The Top Seven Lies Global Warming Alarmists Tell About Their Theory

According to the proponents of the theory, global warming is settled science. Much of the time they point to certain "facts" and use them to scare us, they tell us we must "believe," and that we are all going to die very soon if we don't kill the economy ASAP.   Below are seven of those so called important "facts"  (one for every day of the week) that these global warming enthusiasts are pushing on the American people, that just so happen to be lies:

1) 97% of Scientists Agree: The 97% figure is a misquote of a flawed study. The study people use to come up with the 97%, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" by John Cook, and friends, First of all the real result was 97% of the scientific papers which had an opinion one way or the other believed in global warming. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That's about 0.5%. Other analysis demonstrates that some of the studies which disagreed with the global warming theory was mislabeled and 35% of the authors who took no position were left out of the final survey results altogether.
 
2) The Polar Ice caps are melting at record levels. Put away the SCUBA gear the world's coastlines are NOT going to be under any time soon. Antarctic sea ice has set a new record for May, with extent at the highest level since measurements began in 1979. At the end of the month, it expanded to 12.965 million sq km, beating the previous record of 12.722 million sq km set in 2010. This year’s figure is 10.3% above the 1981-2010 climatological average of 11.749 million sq km. Arctic Ice had been lower than average but the total of the two has shown sea ice higher than normal. Even the Arctic sea ice is improving. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi reports For the first time in over a decade, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in the summer is forecast to be near or above normal for a time! While it has approached the normals at the end of the winter season a couple of times because of new ice growth, this signals something completely different – that multiyear growth means business – and it shows the theory on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is likely to be on target. Once it flips, this red herring of climate panic will be gone. Global and Southern Hemisphere anomalies are already unmentionable since the former is well above normal and the latter is routinely busting daily records.

3) The Earth is Warming-In August 1996; the Atlanta Olympic ended; Netscape 3.0 was introduced to the internet; Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp as his Republican VP running mate; and the earth showed warming for the last time.  According too RSS satellite data, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero. The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979.

 4) Global Warming is causing extreme weather-Even the UN's IPCC , acknowledged by global warming believers as the best climate change authority, rejects this whopper

...In its [IPCC] newly released Fifth Assessment Report, the panel backed away from connections between current droughts and climate change. As it noted: “Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated,” and “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.” The report states that “it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has … decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

The new report delivers a similar verdict for other sorts of extreme weather: “There is low confidence in any long term increases in tropical cyclone activity … and low confidence in attributing global changes to any particular cause.” Any increased hurricane damages “have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change; most such claims are not based on scientific attribution methods.” There is “low confidence” for trends on tornadoes, and “the evidence for climate driven changes in river floods is not compelling.

A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms which makes sense since there has been no warming for almost 18 years.

5) Global Warming is Causing Asthma. The warming alarmists complain (when it helps their case) that skeptics confuse climate and weather. Here is a case where the alarmists are confusing pollution with climate. Dirty air limited to a small geographic area (like the smog in LA) is not climate change. Nor does it require the same solutions.


6) CO2 causes global warming- Maybe Mother Nature is computer-phobic, it works in all their computer models but it is not working in real life. Today CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in recent history, certainly higher than any time since the industrial revolution, but there hasn't been warming in almost 18 years. During the medieval warming period 800-1400 C.E. it was hotter than it is today and CO2 levels were much lower than they are today.

7) The Hockey Stick: The term "hockey stick" was coined by the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern of historical temperatures in the northern hemisphere (it kind of looks like a hockey stick on its side). The chart, created by Dr. Michael Mann (now at Penn State University) shows relatively stable temperatures until around 100 year ago when we see a spike up. It is one of the key pieces of information used to prove that global warming is about to destroy the world.
The  Chart became the center of the IPCC's argument that man-made global warming was real, even though (as memos released as part of the Climategate scandal revealed)  the CRU at the University of East Anglia , had serious problems with the Hockey Stick chart, but it was pushed through by the chart's creator Dr. Mann.

...there were two competing graphs – Mann's hockey stick and another, by Jones, Briffa and others. Mann's graph was clearly the more compelling image of man-made climate change. The other "dilutes the message rather significantly," said Folland. "We want the truth. Mike [Mann] thinks it lies nearer his result." Folland noted that "this is probably the most important issue to resolve in chapter 2 at present.

Briffa believed that the world's temperature heated up about 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Period) as much as they seemed to in the 1990s, and was upset that Mann's chart did not reflect that climate change. Even the co-creator of Mann's paper on the hockey stick began to walk way from it. That missing warming trend from 1,000 years ago has been criticized from many directions.

Another revelation of climate-gate was the tree samples were "cherry-picked to skew the study.  The famous Hockey stick is fudged. The scientists substituted a different kind of tree, who's rings would not show a medieval warming spell with temperatures much hotter than today. And it may be the cherry-picking of one kind of Siberian tree that Phil Jones of the CRU may have meant in the email which he talked about using Dr. Mann's "trick" to adjust the data

There you go...one piece of global warming nonsense for each day of the week.  If that is not enough for you the list below reflects problems the global warming alarmists have blamed on global warming.  Feel free to click on any of the links below and enjoy the nonsensical scare tactic.

The Arab spring,Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States,extended severe allergy seasons, Lyme disease, malaria or dengue fever, trauma, depression, high blood pressure and heart disease,and increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK. migration of possibly rabid Vampire bats from Mexico, Armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse in Ghana,  will make you go nuts

SCANDAL! Climate Scientists Suppressed Research Which Disagreed With Warming Theory

Global warming proponents are quick to accuse those who are skeptical of their theory as ignoring a scientific consensus. According to a front page story in the UK Times, that supposed consensus may have been built in part by suppressing research which disagrees with their global fear mongering.

The article tells the story of research completed by five climate experts rejected by one of the world's top academic journals after a reviewer privately complained that the study was “harmful” to the promotion of climate change theory. 

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dis- senting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.

When trying to prove a hypothesis scientists are supposed to be dispassionate, but as revealed in the Climategate emails and many times since,  global warming  proponants have abandoned their quest for scientific truth and replaced it with a skewed advocacy which prevents the truth being discovered. This is one more example.

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.

The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptic s media side.”

In other words, the truth hurts our advocacy. Scientists should not have a global warming or a skeptic "side." According to the Oxford dictionary science is, The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Notice there is nothing about suppressing the observations and experiments you don't like.

Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate skeptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was “fully warranted”.

And this study didn't even argue that climate change is happening, only that it is happening more slowly.

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate skeptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson. David Gee, a former geology professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, wrote: “The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicised science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwagon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions.”

This article is really all about the supposed global warming consensus. The truth is there is no such thing as settled science in any area. By suppressing research that disagrees with their theory, the climate change establishment is damaging the reputation and very nature of science, a search for the truth.

By 2050 Global Warming Will Cause 257% Rise in Heat Related Deaths (Thank God It's Not Getting Warmer)

The latest fear tactic by the UK Global Warming Cosa Nostra is by 36 years from now, by 2050 deaths because of hot weather will grow by 257%. Of course before that happens the earth will have to start warming since even the UN's IPCC says earth temperatures have been stable for the last 16 -17 years.

While the number of excess deaths seen in the summer months will rise, those recorded in winter will actually decrease, they said.

Researchers wanted to try to determine the effect that climate change will have on temperature-related deaths in the coming decades. Their study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, examined fluctuations in weather patterns and death rates between 1993 and 2006 to characterise the associations between temperature and mortality.

The researchers, from Public Health England (PHE) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, then looked at projected population and climate increases so they could estimate temperature-related deaths for the UK in coming decades.

Researchers noted a 2.1% increase in the number of deaths for every 1C rise in the mercury and a 2% increase in mortality for every 1C drop in temperature. The number of hot weather days is projected to rise steeply, tripling by 2080, they said. Meanwhile the number of cold days is expected to fall, though at a less dramatic pace.

At present there are around 41,000 winter-related deaths and 2,000 excess summer deaths.

The authors predicted that without adaptation, the number of heat-related deaths will increase by 66% in the 2020s, 257% by the 2050s and 535% by the 2080s. Cold weather-related deaths will increase by 3% in the 2020s, then decrease by 2% in the 2050s and by 12% in the 2080s, they added.

This means by 2080 there will be around 12,500 heat-related deaths and 36,500 cold-related deaths.

The authors said that the burden of extreme weather remains such higher in those over the age of 75, particularly in the over-85s.

There is one key thing that must happen before the doom and gloom of heat related deaths starts....It has to start getting warmer. According to Great Britain's University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the folks who gave us climategate)--based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

So feel free to tell grannie to get out the sun screen and the water gun, everything is safe--it's just another scare tactic brought to you by the global warming folks.

New Studies Say "Global Warming" Ended 15 Years Ago (And It’s About To Get Very Cold)

Someone please tell Al Gore to sit down, this "ain't" gonna be pretty. Two pieces of bad news were released earlier this week that put a dent into the argument that global warming was "settled science."Actually, allow me to put it a different way. Two studies were released that corroborate the statement that climate change is a hoax.

One study reports that the earth hasn't gotten warmer for the past 15 years, the other indicates that the future might bring a bit of a cold spell. What makes these studies even more impressive is they both come from proponents of the global warming hoax.

The first piece of bad news comes from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the folks who gave us climategate)--based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations it confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

A NASA study reports the sun is now heading towards a  "low cycle" of output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Of course the Global warming moonbats are having a cow, but the bottom line is, the longer it takes for it to get warmer, the bigger the gap between the computer models and reality. As the gap continues to widen the entire global warming house of cards will collapse.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. 

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Unfortunately in those three years, plenty of unnecessary damage can be done to the economy of the world and the United States by proponents of the hoax.

Ten Important Political Stories That Went Unreported In 2011

This is the time of year for lists, everything from the best movies of the year, the top news stories of the year, best political quotes, etc. The list that few if any outlets report is the one of stories that were important and should have received wide-spread coverage, but were ignored by the mainstream media. Reports that would show the other side of an issue, and the lack of reporting is just more evidence that the mainstream media is in the tank for the progressive movement. What follows is my list of ten important stories that when unreported in 2011.

10. Chief Medicare Actuary Rips Obamacare In House Budget Committee Testimony - Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the guy in charge of crunching the Medicare’s numbers) testified before the House Budget committee in late January and said that Obamacare would not suppress healthcare costs nor would it allow people to keep their present providers, a contradiction of the promise that Obama made to us.

9. Kathleen Sebelius Admits The Obamacare Books Were COOKED. They screamed, they begged, cajoled but everyone called them liars. Ever since the outline of the Obamacare began to be circulated people pointed out that the $500 billion dollars of Medicare savings were being double counted in the cost estimates.

In early March the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee heard testimony from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) asked about the double counting of the $500 billion of savings which seemed to still helping the bottom line of Medicare and contributing to the funding of Obamacare. He asked Sebelius which program was supposed to receive the benefit of that Medicare cut, she answered, “Both,” admitting that we had been lied to for the past year.

8. The STUXNET Virus, Is Queen Esther Saving the Jewish People From Persia Again? Computer Scientists who are analyzed the Stuxnet virus found file name that seemingly refers to the Biblical Queen Esther. The first directory inside the virus is named “Myrtus,” a reference to the myrtle plant. The Hebrew word for myrtle is the root of Hadassah which is Queen Esther’s Hebrew name. Given that another Persian, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes constant threats against Israel, that use of Myrtus could indicate a Jewish or Israeli involvement, or maybe a heavenly partner.


7. NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data: The consensus of global warming predictions is that the seas would rise about 3 feet because of climate change in the 21st century. But satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). Even worse there has been no rise since 2006. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting global warming alarmists would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. Now they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening--decelerating.

6. Cowardly President Obama Refuses To Address The Key Middle East Issue In May, the President made a major speech about the Middle East. He made demands about Israel returning to the 1949 armistice lines but didn’t make any demands of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. He called Israel a Jewish State, and he called for the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist, but he didn’t address the fact that both Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, which is the most elementary of issues in this 63-year-old dispute. If Obama doesn’t have the courage to definitively call for the Palestinians to make this basic acknowledgement, can he really expect the Palestinians to do it on their own? And without that recognition, none of the other issues will be resolved.

5. A Heck-of-a-Loophole: Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes In August, Billionaire friend of Obama, wrote an op-ed in the NY Times urging our government to stop coddling the super-rich and support Obama’s position that the rich should pay more taxes. What Buffet neglected to say is his own company; Berkshire Hathaway owes the federal government more than $1 billion in back taxes, a noted by Auditors in the Berkshire annual report. Perhaps Mr. Buffett should read his own annual report before he tells rich people to pay more, since he looks a bit foolish when his own company is not paying enough.

4. Congresswoman Maxine Waters-Obama is Only The President of the African-Americans In Maxine Waters’ warped mind President Obama hasn’t screwed up the economy, he has only screwed it up for Black people. On the day the President was to make his major jobs speech in September, Waters complained that the first Black President has not shown enough love to African-Americans.

“There are roughly 3 million African Americans out of work today, a number nearly equal to the entire population of Iowa. I would suggest that if the entire population of Iowa, a key state on the electoral map and a place that served as a stop on the president’s jobs bus tour were unemployed, they would be mentioned in the president’s speech and be the beneficiary of targeted public policy,” Waters told POLTICO, “So, one question to be answered this evening [during the speech] is, are the unemployed in the African-American community, including almost 45 percent of its youth, as important as the people of Iowa?” I guess equality is not in Maxine’s dictionary.

3) Congressman Steve Israel Betrays the Jewish State For Politics The fifth most important Democrat in Congress, who represents part of Long Island, Israel claims to be a huge supporter of the State of Israel and other Jewish causes. His deeds however, do not back up his words. While he has signed letters with other Congressman, not once has he stood up publicly to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-Israel policies. When the President was trying to legitimize the anti-Israel group J Street, Steve Israel obeyed orders and lent his name to the organization so they could recruit more people to its convention, he takes campaign dollars from Parviz Lavi, a man convicted of selling arms to Iran, and supported the very anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street movement. With friends like Steve Israel, who needs enemies?


2. Obama’s Class Warfare Tactics Makes For Good Speeches—But He Isn’t Being Truthful. According to the IRS in 2009 (the last time they released these numbers) households making more than $1 million will paid an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 paid 15 percent of their income in federal taxes, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes and households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent. So what is the president really saying when he says people should pay their fair share.

1. Climategate II Emails Show US and British Gov.s Colluded With Scientists to Suppress Data That Would Disprove Global Warming. Just before Thanksgiving, more than 5,000 emails were leaked online as a follow-up to the first set of Climategate emails released two years ago. The emails written by government officials and some of the world’s leading scientific proponents of the global warming theory show a systemic suppression of evidence, reports being “blessed” even though scientists knew they were using approaches that deviated from scientific procedures and even worse, direction by people in the United States and British Governments to some of those scientists to hide evidence that would dispute the global warming theory. If we are going to enact oppressive climate rules, which will hurt the worldwide economy while spending $37,000,000,000,000 world-wide to clean up “global warming” shouldn’t it be based on real scientific evidence, not selective reports which in aggregate work to sell a theory which at best is unproven, and at worst may very well be the biggest fraud perpetuated on mankind?

Those are my top ten, if I had more room there would be another fifty added to the mix. My Mom, of blessed memory, used to say there were three sides to every story, “his, hers, and the truth.” What you generally see in the mainstream media is only one of those sides. You must seek out other sources, such as the Jewish Star for other sides which get you closer to the truth. My Mom, whose birthday was 12/27, would insist on it.

BREAKING UPDATE ; Rabbi's Anti-Christian Tim Tebow Post Taken Down By Jewish Week

UPDATE......AT BOTTOM OF POST

 

We all have to count our blessings, and one of my new blessings is that I do not attend Temple Beth El, in Stamford Ct. Because the last person I would want teaching my children is their "Rabbi" Joshua Hammerman.  Hammerman is a different kind of RINO, a Rabbi in name only.  Writing in this week's issue of the progressive NY Jewish Week, Hammerman has proven himself to be a bigot, something that should disqualify him from getting anywhere near a pulpit.

Hammerman  admits he has a Tim Tebow problem

A poster boy of the Christian right, Tebow steadfastly thanks Jesus after every game and, while in college, often inscribed biblical messages on his eye paint. Homeschooled in Florida, this child of missionaries turned down his selection as a Playboy All American because it was, well, Playboy. His trademark prayerful touchdown celebration (imagine Rodin’s “Thinker” on bended knee, or your grandfather davening Tachanun with a football) has become a verb.

Funny whenever something really special happens in my life I pause and say a  Jewish prayer, in fact I even said it the first time I got linked by Instapundit and every other big site that has driven traffic my way (and Mr. Drudge if you ever link to me I will say it then also). The prayer translates to

Praised are you our God who rules the universe, granting us life, sustaining us and enabling us to reach this day.

I wonder Thanking God for my first Insta-lanche scare the "Rabbi?"  If not than it clear that Tim Tebow scare's him because he is Christian. As if to gain sympathy from his progressive audience, the "Rabbi"  mentions that there is a you tube video that make fun of the fact that Tebow's mom was sick during her pregnancy with him and she refused to abort her son despite doctor's recommendation.

Now tiny Tim has grown and is on track to possibly appear in this season’s Super Bowl – on the field – and that is what scares me. In this country, nothing, not even God, is more popular than football [ Note to the "Rabbi" I wouldn't brag about that because it is your job to make God more important than football]. Even in the wake of a summer long labor dispute, 23 of the 25 most watched TV programs this fall have been NFL games. When you combine the religion that is football with the religion that is religion, the mix can be dangerously flammable.

Really now, we are taught that God is everywhere, why can't he be on a football field? (and why can't he play for my Jets). And what exactly does he mean by flammable? Observant people will start riots when talking football and religion? How ignorant and biased can he be.  I have discussed football  in Shul over some whiskey after Shabbos services, and I can promise you there has never been a flammable situation (OK there was that one time when one of the kids dropped a Havdalah candle during services, but that was scarcely anything to worry about.

Next Sunday, the Broncos host the New England Patriots in a game coveted so much by the networks that NBC and CBS sparred in unprecedented fashion over who would get to broadcast it. And why not? While the Patriots are adored by their fans (myself included), to many nationwide they are regarded as the Sons of Darkness, with their perfectly coiffed Hollywood quarterback and their brilliant – one might say diabolical – hoodie-clad coach. And, oh yes, the most identifiably Jewish owner in sports. Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Bob Kraft are all upstanding citizens, moral exemplars in their home communities, but in this Oberammergau of the Rockies, they are playing the role of Pilate.

What does the religion of the Patriot's owner have to do with anything?  No one would have ever come up with this silly idea that this was some sort of Good Friday passion play until this "Rabbi" in Name Only Brought it up. It is beyond ignorant. Besides Hammerman writes for the NEW YORK Jewish Week....The Patriots are the enemy (and Belichick is a deserter who has proven to be a cheater also).

People are always looking for signs of God’s beneficence, and a victory by the Orange Crush over the blue-clad Patriots, from the bluest of blue states, will give fodder to a Christian revivalism that has already turned the Republican presidential race into a pander-thon to social conservatives, rekindling memories of those cultural icons of the ‘80s, the Moral Majority and “Hee Haw.”

Rabbis are supposed to unify and preach tolerance of other opinions. In the picture above Hammerman is preaching at a tolerance for Muslims rally, why wont he display the same tolerance for Christians or other people who disagree with his progressive stances . Maybe he should step back and think for a moment...many Orthodox Jewish Synagogues preach the same social conservative beliefs as he disparages. And many in the Conservative movement of which he is a member of also share some of those beliefs (like me for example).

The culture wars are alive and well, and, if the current climate in Washington is any indicator, the motors are being revved up for what will undoubtedly be the most cantankerous Presidential campaign ever. When supposedly well-educated candidates publicly question overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and evolution and then gain electoral traction by fabricating conspiracies about a war on Christmas, these are not rational times.

Obviously Mr. Hammerman has never heard of climategate, climategate II or all the studies that have thrown the Global warming hoax into question. The "Rabbi" believes that Global warming is settled science? There is a line in the Torah that says, "The Torah is Not in Heaven."  It means even though it was sent from God, we are able to question and interpret according to certain guidelines. The Talmud, the book of Jewish law is a series of arguments between learned people about what is the correct law.  Now if God's "Torah is not in Heaven" and Jewish law is one big grey area consisting of differing arguments between scholars, how can he put down people who question a scientific theory that, the last time I checked, was not a sacred part of the canon.

Into the middle of it all rides Tebow. Absolutely confident that God is on his side, he comes across as a humbler version of the biblical Joseph, who, in this week’s Torah portion, audaciously lays claim to being the Chosen One, and then goes out and proves it. Tebow’s sanctimonious God-talk has led even pious peers like Kurt Warner to suggest that he cool it. Joseph could have used the same coaching.

Tebow believes that God is on his side in life--not in football!  And if the Rabbi would examine prayer books instead of his progressive politics, he would realize that Judaism teach the exact same thing.

I admire much of what Tebow stands for. His mom’s decision to risk her own life rather than abort her fetus flies against my own – and Judaism’s values,[Please don't pretend you speak for all Judaism--because you are wrong !]– but neither am I pro-choice in all cases. His story is so improbable that if he were to win it all, a part of me would be wondering whether there is a Purpose behind it, just as I saw a divine hand in the equally unbelievable Red Sox victory of 2004. And it makes me wonder whether other Jews, the ones who don’t happen to have advanced degrees in religion and a few decades of rabbinic experience, might be even more seduced by this unfolding drama. Will legions of Southern Baptist missionaries hit the college campuses the very next day, spreading this new gospel of Tim? Already there is a “Jews for Tebow” Facebook page.

First of all the Red Sox victory in 2004 had nothing to do with God. But the 1969 and 1996 Mets as well as the Jets win in Super Bowl III were divinely inspired.

Tebow used to wear eye black citing Ephesians 2:8-10, which states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (in Jesus).” His avenue to salvation is not available to those Jews who wish to remain Jewish.

And so? That is his belief, just as we believe that when the Moshiach (Messiah) comes to the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt we will celebrate the Festivals as they did 2000+ plus years ago....which means no Gentiles partaking in the pascal lamb, but that doesn't really matter because we also believe that "on that day the Lord will be one and his name one." which means among other things no more Christians. Does that mean Christians should be afraid of me? I don't think so.

Unlike some other blue-staters, I do not fear people of faith.[Horse Poop!] I fear people of certainty. The worldwide struggle going on right now is not between good and evil, but between certainty and doubt. It cuts across denominational lines: Progressive and Modern Orthodox Jews lie on one side of the divide, joining mainline Christians and moderate Muslims; and those on the other side are also Jews, Christians and Muslims; the people of certainty.

Of course it is between good and evil.  Progressives like Hammerman believe man should be dependent on government and the system. They preach against God because the government does not like competition. Progressives hate nothing more than when people wear their faith on their sleeves. Tim Tebow is an example for all, Jew, Muslim and Christian. Jews are taught that everything that God gives us is a blessing Tebow is a living example of that. One of the first prayers Jews are supposed to make in the morning is thanking the Lord for making us wash our hands.  Now if we can thank God for washing out hands, what is wrong with thanking God for scoring a touchdown in the NFL which from what I hear is much harder than washing one's hands.

For me, only one thing is certain. On Sunday, I’ll be praying for the Patriots.

It strange, the Hammerman's column in the Jewish week is called "on one foot" a homage to an old story about the great sage, Rabbi Hillel. Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai were the two great scholars of their time, yet they were diametrically opposed. Hillel was known for his kindness, his gentleness, and his concern for humanity.Rabbi Shammai was an engineer, known for the strictness of his views. Throughout the Talmud it is the Rabbi Hillel approach that wins the argument.

The Talmud tells of a Gentile who came to Shammai saying that he would convert to Judaism if Shammai could teach him the whole Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot. Shammai drove him away with a builder's measuring stick!  So that same non-Jew went to Rabbi Hillel who said "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."And the Gentile did.

If the entire Torah, what we call the Etz Chaim, the tree  of life, handed down by God can be condensed into That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor, it should be important enough for Rabbi Hammerman to remember when he talks about observant Christians like Tim Tebow.

Sorry "Rabbi" but as a New Yorker and a Jets fan I will be praying  for the Broncos against the division rival Patriots.  I will also be praying that this RINO remembers what he was taught in the Seminary about religious tolerance. That way he can stop being an embarrassment to the Jewish people and to the Conservative movement.

Oh one more thing....Sorry Tim but if the Broncos play the Jets in the NFL Playoffs  I will be praying you lose. Not because you are a Christian like the RINO Hammerman but because you are not a NY Jet.

UPDATE......UPDATE......UPDATE......UPDATE

I just got off the Phone With Jewish Week Publisher/Editor-in-Chief Gary Rosenblatt he confirmed that the post has been taken down and an official statement will be out soon. When I tried to press him asking whether he took it down because he disagreed with the content he pushed back and said "Rather than putting words in my mouth, why don't you wait for the statement."

If you still wish to read the "Rabbi's" original post, you can check out the cached version here 

As soon as I get the official Statement I will post here.

The Post has also been taken down from the Rabbi's Site and replaced with:

The Silence of The Mainstream Media

Much of the bias of the mainstream media is not displayed by what they say but by what they omit. During the past four years there have plenty of examples of the silence of the media. Remember the media ignoring candidate Obama’s relationship with seedy figures such as terrorist Bill Ayers, Communist scholar/pedophile Frank Marshall Davis or even the fact the future president’s first political office was won in part by earning the support of the Marxist, New Party.

Protecting Barack Obama is not the only reason for the mainstream media to omit elements of a story, but protecting the President’s progressive agenda is usually involved.

Take for example this week’s release of a new batch of “climategate” emails. This batch is from around the same time as the first set, leaked two years ago, and they feature the same cast of scientists such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, and Keith Briffa, who starred in the first set. In these emails the scientists admit that the evidence behind man made global warming is paper thin, and the apocalyptic climate story is being pushed for political rather than environment reasons. There is even evidence of US and British government involvement in covering up evidence disproving the global warming story.

One would expect news such as this to become banner headlines across the country’s biggest papers. Those expectations would not be met. The NY Times small story in its environmental column. While someone seriously covering the story would post some of the controversial exchanges, the Times paraphrased some of them and concluded by explaining it was much ado about nothing:

Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.

Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”

Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.

“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”

Time Magazine reported on the scandal by ignoring the bulk of the emails and calling it a weak sequel. Interestingly it seems as if Health and Science reporter Bryan Walsh didn’t read any of the emails himself, but simply reported what others said before concluding that thy contained nothing new. Just like the NY Times, by omitting a broad selection of the emails, Time Magazine skewed the story.
                                           
Another story where the media exposed its progressive bias was the terrorist arrested by the NYPD this past Sunday.

According to the description by NYPD Commissioner 27-year-old Jose Pimentel, a loner who lives with his mother in Washington Heights was charged with making pipe bombs after a year-long investigation. The reason for Jose’s little project was that he converted to a radical form of Islam and was very upset the US killed his heroes Usama bin Laden and most especially his spiritual mentor Anwar al-Awlaki. Pimentel even learned how to make pipe bombs via Awlaki’s online magazine which included an article, "How to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."

While Pimentel’s religion was the motivating factor behind his bomb making, it went against the progressive narrative which says there is no relationship between radical Islam and terrorism. Therefore when Reuters and the Associated Press first reported the story, Pimentel’s radical faith was left out of the story he was described as an al Qaeda sympathizer (the fact that he was a Muslim convert was added the next day)

The NY Daily News managed to tell the story of Pimentel’s arrest without using the words Muslim or Islam.

Time Magazine skirts around the issue describing the terrorist as a 27-year-old al-Qaida sympathizer" who was motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq,” and “A U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic” never mentioning his conversion. The closest they got was mentioning that Pimentel was also known as Muhammad Yusuf.

There is the old saying that you should never totally believe what you read in the news media, that is only half true, what you don’t read is just as important. In the case of the new Climategate emails, the mainstream media’s reluctance to print a broad sampling of the conversations to allow the readers to judge their worth is an indication that their preference is to perpetuate what is increasingly becoming apparent as a hoax upon the public. Their coverage of a recent terrorist arrest indicates their refusal to be honest with their readers about the relationship between radical Islam and terrorism.

The silence of the media is just another way they present their bias. Perhaps mainstream media editors are simply worried if they allow their audience to see the full truth, their progressive handlers will eat their livers… with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Climategate II Emails Show US/British Govs Colluded W/Scientists to Suppress Anti-Warming Data

This past Tuesday more than 5,000 emails were leaked online as  follow-up to the first set Climategate emails released two years ago. These emails go even further than the first set in showing a systemic suppression of evidence, and even reports being published that the scientists knew were  based on bogus approaches, but since the findings were pro-global warming the papers were blessed by the University of East Anglia and the rest of the ruling members of the climate change Cosa Nostra.  This time not only are the scientists implicated but so are members of the British and US governments

For example there was this message from the British Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra):

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

They were assured by the head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (the now infamous Professor Phil Jones) that the findings would stand up.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

And who was a party to suppressing that data?

'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

In another email Professor Jones happily reported

 'I’ve been told that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is above national Freedom of Information Acts.

'One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

Not all scientists were happy with this approach but some seemed happy to being a party to concealing and destroying evidence.

The lead author of one of the reports, Jonathan Overpeck, wrote, 'The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.'

 This time even the "science world" is coming down hard on the climate scientists.

Andrew Orlwowski, UK science site The Register's science correspondent comments on one email that says, 'What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'

'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'

Clive Crook, a commentator for the Atlantic, who described the earlier inquiries into the Climategate emails as 'ineffectual' and 'mealy mouthed', reportedly said, 'The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.

The climatologists in the climate change Cosa Nostra, are claiming the release of these emails is despicable, they are not (as of this writing) claiming the emails are bogus. Which based on the evidence shows that we have been lied to not only by members of the scientific community but by the
Department of Energy of the United States Government. Hopefully congress will investigate why the DOE is supressing information.

BREAKING!!! Climategate II, 5,000 New Emails Released Detailing Climate Change Hoax

No you are not experiencing deja vu. do not adjust your television set, it is neither the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits, it really is happening again.  Another 5,ooo emails from the University of East  Anglia  have been placed upon an Russian Server to be shared with the public.  And just like the last time, the emails are very damaging.

These emails must be from around the same time as the first set, two years ago, because they feature the same cast of Scientists  such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa admitting the same sort of thing, that the evidence behind man made global warming is paper thin, and it is being pushed for political rather than environment reasons.

The whistleblower who posted the emails calls himself 'FOIA 2011' introduced the emails with:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

And FOIA 2011 is right on, if we are going to screw up the world economy with oppressive climate rules that will create energy shortages that lead to food shortages, it should be based on real scientific evidence. Not selective reports which in aggregate sell a theory based on half-truths..

Below are some of the most incriminating tidbits found so far

<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike,[Mann, Mr. Hockey Stick]  The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?


<2009> Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.


<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:
if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible

<3332> Kelly:
the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
<3655> Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.


<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warming period]go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:
You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<5096> Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.


<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

<1788> Jones:
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

<2967> Briffa:
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?

<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

<4262> Klein/LLNL:
Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this

<2461> Osborn:
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:
In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI [Urban Heat Effect]
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.

<0044> Rean:
[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

<1601> Jones:
I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.

<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
.
<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
<5055> Cook:
One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.

There is much more to be found on sites such as Tallbloke and Climate Depot, the bottom line is that these emails are another nail in the coffin of the climate change hoax. In the meantime go out and buy the large popcorn and keep your eyes on this site. Its going to be fun.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has more here 

LIAR! Scientist Who Claims to Have "Proved" Global Warming- Accused of "Fudging" Truth By Colleague

It was supposed to be the "missing link." The study that would shut up all of the global warming skeptics.  Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950 and is warming continually. 

The study was published last week and was expected to receive major accolades during next month's major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa (you ever notice the UN holds its most evil summits in Durban?)

In the short time since it was released, the study was  hailed as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent Al Gore-type measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilization as we know it  

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But a colleague of Prof Muller and fellow BEST researcher Prof Judith Curry has a message for those newspapers hailing the end of climate skepticism, "Not so fast newsprint breath!"


Curry who was part Prof Muller's team told the UK Daily Mail that Muller was trying mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped and Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Take a look at the two graphs below, the top one was issued by BEST as part of the study, it shows temperatures rising.  The bottom graph published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows global temperatures over the past ten years, using the data from the  BEST project. It shows that during the last decade, temperatures have been absolutely flat, with no increase at all, even though CO2 continues to be released into the atmosphere.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming skepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’.

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.

Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.

‘Of course this isn’t the end of skepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected skeptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

Professor Muller says that he wasn't being misleading because he published all the data so people could draw their own data (I kid you not).

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

...Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.

‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’

Dr. David Whitehouse of the (GWPF)  believes that Muller was trying to cover up the facts.

Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly?

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

Dr. Whitehouse concludes with

Only a few years ago many scientists and commentators would not acknowledge the global temperature standstill of the past decade. Now that it has become unarguable there has emerged more explanations for it than can possibly be the case.

To explain the combined sea-land temperature hiatus some have suggested that the oceans are sucking up the heat, as professor Muller outlines in his radio interview. This explanation is strained in my view if the land temperature stays constant. Could we really have the very special situation whereby the oceans sequester just enough heat at just the right time to keep the land temperature flat? Aerosols, postulated by some to be coming from China, don’t provide an explanation for the land temperature hiatus either. In fact, the constant land temperature puts a strain on all of the explanations offered for why the land-sea combination hasn’t warmed in the past decade or so.

We make a big deal of the temperature going up. In my view we should make a bigger scientific deal about temperature flatlining for a decade or more in the face of rising CO2 levels. If further scrutiny of the Best dataset confirms this finding we will have new questions about the nature and balance of oceanic and land warming.

The fact that Best confirms the global temperature hiatus and shows that it is apparent in land only data is significant, and in my view its major scientific finding, so far. It is puzzling that they missed it.

Sorry Dr. Whitehouse I disagree, it isn't puzzling at all. The reason Muller missed the hiatus is that it did not agree with the result he wanted to report. Like many of the global warming hoaxers his intention was not to find the real truth, but to create a truth that satisfies their bogus theory.

Readers' Choice of The Top Fifteen "Lid" Posts of 2010

Since it the end of the year many of my favorite bloggers are making their choice of their favorite posts of the year. For example John Hawkins posted The 15 Most Popular Political Posts On Linkiest For 2010 and The 20 Most Popular Non-Political Links On Linkiest For 2010  this morning. As I will be heading out for a few days of family fun tomorrow afternoon, between tomorrow and new years I will be rerunning some of my favorite posts of the last twelve months.  But before then I thought it might be fun to see what your favorite posts of the year.

The posts listed below are the ones that were read by the most people between January 1, 2010 and today.  Some of them were published on this site before they appeared anywhere else in the blog world or the main-stream media(like the Helen Thomas and the General Jones and The League of Women Voters ACORN posts) others were the product of original research such as the Union Pension Plan article,  and some were written just because I hate bullies like when Bob Beckel was fresh nasty and condescending to my friend Pamela Geller. Then there were the satires like the Dead Potomac River Scrolls,  All of the posts were written with the purpose of sharing with you the news that you wont find elsewhere or a unique perspective. 

The post you read the most was viewed by over 47,000 people (thanks to being linked by Allahpundit of Hot Air)  and your 15th favorite post was read by 7,000.  The list is below and they are all hot-linked just in case you missed them the first time around.

15) NY Times and Wash Post Say CBO Numbers Don't Pass Smell Test

14) Archeologists Find Revised Version of Constitution In DC Cave: The Dead Potomac River Scrolls 

13) Hey Taxpayers, Get Ready To Pay For the Union Pension Failure Tsunami

12) SEIU Exec VP: "White Workers Are So F***ing Rabidly Racist"

11)New Climategate Shocker: Even the CRU Thought the Climate Change Hockey Stick Was Flawed

10) Pelosi Tries to "Walk Back" Her Call to Investigate the Mosque Protesters

9) Illinois League of Women Voters Big Shot Who Bashed Pledge of Allegiance, Is Former ACORN

8) When Chris Matthews Had a "Man Crush" on Glenn Beck: MUST WATCH VIDEO

7) Helen Thomas Says Jews Should Get the Hell Out of Palestine and Back To Germany-MUST SEE VIDEO

6) Valerie Jarrett: Americans are Idiots, Obama Too Intelligent For Words

5) How The Coming Union Pension Plan Collapse is Affecting White House Decisions

4) Bob Beckel Threatens Blogger Pamela Geller During FBN Appearance

3) The Numbers Reflect Voters Hate The President's Budget

2) National Security Adviser Jones: Jews Are Greedy Merchants

1) Reuters Brings Fauxtography to the Gaza Flotilla

Princeton Scientist Tells Congress: Warming Hockey Stick is Bogus, CO2 Good for Mankind

William Happer Professor of Physics Princeton University spent much of his professional life studying the interactions of radiation with gases, which is one of the of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect, he has published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject. He was also the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. In other words the guy knows what he is talking about.

Yesterday Happer testified before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and gave them an earful. He told them why the hockey stick graph was wrong, that global warming and cooling are natural phenomena, CO2  is beneficial for man, and that the Global Warming Moonbats are suppressing research contrary to their positions.

Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1942 to 1975. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 385 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will add a warming trend to the natural warmings and coolings of the earth’s surface. 

The key question is: how much warming will there be, and will the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity? I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.

Question 1: To what extent does CO2 lead to global warming?

Answer: Doubling CO2 will probably lead to less than 2C surface warming.
The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, well over half of the  greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature 

...Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. The technical jargon for this is that the CO2 absorption band is nearly “saturated” at current CO2 levels. Adding more CO2 is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. The extra hat makes you a little bit warmer but to really get warm, you need to add a jacket. The IPCC thinks that this jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds,. To get the frightening global warming scenarios that are bandied about, the added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution warming. The jargon is “positive feedback” from water vapor and clouds. With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative

Part of the problem with the IPCC research, like much of what comes out of the global warming community, is that it is based on computer models instead of observation.

...water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the relatively small direct warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.

My own educated guess is that doubling CO2 from our current value of about 380 ppm to 760 ppm will warm the atmosphere by less than 2 C – and perhaps less if there is negative feedback from water-vapor and clouds.

Question 2. “How are important climatic systems (e.g. the role of clouds, water vapor, etc.) simulated in computer models that are used to predict climate change.”

Answer 2. Most models predict that water vapor and clouds will greatly amplify
the warming due to CO2 alone. There is little observational support for these
predictions. Furthermore, the models do not explain relative large climate
changes in past when there was negligible combustion of fossil fuels.

The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was appreciable burning of fossil fuel. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. 

These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. It is hard for many scientists to understand why some significant fraction of the current warming might not also due to similar natural causes. Over the past ten years there has been no statistically global warming. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC computer models. The existence of large climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control the climate. 

To the best of my knowledge, none of the climate models designed to predict future climate have been successful in explaining these past fluctuations of the climate. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? 

I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Both the little ice age and the medieval warm period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 hadbsuddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change. It is a shame, because many of the IPCC chapters are quite good.....

Question 3: What policies are necessary to protect and improve scientists’ ability to conduct research and share scientific information with policymakers.

Answer 3. Global-warming alarmists have tried to silence any who question the party line of impending climate apocalypse. We need to establish a Team B of competent scientists, charged with questioning the party line. The DoD and the CIA do this, there was a devil’s advocate (promoter fidei) for sainthood, why not the same for climate change? 

The climate-change establishment has tried to eliminate any who dare question
the science. This was made very clear in the Climategate Letters, which reveal the blacklisting of research that strays from the party line with the aid of hostile peer
reviewers and helpful editors, and threats to any journal that did not cooperate -- in
some cases leading to the removal of editors. Climate change science needs a “team B.” This happens in many other areas, for example, weapons systems for DoD, or intelligence assessments at CIA. Both of these organizations, and many others, routinely establish robust team B’s, that is, groups of experts who work full time, sometimes for several years, to challenge the establishment position. 

....Indeed, we read testimony by Dr. James Hanson in the Congressional Record, that climate skeptics are guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.” There are many similarly intimidating statements made by establishment climate scientists and by like-thinking policy-makers – you are either with us or you are a traitor. 

Let me turn to a few additional thoughts that concern me today. I keep hearing
about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: 

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were at least 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.

We are all aware that “the green revolution” has increased crop yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development is due to improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, etc. But no small part of the yield improvement has come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2. Plants photosynthesize more carbohydrates when they have more CO2. Plants are also more drought-tolerant with more CO2, because they need not “inhale” as much air to get the CO2 needed for photosynthesis. At the same time, the plants need not “exhale” as much water vapor when they are using air enriched in CO2. 

...If we really were to decrease our current level of CO2 of around 400 ppm to the 270 ppm that prevailed a few hundred years ago, we would lose some of the benefits of the green revolution. Crop yields will continue to increase as CO2 levels go up, since we are far from the optimum levels for plant growth.

.....Enormous effort and imagination have gone into showing that increasing concentrations of CO2 will be catastrophic: cities will be flooded by sea-level rises that are ten or more times bigger than even IPCC predicts, there will be mass extinctions of species, billions of people will die, tipping points will render the planet a desert. Any flimsy claim of harm from global warming brings instant fame and many rewads.

This brings up the frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea of an impending disaster from climate change, and that it may already be too late to avert this catastrophe --even if we stop burning fossil fuels now. We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion. First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus has often been wrong. Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis. I do not believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves. Before making policy on climate change, we should heed the ancient bit of wisdom, “First, do no harm!” The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration. The rising sea level can be a serious local problem for heavily-populated, low-lying areas like New Orleans, where land subsidence compounds the problem. But to think that limiting CO2 emissions will stop sea level rise is a dangerous illusion. It is also possible that the warming seas around Antarctica will cause more snowfall over the continent and will counteract the sea-level rise. In any case, the rising sea level is a problem that needs quick local action for locations like New Orleans rather than slow action globally. 

Indeed, had we taken a few of the many billions of dollars we have been spending on climate-change research and propaganda and fixed the levees and pumps around New Orleans, most of the damage from Hurricane Katrina could have been avoided. 

I regret that the climate-change issue has become confused with serious
problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment, and figuring out where future generations will get energy supplies after we have burned all the fossil fuel we can find. We should not confuse these laudable goals with hysterics about carbon footprints. For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind. We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc. Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs. 

The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.