November 30, 2009

The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose: "Beware The Scientific-Technological Complex"

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961


‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.’ - Wegman Report, 2006

2009: Penn State to investigate Michael Mann;

In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

An unhappy colleague. Mike Hulme of UEA (location of CRU)

But this episode might signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change. This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

A contributing author to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Eduardo Zorita, Department of Paleoclimate, GKSS Research Center (Germany)

"Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process"

Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.

Dr. John Lewis, Dep't of Physics & Physical Oceanography, Memorial University (by email);

It is worth noting, in regard to the deletion of raw data by the CRU that real scientific organizations are rather fierce about raw data. NASA, for instance, gives the Principal Investigator (and group) sole access to data for one year, and one year only. After that, the data are placed in the public domain. I do know that some PIs have asked for longer embargos - whether they got them or not I don't know, but if so, not easily. If the PI simply deleted data it would be the end of his or her career.

NASA's view is that data collected with public monies should be available to the public; and without copyright - US gov't materials generally are not copyrighted. All of this is to a good end - the PIs get the obvious results, but some data - e.g. for the IRAS mission - have continued to yield information upon reanalysis even 15 years after the IRAS shut down.

Not every installation is set up to handle terabytes of data, but CRU was very well funded apparently, and anyway, if they couldn't handle it they shouldn't have collected or received it.

The CRU leaks will confirm the views of every half-baked political scientist in the world, that science does not deal in fundamental truths but is, rather, a politically negotiated discourse. It is very disturbing.

Dear Judy,

I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on [95% of it :) ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.

Dr. Judith Curry is Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Audio: An Australian reporter hears something he may not have anticipated - scathing criticism from Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Expert reviewer for the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities. (Or go directly to the mp3 here.)

Posted by Kate at November 30, 2009 5:44 AM

Thanks for those references, Kate. It is important, I think, to keep reminding folks that the majority of the people claiming to be scientists have not been involved in this fraud, and, moreover, they have not been convinced by the claims of the (now known to be un-scientific) climate-change fear-mongers. One would almost think that some people, themselves uncomfortable with science, are trying to pretend that this gives them the excuse to ignore all scientific results, and to simply claim that people who know something about something they don't are somehow "elite" in some negative sense. There's nothing like pandering to populist demagoguery to get some people going.

Meanwhile, let us not forget that in 2007, over 31,000
scientists signed the Oregon petition, affirming that:

"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Perhaps the problem isn't that scientists haven't been telling us all along,
perhaps the problem is that some people weren't listening to the scientists,
rather, they were listening to the government (as in the first word of IPCC).

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 6:03 AM

"For the sake of science, Dick, for the sake of collegiality, for your own sake, give it a rest. You know as well as I do that the issue isn't global warming. The issue is what side of the bread our butter is on."

"The Climate Scam: Did You Read It First Here?

November 27, 2009 11:55 AM by N. Joseph Potts (Archive)

Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science as it pertains to coercive government, science "science," and the nexus of the two. Even if you didn't read about it elsewhere (and there were places where you could), you could (and should) have easily thought up the evil plot in the whole thing.

Last week, Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It's all a put-up job.

But way back (it seems so long ago) in 2006, though, the Daily Articles of this site were graced by a put-up job by none other than myself, titled "How to Achieve Scientific Consensus," it being an explicitly phony "e-mail" to Warming Denialist Richard Lindzen explaining how his failure to cooperate in the Great Professional Project of Warming Alarmism was messing up not only his career, but that of many of his colleagues.

I find it makes gratifying reading in light of the recent exposure of the global warming boondoggle.

But then, I like my own stuff. Hope you do, too, at least in this case."

"How to Achieve Scientific "Consensus"

Mises Daily: Monday, August 14, 2006 by N. Joseph Potts

Date: August 14, 2006

To: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT

From: Dr. John Q. Colleague [not anyone's real name]

Subj: Scientific Solidarity

I'm sorry I had to decline your lunch invitation today. You seemed to know the excuse I gave you was just a cover. Of course, the reality was simply that the tenure committee is considering my application this week, and it just wouldn't do at this particular moment for me to be seen hobnobbing with you.

I judge others have come up with their own excuses; the sight of you dining alone at the Faculty Club has become a rather forlorn feature of my everyday. As many years as I've known you, and as closely as we've worked together, I've decided to do you the favor evidently none of our colleagues has seen his way to doing and make a clean breast of things.

The issue, of course, is your ongoing insistence, exemplified most by your op ed in the Wall Street Journal for July 2, of bucking the consensus that all the rest of us in the department, and indeed, all over the world, have arrived at regarding the issue of global warming. I know you know this has estranged you from the great majority of the rest of your colleagues, including people like me who really agree with you, and I suspect you accept this, but I'd like to make it clear to you just how and why it does so, and what the further damage is or may be that your breaking ranks with our profession really does.

When you were starting out in this field 45 years ago, things were very different. For one thing, you didn't have to be a grant magnet to hold an academic post at a place like MIT — you could get by just teaching and publishing the occasional article. For another, you were just weathermen back then, or meteorologists, as you were called by the few who cared to demonstrate respect for what you were doing.

Today, there's a lot more money and a lot more candidates for what seems like fewer and fewer posts that offer any kind of real future. And that money — that grant money that comes from a few influential foundations but most of all, from Uncle — it flows like a thing you and I understand: a current. Like a current, it flows away from one thing, and toward another thing, and what it's flowing toward now is what Al Gore terms the planetary emergency of global warming.

Now take a young professor trying to keep his head above water in this sweeping torrent — me, if you insist, but there are thousands of us in the world scientific community trying to run before this tide. [...]

Through the work of stalwarts like Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who produced the "hockey stick" graph of millennial global temperature that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we're no longer the butt of jokes about weathermen who look out the window to decide whether to carry an umbrella after having made a weather forecast. Now, we're climatologists, for crying out loud,..."

Posted by: maz2 at November 30, 2009 6:38 AM

For those of you who want to invest a bit of time reading the most damning email thread related to "climate change" you owe it to yourself to read George Monbiot's piece tearing the lid of the whole sordid business. If everyone read what he has had the courage to publish the debate would take on a whole new direction.

Posted by: Reagan Rules at November 30, 2009 7:13 AM

AGW: Da proof vs "de-industrialize the Western world,".

Da Unabomber* was there first before Mao Stlong?

Unabomber + Maurice Strong (Canadian "Liberal leader", Bob Rae's Uncle Mo) = AGW.

Da proof:
"Large icebergs were also sighted recently near shipping lanes close to nearby New Zealand, much further north than usual."

"For the extreme left it has provided the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialize the Western world," Minchin recently told Australian television.

"The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left. They embraced environmentalism as their new religion," Minchin said, sparking a blizzard of controversy."

"Australian climate row highlights Copenhagen rifts"

Da Unabomber*:

"4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system."

Posted by: maz2 at November 30, 2009 7:16 AM

And of course, all "scientific" work taking place based upon the destroyed but "repaired" data, and funded by government, is being shut down immediately. That would leave more funding for actual scientific research. I call for the immediate suspension of government funded climate change "research" taking place based on this now known to be tainted data.

Posted by: shaken at November 30, 2009 7:58 AM you sleep?

Posted by: bluetech at November 30, 2009 8:38 AM

Not a lot, lately.

Posted by: Kate at November 30, 2009 8:49 AM

A clique, a clak, a Team

"The block (cluster) structure is very clear. Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42. The black squares on the diagonal indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group. ... However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique. ...

The cliques are very clear in this layout. In addition to the Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes clique there are several others that are readily apparent. They are Rind-Shindell-Schmidt-Miller, Cook-D’Arrigo-Jacoby-Wilson, Folland-Vellinga-Allan-Knight, Stahle-Shugart-Therrell-Druckenbrod-Cleveland, Sangoyomi-Moon-Lall-Abarbanel, and Clement-Zebiak-Cane. The last cluster is somewhat of the miscellaneous cluster of people who had published with Michael Mann, but not much if at all with each other. ...

The social network analysis of authors’ relations suggests that the “independent reconstructions” are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications. ...

Posted by: Fred at November 30, 2009 9:00 AM

This just posted on

Nice to see at least one of the MSM acknowledging
this fiasco.

Posted by: atric at November 30, 2009 9:01 AM

The Nobel Prize commity gave the IPCC the 2007 Nobel prize and to Al Gore,

and they gave one to Obama for no reason ( well he is a strong supporter of the global warming there's your reason )

The Nobel prize commity is an accomplice/enabler in the climategate scam

The UN/IPCC is an accomplice/enabler in the climategate scam

The Main Stream Media is an accomplice/enabler in the climategate scam

and pretty much every leftist/liberal group is an accomplice/enabler in the Climategate scam.

As we Know now thanks to one hacker who is in my view a true hero who deserves a Nobel Prize,

There is NO vast right wing conspiracy!

BUT there IS a HUGE left-wing conspiracy

in fact the biggest ever in world history since it meant TRILLIONS of dollars were at play.

This is the biggest scam EVER in human history.

Take adscam and multiply it by 10 million and there you have what climatergate is.

Posted by: Friend of USA at November 30, 2009 9:08 AM

Why is it so easy to forget that the Nazi regime had scientists in unanimous agreement of their inhuman race based eugenics theories. The Ubermenschen was as much a concept of junk science as it was a political meme.

Posted by: The Fly at November 30, 2009 9:23 AM

I find it ironic how modern man has become so arrogant towards science of the past. When the earth was thought to be flat or the earth the center of the galaxy. Yet today most scientist would believe that man evolved from monkeys??? Or that the earth is billions of years old and that co2, yes that bad breath we exhale, is causing the destruction of the planet?
The scientific community is in some ways as deluded and ethically corrupt as it ever has been.

Posted by: Jay-mo at November 30, 2009 9:33 AM

Since this is primarily a political and economic scam, which hid under a cover of now-revealed fraudulent science, what is important is to consider how the political and economic authorities deal with the exposure of their cover.

Over the past two years they've had to deal with the immediately experienced reality; i.e., that the climate wasn't getting warmer; that the oceans weren't rising, etc. So, the political and economic powers changed the title from AGW to 'climate change' - an ambiguous and empty term.

Then, they attempted to redefine the experienced data (of cold winters and summers) as 'noise' and the felt experiences of the common people as unreliable, inadequate and ignorant. The 'science was settled' we were told.

Dissent, we were told, was based on either ignorance or greed; all dissenters were in the pay of Big Oil.

Now, how are the political and economic cabals of the UN and other money-seeking agencies, going to deal with the loss of their scientific cover? They aren't going to easily abandon those political and economic goals. So, my question is - what are they going to do to retain those goals?

Posted by: ET at November 30, 2009 9:37 AM

Reader comment from the Telegraph

Just imagine a Martian landing and somebody trying to explain to him/her/it how $Zillions are going to be "traded" for carbon.
"What - you mean that essential gas?"
“That's right!”
“You buy and sell carbon, which is so plentiful?”
“Yeah – we think its a pollutant and there's too much of it.”
“So what do you do with it?”
“Well, nothing really – just buy and sell it.”
“At a profit?”
“Well somebody's making a bomb on it – don't know who.” (Thinks – Al Gore?)
"Do you ship it around in liquid form in tankers?”
“No, we just leave it where it is to “do its thing”.”
“Which is?”
“Oh – you, know - help things grow – help people to breath.”
“But you said its a pollutant.”
“Yeah, that too – or so Gore tells us.”
“How and what exactly does it pollute?”
“Dunno, I'm just a climatologist, you'd best ask Al Gore that – or John Key – or DOKTOR Nick Smith – they must know.”
“So – somebody's making a fortune out of this. But who's paying?”
“Well, the taxpayer coughs for most of it. Manufacturers and farmers too – pretty much anyone who is producing anything or doing a useful job.”
“Why farmers?”
“Oh, that's because cattle fart a lot.”
“Really? They fart carbon?”
“Well, no, but I guess they must fart something similar.”
“Do politicians pay their share?”
“What share? Probably not. (Thinks – another question for Gore.) Nah, they probably trouser a percentage seeing as they thought the whole scheme up.”
“How will you know when you've bought/sold/traded enough?”
“I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps when the politicians (and Gore) say so.”
“You mean when they've bled you dry and their pockets are full?”
“No – it can't be then.”
“Why - you mean they'll stop before they've bled you dry?
“No – I mean their coffers'll never be full – they're bottomless!”
“You realise this is going to ruin you all, do you? That the wheels of industry will gradually grind to a halt - and they wont be able to pay taxes? That education, health services, transport, welfare and all that stuff will be history?”
“Must admit, I have wondered.”
“Well, I'm not hanging around here – it's going to be chaotic. I'm off back to Mars.”
“OK – see yah! Oh, do you have carbon there?.”
“Yeah, heaps – much more than you do. The percentage varies quite a bit according to the effects of sun-spots and weather patterns. But we don't worry about it – seems harmless enough – it's quite inert. Why do you ask?”
“I was just thinking – could I cadge a lift with you?”

Auntie Podes
on November 30, 2009

Posted by: Nemo2 at November 30, 2009 10:03 AM

Kate!! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

For years and years I have been listening to and reading the rote repetition of the phrase "military industrial complex" (pronounced in a grave, serious, low voice indicative of authority, of course) from young students who have unquestioningly swallowed the one-sided pap that leaves out more than it includes from their professors. I am absolutely elated that you have found a companion quotation from the same source (Eisenhaurer) that perfectly describes these very same academic idiots. This more than makes up for the disappointment of last night's game. This atones for nearly 40 years of having to endure that crap.

Posted by: Louise at November 30, 2009 10:13 AM


Proofread, Louise. Proofread.

Posted by: Louise at November 30, 2009 10:18 AM

Could it be that there was no hacker? Could it be that someone inside this debacle decided enough was enough and pulled the plug?

Posted by: Sylvanguy at November 30, 2009 10:20 AM

I suspect this will be confirmed as a leak in the near future, as opposed to a hack from outside.

It would bode better for the CRU and legitimate climate scientists worldwide if it is found to be a leak because it would at least suggest that not all climate scientists are politicians in disguise.

The angle played by Vitruvius is one that few have latched onto yet and one which, I believe, should gain more prominence. Namely, the role the UN IPCC had in demanding that scientists create the necessary explanation to warrant the creation of a global tax, global governance structure and, arguably, a global economy. That's the part of this story that I don't want to see go by the wayside. Someone needs to dig into it and unveil the compulsion/collusion to the world.

Posted by: Mark Peters at November 30, 2009 10:28 AM

"As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. "

Posted by: jon at November 30, 2009 10:34 AM

Louise you can find the rest of his speech at as well as some other great speeches.

Posted by: Western Canadian at November 30, 2009 10:44 AM

In the WaPo yesterday from Juliet Eilperin:

Climate talks remain alive, but so do many obstacles

By offering concrete emission targets last week, the United States and China have resuscitated global climate talks that were headed toward an impasse. But the details that have yet to be resolved -- including the money that industrialized countries would offer poorer ones as part of an agreement --... blah blah blah

Now the great thing here is that there are 188 comments this morning and very few that I saw even tried to defend this. Most comments were angry but very literate and many trashed the WaPo for ignoring the real story. It appears that even the readers of the WaPo get it.

The column is of course pure crapola but the comments are great.

Posted by: James at November 30, 2009 10:51 AM

Lorrie Goldstein: "Toronto Sun, Dog Ate Home Work"

Posted by: MaryM at November 30, 2009 11:03 AM

Bought an LCD monitor yesterday, $219 came up to $260 at the register. I asked them to double check the bill and he said: it's those $12 of recycling fee that throw you off.

WTF recycling fee?

Well, since May this year we are supposed to pay our government for sending this monitor to China in 5-10 years so that they would recycle it and make something else out of materials.

Canadians pay Canadian government to help Chinese make a buck.

How's that for a novel concept?

And you are complaining that Al Gore makes a buck every time you exhale...

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2009 11:04 AM

I'll know there is some justice when Gore is charged under the RICO ACT and Suzuki is equally discredited for his views. The”scientific settlers” are circling their wagons so it should be an interesting fight. Problem is they seem to have circled them on a location that has no water so I think it’s just a matter of time before the “savages” win, should be interesting.

Like ET I wonder what the next power grab from the left will entail. The next heart tug, animals? Food?

Posted by: Western Canadian at November 30, 2009 11:06 AM

The next power grab will be H2O.


Posted by: syncrodox at November 30, 2009 11:12 AM

Just saw a blurb in the crawl on Global National about how a recent poll shows the majority of Canadians believe climate change is the "planet's defining crisis".

Sounds like someone else's wording to me. Stupid, stupid, stupid - nothing so galling and so pathetic as millions of people parroting propaganda.

Okay then, here are some apparently NON-defining crises: starvation and easily preventable illness destroying 6 million children a year, every year; radical Islam; uranium enrichment plants in the hands of insane god-bothering oligarchs; open- door immigration of thugs, pimps, pushers, and backstabbers...TRILLIONS BEING WASTED ON "CLIMATE CHANGE" WHILE OUR OWN PEOPLE GO JOBLESS AND HUNGRY...

Shame-meter redlining daily now. My countrymen - you suck.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at November 30, 2009 11:17 AM

Goreacle Report: Nobel Peace Prize Winner reporting.

Socialism's Gift: Lysenkoism, Scientism.

"Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, as seen by his parents

(from "Pravda," 3 January, 1936; page 1).

Letter from Academician T. D. Lysenko's Parents to Comrade Stalin

Our beloved, dear Stalin! The day we learned that our Trofim was awarded the Order of Lenin was the most joyous day of our lives. How could we ever have dreamed of such a great honor, we, poor peasants from the village of Karlovka in Kharkov province?

It was hard for our son Trofim to get an education before the Revolution. He was not admitted -- a peasant boy, a muzhik's son -- into the agronomy school, even though he received only the highest grades in school. Trofim had to become a gardener in Poltava. He would have remained a gardener for life had it not been for the Soviet regime. Not only the older Trofim, but his younger [brothers and sister] went to study at institutes.... The high road to knowledge was opened up to the muzik's son.... Is there any other country in the world where the son of a poor peasant could become an academician? No!...

We do not know how to show you our gratitude, dear Comrade Stalin, for this great happiness, the conferring of the highest award upon our eldest son. I, Denis Lysenko, have worked hard during my 64 years; nevertheless I am not quitting working on my own Bolshevist Labor kolkhoz, for work is enjoyable now, for life has become better and more cheerful. I work on the kolkhoz as an experimenter, gardener, beekeeper, and horticulturist. After studying courses in plant breeding here, from my son, I taught four collective farmers to cross plants. I myself crossed 13 plants and conducted experiments in vernalization of beets, as a result of which I get double the harvests. Recently I thought up a special machine for applying liquid fertilizer to beets and commissioned the kolkhoz blacksmith to make it. It is by these works, to the extent of my powers as an old man, that I show my gratitude to you, Comrade Stalin, and the Communist Party and Soviet system that you direct.

With kolkhoz greetings!
Denis Lysenko (father of Academician Lysenko)
and Oksana Lysenko (mother). Odessa, January 2."

Posted by: maz2 at November 30, 2009 11:17 AM


I disagree the VAST majority of scientists have been complicit in this scam. Many seconded the claim that the science was in while many more did not speak out against it. It is akin to the German populace claiming that they were not aware - not one little bit - of the atrocities being committed by their countrymen.

I think that this was largely due to the overwhelming left-socialist bias of the scientific community with large dollops of political naiveity mixed in. The scientific community deserves to be damned by this and hopefully henceforth will be held to account and undergo rigorous third party oversight.

For the last few years the business community has been getting criticized for it's corruption, gluttony and heartlessness. The scientific community is at least, (if not more - they were largely using public funds and abusing a public versus prIvate trust), guilty of the same.

Lots of people in the business community were fined or jailed for their conduct. How many scientists will suffer the same fate for this epic scandal?

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 30, 2009 11:21 AM

Ran into an old friend who's been involved in environmental issues for decades who made a statement I still am having a hard time understanding.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said, the commies needed some raison d etre and got into environmentalism. That's not a shock to regulars around here.

What was interesting is that my friend said their mission was to destroy science and discredit scientists.

That still seems like an outrageous statements, but given marxism's history of attempting to destroy anything whose purpose is to seek out the truth, I'm not sure that it's all that wacky.

This is where we need to make a distinction.

I'm all for those whose mission in life is to seek out the truth, which includes honourable scientists like Vitruvius.

I will continue to object to political scientists and the science fiction writers that gave us the horror fantasy of doomsday global warming.

Posted by: set you free at November 30, 2009 11:25 AM


Thanks for that wonderful refresher course on the analogy between Lysenko and AGW zealots.

Rather than scientism, I would probably describe the great AGW/Copenhagen Treaty fraud as "Apocalpytism" with "'Strong' socialist control" elements.

If you do not sign ze papers, a great apocalypse will happen...

All the shrieking and wailing of the alarmists will fall on deaf ears, as most thinking people regard this as the transparent scam that it is...

Results 1 - 10 of about 13,800,000 for climategate (Google)

1-10 of 7,960,000 results Climate Gate (bing)


Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at November 30, 2009 11:38 AM

Dr. Lewis is dead on target re: data retention. No reputable outfit will delete primary source material, it simply is unthinkable to do so. If the original media were "too bulky", then it would have been transcribed onto new media, no matter how laborious.


Posted by: mojo at November 30, 2009 11:41 AM

Once again, I'll quote Richard Feynman. I find it of interest that he said this in his 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech; therefore, it clearly wasn't motivated by anything regarding the claims of the past fifteen years or so that the earth is warming because of human industrial activity:

For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or

Those who wish to read the whole address can find it here:

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at November 30, 2009 11:43 AM

Aaron @11:04

The electronics recycling fee is driven by the same green agenda as the "Climate Change" scam.

But it's a matter of scale. I don't know about you, but I'm not down at Future Shop every other day buying some new electronic gadget. But I fuel up one of my vehicles at least once a week, and sometimes much more often, if I'm on the road. And I'm burning natural gas every time the furnace kicks in. And, since I'm in Alberta, there's coal being burned to make the electricity I use while I sit at the computer composing this post.

And there is at least some justification for recycling electronic products. There's a large amount of plastic that can be recycled, there's tin and lead in the solder, and a small amount of precious metals. The problem with the electronics recycling fee is not so much a matter of principle as it is the clumsy and ham-handed way it has been implemented.

CO2 is not a pollutant, and abating it does no good at all. A carbon tax is theft, pure and simple.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at November 30, 2009 11:43 AM

Barack Insane Obama gave Fat Albert Gore approximately 650 million (first installment) tax dollars to go start a green car company in Norway.

Norway hands out Nobel Prizes.

Any questions?

Posted by: Abe Froman at November 30, 2009 11:46 AM

Kate spent a lot of time putting this post together - lets direct comments directly to it, ok?

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at November 30, 2009 11:56 AM

Well Kate, Congratulations.

Your AGW info has resulted in the cancellations of two, mind you, two Turkey Dinners over the last 6 days.

One, by a known cousin AGWer. The second from her Mother, God Bless Her, she knows her lil one is wrong, but blood runs deep.

All in all, what a Great Thanksgiving Weekend, especially since I walked around with a permanent smirk on my face.

Posted by: Ratt at November 30, 2009 11:59 AM

What really beggars belief is that, having surveyed the CTV news site for anything about this story, it still comes up empty. There are a couple of the usual "Harper always said he'd go to Copenhagen" and something about George Monbiot berating Canadians for their lack of effort in controlling "greenhouse gas". Meanwhile, in the comments on these stories, the vast majority of the commenters are calling B@%%s**t on the whole scam and some berate CTV for not carrying the story. Yet the MSM keeps its head buried in the sand.

Posted by: DrD at November 30, 2009 11:59 AM

Posted by: The Fly at November 30, 2009 9:23 AM

This point cannot be stressed enough.
The parallel motivation of these theories is plain to see for anyone with two eyes and half a brain.

Posted by: wingwalker at November 30, 2009 12:00 PM

'set you free', Lord Monckton asserts that the green movement in Europe was usurped by communists, citing that as the reason that a good friend of his left a leadership position in the movement...

Posted by: shaken at November 30, 2009 12:02 PM

The politically vested (including the MSM) and the deep greens aren't saying anything at this point, hoping this messy business will simply blow over, but as the quotes above show, scientists peripheral to the malodorous epicenter and others who have been silent (silenced?) are starting to come out of the woodwork and create some distance. I wonder if there are some nervous "educators" worried about what they might be pressured to do with all those text books parroting the AGW narrative.

Posted by: John G Chittick at November 30, 2009 12:03 PM

Meanwhile, in other news:

Posted by: jcl at November 30, 2009 12:03 PM

The CBC has done it again!

My challenge to everyone is just try to read past the first line without vomiting.

Growing up I listened to the program religiously. It's really quite sad to see something I once held in high regard sink so low.

Posted by: ChrisinMB at November 30, 2009 12:07 PM

The electronics recycling fee is the same as the tire fees: collecting the money now so that some time in the future they might actually get around to recycling the stuff.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 30, 2009 12:07 PM

Sir Winston Churchill stood alone and stared into the "abyss of a new Dark Age".

A Tribute to the Unknown Whistleblower.

We must not fall into a new Dark Age.

Let this be our finest hour.

Sir Winston Churchill:

18 June 1940.

"But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour!”"

Posted by: maz2 at November 30, 2009 12:14 PM

People should be demanding transparancy in the science,politics and business of global warming,we are actually thinking of fundamentally changing our society,you think it would be important.

Posted by: bob at November 30, 2009 12:19 PM
If you consider human behavior, this whole issue starts to make sense.

Posted by: orvict at November 30, 2009 12:23 PM

Dear Judy,

Here's the advice you gave to the US Congress in 2006.

Wonder is she still feels so confident about the AR4 contents?

And I further wonder if she will recant her testimony.

“In addition to my own personal research experiences in the Arctic, a series of national and international assessments undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),the U.S. National Academies, and the U.S. Climate Change Science have made it very difficult to maintain a credible position of scientific skepticism regarding the influence of humans on global warming. The past year has seen striking resolutions to two controversies involving the data record of climate change that support anthropogenic greenhouse warming: the synthesis report on the surface temperature reconstructions over the past two millennia the (NAS, 2006) and the synthesis and assessment report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (CCSP, 2006).
Further, the draft IPCC 4th Assessment Report presents climate model simulations that are far more sophisticated and accurate than were available in prior assessments, substantially increasing the credibility of such simulations and the associated projections. The cautious conclusions of the large body of scientists contributing to these assessment reports by evaluating a large body of published research are extremely important in providing a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community. Based upon these assessments, our understanding of how the climate system works, while incomplete, is more than sufficiently robust to afford a basis for rational action.”

Posted by: Fred at November 30, 2009 12:29 PM

This is one of your best posts ever!

Posted by: imapopulistnow at November 30, 2009 12:31 PM


Yeah, like I said, it's no big news that the whole AGW project is another One World Government contruct run by European commies trying to reinvent themselves.

Also, I visited my local MP for his annual Christmas Party and he said Harper would set reasonable goals at Copenhagen.

In other words, he'll rag the puck without destroying the real economy. That's what's driving the envirowackos that are quoted in today's papers nuts.

Posted by: set you free at November 30, 2009 12:35 PM


Actually, one of my businesses is electronics recycling. In 10 years that I live and operate in Canada I recycled (sent to the smelter or refurbished) literally metric tons of electronics.

I am knee deep in computer boards and chips which are waiting one of those two destinies.

And once in a lifetime I go and buy something new and voila - slapped with recycling fee.

Dudes in the government - it's probably unfathomable to you that recycling computer stuff can be profitable, eh? Holy shit!

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2009 12:36 PM

Vit and Gord

I said last week that until "moderate" scientists speak-up the entire community will wear this debacle. The same can be said for "moderate" Muslims and journalists with respect to the aforemention woes in their communities.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at November 30, 2009 12:36 PM

Maybe we should upgrade SteveM from an Order of Canada to a Noble Nomination.

He deserves it . . . what he is doing is world saving.

Posted by: Fred at November 30, 2009 12:59 PM


Receiving a Nobel nowadays is akin to being told you're just a dumbass.

Posted by: Alienated at November 30, 2009 1:23 PM

Somebody needs to come up with an award to replace the tainted Nobel prize first. But definitely, McIntyre deserves the Order of Canada. I think Ezra Levant does, too. Both of these gentlemen have exposed the rot that has eaten away at Western civilization via the doctrine of political correctness, among others.

Posted by: Louise at November 30, 2009 1:24 PM

Vit's latest postings kinda remind me of the old Priests of Dagon. Their idol is lying on the ground smashed to bits and they are busily trying to prop it up again.

Personally I draw a distinction between the science and pseudo science. Science is that which is provable with empirical evidence. Pseudo science is that which is mere speculation and conjecture clothed in scientific techno babble.

Unfortunately many who call themselves scientists are in truth pseudo scientists and too many actual scientists are afraid to call them on it lest it lead to the diminution of their Idol named Science.

Finding life on Mars in a rock found on earth and AGW both fit the pseudo science category. Great speculation and wonderful conjecture but no definitive proof except that which the pseudo scientist calls proof.

I long for the day that Science gets rid of its idolatry and resumes its rightful place of a tool mankind can use to ease his way in this world.

In other words when science starts calling a crock a crock society will be a better place.

Posted by: Joe at November 30, 2009 1:29 PM

"electronics recycling"

Prime example of the provincial governments fixing a problem that didn't exist. Their solution to a non-problem? ... collect a tax to pay someone to do what an already established industry would pay to do. As Aaron has pointed out, there is money electronics recycling.

Posted by: ∞² at November 30, 2009 1:29 PM

I agree with vitruvius but signing a petition and expecting this to be a serious response in this climate (excuse the pun) is not realistic.

Posted by: saylaman at November 30, 2009 1:34 PM

It is not really remarkable that the media and policians are attempting to minimize/obscure Climategate.
These elements stand to lose from this bigtime.

Al Gore/Suzuki---reduced to ridicule from exalted statis----not to mention financial oblivion.
Lizzy May and the Greens----who?
The LIBRANOs were enjoying Canadians short memories re Adscam now this.....
OBOZO and Democrats in general----now at worst are best bumbling idiots....
The EU eurocrats now are exposed as what they are---undemocratic, statist, elistist, plutocrats...

Too many powerful or power seekers have hitched their wagons to this turkey.....

You don't really think they are going to give up without one helluva fight---do you?

Posted by: sasquatch at November 30, 2009 1:42 PM

I'm listening to Bill Good this morning on CKNW and I have to shake my head at how slow information makes its way to our "betters" in the media. This doofus is just beginning to hear about climategate and even then he has the stupidity to say that, in fairness to skeptics, he has asked his producers to find a climatologist with recent peer reviewed work that stands against the warmer theory. Norman Spector had to point out to Bill that one of the major points from the frickin' e-mails is that climatologists have actively worked to PREVENT any access to peer reviewed literature by skeptics. What a moron!!

But then, just to show that Spector isn't much better, Normy says that the e-mails look bad but that doesn't change the science. I guess he hasn't taken the time to read Harry-Read-Me.TXT!!

Oh, and the other stooge in this little threesome kept repeating that The Queen, no less,is pressing for action on climate change, as if SHE is a peer reviewed climatologist.

Posted by: The Rat at November 30, 2009 1:48 PM

"Between 2008 and 2012, the UK power sector will make an additional €1.3bn (£1.18bn) purely from carbon trading, with windfall profits mostly going to the coal sector."

Just to give you an idea of the money involved in this scam. And we wonder why the socialist networks like the BBC and CBC wont cover this story?

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2009 1:59 PM

An interesting study in denial, Circular logic,
And all the other tecniques to cloud the argument,
When one method fails they move onto the next.
Has any one started list of former believers.
They will most likely be the ones to crack the walls of denial.
Kinda like watching an intervention with an addict.

Posted by: orvict at November 30, 2009 2:04 PM

I want to lay a claim on a new medical term
Post AGW Fraud syndrom.

Posted by: orvict at November 30, 2009 2:07 PM

If Alfred Nobel (inventor of TNT and an arms manufacturer) were nominated for his own prize, would he win? Nope. He be beat out by science fiction movie maker Al Gore.

Posted by: Ghost of Ed at November 30, 2009 2:08 PM

Now hang on Tulk et al. I have provided you with a list of 31,000 scientists who affirmed that this climate-change scam is bunk over two years ago. Perhaps they should have done more, such as bomb the United Nations; I'll leave that for Saylaman to decide since he seems so interested in that. But if you're going to argue that the vast majority of scientists were complicit in this, Tulk, then you need an order of magnitude more data for your argument to hold. So until you show me a list of 310,000 scientists who affirmed that it is not bunk, I don't believe you. Of course, if you're willing to simply make things up as you go, without data, like the climate-change industry, the media, politicians, and other religions do, then please feel free to just ignore me and science in general. You won't, apparently, be alone.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 2:10 PM


31000 is a drop in the ocean. Your demand that we come up with a list of 310000 is silly. They had no need to sign such a thing - they were and still are the dominant opinion. You would not have found such a list in NAZI Germany - a plebiscite denying the holocAUst when they were denying one even existed.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 30, 2009 2:31 PM

You are, of course, entitled to your assertion, Gord.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 2:39 PM

As for needing hard data vit, surely you aren't suggesting that 31000 is concrete proof that the majority of scientists are not culpable in this scandal. This is not science , it's politics and polls and plebiscites are not on par with hard scientific data.

The problem is has and always will be that science is conducted by humans and humans have bias.

The left/socialist bias is rampant in the science and university commnity as a whole in large part because they are wards of a government or quasi- government system - they haven't had to worry about where their income is coming from and thus they are big fans of having the whole world run in a similar manner. They are by default anti-business, anti-profit and very close-minded in this regard. As a rule they are very bigotted - bigotted as all bigots are out of ignorance and naïveté to the point that they will follow pied pipers like suzuki and gore and trust government media like the CBC.

Acid rain and CFCs and Kyoto were tailor made to fit their bigotry.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 30, 2009 2:44 PM

I don't need to prove they were not culpable, Gord: one can't prove a negative. It is incumbent upon you, sir, should you wish to assert that the vast majority are culpable, to provide evidence thereto. Your anecdotal arguments about some unmeasured sub-set of those who claim to be scientists are insufficient.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 2:55 PM

Just found this at CFP:
It includes the Maurice Strong link as well.

The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 30, 2009

Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.

Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged. People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history, identify the people involved and provide context.
,,,Strong took their claims to the green movements through the 1992 Rio Conference. Strong’s powerful connections in Canada were apparently used to involve Environment Canada (EC) in development of the IPCC and CRU connections. ,,,,,

Posted by: G at November 30, 2009 2:58 PM

A very telling find, G.

Snap shots of those at the center of the CRU scandal. Pictures of them meeting/scheming and planning the fraud - the "scientific/technological" complex.

Wine & dine - wonder who picked up the tabs ?

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at November 30, 2009 3:24 PM

Gord you are so far off base its unbelievable. I am a chemical analyst, my area of expertise is in food research. What do you think my opinion would mean to the climate science field? Thats right, absolutely nothing. My feelings on the topics are: 1) With the massive amount of statistics they are using they should be required to have at least 2 PhD's with a statistics background. Do they? I don't know I have my own work to worry about. 2) If the Harry Read Me file is an example of their computer code, What kind of nonsense is in their computerized climate models? Were they created by computer science PhD's or themselves? I don't know, as I said before I don't have the time to learn a new field of science. Please do not for a minute think other scientist agree just because we do not speak out. Most of us are just as much novices as you are in the field of climate junk science.

Posted by: Ken in Calgary at November 30, 2009 3:26 PM

"Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

The positions argued in that paper now appear to be much closer at hand; many of them are embedded in a four-year strategy document for UNEP taking effect next year, in the immediate wake of the much-touted, 11-day Copenhagen conference on "climate change," which starts on Dec. 7, and which is intended to push environmental concerns to a new crescendo.

The major difference is that the four-year UNEP plan expresses its aims in the carefully soporific language that U.N. organizations customarily use to swaddle their objectives. The Swiss document makes its case passionately — and more important, plainly — than any U.N. official document ever would.

The ambitious paper, entitled "The UNEP That We Want," was the product of a select group of 20 top environmental bureaucrats and thinkers, including UNEP's current No. 2 official, Angela Cropper. The document was later delivered to UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

Other participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Julia Marton-Lefevre, head of the World Conservation Union; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, a Bulgarian academic who is director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Another important attendee was John Scanlon, listed on UNEP's website as principal advisor to UNEP's Steiner. Among other things, Scanlon is credited in his UNEP biography with being the leader in developing UNEP's new medium-term strategy, "Environment for Development," covering the period from 2010 to 2013. The draft version of the strategy was presented to a UNEP's Governing Council and a meeting of the world's environmental minister's in February 2008, and subsequently approved.

The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are "simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being."

Even though all of the Swiss participants took part in the brainstorming, the responsibility for the ideas in the paper are his own, Halle emphasized to Fox News, after he was contacted last week about the document. The paper itself says it offers "elements," not a "complete offering," of what UNEP should consider for its role in the years ahead.

Despite those limitations, the report was "very well received" by UNEP's hierarchy, according to Halle, and "it has had a great impact internally." He added, "I have participated in several discussions and presentations of the ideas."

Click here to read Halle's document.",2933,577827,00.html

"the rules of the game

Recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group:

Evidence base for the Climate Change
Communications Strategy

The game is communicating climate change;
the rules will help us win it."

"Why were the principles
The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will
help us win it.

These principles were created as
part of the UK Climate Change
Communications Strategy, an
evidence-based strategy aiming
to change public attitudes
towards climate change in the
UK. This is a ‘short version’
of a far longer document of
evidence that can be found at"

Posted by: maz2 at November 30, 2009 3:26 PM

Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?

Posted by: orvict at November 30, 2009 3:35 PM

I agree that the 'rotten apples' in science are far fewer than the good scientists. The problem for scientist's credibility is not the frequency but the magnitude. AGWCC has become the face of science for at least a decade, it was everywhere in the media. The policy implications based on this science was massive. Many people were already uncomfortable with the expensive and intrusive political solutions. Now, if an investigation reveals fraud, the media and politicians will not hesitate to make science the scapegoat.

Could scientists have done more? I don't know. The fact is that scientists of many different fields used AGWCC to get grants, no matter how tenuous the relationship. There is a always a reaction and the price to be paid for selling out will likely be public distrust of science in general.

In an ideal world people would recognize the difference between good science and junk science. In the real world this is not what happens. Think of some comparisons:
Lawyers are ambulance chasers
Politicians would throw their mothers under the bus

It is not a stretch to imagine:
Scientists are unethical grant-hunters and should not be trusted

Posted by: LC Bennett at November 30, 2009 4:02 PM

I'm finding it amusing how people are speaking of scientists as if they are a special class or members of some exclusive club. Anyone with a little post secondary education in any of the sciences may call themselves a scientist.

BTW, that would make myself and a very large portion of SDA readers all scientist! So you see, we're not exactly a rarity. :D

Posted by: ChrisinMB at November 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Vit: depending on how you phrase it, either side could be trying to prove the negative. The reality is that scientists - people who daily work on proving (or disproving) things in that realm have been massively quiet on the actions and very public intolerance of the subset that worked on issues relating to AGW. They can be blamed in the same way as the German citizenry were during the third Reich and the way the moderate Muslim community has been today.

One thing is for sure, after this ALL of science will be veiwed more skeptically, just as business leaders, and moderate Muslims are today and Germans back in the day.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 30, 2009 5:56 PM

"as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,"

I could hardly begin..except to say in 1930's Germany...

Posted by: reg dunlop at November 30, 2009 5:57 PM

You're still waving your hands, Gord. Show me the numbers,
and then we'll talk. Until then, I remain skeptical. Though I
will say this: I think it will be a very good thing if this whole
fiasco results in better transparency in public-policy science.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 6:29 PM

An excellent column on the trust science issue here:

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 30, 2009 6:31 PM

Thanks for that link, Gord, I agree: John Derbyshire's column is excellent. And you are probably already aware of this, since I've been peddling it, but Onora O'Neill's lecture on Why Doesn't the Public Trust Scientists? is also, in my opinion, excellent.

Posted by: Vitruvius at November 30, 2009 6:40 PM

Vitruvius, thanks again.
I saw MOST of Onara O'Neill's lecture (got interrupted about 3/4 way through).
But, as you say, it is really excellent. And BTW, what a calming effect she has, what?

I own a small regulated entity. From my experience over nearly 30 years, I can tell you that her remarks about regulation were absolutely correct.
Not sure if she covered this, but there is a most perverse aspect to government regulation: the public too often relies on it to the extent that it relaxes its own vigilance; puts its trust where it isn't warranted. Moroever, regulation all too often punishes the already compliant while being only a very minor annoyance to the sociopaths.

This will sound extreme but I long ago came to the conclusion that, for example, the public would be safer WITHOUT securities commissions.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at November 30, 2009 7:39 PM

I watch the BBC news channel on satellite TV, why because I am living in a ex communist state and it does give me 'some' English, English? why is it that there are no English people on BBC ? are they all dead?

Posted by: George Tetley at December 1, 2009 12:10 PM

Perhaps it is Obamas plan, borrow trillions from China then get A Gore and the green party to suddenly find out that China is the biggest and fastest expanding exporter of CO2 and get consumers to embargo all Chinese goods, country goes broke, hyper inflation reduces the USA debt to very little, job done. PS dont tell China!!

Posted by: Chris Edwards at December 1, 2009 11:09 PM

Perhaps it is Obamas plan, borrow trillions from China then get A Gore and the green party to suddenly find out that China is the biggest and fastest expanding exporter of CO2 and get consumers to embargo all Chinese goods, country goes broke, hyper inflation reduces the USA debt to very little, job done. PS dont tell China!!

Posted by: Chris Edwards at December 1, 2009 11:09 PM