Saturday, 05 December 2009


Ken Berwitz

All you had to do to find out the real reason for the global warming scam was listen to the great Joel Grey, in Cabaret.  His show-stopping song?  "Money makes the world go around".

That's what it's all about.  Money.

The global warming scam has made Al Gore tremendously wealthy, this we already know.  But what about Phil Jones, who is in charge of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Norwich, UK?  Does he have any reason for fudging the data, or hiding the data, or stonewalling Freedom Of Information requests, or getting rid of the raw data, or moving heaven and earth to shut up skeptics, one after the other?

Here's your answer, excerpted from today's article in the London Daily Telegraph:

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded 13 million in research grants

The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than 13 million in research funding.


By Robert Mendick

Published: 8:15PM GMT 05 Dec 2009


Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet


The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conducting research into the area.


The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.


The money is largely for research into the effects of global warming and is in addition to the main government education grant awarded to the university.


Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CR U while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet.


Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.


"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," the email said.


In another email, the death of a leading climate change sceptic is described as "cheering news".


The emails are being used by climate change sceptics to allege that attempts were made to manipulate data to "prove" the existence of man-made climate change.


They also allegedly point to efforts to block Freedom of Information requests by sceptics. Allegations that data was altered and FOI requests blocked have been vigorously denied.


The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made by Professor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It shows Professor Jones, along with other academics at the university, received more than 50 separate grants with a value of 13.7 million from a number of funding bodies including the European Union, Nato, and the US department of energy.


Several British bodies also gave substantial sums including the Met Office, the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority and the Department for the Environment.


Prof Jones' name appears alongside all the grants, which range in value from as little as 730 for work carried out on Scottish temperature indices for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to 6.6 million given by the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the establishment of the Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research at UEA, an award wining research facility which includes the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.

There's your "climategate scandal" right there. 


In my experience, 99.9% of all scandals involve money or sex.  For Jones, the payoff clearly appears to be money. 


And we're the ones getting the screwing.

free` Especially those of us living in California are really being screwed. Our governor missed the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] scandal and is convinced AGW is real. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls it the biggest issue of our time. And he was in San Francisco to outline the state's plan to combat global warming. It is already expensive living in California, with there plans to combat AGW it is going to get even more expensive. Then add whatever the federal government decides to do and it will be impossible to afford to live here. (12/06/09)

Zeke ... Presently, the Warmist Movement is a $100 Billion a year business. ... ... A strong case can be made for this being a Socialist Cabal to put massive burdens on the Western developed nations. ... ... Developing (i.e. 3rd world) nations see it as a means of grabbing more money to compensate them for ...... for their high birth rates, inhabiting low lying coastal areas, or, well, just because. ... ... AGW is, in fact, Settled Junk Science. (12/06/09)


Ken Berwitz

Yes, you saw that title correctly. Despite the fact that, as readers of this blog certainly know, I did not vote for Barack Obama and do not at all like the way he is performing as President. 

So why is it there?

Earlier this morning, I was at a local post office.  Two morons had put up a display near the front of it, with literature, and a bunch of posters which insulted Mr. Obama, several members of his administration and at least one elected Democrat. 

That, in and of itself, would not have bothered me very much;  people are certainly entitled to dislike Obama & Co., and to put up insulting displays about them.  Personally, I consider it low-end crap;  but, for better or worse, it's often the way things are done these days.

However, their featured poster - on top and in the middle - had a big picture of Barack Obama with a hitler mustache.

That was all I had to see.  I told these two morons that I was ashamed to have voted the same way they did (though, admittedly, I did so in more words and in a more strident way). 

I walked away when they told me, "You're missing the point" -- before I wound up in a fight by telling them where they could put that point.

I despised the gratuitous, imbecilic references to hitler when they were applied to George Bush, and I despise them just as much when they are applied to Barack Obama.  

The one and only contribution these people are making is to demonstrate that morons have rights too.


Ken Berwitz

This one is for anybody who is under the delusion that only Republican congresspeople have sex scandals:

Excerpted from the Billings (Montana) Gazette:

Baucus nominated girlfriend for U.S. attorney post

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus was romantically involved with a former staffer when he recommended her earlier this year to become the next U.S. attorney for Montana, a spokesman said.

The Montana Democrat and his former state director Melodee Hanes began their relationship in the summer of 2008 after Baucus separated from his wife, Ty Matsdorf said in a statement Friday night, confirming a report in Roll Call.

Baucus nominated Hanes for the U.S. attorney post in March. But she later withdrew, saying she had been presented with other opportunities she couldn't pass up.

HELENA - Sen. Max Baucus' office confirmed late Friday that the Montana Democrat was romantically involved with his state director, Melodee Hanes, when he nominated her for Montana's U.S. attorney, Roll Call is reporting.

Hanes withdrew her name from consideration earlier this year.

 Yeah, ok.  Baucus' relationship with his state director had nothing to do with the breakup of his marriage - or with his recommendation of her for US attorney.

And the producer's girlfriend got the part in his movie because she's a really good actress.

And the dog ate my homework.


Ken Berwitz

With the requisite caveats (i.e. my personal skepticism regarding political polling), I point out that CNN's latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Center, shows Barack Obama at 48% approval and 50% disapproval. Less than three weeks ago, this same poll had him at 55% - 42%.  That's some belly-flop.

CNN/ORC joins Fox/Opinion Dynamics, and Rasmussen, and Quinnipiac, and Zogby, and Gallup (though it has bounced around in the 48% - 52% range), as major polls which now show Barack Obama's approval rating below 50%.

In the past several weeks, I've mentioned that, if I were a Democratic congressperson in a seat that wasn't completely safe, these data would make me plenty worried about voting for Mr. Obama's agenda. 

I'm mentioning it again today.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a short blog by John Hinderaker of, which explains why, though agreeing with their conclusions, he is disturbed by the fact that many people are skeptical of man-made global warming:

Skeptical, For Better or Worse

December 4, 2009 Posted by John at 10:32 PM


We've covered the Climategate scandal extensively. It is the most important scandal of our time. Climate alarmists are trying to impoverish the world, ostensibly in order to cool it down but really, in my view, to achieve the liberal holy grail of government control over everything. The scandal comes along at a critical moment to cast doubt on whether the "scientists" behind the global warming scare are doing science at all. Rather, their own words suggest that they are engaging in a combination of politics and fraud.


The liberal media have studiously averted their eyes from the scandal--a common posture for them these days--but, nevertheless, Americans are deeply skeptical about the warmist enterprise. Scott Rasmussen finds that the liberals' claim that the scientific argument about global warming is over is roundly rejected by the American people:

Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming. [T]he latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

So, by more than two to one, Americans believe the debate is alive and well. Not only that, by a stunning 59 percent to 26 percent margin--also better than two to one--Americans say that it is either very likely (35%) or somewhat likely (24%) that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.

What's curious is that most people aren't basing this judgment on the Climategate scandal, which fewer than half of Americans have followed. (No wonder, since if you're relying on network news and your local newspaper, your chance of knowing about the story is probably zero.) Rather, while Climategate is no doubt a factor, most Americans seem to be relying on their innate anti-authoritarian bent.

It is perhaps a sad fact that most Americans are skeptical of what they are told by politicians, businessmen, college professors and other supposed authority figures. An extreme case is the United Nations: Rasmussen finds that only 22% of Americans consider the UN to be "a reliable source of information on global warming." So much for the IPCC "consensus" on climate change.

Whether we would be better off if we were a more trusting people is an interesting question. In this particular case, however, the skepticism is amply justified.

John has a great point.  How terribly sad that the reason so many people are skeptical of "global warming" is that, though media have kept them ignorant of the facts, they have become so distrustful of those media (presumably because they know they're so often being kept in the dark) that their disbelief is based on the distrust instead of the facts.

Well, at least they're coming to the right conclusion...........


Ken Berwitz

The Times has to be either obtuse or dishonest regarding Honduras - maybe both.

Here is the paper's editorial from yesterday.  My thoughts are in blue:

The Honduras Conundrum

Published: December 4, 2009


There is wide agreement that last weeks presidential election in Honduras, won by the conservative leader Porfirio Lobo, was clean and fair. But it doesnt settle the countrys political crisis, nor the question of how the world should treat Honduras.  Actually, it does just that.  There was a clean, fair presidential election which resulted in a clear winner.  That would settle the status of Honduras no matter what happened beforehand.


The military ousted President Manuel Zelaya in June. At the time of the vote, Mr. Zelaya was hiding in the Brazilian Embassy. He still is.  A flat-out lie.  The military did not oust zelaya, it removed him on orders of the Honduran supreme court (unanimous vote) and its congress.  The military did nothing other than carry out the legal, democratic instructions of its government.  The Times has been lying about this for months.


The Obama administration started off strong. It resisted the importunings of some Congressional Republicans who considered democracy far less important than Mr. Zelayas cozy ties to Venezuelas Hugo Chvez.  Another lie.  The Obama administration started off by pretending that zelayas removal was not done legally and democratically, when it absolutely, positively, 100% was.  It is not surprising that the Times would back President Obama here, since he has been feeding us the same lie the Times has.


Then Washington faltered. Its effort to broker a deal to return Mr. Zelaya to power, if only briefly, was filled with mixed messages (at one point the top American negotiator said Washington would accept the vote with or without Mr. Zelayas return). Over all, it betrayed a disturbing lack of diplomatic skill.   The only reason Honduras even bothered to listen to the tripe coming from Washington is that we were withholding aid that Honduras desperately needed. It is a testament to the strength of Honduras democracy that, in the end, it resisted our bullying.


There is little point in ostracizing Honduras one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Rather, the United States, other countries in the region and Europe should take the election as a starting point to try to patch back together a democratic government.  There IS a democratic government, you idiots.  Read the first paragraph of your own effing editorial.


Two aspects of the proposed deal, which have also been ignored so far, could help heal some of the wounds and restore some legitimacy. It called for the establishment of a unity government until the January inauguration and the creation of a truth commission to investigate events around the coup. The de facto government of Roberto Micheletti and other coup supporters must step down and be replaced by a unity government that includes high-level appointees from Mr. Zelaya. That unity government should create the truth commission. Civil liberties must be restored, including freedom of the press. And when the Lobo government takes office, it must clearly demonstrate its commitment to democracy.   What a great idea.  To restore some legitimacy to a legitimate government that exists 100% under the countrys constitution, it should ignore its constitution, and give back partial power to the man whose trashing of the constitution is what got him removed in the first place.  Are the Times editorial writers on drugs?


Until then, donor countries and the United States should not fully restore aid to Honduras. The Organization of American States, which expelled Honduras, should hold off on fully restoring its membership. Sure, lets punish Honduras for abiding by its constitution, on the grounds that it should act constitutionally.  The mad hatter would have had a field day with this one.


Despite all the missteps, Hondurass military and militaries across the region need to know that coups will not be tolerated. Hondurans need to be able to move on and rebuild their democracy.  Ahhhh, misstep this.

Zeke ... OK, is George Orwell writing this stuff for the NY Times? It's straight out of "1984" .... ... NewsSpeak, DoubleSpeak. ... ... This policy is Double-Plus-Ungood. ... ... The MSM ignores anything that does not conform to their MetaNarrative (Party Line). ... ... Poor Albert Gore ... had to cancel his "Shake my Hand for $1,200 in Copenhagen" event. (12/05/09)

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!!