Freedom of BLEEP

As President Obama diligently works to force the United States into a destructive climate treaty at the upcoming Copenhagen summit, many are questioning the need for such drastic action after reading certain scandalous correspondence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU). The mainstream media is quickly dismissing or even ignoring the recent email leak (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC have not made a peep), but more reputable and reliable news sources are informing the American people of these juicy tidbits that may kick the soapboxes out from under climate alarmists everywhere.

Though the story is still developing, the university has confirmed that their server was hacked and certain implicated scientists are trying to cover their tracks.  Some are already arguing that the conspiracy to delete, destroy and manipulate climate data was taken out of context. You can decide for yourself.  Here is just a sample of some of the ridiculous emails hacked from the university CRU.

Hiding the declining temperatures:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Downplaying the Medieval Warming Period (when the earth was warmer than it is now and is forecasted to become):

“Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science…”

“I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”…”

Deleting emails and denying Freedom of Information Act requests:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

“The two MMs (referring to skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

“Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner.”

“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!”

Conspiracy to Discredit Opposing Views:

“I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”

Honestly, I’m not sure how anyone can argue that this was taken out of context. From what I’ve read, I can only assume the larger picture would be even more damning to this “research” center and possibly implicate others. The most disturbing realization is that CRU is directly involved in the research that is used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC published periodic assessment reports that contend that human greenhouse emissions are contributing to global warming (the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory). These reports are relied upon by governments to shape environmental policy, and our country is now one of those sheep in the herd.

There is absolutely no consensus in the scientific community on climate change, and these emails point to serious ethical violations within the climate alarmist camp. However, our country under the leadership of Obama has now chosen to push a detrimental “Cap and Trade” agenda that arguably wouldn’t have any impact upon this dubious problem. It would only lead to higher unemployment, higher taxes, more expensive goods, and stifled economic growth.

Liberals contend that we cannot wait for the problem to manifest itself more concretely…we must tackle it now! Dismantling an already troubled economy on the basis of an unproven scientific theory is not only irresponsible and reckless, it’s idiotic. This is analogous to a doctor telling someone “I’m not exactly sure that you have cancer…but just in case, we should start chemo and radiation.” I’m not buying it…and after reading these emails, neither should you.

——————-

A selection of emails can be found here at the WSJ, and a link to the more than 3,000 emails can be found on this page.

It’s sickening how many liberals attempt to elicit sympathy for terrorists. Under the guise of compassion, they prevaricate the facts, discount the innocent that have been murdered, and even make excuses for these cold-blooded killers. Why?

Nidal Malik Hasan is a case in point. This is a man who equated terrorist suicide bombers with a US soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his colleagues. He said that terrorists have a noble cause. He attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions. He yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and taking innocent lives, connoting his support for the extremists who wage “holy war” against the US.

Still, liberals want to make sure that Hasan is not tried as a terrorist. The liberal news-spin site Drudge Retort ran a headline saying “FBI: Hasan Not Involved in Terrorism” linking to an article in the Houston Chronicle.

But this is not at all what the article reports. The FBI actually said “he was not involved in terrorist activities when a joint terrorism task force crossed paths with him last year. [...] The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration.”

After examining commentary like this, it might be easier to understand why some liberals think Hasan isn’t a terrorist: they have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader. If Hasan thinks terrorists have a “noble cause,” doesn’t this indicate a motive? If he attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions, doesn’t this indicate premeditation? If he yelled “Allah is greatest” while killing innocent people, can we reasonably believe this was anything other than an act of terrorism? Whether or not Hasan had direct contact with al Qaeda, Bin Laden himself has encouraged lone acts of terrorism. So does it really matter that Hasan acted alone?

With the facts heavily stacked against them, liberals have tried to excuse Hasan as simply being insane. But this position implies that some terrorists are actually sane. Do liberals think that killing thousands of innocent people is the behavior of a perfectly sane person?

Instead of sweeping this under the rug, we need to treat the Fort Hood incident for what it really is - an act of terrorism. Let’s not forget that there were plenty of warning signs; denying the problem allowed the Fort Hood Massacre to happen.

With a smug grin on his face, President Obama walked up to the podium at the Tribal Nations Conference to address the nation about the massacre at Fort Hood. He opened with a lighthearted “shout out” to Joe Medicine Crow. After using almost three minutes to talk about how he is working to improve conditions for Native Americans, he finally mentions Fort Hood.

Obama giving a shout-out before Fort Hood speech

Talk about a real class act. He spent so much time paying lip service to a slice of his electorate that many viewers thought the wrong clip was playing. Where’s Michael Moore and his stopwatch now?

Even NBC described Obama’s behavior as a display of “frightening insensitivity.” When the President finally did begin to address the Fort Hood tragedy, he still had to read his comments. Seemingly no heartfelt emotions; only the disingenuous teleprompter.