intellectualred

Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Graph Without The 'Hide The Data' Trick

Ever wonder what the infamous Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph would look like without the 'Hide The Data' trick? Here it is.


Does anyone see a 'Hockey Stick?'

The above graph was reconstructed from this leaked email by Climate Audit and posted on their mirror site.

ACORN Caught In Another Lie By Big Government

ACORN claimed they fired Juan Carlos Vera of their National City office for "unacceptable conduct" after he was caught on videotape giving advice to a pimp and prostitute who wanted to start an underage brothel to funnel money into a political campaign. One of the 20,000 documents retrieved from a 'dumpster dive" outside this office is Juan Carlos Vera's termination memo. Big Government has released the document. ACORN actually "laid off" Mr. Vera due to “restructuring” related to “videotaping incident." If this scandal had blown over, it wouldn't be hard to imagine Mr. Vera getting his old job back.

From Big Government:

The documents were thrown out in advance of state investigators arriving at the local ACORN office to conduct an investigation resulting from national media attention. ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera was videotaped giving advice to two individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute regarding underage prostitution and human smuggling. Without admitting any wrongdoing ACORN terminated Mr. Vera, or so they said. Documents provided to BigGovernment.com show that Mr. Vera was not terminated but was simply laid off, implying that Mr. Vera is also eligible for rehire. (The document also notes that Mr. Vera was laid off due to “restructuring” related to “videotaping incident.)

ACORN - Termination _Redacted_ -

Climategate: The Fudge Factor

The University of East Anglia (above)

The FORTRAN code used for mathematical models by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England was leaked along with the emails. This is the code used to create the infamous hockey stick that started the whole global warming climate change fraud. Many pundits claim the attempts to silence dissenting views and violation of British FOIA laws are the most damning information in the leaked emails and files. Programmers are working their way through the messy code used by the CRU. They have found a smoking gun of fraud.

From Wizbang:

Eric S. Raymond is a software developer and advocate of the open source software movement. He wrote a seminal paper called The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which explained why open processes are more effective than top down ones. He has been studying the code used by the scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, whose work raised serious questions about the quality of the research being used to underpin the proposed $1 trillion Cap'n Trade bill stalled in Congress. Here's what Eric found in the computer code:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s -- see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn't just a smoking gun, it's a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

The lame stream media will try to ignore this and hope the story goes away. They tried this strategy for the ACORN scandal, but it backfired in the end. The Climategate scandal is just beginning. The bold is mine.

Global Warming Scientists Are In A Global Meltdown

Over at RealClimate, they are in damage control mode over the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre. These emails are exchanges between many of the 'big guns' of the AGW scientific community. Some of the emails relate to the launching of the RealClimate site.

From RealClimate:

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

The anthropogenic global warming crowd is telling us these emails are representative of how scientists act and we shouldn't be shocked. Here is a summary of a few of the transgressions we shouldn't be shocked about:

Evading taxes. (0826209667)

Artificially truncating data sets. (0939154709)

Plotting to violate relevant FOIA laws. (1212063122)(1219239172)

Conspiring to hide data. (1254756944) (1059664704)

Artificially altering underlying data. (0942777075)(1254108338)

Suppressing criticism. (1139521913)(1054756929)

Cheering the death of a skeptic.(1075403821)

Plotting to destroy skeptics. (1047388489)(1256765544)

Plotting control of review boards to suppress skeptics. (1051190249) (1106322460)

Complete lack of outrage at fraud.(1188557698)

Letting politics lead science. (0938018124)

If this is a peek into how scientists actually interact, they should be tarred, feathered and rode out of town on a rail. The allegation that most scientists act in this manner is an insult to professional scientists around the world. By professional scientists, I do not mean Al Gore who recently discovered stellar fusion at the Earth's core.

There is a good analysis of the leaked emails by the attorneys over at Power Line.

Evidence Of Global Warming Fraud Exposed

The HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC. It is put out by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU.) Hadley CRU had their computers hacked and their emails were published on the internet. Their emails indicate they are publishing fraudulent data and suppressing critics. Another leg has been knocked out from under the global warming fraud.

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

The Telegraph published some emails:

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“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 !”

Dean of Harvard Medical School Flunks Democrat's Health Care Reform

The dean of Harvard Medical has a poor opinion of the current health care legislation in Congress.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade

The changes proposed by Congress will require more draconian measures down the road. Just look at Massachusetts.

As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value. Read more here.

Independents Sour On Democrats

The large number of Independents who helped Barack Obama win the White House and Democrats gain large majorities in Congress have soured on the Democratic Party. At first, Democrats tried to deny the outcome of the November 3rd election as local politics. Now there are far too many polls for Democrats to ignore.

From Politico:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama's agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington. Independents have come to see Democrats as big spenders who can not or will not do anything about the economy or jobs.

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.

When People Understand the Trade-offs, Support for Obamacare Tanks

There is some surprising information hidden in a recent AP poll. Overall, the poll found 43 percent oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. However, when the consequences of these choices were put in the poll questions, the results dramatically changed.

When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama's goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.

In one striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems.

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.

In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it.

Support for banning coverage because of pre-existing medical problems declined by almost 40% when it was explained to people that their health insurance costs would likely increase because of this change. Support for mandatory health insurance coverage flipped when people understood there would be a federal penalty for those who failed to take insurance.

For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no.

The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that.

Both the House and Senate bills would require all Americans to get health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own coverage. Subsidies would be provided for low-income people, as well as many middle-class households.

This poll seems to indicate the public is poorly informed about the consequences of passing Obamacare. Once the trade-off are made clear, support for the Democrats health care reform bill collapses. Unfortunately, the state run media will continue to shill for Obamacare and do a poor job of educating the public.

Team Obama Wants To Legalize 14 Million Illegal Immigrants

With 10.2% unemployment that may actually be approaching 20% real unemployment, why would anyone in their right mind want to legalize 14 million people who came here by breaking our laws. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said this is what Team Obama will push for as their version of "immigration reform."

(CNSNews.com) –Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration will push for “immigration reform” by giving the estimated 14 million people who are in the United States illegally “fair pathway to earned legal status.”

“A tough and fair pathway to earned legal status will mandate that illegal immigrants meet a number of requirements—including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English,” Napolitano said Friday at a panel discussion at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

“These are substantial requirements that will make sure this population gets right with the law,” Napolitano said. “It will help fix our broken system.”

The only way illegal immigrants can "get right with the law" is by turning themselves in for deportation. How can any illegal immigrant pass a criminal background check, when they are by definition criminals because they have come here illegally. In addition, many illegal immigrants are guilty of identity theft.

How Low Can Obama Bow?

Pretty low judging from this picture of President Obama bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito. This is the kind of bow an inferior would give to his superior as a show of respect.



Let us never forget how low President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah.

Seasonal Flu Kills Elderly. H1N1 Kills the Young.

The CDC reported today that almost 4000 Americans have died from swine flu (H1N1) since April.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - H1N1 swine flu killed an estimated 3,900 Americans from April to October, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.

Better estimates show that the pandemic of flu has infected an estimated 22 million Americans and put 98,000 in the hospital, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Of these totals, children account for 8 million of the infected, 36,000 of those in hospital and 540 deaths.

The starling thing about these deaths is 90% have been in people under the age of 65. This statistic is reverse what is normally seen for the seasonal flu.

Oct. 20, 2009 -- H1N1 swine flu has turned flu death statistics upside down, the CDC today confirmed.

In a normal flu season, 90% of deaths are in elderly people. Since September, 90% of deaths have been in people under age 65 -- with almost a quarter of the deaths in young people under age 25.

"It is almost completely reversed. Nearly 90% of our fatalities are occurring in people under 65," CDC respiratory disease chief Anne Schuchat, MD, said at a news conference. "This illustrates this H1N1 virus is disproportionally affecting the young."

No Suprise. Bill Owens Is A Nancy Pelosi Lap Dog

Newly-elected Congressman Bill Owens (D-NY) has participated in 20 votes since taking office. He has backed Nancy Pelosi every time.

GOUVERNEUR, NY - Newly-elected Congressman Bill Owens (D-NY) is currently the only serving member of the House of Representatives from New York State to have backed Californian Nancy Pelosi on each and every single vote he's participated in.

Since being sworn-in on Friday afternoon, Mr. Owens has voted on 20 issues, following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lead on every single vote.

These votes included the very controversial H.R. 3962, the "American Health Care for America Act" which even 39 other members of the Democratic Party voted against in defiance of Ms. Pelosi and the President. In this key vote, Mr. Owens provided one of only two crucial votes that the Democrats had been lacking to pass the measure.

Owens was one of only 64 Democrats that also voted in favor of using federal funds to pay for abortions as well.

Democrats’ chief deputy whip is 'confident' that Stupak amendment will be stripped

House Democratic leader Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, is already predicting the demise of the Stupak Amendment which placed restrictions on abortion funding in the House health care bill. Rep. Schultz and other pro-choice Democrats are planning on stripping the abortion restrictions in conference committee.



From The Hill:

A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”

The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of Republicans and dozens of centrist Democrats in the House, but revealed a deep divide in the Democratic caucus over abortion.

Liberty Dies With Thunderous Applause

This is how liberty died in a galaxy far, far away.


This is how liberty died a little closer to home...with thunderous applause,


Hat tip to The Blog Prof.

Robert Gibbs Suffers Massive Memory Loss And Forgets "Bush = Hitler" Allusions

Today Robert Gibbs said:

"I will continue to say what I've said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler."

Yeah, just imagine. There is more here.

Ft. Hood Shooter Attended Extremist Mosque and Compared Suicide Bombers to Heroic Soldiers

The Ft. Hood Shooter, Malik Nidal Hasan, attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring according to the Washington Post. This Mosque was known for teaching the Saudi version of Wahhabism. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were followers of this version of Islam. Doug Ross found this original posting by Hasan where he compares suicide bombers to heroic soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the comrades.

There was a grenade thrown amongs [sic] a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally [sic] took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled [sic] this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees [sic] in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i [sic] you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best. Link here.

If President Obama were up for re-election today, only 45% of adults would vote for him

If the Presidential election were held today, Republicans would stand a good chance of defeating Obama. According to Rasmussen, only 45% of adults would vote for him today. Hopey-changey doesn't look as good as it did a year ago.

From Rasmussen:

Americans are a little less enthusiastic about the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama this time around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of adults say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Obama if he was up for reelection right now. Forty-nine percent (49%) say they would be unlikely to vote for the president’s reelection.

Can Republicans Score a Triple Tomorrow?

The three hotly contested and closely watched races on November 3rd are the Virginia Governor's race, the New Jersey Governor's and the special election for for the NY-23 seat in the House of Representatives. Loss of any of these races is a blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party. After the 2008 elections, Democrats were hoping to ride the wave of Obama's popularity and newly registered Democratic voters for years to come. The polls indicate the Virginia Governor's race is a lost cause for Democrats. NY-23 doesn't look very likely since Republican state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava dropped out. Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman has surged in the poll. New Jersey is too close to call, but could fall to the Republicans.

Screen shots from Real Clear Politics. (Click images for larger view.)




The Telegraph reported:

Victories in the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey and a contest for a vacant House of Representatives seat in New York would deliver a blow to Mr Obama almost exactly a year to the day since he won the presidency.

A rejection of Democrats in all three contests would be a major setback for Mr Obama because he has invested a large amount of time and personal political capital by campaigning extensively in the two governor elections.

With less than 48 hours to polling day, Mr Obama was taking Air Force One to New Jersey to appear at two rallies for Governor Jon Corzine, the embattled incumbent and former Wall Street executive who has poured some $30 million of his own fortune into trying to save his political skin.

Polls indicate that Mr Corzine is running neck and neck with his Republican challenger Chris Christie in New Jersey, where a Republican has not won a statewide election in 12 years.

In Virginia, Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate, has a double-digit lead over Creigh Deeds, the Democrat, and appeared to be cruising to victory. Mr Obama won Virginia last year and helped register so many new Democratic voters that the party hoped they could hold onto the state for a decade or more.

Republican activists were buoyed by the withdrawal of the party's official candidate Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd District. Mrs Scozzafava, who was well to the Left of the Republican mainstream, was being challenged by Doug Hoffman, a hard-line Republican running under the Conservative Party banner.

Mrs Scozzafava's decision to pull out makes a Hoffman victory over Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate, highly likely. Once in Congress, Mr Hoffman would take the Republican Whip and he has now been embraced by the party establishment, which concedes that selecting Mrs Scozzafava was a mistake.

SEIU President is Top White House Visitor

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a group of thugs with strong ties to ACORN. They helped Democrats AstroTurf many of their August town halls. Barack Obama has a log history of freindship to the SEIU and once vowed to "paint the nation purple." The SEIU made a $61 million investment in Barack Obama and it looks like it is paying off.

From The Corner:

I've been playing with the list and figured out a useful tip for weeding out false positives: Look at the "Total people" category in the spreadsheet. The Andrew Stern who had a one-on-one with Rahm Emanuel in February is probably the president of the SEIU. The one who toured the White House with 542 other people is probably a different guy. But you can't automatically disqualify an entry because of a large number of visitors: Stern was among the 393 guests at the White House's St. Patrick's Day event.

As far as I can tell, THE Andrew Stern was the top outside visitor to the White House with approximately 20 visits, or about three visits per month, including four relatively small meetings with the president and a dozen with other White House staffers. Stern has openly bragged about the SEIU's $61 million investment in Barack Obama. It certainly bought him a lot of access.

Obama Flashback: "WE are not going to pass Universal Health Care with a fifty plus one strategy

Harry Reid is shoving the public option into the Senate version of health care reform. He doesn't appear to have a single Republican vote and is struggling to get a 60 plus majority to stop the filibuster. Senator Reid needs to remember President Obama's words.