Thursday, 03 December 2009


Ken Berwitz

It's very sad to see someone who I thought so highly of turn this way.

Charles Johnson of, who used to be a valuable source of mostly rightward information, has spent the last half year or so polishing his credentials for a shift to the left.

That, in and of itself, does not trouble me.  Readers of this blog know that my views are all over the lot.  I tend to be a social liberal who is more rightward when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy - though I don't think of myself as "far-right" on any given issue.

What troubles me is Charles' incessant whining about how put upon he is by rightward bloggers, because they (logically) see him as something of a traitor.

What did he think would happen if he switched allegiances?  Did he think the right would still love him?  

And, to make matters worse, Charles never, ever stops talking about himself anymore.  Try and find a day or two at without at least one blog entry that speaks to his self-importance - usually complemented with a whining complaint that people are not all saying nice things about him (a problem that, I have been told, he partially resolves by banning any commenters who disagree with him).

Here is the latest example:

Reactions to a Manifesto

Opinion | Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:35:58 am PST

The Week magazine has an article with some reactions to my post Why I Parted Ways with the Right, from both left-leaning and right-leaning sites: Why I left the right - THE WEEK.

The righty blogs they picked are some of the saner ones; check out a Google Blog Search on my name to see how much hateful venom is being directed toward me by the right wing blogosphere which, of course, completely validates the points in my article.

The Week quotes Jules Crittenden:

His explanation for his change of heart is thin, especially since he never says why he thinks liberals are the sane, loving, rational ones.

And thats a very odd statement, since Ive never written anything even remotely like that; this is why the term straw man argument was coined.

For the record, I still believe there are plenty of sane, loving, rational people who call themselves conservatives but that doesnt alter my opinion that the movement itself and the Republican Party has gone way, way off the rails. Ive been documenting this dismaying derailment at LGF for the past year.

FYI, "manifesto" refers to a blog entry telling his readers that he now rejects a lot of what "the right" says and has disengaged from them. 

That's a manifesto?  Ok, technically any statement of principles or intent is a manifesto.  But the word usually is used to describe some kind of very important, larger-than-life statement.  In Charles' case, it's just a short little blog that says "I decided to flip". Calling that a manifesto is like me calling the rain puddle outside my house a lake.

The funniest part is when he links us to a google search of his name, to show (whine about) how right wing blogs now hate him.  I took him up on it and looked at the first two pages.  What I found was about as many leftward blogs happy to see him flip as there were right wing blogs angry about it.  Big deal.

The only thing I would say to Charles Johnson is that I hope his move is based on a sincere change of heart, and not because it is just easier to be on the left (which I assure you it is).  Regardless of the reason(s), however, he doesn't look good whining about how people are mad at him for doing it. 

Trust me, Charles; you're the only one who cares.


Ken Berwitz

How are our wonderful "neutral" media covering the global warming scam - which is now an international scandal?  This editorial in today's Washington Times gives us the answer:

EDITORIAL: Global-warming fraud harms science

Fellow academics shocked by Climategate


One of the defenses offered by the media and those caught in Climategate has been that no matter how obvious the e-mails seem, there is a complicated context that means only academics can fully grasp what the e-mails meant. For example, CNN quibbled that, "there's very little context" in the leaked e-mails. We checked into what academics outside the cabal of global-warming advocates have been saying, and their view of the cover-up ranges anywhere from it being "disappointing" to "highly disturbing." Some professional researchers are shocked, while others are not.

About the mildest comment we could find is by Robin Hansen, professor at George Mason's economics department. On his blog, Mr. Hansen wrote that while he wasn't particularly surprised by the e-mails discovered in Climategate, "It is a shame that academia works this way." Physicist David Wright, who has held positions at top universities such as Harvard and is now a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is more outraged, commenting on a blog: "In my discipline, there were plenty of camps that had strong opinions about whether certain ideas were right or wrong, likely to move the field forward or likely to prove useless distractions. Sometimes discussions became quite heated. But never did I see groups of people plotting to hijack the peer review process in order to shut out those who disagreed with them, or discussing how to hide data that did not look good for their side of the debate."

The British media and Fox News have done the most thorough job interviewing academics for their reaction to the e-mails and other documents showing widespread conversation about destroying data and evidence that undermine claims of global warming. On the issue of not sharing the raw data used to create aggregate temperature measures, "The [Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia] is basically saying, 'Trust us.' So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, told the Sunday Times of London. "It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the skeptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge."

"They are making scientific progress more difficult now," Willie Soon, a physicist at the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told "This is a shameful, dark day for science."

Even colleagues of those in the middle of this scandal are troubled. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia told the Sunday Times: "The attitudes revealed in the e-mails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked e-mails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

That the top academics in the field, the powerful heads of important climate research units committed these offenses, only makes the offenses so much worse.

Few academics outside those directly snared in the e-mail exchanges are defending or downplaying what happened. Asking a scientist to "delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report]" is really asking someone to destroy evidence. The "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]" means just that: hiding data that disproves one's position. Even most scientists can understand that is wrong.

In the United States, most mainstream media are desperately trying to avoid any mention of global warming being found out as a scam and a hoax. 

I can't prove it, but assume the journalistic blockade is because, after investing years in telling us how serious the problem is, doing countless features on what we have to do to prevent it, along with countless features on how important it is for us to dramatically change our lives because of it, find out that global warming is a scam and hoax makes them look like gullible fools who fell for the scam and the hoax.

Which, frankly, is what happened.

So they're playing the game we have seen over and over again.  They either cover it barely or not at all, the more rightward venues (like Fox, the Wall St. Journal, The Washington Times to name three) do cover it, and mainstream media can then call it nothing more than a right wing conspiracy theory.

Well, that's not what it is.  And the so-called "journalists" engaging in this head-in-the-sand exercise are not going to be able to pull it off this time.  Media all over the world are reporting it.  Just last night Jon Stewart did a comedy sketch that made them look like idiots.  I suspect that Saturday Night Live is cooking up a skit for Saturday's show. 

Simply stated, the longer they wait before acting like journalists, the less like journalists they will look --- if, that is, they could look less like journalists than they already do.


Ken Berwitz

No comment needed here.  Some things just speak for themselves..


Obama and Afghanistan



Ken Berwitz

What can you say about Barbara Boxer that would define her better than this short piece from

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'

By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."

The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university's Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit's case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

"We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not," Boxer said. "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

"This is a crime," Boxer said.

Emails become available that - to say the least - put global warming into question and suggest strongly that it is a scam and a hoax.  This information could save the United States literally trillions of dollars and prevent countless businesses, most of them small businesses, from closing down altogether.

So Ms. Boxer's reaction indifference to/disdain for the information, but passionately demand that the people who made it available to us be prosecuted.


Zeke ... Dear Mizz Boxer: ... or, maybe, it was a whistle-blower INSIDE the CRU. ... After all, the data was very well organized, and conformed to what was requested in the Freedom of Information request. ... And, there is no violation of US law ... since the CRU, and its servers, are in England. (12/03/09)


Ken Berwitz

As if to prove my point about mainstream media desperately trying to put a lid on the climate warming scam, we have an article in the new issue of (what's left of) Time Magazine, which does just that.

If you want to read Time's entire article (which I urge you to do), just click on the above link.  But here, for your delectation, are a few excerpts which show where the magazine is going on this.  The non-parenthesized bold print is mine:

As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction

By BRYAN WALSH Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009


When "Climategate" broke on Nov. 20, with hackers stealing and subsequently releasing more than a thousand apparently dubious e-mails by renowned climate scientists, the timing couldn't have been more inconvenient for advocates of action on climate change. The major U.N. global-warming summit in Copenhagen was just a few weeks away, and the U.S. Senate was starting work on a bill that would cap U.S. carbon emissions. It was the eve of a month in which crucial decisions could be made in the global effort to curb climate change before its effects become truly dangerous.

The publication of private e-mails from researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University, which raised questions about whether scientists had distorted or scrubbed data on global warming, "could scarcely be more damaging," in the words of English environmental writer George Monbiot. But it was only one in a series of troubling indicators that skepticism about global warming is on the rise. A survey released in October by the Pew Research Center found that the number of Americans who believed there is solid evidence that the world is warming had dropped from 71% in April 2008 to 57% in October 2009; over the same period, the percentage who believed climate change is a very serious problem had dropped from 44% to 35%. (See pictures of a glacier melting in Peru.)

Why? The debate over climate-change science was closed two years ago, after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that global warming was "unequivocal" and that it "very likely" owed to man-made greenhouse-gas emissions. While there is still plenty of room to argue over the precise pace of climate change or the best way to deal with global warming going forward, the case for man-made warming was definitively made. Or wasn't it? (See how global warming is threatening penguins.)

Indeed, for all the sound and fury over Climategate, there was little in the CRU's hacked e-mails that significantly damaged the overall case for climate change. Deniers claim that an e-mail from CRU chief Phil Jones demonstrates that the CRU's historical global temperature data have been exaggerated. Jones wrote that he would use a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. The phrasing was unfortunate, but Jones was merely referring to an accepted method of concatenating data sets, one that has been discussed openly in scientific journals for years. Further, the British unit is just one of four groups around the world, including NASA, that compiles records of global temperatures and all four offer conclusions about warming that are virtually identical. As for claims that the CRU is hiding information, fully 95% of its climate data are available to the public.

But the e-mails shed an unflattering light on climate science and some of the political jockeying that goes on within the community, not to mention the very personal debates that can sometimes break out among opponents. If Jones is found to have actively encouraged his scientists to dodge Freedom of Information Act requests, which some of the e-mails suggest, he should almost certainly resign from his post. But it is vital to remember that the e-mails, which remain incomplete and out of context, do not overthrow all of climate science. "There remains after the dust settles on this controversy a consensus on the key characteristics of the climate question," said White House science adviser John Holdren at a congressional hearing on Dec. 2. (Watch TIME's video "The Icy Clues to Global Warming.")

And yet the e-mails will weaken the fight against climate change, while also helping to explain why skepticism seems to be on the rise. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to note that the e-mails which were stolen, after all were released right before the Copenhagen summit. "Basically what they're doing is trying to sell doubt," says Hoggan. "If you can produce enough doubt, you don't need a logical counternarrative. You just undermine any effort to deal with this."

Even a small amount of doubt is enough to shatter consensus. That is why a number of researchers have suggested in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack that climate scientists be more open with their data and engage with critics in the future. "Climate McCarthyism" as Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute have called the knee-jerk attacks by some climate-change advocates on those who deviate from the green mainstream must stop. That may not seem fair industry groups have played dirty for years smearing climate scientists but researchers will need to be above reproach. "Scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them," wrote Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist and climate researcher at Georgia Tech, on the blog Climate Audit. (Read "Is There Any Hope for Agreement at Copenhagen?")

But unless the public's scientific literacy is improved, science itself risks becoming a political debate, like everything else today, with no room for objective data or authority. "Right now for many people, their ideology is driving their view of science," says Hoggan. "Ideology decides what makes a fact a fact." Now that is a real scandal.

Do you not see the desperation here?  It's not fair! (Why not?  Because we now know what was going on there?)  They stole the emails! (They stole the pentagon papers too.  How does that change what is written in them?)  The emails don't disprove anything, the science is settled! (Yeah, right.  It was settled until we read how completely the skeptics were being suppressed).   There are three other groups that came to the same conclusions (Can we see their emails?????).  It's just a bunch of "deniers" (Just like the people who objected to the Obama "stimulus package" were insultingly referred to as "teabaggers".  Somehow there is always a derisive name attached to the people whose opinions are disliked).  

Let me know when Time Magazine publishes a story on the approximately 31,000 (that's not a typo, it really is 31,000) scientists, over 9,000 of them with doctorates (again, that's no typo) who have signed petitions expressing their skepticism about man-made global warming.  This information has been available for at least a half year - as the link I've provided shows (it was written in May). 

Why are their opinions less valued -- other than because the media, which have pushed global warming for years, do not intend to be embarrassed into admitting it may well be a scam and a hoax. 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Zeke ... Questions for Warmists: 1) Why the difficulty in proving that the Earth is in a non-reversible warming trend ... ... 2) Even if accurate, is there any way to reverse a long term warming trend? Simulating the effects of volcanic ash, for example ... 3) Why are Solar Radiation and Sunspots not included in Climate models, as they correlate very well with cooling and warming fluctuations. ... 4) What causes the beginning and end of Ice Ages ... 5) Why are research emails and data not public ... the work is funded by government grants ... 6) What other major factors are not included in Climate Models : Acidity of Oceans, Total Heat of Oceans ... ... 7) When will the effects of CLOUDS be incorporated into climate models ... 8) When will climate models be able to predict the next 10 years of weather, since they have failed in all previous trials (12/03/09)

Zeke ... Natural-Climate-Cycle Deniers ! ! Warmists ! ... ... WHY were the basic temperature data destroyed? There is NO acceptable explanation ... ... Science is a process of colleagues reproducing results, often with different methods. ... ... ... Maybe AGW is real ... just go out and collect another 150 years of data, and then we'll take a look. ... ... ... (12/03/09)


Ken Berwitz

There is an old joke about a philandering golfer who winds up with an oversexed woman.  You don't even need the joke to understand its punch line:  "what's par for this hole?"

As much as I wish this wasn't applicable to Tiger Woods, it pretty clearly is. 

Apparently he is a serial philanderer, with three women that we know of -so far - already (you should pardon the expression) uncovered by the tabloids.  (How do they find this stuff out, anyway?  And how come they always seem to be right about the sexcapades of celebrities?)

Aside from being saddened by the (you should pardon the expression) blowing of his image, I have to say that I'm fascinated by how his sponsors are reacting - not to mention much of the news media. 

Tiger Woods is one of the good guys, you see.  So sponsors are standing by him and the New York Times is already writing rehabilitatively about him (today's headline:  "Woods Apologizes and Gets Support").

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, this was Rush Limbaugh.  Oh, wait, why suppose.  What did the media do when the "get-him, we don't like this guy" squad in a Florida airport searched Limbaugh's baggage and found viagra there?  He was attacked and ridiculed for weeks.  See my point?

Anyway, let me again say that I'm genuinely sorry this happened because Tiger Woods seemed like a much better guy than he apparently is.

And let me compliment Gatorade on retaining him as an endorser.  With a wife and at least three lovers, I doubt there could be a better spokesman for this stuff on the planet.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an Israeli TV skit, which laughs - derisively - about the, introspective military personnel  who can't figure out that nidal malik hasan  is a terrorist.  I picked it up from a web site,, run by comedian and social critic Andrew Berman:.   

Israeli TV Jokes About Some Americans Being Unwilling to Label Hasan a Terrorist

In fairness to those who do not want to label Hasan a terrorist, there are not that many clues; he only shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he was shooting shooting, shared a spiritual adviser with some of The 9/11 hijackers, said 'infidels should have their throats cut', tried to contact Al Qaeda, said "we love death more then you love life", and declared himself a 'Soldier of Allah' on his business card.

Video embedded below.


Ken Berwitz

I've often said that there are a great many people who think racism begins and ends with White racism against Blacks, and those people don't know very much about racism.

Here, from, is a very illuminating piece from someone who does;  Shamara Riley:

Racism in the Middle East deserves our attention

"Clean your plate if it is touched by a dog, but break it if it's touched by a Khadem." This popular Yemeni idiom - which equates blacks with servants (khadem), and ranks blacks below animals - captures the treatment of blacks in most of the Middle East and North Africa. While criticism has rightfully rained down on Western societies about racism and the historical role of Christianity and the trans-Atlantic slave trade in perpetuating it, many anti-racism activists have been conspicuously silent about human rights violations against blacks in the Middle East and North Africa.

While Western societies have made societal changes and continue to address racism, there is little acknowledgment in most of the Middle East and North Africa that a problem even exists. This even though the trans-Saharan slave trade enslaved 2.5 to 3 times more Africans than the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and negative views of blacks in Islam that influence contemporary attitudes.

Why does this double standard exist? Through what they choose to highlight and overlook, many anti-racism activists apparently believe that discrimination and oppression are more deserving of being challenged when whites are the perpetrators. By sending the message that whites "should know better" but we should set the bar low for non-whites who oppress blacks, it ironically places more value on whiteness and devalues other groups. Anti-black racism being practiced by non-European-groups also challenges the anti-Western view of many anti-racism advocates that racism is a Eurocentric paradigm.

However, blacks in the Middle East and North Africa are increasingly challenging this paradigm. They are increasingly vocalizing that (1) they do indeed exist; and (2) they will fight for equal treatment in their societies. They are increasingly forcing their compatriots - as well as black intellectuals and activists around the world - to recognize that racism is not just "a Western thing" but happening right in their region. Two weeks ago, Lebanese pop singer Haifa Wehbe was in the hot seat for comparing black Egyptians to monkeys in her song Where Is Daddy?. Reminding people that the Nubian people have been in modern-day Egypt since 3,000 B.C, the Committee for Nubian Issues staged protests against the song getting airplay in Egypt. It has also launched a lawsuit against government officials for allowing Wehbe's album in the Egyptian market.

Black Iraqis, who are an estimated 10 percent of the total Iraqi population and have been based mainly in southern Iraq for more than 1,000 years, hope that President Barack Obama's success as America's first black president will be a turning point for racial equality in their own country. Under a "change" mantra, they are fighting against usage of the popular Arabic term for black (abed, which means slave). Movement of Free Iraqis, a political party that advances black interests, fights for anti-discrimination laws, for the Iraqi government of officially recognize blacks as a minority group, and to increase black political power in the hopes that there will one day be an Iraqi Obama. Iranian blacks are using humor as teachable moments to address racism and racial assumptions of what constitutes an "authentic" Iranian.

That this growing anti-racism movement in the Middle East and North Africa isn't getting more attention in the U.S. is partly due to us not knowing more about what goes on beyond our borders. However, it is also due to black elites' narrow mindedness in that the faces behind racism and oppression of blacks are of European decent. Black Americans shouldn't lose sight of the fact that racism comes in various forms, and should challenge oppression of black people wherever it's found. The time for us to put the Middle East and North Africa on the hook, as we have rightfully done with the West, is long overdue.

Yes, though less than there used to be, there is still a huge amount of White racism against Blacks.  But that is far from the only racism out there.  Plenty is aimed at Black by non-Whites (and, though not addressed here, plenty emanates from Black people against non-Blacks as well.).

Other than my disagreement with her idea of the need for "an Iraqi Obama" (and that's just me, maybe you agee), Ms.Riley has, in very few words, given us quite an education into how racism manifests itself in places most people don't think about. 

Thanks are in order.


Ken Berwitz

Christine Gregoire is the governor of Washington State.  Gregoire became Governor when she lost to Republican Dino Rossi, then lost the recount, but then "won" when they kept recounting until a cache of votes magically materialized in heavily Democratic King County (Seattle) and put her ahead by less than 150 votes.  THEN they stopped counting.

In any event here, from the Seattle Times, is her take on maurice clemmons, the subhuman who killed four police officers in Seattle last month and has since been shot to death by a Seattle police officer:

Gov. Chris Gregoire today directed state Corrections Chief Eldon Vail not to accept any new parolees from Arkansas until matters arising from the Maurice Clemmons case have been addressed and resolved.

Glenn Kuper, a spokesman for the governor, said Gregoire was taking the unusual step because she wants "to make sure that the system is appropriate to protect Washington residents."

Is this woman a complete idiot? 

In 2000, Governor Mike Huckabee commuted maurice clemmons' sentence from 108 years to 47 years.  clemmons had been convicted for robberies committed when he was 16 year old, had been in jail for 10 full years, and had never been charged with any violent crime.  A parole board, acting independently of Governor Huckabee,  subsequently voted to allow clemmons out of jail. 

But this is not 2000, it is 2009.  And when clemmons killed those police officers he was not out on bail from Arkansas, he was out on bail from Washington.

The judge who allowed bail to be posted was  thomas j. felnagle - OF WASHINGTON.  And felnagle did so at a time when clemmons had a number of other felony charges pending, in addition to child rape. 

One more time:  the judge who allowed bail for maurice clemmons, less than a week before he killed the four officers, is thomas j. felnagle.  And he sits on the bench in WASHINGTON.  

Using Christine Gregoire's logic, she should direct her corrections chief not to accept any parolees from her own effing state.

I call that idiocy.  What do you call it?

free` I call it trying to shift blame. (12/03/09)


Ken Berwitz

In a previous blog I showed a Time Magazine article which attempted to gloss over the global warming email scandal by pointing out that...

the British unit is just one of four groups around the world, including NASA, that compiles records of global temperatures and all four offer conclusions about warming that are virtually identical. As for claims that the CRU is hiding information, fully 95% of its climate data are available to the public.

Including NASA, eh?  Well read this, from Sammy Benoit at

Thursday, December 3, 2009

ET TU NASA ? Space Agency Hiding Raw Climate Change Data


Not all of the climate change Hoaxers are members of the CSU in England, the other major "research arm" of the Church of Global Warming is the United States own Space agency, NASA.  The man behind NASA's climate change efforts is James Hansen, who runs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is also Al Gore's personal climate change guru.

Hansen lives by one strong rule. "If God deals you bad numbers--fudge them."  Remember when NASA announced October 2008 was the warmest in history and then, "OOPS NEVER MIND"  someone figured out a mistake was made? It was James Hansen, the Grand Poobah of warming who is screwed up the numbers. It was actually a quite average month. Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

It wasn't the first time Hansen has screwed up his numbers. In 2007 he was forced by other scientists to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s. Then there was that little problem in January of 2009 when it was discovered that some of the data he used to come up with his global warming science were "accidentally"  made up.

NASA is doing its best to protect Hansen, the agency is helping him hide his raw data by ignoring a freedom of information request for its release:

Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.


Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

...NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931, respectively. After Mr. McIntyre's questions, GISS rejiggered the list to show 1934 as the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. Since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs as 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921 and 1999.

The institute blamed "a minor data processing error" for the changes but said it doesn't make much difference, since the top three years remain in a "statistical tie" either way.

Mr. Horner said he's seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.

....NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the Earth is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues that its data suggest this decade has been the warmest on record.

On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggest temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade. 

The bottom line is that NASA's James Hansen will do anything to make his global warming numbers look good.  When he made his big global warming announcement 21 years ago (over the objections of two of his supervisors who thought his research was bogus) Hansen became a science super-star.  The reason he keeps fudging his numbers and hiding the raw data is to keep his superstar status. Like the scientists, who in the 1970's who said we were about to fall into an Ice Age, James Hansen simply wrong, but his superstar status takes precedence over science.

Thanks for that tip on NASA, Time Magazine.  Very illuminating.

What else ya got?

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!