Climategate – The Full Truth

Cold fact about the hot topic of global temperature change after the climategate scandal.

UPDATE: Whatsupwiththat.com has a summary up of this report. Some of the highlights:
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.

Climategate’s Money Trail

The Wall Street Journal has an article up showing more of the truth behind this “Climategate” scandal. Following the money trail they show just how much these scientist’s have received or will be receiving from government grants. This to me shows why they were so adamant that any deniers be shut down so that they could keep riding this gravy train.

the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal….
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely…
None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Can we all join the pledge

Let me start this by saying, I abhor any violence done against women, whether it is men doing it or not.

But what I hate just as much is the falsehood put out there by the feminist media.

All we ever see is what the feminist media wants to push, that men are bad and that we need to stop what we are doing and apolgise constantly for everything.
A new national survey has found that an “unacceptable” proportion of the Australians excuse and trivialise violence against women.

When are the media or the government going to come out with any information showing that while violence against women is wrong in any form, violence against men is also wrong. That women can be just as violent and just as domineering as men.

Domestic violence is not only perpetrated by men it is also perpetrated against men
Falsely claiming that, compared with male victims of domestic violence, Canadian women are three
times more likely to be injured as a result of violence (actually similar percentages of female and male
victims sustain injuries)
• Falsely claiming that, compared with male victims of domestic violence, Canadian women are five
times more likely to require medical attention or hospitalisation (actually male victims of spousal
violence are almost twice as likely as female victims of spousal violence to suffer major assault)
http://www.mensrights.com.au/MHA_Media_Release_20-2-09.pdf

That is why I would be happy to make any pledge to stop violence but I want to see women stand up as part of the fix to this problem and pledge to stop violence as well. Stop highlighting only men’s failures but show that both men and women have faults and need to fix their faults.

Hide The Decline – Climategate

Manhattan Decleration

Bill Muehlenberg has a new blog entry up on his website that talks about the new Manhattan Decleration. We as Christians should consider signing this decleration.

A diverse group of Christian leaders – evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox – came together yesterday to announce the release of an important new Christian document – the Manhattan Declaration.
Charles Colson, one of the original signers to the Declaration, says this about it: “The Manhattan Declaration is a wake-up call – a call to conscience – for the church. It is also crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.”

From the Premable to the decleration
“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation – to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.”

Line of the day

Time Blair at the Daily Telegraph has the line of the day in regards to the shooter from Fort Hood that killed 14 people.

“Imagine being such a good shot that you’re able to hit the spine of someone who is spineless. In other good news, Hasan is no longer considered a flight risk. “

Political correctness got us here

Reading about the case of a child being attacked at school for eating meat during ramadan shows just how far political correctness has taken us. All you will hear on a almost daily basis is how mean and unfair the western world is to muslims and how we need to bend our culture to theirs instead of the other way around when they come here but the following report from the US shows that their is much less in the way of hate crimes against muslims then is portrayed.

A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan….
Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student….
Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection.

One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. “He has been bullied from day one … about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch,” she said.

There were 115 hate crime incidents against Muslims in 2007 (the latest data available).

This is down from the 2006 numbers by nearly one-third. There were more recorded hate crimes against Christians than against Muslims in 2007.

Obama & Rudd

I will let these speak for themselves but suffice to say Obama and Rudd are like two peas in a pod

Last month, President Obama gave a somewhat chilling, if somewhat ignored, speech on climate change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He stated that any scientific debate about the magnitude of global warming is unscrupulous, decrying “those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

Then, the president talked tough, saying, “We’ll just have to deal with those people,” language familiar to anyone who knows the vagaries of Chicago politics.

Kevin Rudd went over the top last week in a speech to the Lowy institute, declaring it was “time to remove any polite veneer” from the climate change debate, which he claims is the “moral challenge of our generation”.

Then he launched an extraordinary tirade against “the climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers” who he claims are “powerful”, “too dangerous to be ignored”, “driven by vested interests … quite literally holding the world to ransom … Our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them.”

Have a read of the following for a response from one of the named.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_a_corrupt_and_lying_conspirator_responds/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/or_up_to_your_decayed_ankles_in_100_years/

Obama Apologizes to Europe for US Arrogance in Liberating Their Asses on Numerous Occasions…Obama apologized to the UN today for America “acting alone” and for the world’s “opposition to specific policies.”

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd will next month make an apology to the survivors of some 500,000 children who found themselves institutionalised in orphanages and homes between 1930 and 1970…Those survivors, including 7000 child migrants, have been dubbed the “Forgotten Australians”.

Kevin Rudd has released an apology that contains two critical and potentially lethal flaws…First, it apologises for the “removal” of all Aboriginal children – even those many who were bashed, starved, raped, sent to boarding school or abandoned:

Rudd the Builder

A new article on the news.com.au site has Kevin Rudd contemplating taking over urban planning. Considering he has not been able to do what he promised to do in the election, taking over hospitals and water planning this just sound like more empty rhetoric or more made on on the run policies like he has in the last week with asylum seekers being diverted back to Indonesia. That has worked out so well that Indonesia won’t even allow the queue jumpers to land.

Kevin Rudd has not shown he is capable of running anything yet, except for a large and ever growing deficit so why would he think that his government would be capable of urban planning now.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wants to intervene in urban planning – usually the preserve of state and local governments – to make sure cities are well-run and climate change-proof.

Mr Rudd has previously proposed a takeover of hospitals and water, and a greater role in education and broadband.

Now it’s cities’ turn.

In his speech Mr Rudd proposed the development of national rules for the planning of cities for the first time.

And all infrastructure funding – which runs into tens of billions of dollars – could be linked to the rules.

Atheism debunked

Dr Dvir Abramovich has a great article up blowing holes in the arguments of atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. Well worth a read to see all of their complaints about religion answered and answered in such a away to show that these “straw Men” that keep being presented aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

Read the whole article to read the rest of the arguments against atheism.

Hitchens and Dawkins, who are the leaders of the New Atheism movement, have received the most media spotlight and are driving the growth of this industry. Hitchens presented recently at Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas and appeared on ABC TV’s Q & A program. And Dawkins will headline next year’s Atheist Convention in Melbourne.

These atheists are angry that religion has not gone away and is thriving in various parts of the world. After all, calling other peoples’ belief a delusion is not exactly respectful. Indeed, distinguished doctor and broadcaster Lord Winston found Dawkins’ attitude to religious faith patronising, insulting and counterproductive, noting that it “portrays science in a bad light”.

Hitchens and Dawkins build a straw man — they select the worst offences that have been done in the name of religion to prove that religion is a dangerous force and a kind of virus that infects the mind. At one point Hitchens writes, “Religious belief is not merely false but also actually harmful. But I think it is a mistake to condescend to those who claim ‘faith’.”

For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million.

Dawkins is mute on the terrors unleashed by science and technology, used by genocidal regimes such as Hitler’s Germany, in a century that proved to be the worst tyranny mankind has ever seen. And what about weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and biological bombs developed by scientists?

Does that mean that all atheists and scientists are evil? Of course not. The point is that fanatics can be found in both religion and atheism.

How can anyone argue that not a single human benefit has resulted from religious faith? There are millions who every day selflessly dedicate their lives to helping others all in the name of religious belief. The cruelty and viciousness of the past and the abuse of religion in the present cannot extinguish the solidarity and good-heartedness of people of faith.

True religious values are grounded in notions of community, charity, mercy and peace. All too often today we focus on individualism, greed and instant gratification.

Anyone wishing to discredit theology should at least know some. The God Delusion contains very little examination of Jewish theology and dismisses the finest minds of Western thinkers and theologians who have written on sublime theological questions as “infantile”.

Hitchens cites the Binding of Isaac and “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” injunction as brutish and stupid. Yet, scholars have interpreted the binding as ending child sacrifice and the injunction as a caution against excessive vengeance. Hitchens says that the God of Moses never refers to compassion and human friendship, overlooking “love your neighbour as yourself”.

For his part, Dawkins is clearly out of his depth when it comes to Jewish teachings and ethics. He claims, for instance, that “love thy neighbour” meant only “love another Jew”. He apparently is not aware that in the same chapter, Jews are commanded to love the stranger that lives in their land as they would themselves. When Jesus, himself a Jew, was asked “Who is my neighbour” he did not refer to other Jews, but to a Samaritan, considered at that time as heretical and unclean.