Old Patriot's Pen

Personal pontifications of an old geezer born 200 years too late.

NOTE The views I express on this site are mine and mine alone. Nothing I say should be construed as being "official" or the views of any group, whether I've been a member of that group or not. The advertisings on this page are from Google, and do not constitute an endorsement on my part.

My Photo
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

I've been everywhere That was the title of a hit country-and-western song from the late 1950's, originally sung by Hank Snow, and made famous by Johnny Cash. I resemble that! My 26-year career in the Air Force took me to more than sixty nations on five continents - sometimes only for a few minutes, other times for as long as four years at a time. In all that travel, I also managed to find the perfect partner, help rear three children, earn more than 200 hours of college credit, write more than 3000 reports, papers, documents, pamphlets, and even a handful of novels, take about 10,000 photographs, and met a huge crowd of interesting people. I use this weblog and my personal website here to document my life, and discuss my views on subjects I find interesting.

Friday, November 27, 2009

The Hadley CRU Email Scandal

By now, most people know that more than 3000 emails and documents from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU)have been posted on the Internet. These emails and files are damning evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fraud perpetrated by about two dozen "climate scientists" in positions of authority. These few dozen scientists not only manipulated data until they got the results they wanted, but also refused to allow others who doubted their work from having a say. Here is one of the emails showing how the network of "the right people" not only ensured that only "approved" data was published, but that any skepticism would be met with hostility. They gleefully discuss what amounts to playing the majority of British citizens as fools.

Email 0848679780.txt

Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time. I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??
6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
9. We relesae (spelling original) the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

This is one of the earliest emails in the queue, but already we see that this group feels it has the right to just plain make up data, and hope it comes out right. Keep the names of these people in mind, because the same people appear over and over in the emails.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Wanted: Conservative Candidates

Regardless of political party - or even lack of party affiliation - the United States needs to back up and regroup. The current direction our elected "leadership" is taking us is wrong, and will destroy what is special, even unique, about the United States. The Democratic party isn't likely to change direction, considering those currently elected to public office. The only hope for a change in direction will have to come from newly-elected, conservative candidates - at ALL levels of government.

Conservatives who belong to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, no party, or even the Tea Party, need to come together and state, unequivocally, what they want in a candidate, and refuse to support anyone that doesn't meet those qualifications. My personal list of absolutely necessary requirements are:

  • A candidate that puts the three essentials of good government first: protection of individual liberty, property, and process. By "process", I mean the right to make personal decisions for themselves about such things as political orientation, health care, where they live, housing, education, social contact, and other PERSONAL decisions. I also mean that people making these personal decisions must also be responsible for accepting the consequences of their decisions, good or bad. Unless a candidate will commit, in written or spoken word, to base every decision he or she makes on these essentials, they're not worthy of my vote.

  • A candidate that understands the critical necessity of responsible spending: all taxes are paid by individuals, either in direct payment or in indirect "pass-along" taxes. Only those taxes that are required to support essential government functions - defense, coining/printing of money, maintenance of basic infrastructure, foreign policy, and other specific, limited functions listed in our Constitution, are "essential". Anything else, especially anything that's solely based upon the "commerce clause" of our Constitution - and quite frequently, only by warping and twisting the meaning of "commerce" - needs to be examined closely to see if it's actually needed, actually producing the desired outcome, and can't be done by other means at less cost or intrusion into the lives of America's citizens. Any candidate that won't commit to working toward these goals is not worthy of my vote, and won't get it.

  • A candidate that understands that "government" is not the answer to every problem.

  • A candidate that understands that the Constitution means exactly what it says, and the only valid amendment process is the one listed in Article IV of that Constitution.

  • A candidate that understands that we have too many laws, many of them so vague that they're virtually impossible to implement properly, and that this mess needs to be cleaned up.

  • A candidate that not only understands these basic premises, but will promise that he will act in accordance with them on all issues he faces.

I'm sure such candidates will be difficult to find, but they're absolutely essential for the continuance of our nation as it was founded.

Labels: , ,