Sunday, November 29, 2009

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker   28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

‘Climategate’ Strikes Again!

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

From The Sunday Times  November 29, 2009

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

(And taxpayers worldwide are supposed to pay trillions based on these non-existent figures!)

Friday, November 27, 2009

UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'

'We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now' -- UN's 'Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped'

November 26, 2009  By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”

“The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed,” Corbyn said in a contentious on air television exchange with an environmental activist with Russia's WWF. The live TV debate with Corbyn appeared on Moscow's RT TV on November 25, 2009. The RT TV's segment was titled “Heating Cheating.” See Full Video of Debate here.

“The world is cooling and has been cooling for 7 years and the leading scientists, so-called 'scientists' have been trying to hide that evidence,” Corbyn said in reference to hacked emails showing top UN IPCC scientists apparently conspiring to manipulate temperature data and exclude scientific studies from peer-review that they did not agree with.

“We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now,” Corbyn said.

“The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn told host Bill Dod and Aleksey Kokorin, the Climate Program Coordinator for WWF in Russia.

The upcoming UN global warming summit in Copenhagen is a "complete waste of time,” according to Corbyn.

'A scandal'

“The Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped,” he added.

“There is a gigantic bandwagon run by governments who want to control world energy supplies and hold back development in the third world. This thing they are doing now is just the same as they are doing in the banking crisis, it is creating a whole bubble of false values,” Corbyn explained.

Corbyn said the ClimateGate revelations further revealed that man-made climate fears are not scientifically valid.

“Their claims are false, I repeat, they are false, and this theory they've got is like the titanic and it will crash. I would suggest that honest green campaigners who want to preserve biodiversity should get off this [man-made global warming] bandwagon before it sinks,” Corbyn explained.

"Carbon dioxide levels are driven by temps, not the other way around. There have been big peaks in CO2 in past...carbon dioxide is actually a good thing for the world," Corbyn explained. "More CO2 makes plants and animals more efficient," he added…

Climategate In New Zealand? - Temperature Records Manipulated

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

25 November 2009

Are we feeling warmer yet?

(A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, from a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition)

There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?

New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand's National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New

Zealand's climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That’s what we did, and we made our own graph.

The official version

Before we see that, let’s look at the official temperature record. This is NIWA’s graph of temperatures covering the last 156 years:


This graph is the centrepiece of NIWA’s temperature claims. It contributes to global temperature statistics and the IPCC reports. It is partly why our government is insisting on introducing an ETS scheme and participating in the climate conference in Copenhagen. But it’s an illusion.

Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data. It’s published on NIWA’s website at:

and in their climate-related publications.

The actual thermometer readings

To get the original New Zealand temperature readings, you register on NIWA's web site, download what you want and make your own graph. We did that, but the result looked nothing like the official graph. Instead, we were surprised to get this:


Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any

large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a

warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original

trend. The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace…


The unexplained changes to the official New Zealand temperature record cast strong doubt on the government’s assertions of urgency regarding so-called “climate change”. Using NIWA’s public data, we have shown that global warming has not yet reached New Zealand (and what does that say for global warming?).

At a minimum, the adjustments made to the official NZ temperature record must be made public. NIWA’s predictions regarding climate change, including changes in temperatures, precipitation, winds, storms and sea levels, must be re-examined in the light of the absence of any changes in temperature to date, from any cause…

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Name, shame, blame the bankers, if you like. But they're the wrong target

Regulators have long been suckered by 'too big to fail'. The Walker report has all the power of a feather duster

Simon Jenkins,,  26 November 2009

Oh, Mr Brown, I loved that. Tickle me again, Mr Darling. Just there. A back rub, please, Sir David. A little oil here, Lord Phillips; a teeny whiplash from you, Lord Myners. And you, Mervyn King, perhaps another velvety stroke on the erogenous zone. You are gorgeous, the lot of you.

Who said bankers "just don't get it"? They get it absolutely. Bankers are doing what they pay themselves to do, make money. They are performing what economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx regarded as capitalism's sacred ritual, profiting by rigging markets and shedding risk. Like all professions, their first responsibility is to their peer group and their second to their shareholders. It is not their job to run the country, only sometimes to ruin it.

The banking community came a cropper last year but manoeuvred itself out of trouble by deploying the oldest trick in the book: claiming that the government needed them even more than they needed it. They were "too big to fail". As the debt bubble burst and insurance could not pay, bankers staged a crash raid on the Treasury. They ensured enough ex-bankers were inside Downing Street at the time, as one debt edifice after another tottered and collapsed into the Treasury's lap, to be briskly transferred to the insurer of last resort, the taxpayer.

Ministers and regulators bought the gambit hook, line and sinker. They all hollered that bonuses were "ludicrous" (Darling), that banks had "lost sight of basic British values" (Brown) and were "antisocial" (Lord Turner). But it was all mouth. For them to accuse the banks of behaving obscenely might be a brief buzz, but what are a few insults to a banker on a roll?

It was not the banks that do not get it, but those on whom the public relies to guard its interests: Brown, Darling, Myners, King, Turner, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. The bankers this past year have played a blinder. Next month they will give themselves large bonuses while the nation troops to the dole office. They merit the order of the golden fleece, first class.

This week the munificence of Downing Street and its regulators turned into a Christmas cargo cult. The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, blithely announced that he had kept secret £62bn of public loans to RBS and HBOS last year, concealing the fact from Lloyds shareholders who were then about to lose their shirts by being forced to merge with the latter.

This is the same King as had told Northern Rock in 2007 that he could not organise a rescue merger "as the legal advice … was that it could not be done". In addition any loan would have to be disclosed by law. This so-called law strangely changed when the big boys came and started beating King about the head.

Then came today's report from the latest Hercules sent by Alistair Darling to clean the City's Augean stables, Sir David Walker of Goldman Sachs. He predictably concluded that nothing more than a feather duster was needed. He seemed to think that his fellow bankers would decamp en masse to Monaco if so much as rapped over the knuckles. So what?

As if that were not galling enough for the taxpayer, the supreme court – asked to adjudicate on the racketeering of banks towards overdraft customers – stepped forward to pat them on the head. The judges said it seemed fine to them and went off to make daisy chains in Parliament Square. The ruling was a repeat of their lordships' awful Equitable Life judgment of 2000, indicating that they knew little of equity and nothing of other people's money. Nobody but a fool believes that a free market in anything, left to its own devices, will tend to perfect competition. Economic history attests that it tends to monopoly. That is why it must be regulated. Such regulation, in every sphere of economic life, is democracy's most onerous but essential responsibility. In the case of British banking in 2008, the government's clear duty was to ensure that marketplace discipline curbed the emergence of a debt bubble and that no residual liability, let alone one for some £1.3 trillion, should fall on the state.

Last year was a tragic failure of that responsibility and not one person in authority has accepted blame. The best-told stories might be of millionaire salaries, fancy derivatives, subprimes and sports cars; but what mattered was the denouement, saddling every man, woman and child in Britain with unprecedented levels of lifetime debt. This will be paid for in unemployment and higher taxation in the short term, and in a lower standard of living for the foreseeable future. The bank crash was a national disaster, the economic equivalent of Munich and appeasement.

As yet, no one has explained why such stupefying sums of money were really needed to pay off the rotten debts of banks, whose speculative activities should have been nationalised and left to default. No one has explained why the enforced separation of good lending from so-called toxic debt was rejected, when just such a separation is planned for Northern Rock. Throughout the past year, Darling and King justified bank subsidies on one ground alone: that the billions in subsidies would sustain the flow of high street credit. But they did no such thing. Every month Darling pleaded for more lending to businesses. Every month the Office of National Statistics showed that such lending was falling, not rising. Demand, the essential underpinning of bank credit, was collapsing.

Ministers have spent the past year propping up toxic debt, but not the British economy, which lurched deep into recession. They did nothing to help it, apart from brief and bizarre assistance to the car market. This was at a time when governments across the world were racing to prop up consumer demand, successfully speeding recovery. It was as if Britain was a one-industry town, that of banking.

Darling and his colleagues were clearly out of their depth. Public money was being spent on an unprecedented scale, with no one in charge knowing where it was going. Where were the public auditors? Still no one has explained the meaning of the much-parroted phrase, too big to fail. A failed bank may be a terrible thing, but then so is an economy crippled by long-term debt service. Which is worse? Why did nobody ever ask?

I find it simply incredible that a chancellor can take over a trillion pounds of public money, some of it in secret, without giving a remotely plausible account of why it was risked as it was, rather than in boosting consumer demand. At present the Chilcot inquiry is asking past ministers and officials why they went to war in Iraq. The reason is that war kills people. What happened to the banks last year did not kill people, but in every other sense it was a seismic event in the history of Britain's political economy. It was a true collapse in political authority. I wonder when someone will stop abusing bankers and fix on those really to blame.


Technorati Tags:

Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit

By David Derbyshire  25th November 2009

The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.

More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.

In another note, UK researchers dismissed the work of scientists challenging global warming as 'crap'.

Another appeared to call for pressure on the BBC after a reporter suggested that evidence for rising temperatures since 2001 was thin.

In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words 'in an odd way this is cheering news!'.

The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a global leader in its field.

Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.

‘I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken,' he said. 'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.

'There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.

'Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'

Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, demanded an independent inquiry.

'From what I've seen of the emails, there's not been any new questions raised about the way papers have been put together, but there should be an re-examination of the emails,' he said.

The emails  -  which appeared last week on a Russian website  -  appear to have been stolen from a university computer server.

Yesterday, Professor Jones refused to quit and denied that researchers had altered evidence to bolster the case for man-made climate change.

He added: 'We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.

'Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

'I would never manipulate the data one bit  -  I would categorically deny that.' The university is to conduct an independent review of data security and on its response to 60 freedom of information requests over a short period.

● At least half the 36 UK officials and ministers travelling to the climate change talks in Copenhagen are going by air rather than by rail.

The Liberal Democrats said the arrangements showed up Labour's hypocrisy on green issues.

The Government said officials had meetings that limited their travel options next month. 

Read more:

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison  November 24, 2009

Top climate alarmists have conceded that the ‘climategate’ scandal represents a huge blow to the global warming movement and that the debate is not over, and yet establishment media organs are still invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady in downplaying the story despite the fact that it clearly illustrates how evidence which directly disproves global warming is being censored by agenda-driven scientists.

The Guardian’s George Monbiot, a climate change zealot and a staunch defender of the faith, concedes that the science now needs “reanalysing” and that CRU Director Phil Jones should resign.

    “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them,” writes Monbiot.

    “Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.”

    “Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”

Another prominent global warming alarmist, Tim Flannery, now admits that there are holes in the “science is settled” mantra.

“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend,” said Flannery.

“And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?” asks Andrew Bolt.

However, while some alarmists have embarked on a course of damage control, the establishment has closed ranks and, after failing in their efforts to float the hoax that the emails were manufactured, are now ludicrously invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady and crying in unison, “Move along, nothing to see here!”

In an article entitled, Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer, Reuters’ Timothy Gardner writes, “Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal.”

Oh really? With numerous influential individuals calling for criminal investigations, and with climate alarmists themselves admitting that scientists closely affiliated with the UN IPCC exposed by the hacked emails should resign, only the wilfully naive could believe that this will not hamper the Copenhagen agenda for a global carbon tax, which was already being derailed before the scandal broke.

The latest to weigh in on the controversy was prominent skeptic Lord Monkton, who labeled the CRU scientists crooks who should be criminally prosecuted. “They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”

The Reuters story quotes Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, who claims there is no smoking gun contained in the emails, despite the fact that they expose how scientists used “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

In another email, a scientist talks about changing temperature data on a graph in order to disguise evidence of global cooling that has been in play for the last few years.

“I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

To Leiserowitz, this isn’t evidence of conspiracy, merely “embarrassment” which would “provide fodder for the 2 to 3 percent of the general public that are hard-core climate change doubters.”

In reality, polls show that a huge and growing number of both Americans and Brits are “climate change doubters.” A recent Pew Research Center survey showed that only 36 per cent of Americans believe man is to blame for climate change, whereas in Britain, “Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made.”

Far from being a tiny minority, as Leiserowitz claims, climate change skeptics are now in the majority, as belief in global warming alarmism whittles away increasingly to the fringe.

The Reuters story also quotes Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC, who characterizes the scandal as “scientists behaving badly.”

“This does nothing to the U.S. climate bill, which will be decided mostly by economic forces, not environmental ones,” said Book.

Precisely – this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with companies like ClearView getting fat off the spoils of the climate fraud that they are intimately invested in. Obviously, to the scientists at the CRU, it has little to do with the environment either, since they are more than willing to block FOIA requests, change data and hide evidence of global cooling in order to make the science fit their agenda.

To dismiss this as “behaving badly” shows unparalleled ignorance of what science is supposed to be all about, namely empiricism, not bias and fraud, which is exactly what the global warming movement has now come to represent.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Revealed: 50 oil tankers loitering off British coast as they lie in wait for fuel price hikes

By David Derbyshire, Andrew Levy and Ray Massey
20th November 2009

More than 50 oil tankers are anchored off Britain - pieces in a game in which the only winners are market speculators.

The losers are the millions of British motorists paying over the odds for their petrol and diesel.

After yesterday's report in the Daily Mail on how several so-called 'oil shark' tankers were moored near the Devon coast, dozens more vessels were revealed to be loitering off-shore.

Some are carrying aircraft fuel or fuel for homes. Others are empty, waiting to be restocked before setting off around the globe.

But according to industry experts, a significant number are 'oil sharks' - tankers that have been cynically told to wait for crude prices to be driven up before they unload their cargo.

With values soaring on the international markets, fuel made from their oil is unlikely to appear on a petrol station forecourt any day soon.

Paul Watters of the AA said: 'Tankers are off the UK coast and also off the U.S. They are acting as storage tanks. As always, motorists are the victims in this. They are at the end of the food chain.'

The Daily Mail has learnt that 54 tankers are anchored around the British Isles.

Six are off the Essex and Kent coasts, five are moored in Lyme Bay, while four are lurking next to the Isle of Wight.

But the biggest fleet - around 30 ships - lies around ten miles from Southwold, Suffolk in the only waters around the UK where ship-to-ship transfers of oil are allowed.

They come from as far afield as Malaysia, Liberia and Singapore - and include 1,000ft vessels capable of carrying more than 300,000tons of oil.

Locals in Suffolk watched with growing anger over the summer as more and more tankers dropped anchor.

Southwold mayor Susan Doy said: 'It is wrong that tankers should be left off our coast for reasons of profiteering. Ordinary people are left to suffer as petrol prices go up.'

Andrew Reid, of ship owners and managers Charles M Willie & Co, said the flotilla off the Devon coast, pictured in the Mail yesterday, was 'a drop in the ocean compared to the much bigger fleet full of crude oil off Suffolk'.

He added: 'They are all just waiting there for the price of crude oil to rise, enabling huge profits to be taken. If all this crude were to be delivered there would doubtless be a fall in the crude price and petrol prices.'

Southwold Tory councillor Simon Tobin said: 'There have been ship-to-ship transfers of oil going on off the coast here for around 15 years. But there began to be a huge increase in the number of these tankers around seven months ago.

'We are massively concerned. These tankers are treating the coast like a car park while they wait for the right time to take their oil to shore. There is nothing to stop them staying here as long as they like. There might be a catastrophic oil spillage which could ruin our beautiful coastline.'

Small tankers bringing oil from Russia often use the spot to transfer their cargo to larger vessels. Others drop anchor there while waiting for business because it is cheaper than tying up in a port.

The price of a barrel of oil has risen from $40 to $80 over the last year. It is expected to soar even further over the next few months as the world eases its way out of recession and demand rises.

The supply of oil is strictly controlled by producers and owners - to ensure that prices remain as high as possible.

In the course of its journey from wells to the refineries, a barrel of oil may be bought and sold by different traders many times on the international markets.

(Yet again, as with banking crisis, why are ‘speculators’ allowed to trade in oil in this way?)

Technorati Tags: ,,,

CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to "hide" the real data on manmade climate change

James Corbett  The Corbett Report  20 November, 2009

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name "FOIA," an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.

The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of "Mann's hockey stick" fame:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.


And this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:


This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.

I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.


According to Investigate magazine out of Australia, Dr. Phil Jones has now confirmed that these emails do appear to be real.

Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

In UK the Law is an Ass!

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 12:15

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Technorati Tags: ,

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja

Martin Chulov in Falluja, Friday 13 November 2009

Iraqi former battle zone sees abnormal clusters of infant tumours and deformities

Doctors in Iraq's war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

The extraordinary rise in birth defects has crystallised over recent months as specialists working in Falluja's over-stretched health system have started compiling detailed clinical records of all babies born.

Neurologists and obstetricians in the city interviewed by the Guardian say the rise in birth defects – which include a baby born with two heads, babies with multiple tumours, and others with nervous system problems - are unprecedented and at present unexplainable.

A group of Iraqi and British officials, including the former Iraqi minister for women's affairs, Dr Nawal Majeed a-Sammarai, and the British doctors David Halpin and Chris Burns-Cox, have petitioned the UN general assembly to ask that an independent committee fully investigate the defects and help clean up toxic materials left over decades of war – including the six years since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

"We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system anomalies," said Falluja general hospital's director and senior specialist, Dr Ayman Qais. "Before 2003 [the start of the war] I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically."

The rise in frequency is stark – from two admissions a fortnight a year ago to two a day now. "Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many deficiencies in lower limbs," he said. "There is also a very marked increase in the number of cases of less than two years [old] with brain tumours. This is now a focus area of multiple tumours."

After several years of speculation and anecdotal evidence, a picture of a highly disturbing phenomenon in one of Iraq's most battered areas has now taken shape. Previously all miscarried babies, including those with birth defects or infants who were not given ongoing care, were not listed as abnormal cases.

The Guardian asked a paediatrician, Samira Abdul Ghani, to keep precise records over a three-week period. Her records reveal that 37 babies with anomalies, many of them neural tube defects, were born during that period at Falluja general hospital alone.

Dr Bassam Allah, the head of the hospital's children's ward, this week urged international experts to take soil samples across Falluja and for scientists to mount an investigation into the causes of so many ailments, most of which he said had been "acquired" by mothers before or during pregnancy.

Other health officials are also starting to focus on possible reasons, chief among them potential chemical or radiation poisonings. Abnormal clusters of infant tumours have also been repeatedly cited in Basra and Najaf – areas that have in the past also been intense battle zones where modern munitions have been heavily used…

Technorati Tags: ,

Thursday, November 12, 2009

David Icke: The Global Spiritual Awakening Of Humanity

Prison  Thursday, November 12, 2009

Iconic author and lecturer speaks out on how the elite are attacking our immune systems through the use of vaccines, tocix food and electromagnetic pollution

In an exclusive interview for Prison members filmed in Phoenix Arizona, lecturer and author David Icke explains how the panic-stricken elite are desperate to put the lid back on a global awakening that is stalling their agenda for world domination. Icke details how the irresistible force, the mass of humanity awakening to the global agenda, is coming face to face with what thinks it is the immovable object, the new world order.

Icke explains how drugs, toxic food and electromagnetic pollution are all being ramped up in a last ditch effort to dumb humanity down to a sheep-like mentality so they can be more easily controlled.

The biggest headache for the global elite is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered by humanity and thus are finding it more and more difficult to control populations, which is why they are pursuing genocidal measures of population reduction by attacking our immune systems via food, vaccines and other biochemical attacks, explains Icke, labeling “ludicrous” the fact that infants are being injected with no less than 25 different vaccines before they reach the age of two.

Icke also recalls his 1997 meeting with a CIA agent during which he was told that microchips had been developed that were so small, they could be injected through a hypodermic needle, and that this was planned to be implemented via mass vaccination programs.

Icke slams the swine flu scare as a complete scam, proven by the fact that patents for the vaccine were applied for even before the virus was discovered

Icke  highlights how not only are large numbers of people waking up than ever before, but they are doing so at a staggeringly fast rate, expanding their horizons and realizing that they can rise above the confines of the prison planet and truly become spiritually free.

Icke predicts that 2016 marks the watershed date whereby the new world order will come crashing down, submerged under the wave of an empowered and enlightened humanity…

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

Nov 10 2009

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Saturday, November 07, 2009

EU & the Lisbon Treaty

David Icke Newsletter Preview - 7th November 2009 SINGING FROM THE SONG SHEET …

National sovereignty in Europe - what little is left of it - was condemned to history this week with the signing of the 'Lisbon Treaty' that centralises power in the European Union like never before. The Rubicon has now been crossed and we enter full-blown tyranny.

The final signature to the agreement was that of Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, who had held out as long as he thought was possible. Klaus has been a vehement critic of the Treaty and he well knows what it means for European freedom and national sovereignty and identity. He has also dismissed the belief in human-caused global warming as 'a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so'.

He is clearly a man who can see beyond the end of his nose and the garbage that must be daily put before him by officialdom, but when he swished his pen this week he was well aware that he was effectively signing away all rights for Europeans to decide their own national destiny and handing them to the dark-suits and dark minds in the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, Belgium.

The same is planned for North America, Africa and Asia-Australia-New Zealand and it is good to be streetwise about the methods and techniques employed to seize control of the nation state. What has been done to ensnare Europe is happening now around the world. The basic theme is encapsulated in a single quote 57 years ago by the 'Father of Europe', the Rothschild frontman, Jean Monnet. In the year I was born, he wrote this in a letter to a friend:

'Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.'

And so it was ... 

... This was the week the nation state effectively ended in Europe and a tidal wave of new laws and regulations, long since written and waiting, are about to deluge the countries of Europe when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in a few weeks.

It has all been planned since at least the 19th century, probably long before that, and lying, cheating and deeply corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have ensured over the last 60 years that the nightmare became fact.

In Europe at least, the game just changed to a whole new phase. Learn the lesson North America, Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. You are next in line. Don't let them do the same to you. 

(Labour & Conservative both led us to this in the UK, one Treaty at a time!)

Technorati Tags: ,,

Banking Crisis

Surely it would have been cheaper to the UK taxpayer to recompense savers in the banks, but otherwise let the banks go bust / bankrupt like any other business in trouble. Shareholders would lose out, but that’s the same for any bankruptcy – tough!

Propping up failed banks so the bankers can continue their bonuses for failure is ridiculous – most should be sacked for incompetence, or arrested for fraud / criminal negligence!

Technorati Tags: ,

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Be Prepared for the Worst

Ron Paul, Forbes Magazine dated November 16, 2009

The large-scale government intervention in the economy is going to end badly.

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.

The only remaining option is to have the Fed create new money out of thin air. This is inflation. Higher prices lead to a devalued dollar and a lower standard of living for Americans. The Fed has already overseen a 95% loss in the dollar's purchasing power since 1913. If we do not stop this profligate spending soon, we risk hyperinflation and seeing a 95% devaluation every year.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.

(Talking about USA, but the same applies to the UK!)

Technorati Tags: ,,,

British nuclear expert’s 17th floor UN death plunge ‘was not suicide’

By Keri Sutherland,   Daily Mail 1st November 2009

A British nuclear expert who fell from the 17th floor of a United Nations building did not commit suicide and may have been hurled to his death, says a doctor who carried out a second post-mortem examination.

Timothy Hampton, 47, a scientist involved in monitoring nuclear activity, was found dead last week at the bottom of a stairwell in Vienna.

An initial autopsy concluded that there were ‘no suspicious circumstances’. But it is understood that Mr Hampton’s widow Olena Gryshcuk and her family were deeply unhappy with that verdict.

Now a doctor who undertook a second post-mortem examination on behalf of the family believes she has found evidence that Mr Hampton did not die by his own hands.

Professor Kathrin Yen, of the Ludwig Institute in Graz, Austria, which specialises in traumatology research, said she had more tests to complete on Mr Hampton, who had a three-year-old son with Ms Gryshcuk.

But she said one possible theory was that Mr Hampton was carried to the 17th floor from his workplace on the sixth floor and thrown to his death.

Professor Yen used new forensic techniques to detect internal bruising caused by strangulation which would not be visible to the eye.

She said: ‘In my opinion, it does not look like suicide. My example is that somebody took him up to the top floor and took him down.

‘At the moment I don’t have the police reports. We did a CT scan. From the external exam, I saw injuries on the neck but these were not due to strangulation.’

It is expected to take three weeks for blood test results to come back. Austrian police said they believe Mr Hampton committed suicide.

He had been working for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) at the UN building.

CTBTO staff monitor tremors in countries worldwide to uncover illegal nuclear tests. It has been suggested that Mr Hampton may have been involved in talks discussing nuclear testing in Iran. The UN has strongly denied the claims.

His body was discovered last Tuesday at about 8pm. Friends said it was usual for him to work late into the night. His widow, a weapons inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was working in Japan when her husband died.

A source close to the family said life had not been easy for Mr Hampton, who was often away from his wife and son.

But the source added that he was ‘not the suicide type’. He said: ‘Tim was rather introverted. He changed his life many times.’

Trained in Britain as a bio-chemist, Mr Hampton worked in a bio-lab before moving into construction.

He then worked on nuclear test-ban projects before joining the UN in 1998, said the CTBTO.

The IAEA, an independent and separate organisation, inspects nuclear plants worldwide and is based in the building next to the CTBTO in Vienna.

Under a year ago, an American died at the IAEA in strikingly similar circumstances, his body being found at the bottom of a stairwell.

A UN spokeswoman said an investigation into that case continues, though Austrian police have concluded it was suicide.

She said: ‘This might have been a copycat thing in the CTBTO.’