the Center for an Informed America

 

 

 

NEWSLETTER #77
January 8, 2006

Year End Clearance Edition, Part 2
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr77.html

 

To kick off the New Year, I have a rather disturbing confession to make: I have crossed over to the dark side! Believe it or not – and I’m finding it a little hard to believe myself, to be perfectly honest – I will, for at least the next three years, be serving as an elected public official. Seriously.

I am not entirely sure how it happened, but it all began a few months ago, when I received a notification that a special election was going to be held to fill eight empty seats on the local Neighborhood Council (the function of which is unclear to me at this time). Included with the notice was an application to run for one of the eight seats. I decided right then and there to publicly declare my candidacy – which is to say, I quickly filled out the application and mailed it in.

For the most part, I ran a rather low-profile campaign. After briefly considering soliciting campaign contributions, I ultimately decided that I would cover the 37 cents postage out of my own pocket. I gave freely of my time, devoting at least three entire minutes to the campaign, divided equally between filling out the application and asking my wife, my voting-age daughter, and my former mother-in-law – all of whom live within the Council’s borders – to vote for me.

I figured that my strategy would pay off nicely. Including my own vote, I knew that I had at least four votes in the bag, which I hoped would get me at least eighth place, and that’s all I needed to claim one of the seats. But then I remembered that I’m not actually registered to vote (which may or may not have mattered in this particular election). And then my core voting block inexplicably forgot to show up to cast their votes. All three of them. And I forgot to remind them. Would voter apathy cost me my seat?

Perhaps it would, but I kept my hopes up. It was a long, tense night as I awaited word of the outcome. Would I be called upon to give a concession speech? Or was there a victory party eagerly awaiting my arrival? When would the press corps be showing up? As it turned out, it was a quiet night with no announcement forthcoming. As the days and weeks passed, I pretty much forgot about the whole thing. Or tried to. I was, admittedly, embittered by the experience. My neighbors, it appeared, did not appreciate the time, money and energy that I had poured into my campaign. I mean, sure, I’ll admit that I did skip both of the “candidate workshops” that were held prior to the election, primarily because just thinking about “candidate workshops” caused me to have horrifying flashbacks to some Mensa meetings I once attended. Nevertheless, I considered myself a serious candidate.

Truth be told, I couldn’t really be sure that my name had even been on the ballot. Or that there even was a ballot. Even so, I felt the bitter sting of public rejection.

Slowly, the wounds began to heal. It was hard at first. I could feel all the eyes drawn to me; I could feel them laughing, mocking and ridiculing. “Look at the pathetic loser,” they all seemed to say. Everyone seemed to look at me differently than before. How did they all know? Had they all voted against me? Or was it something other than my apparent loss in the election? Was it the fact that on Christmas Eve, while dining over at the home of my in-laws, I somehow managed to break out one of my (previously crowned) front teeth, causing me to look very much like Alfred E. Neuman? Or was it the grotesquely enormous sty that developed on my left eye at about that same time?

Anyway, just a few days ago I received an unexpected call from the wife informing me that I had received an official letter of congratulations on my electoral victory! Somehow I had defied the odds and, with absolutely no corporate sponsors and without cutting any backroom deals with any ‘special interests’ – I had managed to get myself elected. How had this happened? And when would the bribes and ‘gifts’ start rolling in? Can someone get Abramoff on the phone for me?

I’m guessing that I basically ran unopposed, which is to say, there probably weren’t even eight people who cared enough to apply for candidacy and get their names on the ballot. Even if I hadn’t sent in the application, I probably could have secured a seat just by showing up on election day and casting a single write-in vote for myself. But that’s beside the point. (Actually, it appears that I placed seventh out of a field of twelve candidates. Go figure.)

The point here is that, in recognition of my new elite status, I would appreciate it if you all would address any future correspondence to “Councilman McGowan,” or perhaps “The Honorable David McGowan.” Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

It occurs to me that, before I attend my first council meeting, I am going to need to assemble a large entourage, or a ‘posse’ as it were. My goal is to let everyone know, right from the start, who is going to be running this show. The first position that I need to fill is Chief of Staff. Duties will include, but will not be limited to, trying not to look bored while doing absolutely nothing. I will also need an Assistant Chief of Staff. This will basically be a “go-fer” position, so I’m looking for someone young and energetic with no reservations about performing demeaning tasks that I could easily do myself, but will choose not to.

I will also, of course, need a press secretary to handle all my media appearances. Perhaps most importantly, I will need a security detail. I’m looking for about four guys of abnormally large size. Shaved heads, facial scars and prison tattoos are not required, but are encouraged. Duties will include providing for my personal security as well as, on occasion, casting intimidating stares in the direction of any of my fellow Councilmen who should choose, for whatever reason, to put forth really stupid proposals, such as “I think what we ought to do is invite the Department of Homeland Security over to organize terror drills in the neighborhood,” or “if the U.S. Congress doesn’t have the balls to renew the USA Patriot Act, then I think we should pass our own Neighborhood Patriot Act.” Conversely, you may be called upon from time to time to discourage protests from my fellow Councilmen to my own proposals, such as “I move that we henceforth ban all LAPD helicopters from hovering over the neighborhood at all hours of the night,” or “I propose that all adults and adolescents in the neighborhood be required to attend a class I am putting together entitled ‘Understanding What Really Happened on September 11.’”

All qualified applicants for any of these open positions should get your paperwork in via e-mail as soon as possible. Note that there will be no monetary compensation for these positions, just the intangible reward of knowing that you will be working for the betterment of society – or at least the betterment of my neighborhood.

But enough about that. I need to move on to a quick trivia question: what do Fox News, the Pentagon, and the head of one of the West’s largest oil cartels all have in common? I mean, aside from the obvious?

If you guessed that it is that all three entities are pitching end-of-the-world “global warming” scenarios, then you have obviously been paying attention in class, because that is, as it turns out, the correct answer.

I have been meaning for some time now to take a hard look at the contentious issue of global warming, especially since it became one of the favored topics of some of my respondents. Regularly arriving in my inbox are missives along the lines of: “But Dave, even if oil isn’t a fossil fuel and Peak Oil is a myth, isn’t the reality that we have to stop burning the planet’s, uhmm, non-fossil fuels anyway, because otherwise we’re going to destroy the world through global warming?”

I will readily admit that it wasn’t too long ago that I, like any good lefty, dutifully toed the global warming line. In my first book, published mid-2000, you will find a rather open endorsement of the notion of global warming. But I was younger then, perhaps a little wet behind the ears yet – certainly not the savvy, smooth talking, confident, somewhat pompous ass who stands before you today. And what I’m saying now is that I’m not really so sure that I’m buying the whole global warming thing.

While digging into the ‘Peak Oil’ scam, it didn’t take long for me to realize – what with the constant flow of e-mails that I received – that global warming provided a handy backup to the ‘Peak’ myth. A very handy backup. Indeed, possibly too handy. Which is why a report that surfaced in the UK’s Observer in February 2004, at the very time that I was first looking into the claims of the ‘Peak’ crowd, caught my attention (“Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us”):

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret [sic] report, suppressed [sic] by US defence chiefs and obtained by the Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1153531,00.html)

Oh, my! That certainly doesn’t sound good, does it? Come to think of it, it sounds an awful lot like the picture of the near future that has been painted by the ‘Peak Oil’ crowd. In other words, it’s beginning to look like the doomsday scenario of widespread famine, massive social unrest, endless war, nuclear annihilation, and, of course, massive depopulation, is on the horizon regardless of whether we run out of oil or not. Apparently, we’re screwed either way – which really puts a damper on the old holiday spirit, for me at least.

You will notice, by the way, that I used the word “screwed” in the preceding paragraph rather than dropping another F-bomb. I do this because one of the new e-mail programs that I attempted to use to send out the last newsletter cautioned me that I was sending a missive that might “get my mouth washed out with soap,” which came as something of a surprise to me, since I didn’t even know that my mom had gone to work as a software designer. But here I digress …

We know, of course, that the report referenced by the Observer is entirely credible because it comes straight from the Pentagon, and the Pentagon hardly ever lies about anything. And the document carries a fine pedigree, having been commissioned by “influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall,” described as “the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” Obviously, there is no reason to question the integrity or the motives of the guy that Rummy entrusted with the task of refashioning the U.S. Department of Torture and Preemptive War.

The report that Marshall commissioned was coauthored by Peter Schwartz, described by the Observer as a “CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell group.” Again, this is obviously a man with impressive credentials. Certainly no one would suggest that someone who is both an intelligence operative and a former oil executive might have ulterior motives or might be less than truthful.

Speaking of the Royal Dutch/Shell group, let’s skip ahead a few months, to June of 2004, when the newly ordained head of Shell Oil, Lord Ron Oxburgh, told the Observer’s sister publication, the Guardian, that the imminent threat of global climate change made him “really very worried for the planet.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1240566,00.html)

That seems like an unusual concern for the head of a major oil cartel. Lord Oxburgh, by the way, had just taken the reins at Shell three months earlier, after the previous chairman, Phillip Watts, was forced out after purportedly overstating the company’s reserves. Before taking over at Shell, curiously enough, Lord Oxburgh’s previous employment included a stint as “chief science adviser to the Ministry of Defence.”

To briefly recap then, what we appear to have here are elements of both the British and American defense departments working in conjunction with major players within the oil industry to promote a global warming scare. Now, that alone obviously does not prove that global warming is yet another scam being sold to the people of the world, but it should certainly set off some serious warning bells for anyone who is not completely brain dead.

This past November, the plot thickened a bit more as Fox News, ever the environmentalists, jumped on the global warming bandwagon, with what appeared to be the opening salvo of a campaign aimed at making global warming a ‘bipartisan’ issue. On November 13, 2005, Fox News, with much fanfare, aired “The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming,” a ridiculously sensationalized, fear-mongering ‘documentary’ that was riddled with obvious misrepresentations and misstatements of fact. The show was actually so bad that at first I thought it might be a covert effort by Fox to discredit the notion of global warming by presenting a deliberately weak case. But then I realized that the Fox crew was merely using the same emotionally-charged, content-free presentation that they use to sell all their lies to their receptive audience.

Perhaps what the Fox crew put together is the best case that global warming proponents can present. The program did, after all, carry the endorsement of two authentic, dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying members of the ‘liberal’ intelligentsia (Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Laurie David, wife of “Seinfeld” creator Larry David). In fact, the two were directly involved in the production, which came about, as the Los Angeles Times noted, as a result of “an unlikely partnership between two well-known liberal [sic] activists and Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, a former [sic] Republican political operative.” (Matea Gold “Fox News Displays a Green Side,” Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2005

As it turns out, it’s not such an unlikely partnership after all, since one of the two ‘liberals’ – Robert Kennedy, Jr., that most prototypical of Washington ‘ultra-liberals’ – is actually “a longtime personal friend of Ailes,” who has played a major role in shaping the decidedly right-wing voices of both Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. This would, of course, be a rather surprising revelation – if there were any actual substantive differences between the nominal ‘liberals’ and the nominal ‘conservatives’ in Washington, but there isn’t.

I am reminded here, for no particular reason, that I had a rather humbling experience the other day whilst visiting my local supermarket. As it turns out, grocery shopping in my neighborhood can often be a humbling experience. You wouldn’t think it would be, but it is – primarily because a local cadre of dedicated LaRouchians seems to have adopted the front entrance to the store as their primary base of operations. So doing the grocery shopping now means running the risk of being accosted by one or more enthusiastic, but hopelessly confused, young men and women who feel compelled to lecture me on my obvious lack of knowledge about national and world affairs.

My latest encounter involved my being chastised for not knowing that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid deserves my full support as he works diligently to impeach and remove the evil Dick Cheney. Reid is working, you see, from a blueprint provided by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche himself, so we know that his is a sincere effort. The fact that I did not recognize Reid as a knight-in-shining-armor was a dead giveaway that I am not up to speed on what’s happening in Washington.

Here I was thinking that Reid was just another fully complicit puppet who unapologetically supports illegal wars abroad and massive repression here at home, but it turns out I was wrong. Now I can hardly wait to find out what other knowledge the local supermarket has to offer. Will I learn that Patrick Fitzgerald poses an actual threat to the Bush administration? Or that John McCain is a legitimate critic of the regime? Or that, as many people seem to think, Ahhnuld is really a closet Democrat (he is, after all, married to Maria “I’m a Kennedy, so I’m obviously a liberal” Shriver)? Or that Hillary Clinton is a foe of the Bush crowd, even though her husband’s primary job these days seems to involve working hand-in-hand with George, Sr. to do damage control for George, Jr.?

But wait! That can’t be right, because Bill Clinton is a hero to the LaRouchians (at least he used to be; I haven’t really kept up on my readings from the master in recent years). Why, he’s practically the anti-Bush! I assume then that he must have perfectly good reasons for spinning the Bush response to Katrina, and the necessity of continuing the illegal slaughter in Iraq, and the importance of renewing and expanding legislation like the Patriot Act. I have no idea what those good reasons might be, but apparently Lyndon does, because his disciples appear to be convinced that the Democratic Party, and prominent individuals within that party, offers some sort of real alternative to the direction this country is currently heading.

And that, my friends, is simply not the case. If the Democrats were truly an opposition party, and if they had any desire to wrest power from the Republicans, the Democratic Party platform for the upcoming 2006 midterm elections would be aggressively and unapologetically anti-war, to capitalize on the fact that a sizable majority of the American people now oppose the occupation of Iraq. Indeed, if the American political system was at all legitimate, Democratic politicians, and the purportedly liberal press, would speak the truth about the conquest of Iraq – the real goals being pursued, the true human cost, the blatant illegality of the invasion and occupation, the use of illegal chemical and radioactive weaponry, the use of death squads and torture, the illegitimacy of the puppet government – and the American people, already inclined to oppose the war, would quickly run the war-mongers out of Washington.

That is how a democracy is supposed to work: a politician gets elected to office by voicing support for policies favored by the majority of the voting public, and he then takes action as an elected official to implement those policies. The question then that some of us need to ask ourselves is: if we live in a country in which a clear majority of the people oppose an illegal military occupation, and yet not a single elected official will take a principled stand against that illegal occupation, do we really live in a democracy? And does anyone really think that the Democratic Party’s 2006 platform will be anything but aggressively pro-war?

The young men and women who staff the table in front of my local grocery store are, as I said before, quite enthusiastic. And they are no doubt quite sincere and quite concerned, and rightly so, about the agenda being pursued by our fearless leaders. They recognize that we are in serious trouble and they are eager to right the wrongs that they see. But they have, unfortunately, been seriously led astray. And that, alas, is one of the most troubling problems that we face today: the efforts of those among us who should, through their aggressive political activism, provide us with some hope for the future, are far too easily misdirected by charlatans/political operatives – and there is certainly never any shortage of those.

Consider, for example, Sir Paul “Bono” Hewson of U2 fame, who has been very busy for the last couple years. Whether traipsing through Africa hand-in-hand with Paul O’Neill, or working with Sir Bob Geldof to organize a grandiose event whose primary purpose was to disarm the legitimate critics of globalization while covertly advancing the Bush/Blair agenda, Bono has kept a very high profile. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times advocated his appointment as the new head of the World Bank, though the job ultimately went to one of Bono’s pals, Paul Wolfowitz. Not to be outdone, Time magazine has named Hewson as one of its Persons of the Year (along with Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation, which appears to serve primarily as a CIA funding conduit).

Not long ago, a Ronald Brownstein column in the Los Angeles Times had this to say about Sir Bono: “A few hours after lunch with his old buddy President Bush last week, the Irish rock star Bono, a guitar slung low over his hips, paused near the climax of a raucous U2 concert to ask 20,000 fans to sign up to save the world .. The organization that Bono asked his fans to join is called One: The Campaign to Make Poverty History. It was formed last year by 11 leading anti-poverty and charitable organizations, including Care, World Vision and Bono’s own group Data – an acronym for debt, AIDS, trade in Africa.” (Ronald Brownstein “Hearts That Beat as ‘One’ Could Shake Up American Politics,” Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2005)

A nominally progressive rock star working with World Vision to save the planet? Who would have guessed it? I should probably mention that World Vision has been identified as a longtime intelligence front that is heavily steeped in mind control and assassination operations. Its distinguished alumni include, according to published reports, notorious patsies/assassins/Catcher in the Rye-fans John Hinckley, Jr. and Mark David Chapman. All of which makes it rather ironic, I would think, that Sir Bono is now falsely assuming the throne left vacant by Chapman’s target, John Lennon (whom Bono criticized, curiously enough, in the Time magazine article).

Brownstein also noted that Bono has “unexpected allies, like conservative televangelist Pat Robertson.” Actually, a quick scroll through the list of One’s partners-in-crime reveals that the majority of the organizations tied to Bono’s ‘cause’ appear to be either intelligence fronts or fundamentalist religious groups (http://one.org/Partners.html).

With ‘progressive’ rock stars walking arm-in-arm with right-wing religious leaders and unelected presidents, and with prototypical Hollywood and Washington ‘liberals’ working closely with right-wing media operatives, and with no serious opposition to the current political agenda despite the fact that the American people have made clear their preference for a change of course, one gets the uncomfortable feeling that the two ‘sides’ are actually working together behind the scenes to collectively wage war on the American people – as if, at the highest levels of government, the terms ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican,’ or ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal,’ are completely meaningless.

I am reminded here that people sometimes ask me if I am worried about the purported shift in the leanings of the US Supreme Court. “Aren’t you concerned,” they ask, “about Bush packing the court with people like Roberts and Meirs and Alito?” And the truth, which seems to surprise many people, is that I am not overly concerned, primarily because it is quite obvious that all the justices already on the court are fully complicit members of the cryptocracy, as is anyone who stands any chance of being nominated and confirmed by either a ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’ administration. In other words, I see no fundamental difference between an Alito and an O’Connor, or a Scalia and a Stevens, or a Roberts and a Rehnquist.

That point was driven home in March 2004 when the distinguished court issued a ruling in the case of former White House aide Vince Foster:

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that the family of a prominent person who died had a privacy right to object to the government’s release of photographs taken at the death scene. In a 9-0 ruling, the court held that the Freedom of Information Act does not require the public release of four close-up photos of the body of Vincent foster, the White House lawyer and aide to President Clinton who shot himself in 1993. Tuesday’s decision reverses the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and dismisses a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles lawyer who contends that the former Clinton advisor may have been murdered. (David Savage “High Court Upholds Family Privacy in Death Photos,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2004)

Despite this particular ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated repeatedly in recent years that it has little concern for privacy rights. The real reason for this ruling, which saw all nine justices marching in lockstep, was to continue the cover-up of Foster’s murder. As the attorney (Allan Favish) who filed the case noted, “There’s no discussion of the evidence in their opinion, just a conclusion that there is no evidence. I don’t see any justification for that conclusion.” The government’s case, by the way, was argued by our old friend, Theodore Olson.

There is, of course, no justification for the court’s decision, nor does there need to be. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to justify any decisions it hands down, nor does it have to demonstrate any sort of consistency in handing down those opinions. Regardless of what ideological labels the media may pin on individual justices, the decisions that the court makes are determined by the necessity of maintaining the illusion of a healthy, legitimate democracy with competing political parties. On the decisions that matter the most, the Supreme Court justices are all of one mind.

“But wait!” you say. “Isn’t the notion that Foster was murdered just a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory? Isn’t that what all good liberals are supposed to believe?” I suppose it is, just as we are supposed to ignore the mass murder committed at Waco and those crazy right-wing theories about the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building. But I’m sorry to say that that is not how this lefty rolls. I base my beliefs on following the evidence trail, not on following the dictates of any particular political ideology. In other words, there are no sacred cows around here.

Which brings us back, after a rather lengthy digression, to the topic of global warming, where we find that, strangely enough, we have a guy who used to work for Shell Oil and now works within the U.S. military/intelligence community, and another guy who used to work within the UK military/intelligence community and now works for Shell Oil, both selling doomsday scenarios involving global warming. In addition to that – and here is where it gets really interesting, so pay close attention – we have another guy who used to work for Shell Oil (and undoubtedly also within the Western military/intelligence community), by the name of Dr. M. King Hubbert, who kick-started the ‘Peak Oil’ scam, which preaches that we are facing an apocalyptic future brought about not by unrestrained burning of ‘fossil fuels,’ but by running out of those same ‘fossil fuels,’ an event that will bring about the very same dystopian future as the one being sold by the global warming adherents.

I really hate to bring this up, but it is so blatantly obvious that it is hard not to notice, so I feel compelled to note here that this sort of carefully structured no-win game smells an awful lot like a massive psychological warfare operation.

Something else that I recently stumbled across was a post from October 2004 entitled “Global Warming Bombshell.” Even if the article had nothing else to offer, it would be worth noting here just for the sheer brilliance of the last sentence of the first paragraph: “When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.” (http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp)

Truer words have never been spoken. Of course, the primary reason that wrong pieces are so frequently wedged in key places is because various arms of the Western intelligence community are always eager to offer those wrong pieces to anyone who will accept them. They’ll even wedge them in place for you. Should you ultimately reject the piece that was offered, they’ll quickly offer another, slightly different than the first, but still just a clever counterfeit. And in many cases, they will spend a considerable amount of time fashioning the counterfeit pieces, so that they look very much like they should fit. They are good enough fakes to fool almost everyone, and they will often only be detectable when and if the real piece is found, so that the two can be compared side by side. And even then, a substantial number of people will insist on keeping the fake piece wedged into position, often because they have many other fake pieces wedged in all around it, and changing the one piece would require changing several others, which would require changing a significant portion of said person’s belief system, which is much more difficult to do than wedging puzzle pieces in where they don’t belong.

But that’s not what we’re supposed to be discussing here today. Well … actually, that is what we are always discussing, regardless of the particular topic, because what it really comes down to here is that our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to try to correctly assemble an enormously complicated jigsaw puzzle in which each individual puzzle, or ‘conspiracy,’ is one small and interlocked portion of the overall puzzle. But let’s try to focus on global warming for now. Returning then to the article in Technology Review, we find the following revelation:

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot, published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

(…)

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

… Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

So apparently global warming, as with ‘Peak Oil,’ is based on what can only be described as junk science. Very interesting indeed. And there’s more: “McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, youll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis.”

Let’s briefly recap what we have learned thus far: we have two complimentary theories, one known as “Peak Oil” and the other known as “Global Warming.” Both have direct ties to one of the world’s largest and most fundamentally corrupt oil conglomerates, as well as to various actors in the Western military/intelligence community. And both appear to be based on junk science, while the real science has been deliberately suppressed by Western technical journals, despite the fact that the research appears to be perfectly valid.

What then are we to conclude from all this? I am not ready yet to state categorically that global warming is a psy-op, but I am certainly leaning in that direction. I will continue to look into this issue in the new year; one never knows where the trail may lead. For now, interested readers can have a look at the following posts/websites: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon.html?topic=&topic_set=, http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/cycle23/warming.htm, and especially http://www.john-daly.com/, which contains a wealth of relevant information.

Until next time …

PS – Happy New Year and here’s a couple of links that might be good for a laugh or two: http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/mcclellan.htm and http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf

 

HOME