Under The Radar Media

‘Stop criticizing Obama, you’ll ruin everything!’

Posted in Uncategorized by maasanova on December 31, 2008

Michael Collins
The Intelligence Daily

A few defenders of President elect Barack Obama are attacking one of his most enlightened statements of the campaign — the request for open dialog and criticism from his supporters. This occurred on his blog after he voted to support FISA legislation in the summer of 2008.

“I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too.”

Responding to criticism of cabinet choices and, most recently, the selection of bigoted preacher Rev. Rick Warren to open the inauguration ceremonies, some Obama supporters are actually telling other supporters to “stop criticizing Obama!”

A Dec. 24 CNN poll showed that 82% of the public approves of the Obama transition efforts, while just 15% find them lacking.

If the well placed supporters can’t tolerate negative feedback at 82% approval, what will happen when there’s sizable public opposition for a broad based initiative? Sending twenty thousand U.S. troops to Afghanistan comes to mind.

During the cabinet appointment controversy, Obama’s national deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, scolded the left in the Huffington Post. While this preceded the Warren appointment, Hildebrand’s general argument was used by those apologizing for Obama’s choice of Warren, as well.

Hildebrand starts out by arguing that, “This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments.” What time would that be? When we’re all facing eviction? After the next new war we simply have to fight? When even more of those responsible for past failures are placed in positions of authority?

He then states the obvious: “After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people – not just those on the left.” Always a helpful reminder. Then those on the left are told to back off. After listing the critical issues facing the country, Hildebrand says, “That’s his job.” Just let Obama do it. Citizens are supposed to butt out while the boss takes care of it?

He ends by telling us that Obama will be a great president if “he can work with Congress and the American people.” Those who speak out are denying Obama his “greatness?”

This isn’t about Obama or anybody’s greatness. It’s about a nation in serious trouble, partially because the “loyal opposition” sat on its hands for eight years without raising as much as a whimper while corporatist policies brought the nation to its knees.

These arguments don’t square with the history of free speech and questioning authority in the United States. Free speech is an essential element of greater economic and social justice, i.e., real change.

Continued

Government searching internet in “near real time” for terrorists

Posted in Uncategorized by maasanova on December 26, 2008

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars

The Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon want you to know they will soon be searching the internet in near real time for terrorists. Of course, since there are so few real terrorists posing a threat — that is to say, terrorists not run out of the Pentagon and the intelligence apparatus — we can assume they will not be looking for the cave-dwelling sort of terrorist.

“The Homeland Security Department may soon start scouring the Internet to find blogs and message boards that terrorists use to plan attacks,” reports USA Today. “The effort comes as researchers are seeing terrorists increasingly use the Internet to plan bombings, recruit members and spread propaganda. ‘Blogging and message boards have played a substantial role in allowing communication among those who would do the United States harm,’ the department said in a recent notice.”

Blogging and message boards also play a substantial role in allowing communication among diverse groups, organizations, and individuals opposed to the government.

It is an exhaustively documented fact that the FBI, the CIA (in violation of its charter), the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon primarily monitor antiwar and other activists groups, not al-Qaeda.

The Pentagon’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) was created to spy on antiwar groups and others, a fact revealed by the ACLU of Northern California in 2006. The Department of Defense and the CIA have been sending so-called National Security Letters to credit card and banking companies asking that they release personal information on Americans for years now. The NSA has collected and databased the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. The NSA’s massive operation, according to Dana Perino, is “lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists” or Quakers opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In fact, the government has closely monitored and sabotaged activists for decades — from Black Chamber and the NSA’s Operation Shamrock in the late 40s and 50s to the CIA’s Operation Chaos and the FBI’s COINTELPRO in the 60s and 70s — so all of this is nothing new, just business as usual, albeit utilizing the latest technology.

In order to more effectively monitor your antiwar blog or one in defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, “Homeland Security officials are looking for companies to search the Internet for postings ‘in near to real-time which precede’ an attack,” or posting opposed to government policies or malfeasance. In order to impart a sense of urgency and create even more fear, Homeland Security officials want us to believe “terrorists can easily get materials and make an improvised-explosive device (IED).”

Homeland Security and the Pentagon are likely already searching blogs and internet sites in near real time and the Mockingbird corporate media is simply telling the American people about it now. It is simply another way to ramp up the paranoia and characterize the internet as a nefarious terrorist tool in need of regulation and outright censorship.

Israel warns America yet again–There’s “hell to pay” for not attacking Iran

Posted in 9/11, Iran, Israel, War, Zionism by maasanova on December 25, 2008

Mark Glenn
The Ugly Truth

To most, the language appears all-too-familiar and not unlike the childhood story of the “boy who cried wolf”. Indeed, it has all the hallmarks of the typical fear-mongering all have come to know all-too-well in recent years featuring a paranoid Zionist military commander working for a notoriously paranoid nation and warning of the next “holocaust” if everyone does not immediately stop what they are doing, pay strict attention and follow the prescribed course of action as laid down by the Jewish state.

Speaking recently at a conference at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, Israel’s Minister of Defense Ehud Barak sternly warned his audience (and the world at large) that “If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it could try to attack the United States,” specifying that if the Islamic Republic built “even a primitive nuclear weapon” similar to the one used in “destroying Hiroshima” that she would “not hesitate to load it on a ship, arm it with a detonator operated by GPS and sail it into a vital port on the east coast of North America.”

The first thing in his statement sticking out like a sore thumb is his confidence, stating UNEQUIVICALLY that Iran “Would not hesitate” in detonating a nuclear weapon against the world’s most powerful nation. This is the same United States by the way that presently has enough firepower parked off Iran’s coast to destroy her 1,000 times over. This in itself begs the following question–Is this yet another case of the organically unstable Zionist mindset that has become all-too-familiar these days or is there something else? In other words–What does he know that others–including the most sophisticated intelligence agencies working for the US government–don’t know?

It is understandable that some would shrug such rhetoric off, and particularly after the billion or so instances where every man, woman and child on the planet has had to endure the “He wants to wipe Israel off the map” shtick that got real old real fast after the first 500,000 times.

In this case however it would be unwise to assume this latest development involving the defense minister is just another case of bluff and bluster and of the Jewish state “crying wolf” with regards to some new Hitler or Haman. Barak is not just ANY defense minister, but the defense minister a theocratic/fascist enclave that is just DYING to get a war started with Iran. Judging by the news headlines, this is all there is these days within the one-track Zionist mindset. IRAN/IRAN/IRAN/IRAN….No, in this instance the smart money says that these dire predictions may very well take place in what is commonly referred to as a “self-fulfilling prophesy”.

Therefore, what those familiar with Israel’s history should conclude by Barak’s statement is that this is not just another case of empty fear mongering on the part of the Jewish state, but rather a clear and present threat, namely that if America does not do the bidding of the Jewish state by attacking Iran that Israel–out of her black hat of magic tricks–will pull one of her made-to-order false flag attacks against America in order to “get the ball rolling“ in the right direction.

In other words, with the full blessings of every person, place or thing of measurable political power in the Jewish state including Israel’s intelligence service Mossad, Prime Minster Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister ‘Tzippy“ Livni, what Barak was saying in effect to all the various spies, analysts, intelligence officers and diplomats working in virtually every nation of the world was that–

“If Uncle Sam does not get busy with the business of opening up a new front in our war against the Islamic world, we, the Jewish people, will detonate one of our several hundred nuclear warheads in an east coast American city that will then be blamed on Iran…”

And just in case something might have been “lost in translation” and the thick-headed Gentiles towards whom the threat was being made did not “get it,” Barak concluded his remarks with “We are not taking any option off the table, and we recommend the world not take any option off the table, and we mean what we say.”

Obviously those “options” still “on the table” include Israel resorting to the kind of business in which she has dirtied herself in the past, which just so happens to include attacking (or allowing to be attacked) American interests in order to pin the blame on someone else.

Those who dismiss the possibility that such a threat was indeed made by Israel should understand that there is a language used in the criminal underworld–both at the street level and in the more “sophisticated” world of modern politics–that is almost imperceptible to all except the “initiated”. To the average person phrases such as “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” sound like perfectly innocuous, simple tidbits of business parlance like “a deal too good to pass up” rather than death threats. Someone sending a personal clothing item along with two dead fishes seems more like a college fraternity prank rather than an announcement that a certain someone now rests peacefully at the bottom of a large body of water.

In truth though, the meaning they convey is one of life and death– “Give us what we want if you want to stay alive…”

And likewise with political language employed by states such as Israel, a nation founded by gangsters with gangster money and built on top of a gangster ideology that justifies any criminal behavior as long as it benefits “la famiglia”. What appear to be harmless statements made by persons of noted importance such as Barak actually have a significance far deeper than what is superficially apparent to the average Joe, and even if this significance is lost on the average person merely trying to live an honest life and pay his/her bills, it most assuredly has not been lost on the spies, analysts, diplomats and others whose job is to read between the lines when threats are being made in pursuance of certain geo-political demands.

It is no secret Israel wants (demands) Iran’s destruction and wants it done by non-Jews. Israel is a nation founded on 21st century BC ideas while at the same time trying to make these ideas work in a 21st century AD world. All the war, invasion, rape, conquest, plagues, smiting and bloodshed that are the meat and potatoes of the Old Testament are as much the principles upon which the Jewish state was founded as “We hold these truths to be self evident” are the bedrock of the American nation. The hysteria characterizing Israel’s reaction to the National Intelligence Estimate released in December 2007 by the 16 most powerful intelligence agencies working for the US government that stated categorically and unequivocally that Iran had no nuclear weapons program since 2003 betrayed the irrational, bloodlust mindset driving Israel and her desire to see her ancient Persian enemies destroyed as recounted in the Old Testament story found in the Book of Esther.

Therefore, Iran MUST be attacked, no ifs, ands or buts about it. In a day and age when the Jewish state needs these periodic clashes in order to achieve an otherwise-impossible sense of cohesiveness within an organically fractured, irrational and self-devouring political creature such as Israel, a re-enactment of Persia’s (Iran’s) defeat by God’s chosen people as occurred in the book of Esther does wonders in putting to rest any discussion concerning the “propriety” of the Jewish state’s existence.

As far as a nuclear attack on an east coast American city itself, the results of such an attack–apart from the human cost–would be incalculable in terms of economics and political instability. At a time when–not just America, but indeed the entire world–is so precariously perched at the edge of an abyss that threatens economic, political and social chaos, an American city going up in a mushroom cloud would set in motion a chain reaction the results of which are not difficult to imagine. The resulting meltdown would take–not just years, but more than likely generations to recover.

Click here for video

And once again, just as in 9/11, Israel–through one or many of her carefully ‘chosen’ spokespersons–would then go before world media with barely contained smirks and giggles and say “Well, don’t blame us, we warned you something like this was going to happen” . In the same flavor as the 5 dancing Israelis seen filming the destruction of the Twin Towers or Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks following 9/11 that the attacks on America resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 were “good” in that they would generate “immediate sympathy” for Israel, so too would the Jewish state capitalize on the event and shake her finger in the world’s face and say “tsk, tsk, tsk…should have paid better attention to the warnings we gave…” In the meantime, American leaders would be scrambling to deal with–not only the apocalyptic situation at hand, but as well the loss of public confidence in their ability to lead.

What is noteworthy about this latest threat is the fact that it is a follow-up to threats made directly to George Bush back in May when he visited the Jewish state to help celebrate Israel’s 60-year orgy of uninterrupted violence and bloodshed against the Gentiles who have suffered the unfortunate “honor” of living in such close proximity to God’s chosen people. Before the soles of his shoes had even gotten dirty after stepping on the hallowed ground of Israel he was met at the Ben Gurion airport by the “Men in Black”–meaning the Orthodox Rabbis–who then accosted him with a list of commandments and threats, all cryptic and apocalyptic in their nature, about what the leader of the free world would be facing if he was found slacking off with regards to his “duties” to the Jewish state. A partial list of their demands and threats included reminding him that “God ordained the nations of the world to strengthen the nation of Israel” while telling him to forget the idea of running away from his duty of making war against Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon, specifying that American troops be used to protect the “Divine rights of the nation of Israel, and remove from her any threat.” The consequences of not doing these things were clear–“destruction” and ”Certain doom” that would “endanger all life on earth” and capping off their threats with “Your fate and that of all those with you hangs in the balance of the destiny of our land…”

..and about 5 months later–BATTA-BOOM!!!-out of seemingly nowhere, the economy of the United States enters a storm not seen since 1929. Indeed, it seemed as if the rabbis had friends in “high places”–protégé’s of Moses no doubt–who had the power to make such plagues happen. As a result of the economic turmoil that resulted in loss of jobs and a housing crisis without precedent since the great depression, George Bush, his party and his legacy found themselves swirling down the political sewer like a piece of used toilet paper.

Those who doubt Israel is capable (or willing) to go to such lengths need to better acquaint themselves with the USS Liberty, a US spy ship that–with complete foreknowledge of malice–was attacked by the air and naval forces of the Jewish state for 2 hours during the latter end of the 6 Day War. Israel’s obvious intention was that the ship be sunk, Egypt be blamed (in the same way as planned with the previously-unsuccessful “Lavon Affair”) resulting in a United States of America out for Arab blood, just as occurred following 9/11. As it was, F-4 Phantom jets–loaded for bear (meaning armed with nuclear weapons) were on their way to Cairo with orders to annihilate the capitol of Soviet-allied Egypt. It was only the miracle of Liberty’s refusal to sink–despite thousands of armor-piercing rounds, a thousand rockets, hundreds of gallons of napalm and 5 torpedoes–that prevented what would most likely have been a nuclear war between the United States and (what was at that time) the Soviet Union.

Dozens of other such examples of Israeli treachery against America abound, the most recent and notorious being her foreknowledge and direct involvement with the events on 9/11. Those who would scoff at the notion that the Jewish state is capable of doing such things–including detonating a nuclear weapon within an American city–should keep in mind that (just as she has said on more occasions than can be counted) she is not like other nations. In the words of her former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan she is ”a dangerous mad dog” on one hand and yet on the other she is the “embodiment of God,” a “light among nations” and “joy of the entire earth” as her political/religious caretakers describe her. While the other nations of the earth operate under for-the-most-part rational plans for their existence, Israel does not. She is like any cult community like Jim Jones’ Guyana or David Koresh’s Waco, and in the event her little experiment begins to show signs of failure, her solution is simple–scrap the whole thing, meaning 6 billion souls on earth–so that Israel’s God “Yahweh” can start over again with a clean slate and, hopefully, “do it right” the next time and make good on His promise to make “His” chosen people rulers of the earth.

And lest some think all of this is pure speculation on the part of anti-Semites with over-active imaginations and who read more into the language of gangsters than what is actually there, let Martin Van Creveld, one of Israel’s most respected military historians speak on the matter at hand–

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

(c) 2008 Mark Glenn
American Free Press Newspaper
nomorewarsforisrael@gmail.com

Prominent scientist fired by Al Gore says warming alarm ‘mistaken’

Posted in Global Warming, Globalism by maasanova on December 24, 2008

Click here for a heartwarming story

Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists

Washington, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears.

Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

In 2008, Happer publicly dissented from man-made warming fears. “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer explained. “Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing,” Happer added.

“Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800′s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years,” he continued.

“Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate. Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he added.

“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to 2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer — who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears — are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” Inhofe said.

Below are the full entries of the scientists just added to the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”: (Updated December 22, 2008)

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona – Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008.

“My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows:

1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008.

2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ‘mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems’ – i.e., the climate.

3) I believe it likely that “natural climate cycles” are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are “dense” on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors – what climatologists call “regime shift” – independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and ‘synchronized chaos,’ but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained.

“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added. “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness.

‘First do no harm’ should be the watchword of those who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,” he continued. “I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‘consensus’ view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science. If I am correct, the truth of the matter will inevitably become widely known and the consequences to science, severe. Think Lysenko and the demise of Soviet genetics,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims in 2008. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said during a December 18, 2008 appearance on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure,” Myers explained.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long. That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here,” he added. “We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from climate fears in 2008. “Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based,” August wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled “An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating Deception.” “

The book denies the legitimacy of science for review. The irony is, of course, the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method — nor can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,” August explained.

“Gore argues we’re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific method. Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?” August added. “Fighting religion with reason, we scientists sadly can’t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC. So, isn’t it ironic? The only truth that’s inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore’s successfully sold his message as if it were science!” he added. (LINK)

Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. “There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question: ‘What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global warming?’ All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide the proof,” Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008.

“It boils down to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof. But correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,” Pettibone explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression algorithm is embedded in every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today,” dissented from man-made global warming fears and predicted a coming global cooling in 2008. Wysmuller said during his two-hour presentation of his latest scientific research titled “The colder side of global warming on December 6, 2008. Wysmuller believes that temperature increases of today are distinct from carbon dioxide levels. “Carbon dioxide is increasing but not dragging the temperatures up,” Wysmuller said. “If we controlled pollution now, we still wouldn’t stop the ice cap from melting,” he explained. “The largest contributor to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the warming oceans,” he continued.

The December 11, 2008, article explained, “Wysmuller argues that the current spike in temperature and carbon dioxide levels are approaching levels that existed just prior to the most recent ice age. What that means, he said, is that we are nearing a period when temperatures will actually start to decrease and weather patterns dramatically change.” Wysmuller’s research shows that open water at the Arctic will generate an abundance of “ocean effect” snow, similar to the lake effect snow that hits the upstate New York area. “The Arctic will have massive amounts of ocean effect snow,” Wysmuller said. “The accumulated snowfall increases reflecting light, so temperatures will cool.” (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote.

“Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races. (LINK)

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2008. “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented,” Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008.

“The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,” Loehle explained. “The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,” he added.(LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy & Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be “0.3C warmer than the 20th century.” The study was titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” (LINK) & (LINK)

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March. “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming,” Weber said during the conference. (LINK)

Weber also endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part, “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports, joined the 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made warming claims in 2008. “Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly contradict much more reliable satellite data,” Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008. According to satellite data, “the Earth has been cooling since 1998,” Scotto wrote.

“This discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting criteria,” Scotto explained. “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,” he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. Minnich, who holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“I choose to take President-elect Obama at his word when, upon his appointment of John Holdren as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he promised to “[protect] free and open inquiry . . . ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology,’” Minnich told EPW on December 22, 2008. Clearly the best means to fulfill on this commitment is to appoint to the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, over which Dr. Holdren will preside, several of the more than 650 distinguished and renowned scientists who have openly questioned the “consensus” on AGW in Senator Inhofe’s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report,” Minnich explained.

“The late Michael Crichton said it well: ‘Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. . . . Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus,’” Minnich added. (LINK) (LINK)

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008.

Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists

Jewish reporter for ‘Forbes’ admits censoring himself about Jewish angle of Madoff scandal

Posted in Corruption, Jews, Political Correctness by maasanova on December 24, 2008

Mondoweiss
December 23, 2008

Robert Lenzner is a reporter for Forbes who was on the Leon Charney Report the other night–a somewhat smalltime show that airs on Channel 25 in New York and often has a Jewish theme to it. Charney served under Jimmy Carter and is a smart guy who could care less about being telegenic.

Charney and Lenzner and Stewart Ain of the Jewish Week were talking about the Madoff scandal and the Jewish angle, and Lenzner agreed that there was a strong Jewish element to Madoff’s world/victims, and then caught himself. No transcript, dearies; the actual show is not up yet, my reporter here is the unimpeachable James North; and North says that Lenzner said in essence: Do you think we could edit that out? When I’m on CNBC I don’t mention the Jewish angle.

To their credit, Charney and Ain both said, No the Jewish angle is important, we’re going with this.

It is a small moment but important. Lenzner is the most mainstream of the three men. He is Jewish, highly-educated, and said to be menschy. And here he admitted that he censors himself when discussing these issues before a national audience. This is hardly an aberration. It shows the degree to which successful American Jews are simply incapable of publicly discussing an important fact, the Jewish presence in Establishment life, presumably because pogroms would eventuate. Can you imagine anything like this sort of censorship when discussing the Christian right and stem-cell research? Or George Bush’s religious/social background? Jewish journos, jump up to it. See where you stand. And what is your responsibility, as journalists no less, to this nation that has given us so much?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: