RUTHFULLY YOURS

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

Like Groundhog Day, in the movie of that name, Iraq won’t go away. In what Friday’s New York Times curiously called “robust military moves,” President Obama is now sending 300 military advisers to Iraq to complement the 275 servicemen who are guarding the American Embassy.
My point, in this instance, is not to argue who is at fault for the chaos in Iraq. Other than one observation, let us agree to disagree, at least for the moment, as to the cause. An aspect of Saddam Hussein’s nearly 24-year reign that too often is forgotten was his wanton brutality. We know he used mustard gas, Sarin and nerve agents (all weapons of mass destruction, by the way) against the Kurds. No one knows how many of his own people he killed, but estimates range from 600,000 to well over a million. In other words, he killed his own people at the rate of between 25,000 and 50,000 a year (or 68 to 136 every day) for 24 years! In the gallery of the world’s worst monsters, Saddam Hussein stands in the front ranks.

Regardless of the cause, we are left with a mess. Syria and Iraq are in disarray. Iran is moving toward nuclear capability. Islamic extremists not only threaten Iraq and Syria, they are doing so in North Africa, as well as in such West Africa nations as Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Ironically, today Iran is being touted by some as a bulwark of relative stability in the Middle East. The U.S. has reached out to the Mullahs to aid in derailing the assault on Baghdad by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In return, Iran may be invited into the community of nations, if they forswear developing nuclear weapons. Agreeing to the latter, means one is willing to rely on trust without the Reagan qualifier of verification.
Regarding Iraq, the temptation is to throw up one’s hands and say a curse on both your houses –battle it out. We don’t care. But can the United States, the world’s largest power (and the most democratic State to ever serve in such a capacity) afford to give up responsibility for global peace? Historically, it has been the threat of force, not passivity or negligence, which has preserved peace. And, like it or not, we are the elephant in the room.
In puzzling over what actions the Russians might take in 1939 as the world was preparing for war, Winston Churchill described the country as being “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but,” he added, “perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” As we ponder the problem of the Middle East, it is worth thinking of our national interest as it pertains to the region. Our self-interest appears to be comprised of four distinct, but related parts: first and most critical is maintaining stability in the region; second, preventing the export of terrorism to our homeland and to that of our allies; third, ensuring that Gulf Coast oil continues to flow, and, fourth, the preservation of Israel as a free and independent nation. All are, of course, interrelated. The critical question: Will a dismembered and strife-torn Iraq affect our national interests?

REPORTED BY RAHEEM KASSAN

CITY OF LONDON, United Kingdom – Historian and author Niall Ferguson today delivered a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies’ inaugural Margaret Thatcher Liberty Conference, discussing the “wobbliness” of U.S. President Barack Obama, and noting how former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would have dealt with the challenges the West faces today.

Speaking in front of a several hundred strong crowd in the historic and grand surroundings of London’s Guildhall, Ferguson said that NATO was no longer a credible force in the world, which has led to the resurgence of Russia as a global power. Prime Minister Thatcher, he noted, would have “striven to make NATO a force… and urged President Obama to make the red line [with regard to Ukraine] a real one”.

Ferguson, who is the author of ‘Civilisation: The West and the Best’ as well as being a history professor at Harvard University, said: “We are in cultural decline too… In the wake of victory [in 1991] came a serious decline of the West.

“Who would have predicted in 1989 that by the year 2014 that at least on one measure, China would be the biggest economy in the world, and still under the control of a Communist party? What a defeat.”

“Imagine how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the fiascos we have seen in Syria and with respect to Ukraine,” he said, before going on to note that the former PM would have supported freedom-loving dissident movements in both countries, the opposite of what modern leaders have done.

“Have we made comparable efforts to support dissidents in the Middle east and North Africa, have we helped them in the way we helped the opponents of Communism? No, and not surprisingly their revolution failed and their revolution was hijacked by the enemies of freedom”.

Ferguson believes that a referendum on European Union membership would have been combatted by Thatcher, who would have fought to avoid a federal political union under Germany’s control. He said that “a British exit from the European Union would be a profound set back… but if the British voter is confronted with exit and being part of a German-led federal state – could you really blame [them] for voting for the exit?”

Ill Met: opera house at war over money
A bitter dispute has sprung up between managers and workers at New York’s Metropolitan Opera as financial crisis
looms

PETER GELB, the formidable general manager of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, turned up at the opening gala for a new production of Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin a few months ago wearing a pair of rainbow braces — a small but colourful gesture of solidarity with gay and lesbian Russians then being threatened by Vladimir Putin.

Gelb could have used some braces last w

The Met’s spending has included £100,000 on silk flowers (Kathy Willens)

eek after a bitter dispute with powerful backstage unions caught him with his trousers down.

A discordant clash between managers and workers at the Lincoln Centre opera house, which regards itself as the biggest, richest and most admired in the world, has divided the aesthetes of New York and raised alarming questions about the future of opera in America.

The launch this month of a new round of contract negotiations with 15 unions representing singers, musicians, stagehands and support staff has turned into a public slanging match over everything from Gelb’s salary to allegations of bedbugs in the men’s chorus changing rooms.

At stake in an increasingly toxic confrontation is not just the Met’s $311m (£180m) annual budget (against £112m at Covent Garden), or the daunting costs of staging opera with unionised workers who demand £400 for moving a single cello onstage. The real concern is the future of opera in the internet world, and how an art form whose patrons are mostly ageing white people can be adapted to a younger, multicultural audience.

Both sides describe the crisis in near-apocalyptic terms, not least because the Met’s former neighbour at the Lincoln Centre — the New York City Opera — went bankrupt last year.

Worse still, the flunkie in this article title recently served as U.S. Secretary of State. Back in the ’90s when she served as First Lady (co-president, some say) Hillary Clinton was widely known as “The Smartest Woman in the World.” Her husband Bill supposedly coined the term, but Rush Limbaugh ran with it, snarking and laughing. Soon it was household.

In her new book, Hillary Clinton reveals that she prodded President Obama to “lift or ease” (what’s left of the so-called) Cuba embargo. “The embargo is Castro’s best friend,” Clinton explained to a delighted audience at the anti-embargo Council on Foreign Relations last week while promoting her book Hard Choices.

But doesn’t the “Smartest Woman in the World” and former U.S. Secretary of State know that what’s left of the sanctions against Castro’s Stalinist regime are codified into law and can only be lifted by Congress, obviously after a vote? In fact, this codification took place with passage of the Helms-Burton act in 1996, when she was first lady (co-president.)

The current U.S. president, having already delighted Castro by loopholing the Cuba sanctions almost to death, can’t go much further. Has Ms. Clinton forgotten? Or is this constitutional “expert” advocating (even more) U.S. government by executive fiat?

And what about the $2 billion (worth $7 billion today) stolen at Soviet gunpoint by Castro’s gunmen in 1960 from U.S. businessmen and stockholders, after the torture and murder of a few Americans who resisted? That very Helms-Burton law also calls for a settling of that account before allowing any more loopholing of the embargo.

Perhaps instead of attending Yale Law School and marrying “her way to the top,” Hillary Rodham Clinton should have “stayed home and baked cookies,” (to succumb to her own famous insult against America’s stay-at home moms), then sold them at a lemonade stand. If so, she’d know a little about business. To wit: When somebody stiffs you big–time (as Castro did to the U.S. like nobody in history) before extending them more credit you demand they settle up the amount in arrears. Comprende, “Smartest Woman in the World”?

More basic still, Webster’s defines “embargo” as “a government order imposing a trade barrier.” As a verb it’s defined as “to prevent commerce.” But according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. (thanks to her husband’s loopholes in 1999) has transacted almost $4 billion in trade with Cuba over the past 14 years. Up until five years ago, the U.S. served as Stalinist Cuba’s biggest food supplier and fifth biggest import partner. For over a decade the so-called U.S. embargo, so disparaged by Hillary Clinton, has mostly stipulated that Castro’s Stalinist regime pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. agricultural products; no Export-Import Bank (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales.

Enacted by the Bush team in 2001, (attempting to patch some of her husband’s loopholes) this cash-up-front policy has been monumentally beneficial to U.S. taxpayers, making them among the few in the world not stiffed by the Castro regime, which per capita-wise qualifies as the world’s biggest dead-beat. Standard & Poors refuses to even rate Cuba.

Again, shouldn’t a former U.S. Sec. of State be familiar with this?

Oh Puleez! The blame falls squarely on both Bush and Obama, and, by the way, on General Petraeus whose rules of engagement (COIN) hampered US soldiers in pursuit of Moslem barbarians. Bush, whose staged “mission completed” show aboard a carrier, referred to Taliban and Al Qaeda as “enemies of freedom who hijacked a religion of peace”- never, not once, actually naming Islam or Jihad. And, most egregious, only months after 9/11 he invited the rotten King of Saudi Arabia, funder of terrorism, practitioner of harsh Sharia laws, and ruler of the nation from which almost all the 9/11 terrorists emerged, to his ranch at Crawford. That same rotten monarch then had the effrontery to declare his “Peace Plan for the Middle East” endorsed and praised by Bush and company. Obama is bad enough but this failed policy started with Bush……rsk
Like Birkenstocks and ironic t-shirts, blaming Bush has never gone out of style on the left. When Al Qaeda’s resurgence in Iraq became so obvious that even the media, which had been pretending that Obama’s claims about a successful withdrawal were true, could no longer ignore them, their talking points were all lined up and ready.

It was all Bush’s fault.

Defenses of the war by pivotal figures like Dick Cheney and Tony Blair only enraged them further. “Why wouldn’t they admit it was all their fault?”

But the left’s lazy talking points about Iraq, like their talking points about the economy, ignore everything that has happened since 2008.

The leading factor behind the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t come from Iraq. It came from Syria.

From the “Islamic State of Iraq” under Bush to the ”Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” under Obama, it’s all in the name. The variations of ISIS and ISIL show a regional shift toward Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a vicious terrorist organization before the Arab Spring, but it was not capable of menacing Baghdad with a sizable army while crushing numerically superior forces along the way.

That didn’t happen in Iraq. It happened in Syria.

If you believe liberal supporters of Obama and opponents of the Iraq War, regime change in Iraq disastrously destabilized the region, but regime change in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria didn’t.

But the theory that turned Al Qaeda into a regional monster didn’t come from Dick Cheney. It came from Obama’s Presidential Study Directive 11 which helped pave the way for the Arab Spring. The definitive speech that opened the gates of hell wasn’t Bush’s speech on Iraq, but Obama’s Cairo speech.