A few bad apples in the barrel, or is the barrel hopelessly tainted? Here's a screen shot of their website that I took earlier today.
I just looked again, and the slur has been removed.
Please read this, then ask yourself: WHO has the most to gain by falsifying data?
It is one thing to be ignorant of the facts, or so afraid of change as to resist the facts on the table. These are the flat earthers of our time.
It is quite another character altogether who sets out to falsify data for financial motives. The stakes are high and I fear they have obfuscated the facts and delayed our will to act urgently so that what awaits us is the equivalent of the 2006 tsunami a thousandfold.
God help us.
*The Real Climate Controversy*
*By Mark Boslough*
Global warming is occurring. It is caused by human activities.
Both the theoretical basis (fundamental laws of physics) and
observational evidence for warming are incontrovertible. The first
decade of this century was the warmest ever recorded in human history,
just as the models predicted. The current decade will almost certainly
But it's not just the atmosphere that is heating. Ice is melting
at an accelerating rate, and sea level is rising. Weather patterns are
changing as the atmosphere and oceans adjust their flow in response to
the warming. These phenomena were all predicted. They have been
independently verified many times, using many methods, by researchers
throughout the world. The successful predictions of global warming
theory represent a major scientific achievement.
In 1998, a team of scientists combined thermometer measurements
with preinstrumental temperatures determined from tree rings and other
natural records. The resulting graph demonstrated how exceptional the
recent rapid warming has been, rising so sharply that it looked like the
blade of a hockey stick. The "Hockey Stick" graph became an iconic
symbol of global warming, even though it was only one of many lines of
evidence. The general validity and significance of the Hockey Stick has
since been reproduced by several independent groups of scientists.
Nevertheless, the idea of human-caused global warming has offended the
cherished belief system of some individuals who, for philosophical or
self-interested reasons, are convinced that people cannot possibly
affect the global temperature - regardless of the laws of physics.
Because the Hockey Stick had become a symbol, its authors became the
target of a political smear campaign.
In 2005, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., referred to global warming
as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Reps.
Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., sent a letter to the
Hockey Stick scientists, demanding that they immediately provide them
with extensive documentation about what the politicians claimed were
"methodological flaws and data errors" in their work.
Barton and Whitfield held Congressional hearings, and asked for
a review of the Hockey Stick by a panel led by Edward Wegman, a
statistician with no background in or understanding of climate science.
The Wegman panel wrote a report that criticized the statistical methods
used by the scientists. Climate change denialists embraced this
criticism. Ever since they have claimed that the Hockey Stick has been
discredited and, in a leap of logic, that global warming is not real.
To many researchers, the investigation was nothing more than an
anti-science witch-hunt. Scientists play by well-defined rules. They
require peer-reviewed publication, logic and evidence. Science is like a
hockey game that only works if fans understand it and teams play by the
rules. The politicians knew their side could not win against a
world-class "hockey team." They chose instead to create confusion and
Their tactic was to act like unruly fans and throw hundreds of
decoy hockey pucks onto the ice and then take advantage of the chaos. As
any sports fan knows, when a fight breaks out on the ice or in the
stands - that becomes the story. The idea was simply to delay any
action. They didn't have to win the game. All they needed to do was
The embattled scientists were understandably angry and were not
circumspect in their private messages. They did not expect political
activists - willing to tap phones and break into computers - to steal
their correspondence. They hadn't done anything wrong, but their words
were twisted and taken out of context. E-mails were published by
bloggers and broadcast by media for whom controversy and conflict trumps
accuracy and fair play. This non-scandal became known as "Climategate."
The actual scandal is associated with the Hockey Stick
congressional inquiry. Last month a blogger called "Deep Climate"
demonstrated that, in a cruel irony, the Wegman team actually used
material plagiarized from a textbook written by one of the scientists
under investigation. Even worse, the meaning of the stolen text was
changed. The supposedly unbiased referees seemed to have been in on the
plan to disrupt the game.
New evidence continues to mount. Independent investigator John
Mashey* has released a report in which he meticulously builds the case
for a corrupt and probably criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress in
the Hockey Stick investigation. Members of the mainstream media who have
tried so hard to create a scandal out of Climategate finally have a real
scandal to investigate; one that appears to involve a deliberate
high-level scheme to undermine research, create confusion and impede
progress on science-informed climate policy.
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found no evidence of
fraudulent voting or of violations of federal financing rules by the
group in the past five years.
RepresentativeJohn Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, requested the report along with
Frank, Democrat of
Massachusetts. Mr. Conyers released the report on Tuesday.
Acorn, which stands for
Community Organizations for Reform Now, has drawn fire from conservative activists who have
accused it of conducting fraudulent voter registration drives in poor
neighborhoods, adding imaginary voters like Mickey Mouse to the rolls.
The report by the research service, an arm of theLibrary of
however, that a search using the Nexis news database "did not
identify any reported instances of such individuals attempting to vote
at the polls."
Hans A. von
W. Bush, said the new
report could not resolve the voting fraud issue, since "no one is
ever going to know it unless somebody takes the voter registration
list and checks each person who is registered to make sure they are a
The report also stated that
two conservative activists might have broken privacy laws in
California and Maryland by posing as a prostitute and pimp while
secretly videotaping Acorn staff members who gave them advice on
evading taxes and hiding their activities. The two states "appear to
ban" the recording of face-to-face conversations without the consent
of all participants, the report said.
Another part of the new
report suggested that efforts by Congress to cut Acorn's financing
could be unconstitutional bills of attainder, a term referring to
punishments ordered by Congress against specific individuals or
District Court in Brooklyn issued a one-page order supporting
Acorn's challenge to the legislation on bill-of-attainder grounds.
This month, Judge Gershon ruled that cutting the group's financing
was an illegal bill of attainder. In Tuesday's order, she denied a
motion by the Justice Department to reconsider her previous
Intimidation of Foreign Workers Now Directed at Americans: Facebook, Yahoo, Comcast Drawn In
All I want for Christmas is a progressive blogger to cover this threat to all American worker web sites.
"Nuisance lawsuits and threats of legal entanglement, long used by Indian H-1b labor contractors to silence Indian tech workers, have now been aimed at an American tech worker website, endh1b.com, for reposting an Indian H-1B worker's testimony of mistreatment by Apex Technology Group.
A New Jersey judge, sided with Apex Tenchnology Group on Wednesday and ordered Facebook, Yahoo, and Comcast and to reveal the identities of three John Does named in the injunction.
If successful, this injunction will squelch every American's security to post their workplace complaints anonymously. It will create a credible threat that, at any time, web hosting and web site companies could be forced to reveal identities of anonymous posters."
PS: We'll get coverage of this on Monday in the press, but we need to get the bloggers on board right away!
Donna Conroy, Director
Bowman had a bumper sticker like this one on his car, according to court records. (Patriot Depot).
| The 2009 P.U.-Litzer Awards |
For 17 years our colleagues Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon have worked with FAIR to present the P.U.-Litzers, a year-end review of some of the stinkiest examples of corporate media malfeasance, spin and just plain outrageousness.
Starting this year, FAIR has the somewhat dubious honor of reviewing the nominees and selecting the winners. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. So, without further ado, we present the 2009 P.U.-Litzers.
--The Remembering Reagan Award
WINNER: Joe Klein, Time
Time columnist Joe Klein (12/3/09), not altogether impressed by Obama's announcement of a troop escalation in Afghanistan, wrote that a president "must lead the charge--passionately and, yes, with a touch of anger."
He described the better way to do this:
Ronald Reagan would have done it differently. He would have told a story. It might not have been a true story, but it would have had resonance. He might have found, or created, a grieving spouse--a young investment banker whose wife had died in the World Trade Center--who enlisted immediately after the attacks...and then gave his life, heroically, defending a school for girls in Kandahar. Reagan would have inspired tears, outrage, passion, a rush to recruiting centers across the nation.
Ah, Reagan--now there was a president who could inspire people to fight and die based on lies.
--The Cheney 2012 Award
WINNER: Jon Meacham, Newsweek
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham declared (12/7/09) that Dick Cheney running for president in 2012 would be "good for the Republicans and good for the country." He explained that "Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people.... A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way."
While the 2008 election might have seemed a sufficient judgment of the Bush years, it's worth pointing out that at beginning of the year (1/19/09), Meacham was adamantly opposed to re-hashing Cheney's record, calling it "the rough equivalent of pornography--briefly engaging, perhaps, but utterly predictable and finally repetitive." The difference? That was in response to the idea that Cheney should be held accountable for lawbreaking. Apparently a few months later, the same record is grounds for a White House run.
--The Them Not Us Award
WINNER: Martin Fackler, New York Times
The New York Times (11/21/09) describes the severe problems with Japan's elite media--a horror show where "reporters from major news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy close, constant access to officials. The system has long been criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority."
The mind reels.
--The Thin-Skinned Pundits Award
WINNER: Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Cilizza got into trouble when, in an episode of their "Mouthpiece Theater" web video series, they suggested brands of beer that would be appropriate for various politicians. What would Hillary Clinton drink? Apparently something called "Mad Bitch." The video, unsurprisingly, was roundly criticized, and was pulled from the Post site. So what lesson was learned? Milbank complained (8/6/09) that "it's a brutal world out there in the blogosphere.... I'm often surprised by the ferocity out there, but I probably shouldn't be."
Yes, the problem with calling someone a "bitch" is the "ferocity" of your critics.
--The Sheer O'Reillyness Award
WINNER: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel--TWICE!
1) Asked by a Canadian viewer, "Has anyone noticed that life expectancy in Canada under our health system is higher than the USA?," Fox's O'Reilly (7/27/09) responded: "Well, that's to be expected, Peter, because we have 10 times as many people as you do. That translates to 10 times as many accidents, crimes, down the line."
2) Drumming up fear of Democrats' tax plans: "Nancy Pelosi and her far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45 percent. That's not capitalism. That's Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages that people honestly earn."
Perhaps Castro was president of the United States in 1982-86, when the top rate was 50 percent. Or maybe all of the 1970s, when it was 70 percent. Or from 1950-63, when it was 91 percent.
--The Less Talk, More Bombs Award
WINNER: David Broder, Washington Post
Post columnist Broder expressed the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama's deliberations on the Afghanistan War, writing under the headline "Enough Afghan Debate" (11/15/09):
It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision--whether or not it is right.
-NBC's Chris Matthews (10/4/09): "As if Afghanistan were not enough, now there's Iran's move to get nuclear weapons."
-NBC's David Gregory (10/4/09). "Iran--will talks push that country to give up its nuclear weapons program?"
To read this advisory online, please visit: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=fNVySxoRfsWfrItRUTIlbJ%2BewMkBtveX
Unsubscribe from this list
If you were forwarded this message and you want to receive future FAIR alerts delivered directly to you, subscribe by clicking here.
Proposed Amendment 28 to the US Constitution!
Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the United States that does not apply equally to all US Senators and Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to any US Senator or Representative that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States . All existing laws and regulations that do not meet these criteria shall be declared null and void!
Pass it on!