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.

Mississippi Runoff a Generational and Philosophical Battle

On the surface, the runoff for the Mississippi GOP Senate nomination on Tuesday between state Senator Chris McDaniel and six-term incumbent Thad Cochran appears to be a clash between populism and traditionalism — the Tea Party vs. the “Establishment.” But the fight being joined in the Magnolia State resists such easy labeling simply because the battle lines are so starkly drawn.

There is a generational aspect to the race that goes beyond the fact that Cochran is 76 and McDaniel is 41. Cochran represents the old guard of the Republican Party whose notions of conservative governance are being relentlessly challenged by McDaniel and those who back him. The challenge is nationwide and it hardly matters that Tea Party candidates haven’t won every race. Those thousands of volunteers who flocked to campaigns in Kentucky, Virginia, Iowa, and many other states are exerting influence and are slowly changing the core philosophy of the Republican Party.

Cochran is an old-fashioned politician who believes it’s his job to bring federal dollars back to his state. In this, he’s been hugely successful over the 36 years he has been in office. There’s hardly a county in Mississippi that hasn’t benefited from Cochran’s single-minded reliance on pork-barrel politics. Schools, hospitals, health clinics, roads, bridges, post offices, old folks’ homes — tens of billions of dollars to give the residents of his state what he saw as a decent quality of life.

But what have all those billions actually done for the citizens of Mississippi? When Cochran became the first Republican senator elected from Mississippi since Reconstruction in 1978, it was the poorest state in the union and ranked dead last in almost every category relating to economics, education, and income.

Today, Mississippi still ranks dead last in income, poverty rate, life expectancy, and four other metrics. It is second to last in percentage of high school graduates, infant mortality rates, and obesity, and is ranked 48 in “well being.” All those schools, all those hospitals and clinics, all that money — and the people of his state are hardly better off than they were when he took office.

Mississippi is ranked fifth in federal tax dollars spent per capita. The state budget is more dependent on federal money than any other state is. Washington — with Cochran’s help and support — has lavished tax money on Mississippi only to see their efforts end in total failure.

It appears that something more than cash from Washington will be needed if Mississippi is ever going to become something more than a basket case. Cochran obviously doesn’t see that, while Mr. McDaniel does.

“Look at the man (or woman) who is leading your country today; then consider the people who voted for him, and who revere him no matter what he does. A new religion has taken hold indeed: an Empire of Lies, an Empire of Deceptions, an Empire of ready dupes. We are now supposed to think that things would have gone right if the Indians had pushed the European settlers into the sea. We are supposed to believe that California, in all truth, belongs to Mexico. We are supposed to eliminate the automobile, because the automobile is melting the icecaps and destroying the habitat of the Polar Bear. Everything about our past, and who we are, must cease to matter. We ourselves must cease to exist. That is the wisdom of the hour. This is how we immanentize the Eschaton, bringing on the winepress of the wrath of God while stupidly believing we have heralded the New Jerusalem.”

In parts I-III we have seen how the Empire of Lies advances on all fronts, at home and abroad. Big Government Socialism is, of course, the heart of modernity’s Big Lie, where God is dead and unchecked political power forms the basis of a monstrous new religion disguised as “science.” This new religion rises up on every side. Its adherents dominate the media, education, government and the arts. This religion decries the wickedness of all who eschew social conscience, and who advance the “dismal science” of economic principle, or who adhere to God and country.

The new religion curses the following: the nation state, traditional folkways, market economics, and the liberty toward which these organic formations tend. In place of the old God they have put forward a number of candidates: first among these (1) the people; (2) the proletariat; (3) non-whites; (4) women; (5) the planet; (6) and homosexuals. Each of these false Gods, depicted as the crucified victims of a wicked capitalist patriarchy, are set up in honored pity; as hero-victims whose plight justifies the Great Revolution.

The socialist is said to weep, as Jesus wept. But this same crocodile, with row upon row of sharp teeth, will distill its tears however it may; yet these are crocodile tears all the same, shed so as to lure more victims. The socialist crocodile promises that the lion will lie down with the lamb, and he promises prosperity; but his policy (in the end) delivers the exact opposite. The lamb, of course, will be eaten by the crocodile.

It was Eric Voegelin who once likened our new political religion to Gnosticism as a “type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.” First comes political speculation (of the revolutionary kind). Next, this speculation is turned into action and policy – in order to bring Heaven on Earth. In doing this, wrote Voegelin, the Gnostics reject traditional religion and the Kingdom of God, replacing it with a political kingdom on earth. In trying to build such a kingdom the poor fools Immanentize the Eschaton. Voegelin wrote:

All gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in the divine, transcendent being, and replacing it with a world-immanent order of being, the perfection of which lies in the realm of human action. This is a matter of so altering the structure of the world, which is perceived as inadequate, that a new, satisfying world arises.

The Empire of Lies, Part II:
The Lie at the Foundation of Today’s Right

You might wonder why the Soviet Union and the Communist International never thought of infiltrating the American Right. But then, what if they did? In fact, they must have done so, because the Communists always infiltrate and subvert their enemies, and the American Right is the heart of the capitalist camp. So it is inconceivable that they did not infiltrate the Right; and that means they are here, right now, in our midst (because the Communists never really went away, despite what happened from 1989-90). This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”

In the Empire of Lies conservatism has become an outlaying province, long ago colonized by the enemy. And the proof is not far to find. The “conservative” Kissinger went to China, then the “conservative” Nixon went to China, and the “conservative” Reagan traded with China, and now China has destroyed our exports, and our industry, and now our currency. And the conservatives called this “free trade.” They quoted Milton Friedman. But here, on this small blog, we know the Cold War never ended and Milton Friedman was wrong. We know that China was engaged in a strategy about which Deng Xiaoping said “the capitalists know nothing.” And we may testify, if no one else dares, that the “conservatives” helped the Communists in China and Russia more than anyone else. And if the world thinks we are crazy for saying this, we may reply that the world itself is mad. Meanwhile, there has not been one article I know of about Communist infiltration of the Right. Neither has anyone spoken publicly on this subject. It is a non-subject, about which silence speaks volumes.

Since signing the Oslo agreement in 1993, Israel has made a series of astounding concessions, which did nothing but produce further Palestinian demands for even more far-reaching concessions.
the Left cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility that its position might be refuted, that position is no longer a rational political perspective but an article of “religious faith. They [the kidnappers] are not terrorists… They’re people who don’t see any way to change their reality and are forced to use these means until Israel wakes up a little, until Israeli citizens and society wake up and feel the suffering of the other.
– MK Haneen Zoabi on Radio Tel Aviv, June 17.

The only way still open for the Palestinians to remind the Israelis of…their plight is the way of violent struggle. All other paths have been blocked. If the Gaza Strip doesn’t fire Qassam rockets at Israel, the Gaza Strip doesn’t exist.

And if, in the West Bank, yeshiva students aren’t abducted, then the West Bank disappears from Israel’s consciousness. Abductions or murders are aimed at puncturing Israel’s intolerable complacency.
– Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz, June 15.

Compare the substance of the sentiments conveyed by the vitriolic anti-Zionist Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi of the Balad list (more on its roots later), with those conveyed by well-known columnist, Gideon Levy of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz.

Apologists for abductors

Fair-minded readers would be hard pressed to detect any substantive differences between the two. Indeed the message they both articulate is, for all intents and purposes, identical.

They both portray the recent abduction of three Israeli teenagers as a justifiable act of desperation. They both condone acts of Judeocidal terror as the last remaining resort to jolt the awareness of an apathetic Israeli public into recognizing the collective pain of the “Palestinian people”.

This is, of course, a staggering “misrepresentation” of reality.