer Silliman, were escorted from the ICE federal offices in Long Beach, California, and had their badges and guns taken from them (standard procedure when an agent is under investigation and put on leave).  They were both put on administrative leave pending a continuing investigation.  A search warrant was reportedly executed on Agent Schoch’s home, and sources say his computers from both his LAX and Long Beach offices were seized.

Normally, this would be inside baseball stuff.  But Schoch was slated by Obama Administration officials running ICE to be Director of Investigations of ICE, meaning that he would be running and overseeing all ICE investigations worldwide.  His appointment to that position was imminent, even as he was reportedly being investigated by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility and, reportedly, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.  The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing at ICE. . . and doesn’t care.

I contacted ICE’s PR people, yesterday afternoon, regarding this story, and they would neither confirm nor deny it.  However, it’s all over ICE.  Agents are wondering why a man who was, himself, under investigation was chosen and about to be named their agency’s chief investigator.  It sounds like a joke, but it’s very real and, sadly, very typical of the agency for which they work and where morale continues to plummet.

It’s more bad news about an agency that continues to be mismanaged, without aim or specific purpose, and cannibalized by inept and dishonest supervisors and bureaucrats, who use the agency as their own personal harems, “The Bachelorette” show sets, and nightly falalafel dinner opportunities with Muslims galore (that means you, Abu Moskowitz).  And you wonder why illegal aliens continue to laugh at them . . . and us.  I’ll be writing more about ICE’s, um, “leadership” under the Obama/Napolitano regime in the near future (stay tuned).

*Sigh*  Worst.  President.  Ever.

Debbie Schussel

The deadline for nominations is Feb. 1, meaning the president was nominated after being in office for just 11 days.

Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, told "Good Morning America" the decision to pick Obama was unanimous.

ABC News

Why not?  They gave one to Surrogate Al Gore for making a Science Fiction movie...

Oh, and the Taliban too, which must be news to Mark Halperin, Ruth Marcus, Richard Cohen, and Ezra Klein this morning.  George Bush got a lot of heat when he used the “you’re with us or against us” for the war on terror, but he specifically meant nations that had to decide whether to help us fight terrorist networks or choose to hide them or hinder justice.  Politico reports that the DNC now posits that anyone ridiculing Obama is a terrorist sympathizer:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.

Even in a political environment where the two major parties send out ridiculous ding-dong reactions to events, this takes the cake.  Woodhouse argues (almost assuredly uncomprehendingly) for a fuehrerprinzip where the head of state must never be questioned or criticized, lest one become a traitor to the fatherhomeland.  Will Woodhouse also start labeling late-night comedians like Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien terrorist sympathizers for their (very) occasional ridicule of His Reverence?  Does Janet Napolitano plan to open a file on Saturday Night Live for last week’s prescient dig?

Clearly, the DNC needs a smarter class of public-relations flacks.  Given this evidence, it should not be difficult at all to find them.  (image courtesy HA reader Mehokie)

Hot Air