Move along, no collusion to see here...

Climate change scandal deepens

as BBC expert claims he was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they went public

By Carol Driver

Daily Mail [of London].co.uk

The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.

In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'

Now why would the BBC sit on a scoop like that for over a month?

Note also that this puts paid to the issue of hackers breaking in vice an insider leaking. This was a leak of a document package prepared for a FoI request.

Credibility [on the part of the BBC and the AGW crowd] is way down.

Hat Tip: Ace at Ace of Spades

Cross Posted from Wizbang

Not to be confused with Patriotism nor Nationalism nor Chauvanism.

Bill Whittle makes the case for American Exceptionalism, without confusing the term for nationalism nor chauvanism.



Indeed Bill, indeed.

America is exceptional. A departure from every Government and every nation state in the recorded history of the world. The counter position is simply not supported by the facts.

Hat Tip: Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds.

Early in the Vietnam War (1961) Robert Heinlein famously said:

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

While Heinlein (1907-1988) lived to see the end of conscription, he did not live long enough to see what that force could do in time of war.

Operation Desert Storm (aka Gulf War I, 1991) proved that force was second to none.

Operation Iraqi Freedom (aka Gulf War II, 2003-2008) proved that the all volunteer armed forces of the United States could conduct and win a war (and a counter insurgency) despite the active opposition of the Left.

Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan, 2001-) will test what a man of the left can do with that all volunteer force.

In three headlines from today, August 24^th, 2009

1. [Obama's Attorney General] Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations


2. Guantanamo Detainee Released to Afghanistan


3. Rendition of Terror Suspects to Continue Under Obama

Let those sink in a bit...

Not only are all of these injurious to the National Security of the United States, they're not even consistent in terms of policy.


( Read more... )

That was not a typo, nor an exageration. Overall, 83% of voters favor concealed carry.

Oh. My.

Zogby/O’Leary Poll Reveals Majority of Voters Will Oppose Senators Who Vote to Confirm an Anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Nominee
Strong Majority of Independents, Democrats and Obama Voters Support the Right to Carry a Firearm

...Judge Sotomayor does not believe the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and the right to self-defense are fundamental rights of all Americans. Specifically, Judge Sotomayor believes the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not apply to the States, as indicated by her recent testimony and past rulings.

Zogby/O’Leary asked voters:

“Would you support or oppose a U.S. Senator who voted to confirm a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense?”

Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator.

Among Independent voters, 57 percent would oppose such a Senator, and only 17 percent would support. Forty-nine percent of young voters (age 18-29) would oppose a Senator who votes to confirm a nominee who does not believe Second Amendment rights apply to all Americans, and just 31 percent would support such a Senator. A plurality of Hispanic voters (42 percent) would oppose such a Senator, and only 28 percent would support. A large percentage of Hispanics (30 percent) are not sure. A majority of union members (54 percent) would also oppose, and 29 percent would support.

The Right to Carry a Firearm

An amendment that would have permitted law-abiding gun owners with concealed-carry permits to carry their firearms across state lines recently fell short in the Senate. Although the amendment received a majority of votes (58-39), a filibuster-proof 60 votes were required for passage.

Zogby/O’Leary asked voters:

“Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?”

An overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) support concealed-carry laws, while only 11 percent oppose them. A majority of Independent voters (86 percent), Democrats (80 percent), young voters age 18-29 (83 percent), Hispanic voters (80 percent), and those who voted for President Obama (80 percent) support the right to carry a firearm.

The sub-headline is too modest. 80% of voters cannot agree as to whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. 83% is an overwhelming majority.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a sea change in public opinion.

Hat Tip: Say Uncle by way of Glen “Instapundit” Reynolds.

For Conspicuous Gallantry Above and Beyond the Call of Duty



The sixth Medal of Honor to be presented for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, all of which have been posthumous.

An excellent point concerning “rights”, our system of Government, and Health Care…

The Folly of Obamacare
It’s a bait and switch.
By Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

Let us for a moment adopt the proposition that health care is in fact a “right,” as pretty much every liberal politician has told us for at least a generation.

Now let us consider how President Obama’s proposed health-care bill would work. Under his plan, an official body — staffed with government doctors, actuaries, economists, and other experts — will determine which health-care treatments, procedures, and remedies are cost-effective and which are not. Then it will decide which ones will get paid for and which won’t. Would a 70-year-old woman be able to get a hip replacement, or would that not be considered a wise allocation of resources? Would a 50-year-old man not be permitted an expensive test his doctor wants if the rules say the cheaper, less-thorough one is sufficient? The Democrats call this “cost-controls.” But for the patient and the doctor, it’s plain old rationing.

Now, imagine if the government had a body of experts charged with figuring out what your free-speech rights are, or your right to assemble, or worship. Mr. Jones, you can say X and Y, but not Z. Ms. Smith, you can freely assemble with Aleutians, Freemasons, and carpenters, but you may not meet in public with anyone from Cleveland or of Albanian descent. Mrs. Wilson, you may pray to Vishnu and Crom, but never to Allah or Buddha, and when you do pray, you cannot do so for longer than 20 minutes at a time, unless it is one of several designated holidays. Please see Extended Prayer Form 10–22B.

Of course, all of this would be ludicrous beyond words.

Indeed it would be ludicrous beyond words.

“Rights” are not the creations of Governments. Specifically, in our system of Government (per the Declaration of Independence) Rights descend from a higher power and Governments exist to protect those rights.

Which is the whole point. Health care cannot be a right, because rights cannot come from government. At best, they can be protected by government. The founders understood this, which is why our Bill of Rights is really a list of restrictions on the government in Washington. “Congress shall make no law . . . ” is how the First Amendment begins.

Indeed.

That which a Government may grant on a whim may be retracted on a whim. Rights are not whimsical.

Oh my.

It occurs to me that it would behoove humanity to start establishing both colonies on other planets and increased space based observation. Why, you ask? Because Jupiter was struck by a large object (which was undetected) fifteen years to the day after Schumaker-Levy 9 struck with a force exceeding that of the dinosaur killer:

New NASA Images Indicate Object Hits Jupiter
July 20, 2009

Scientists have found evidence that another object has bombarded Jupiter, exactly 15 years after the first impacts by the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9.

Following up on a tip by an amateur astronomer, Anthony Wesley of Australia, that a new dark “scar” had suddenly appeared on Jupiter, this morning between 3 and 9 a.m. PDT (6 a.m. and noon EDT) scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., using NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility at the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii, gathered evidence indicating an impact.

New infrared images show the likely impact point was near the south polar region, with a visibly dark “scar” and bright upwelling particles in the upper atmosphere detected in near-infrared wavelengths, and a warming of the upper troposphere with possible extra emission from ammonia gas detected at mid-infrared wavelengths.

Had that been us it would be game over, and even if we had detected it years before it hit, there’s bugger all we could have done to prevent its hitting or of ameliorating the effects.

After a long illness…

Walter Cronkite, Iconic Anchorman, Dies
By Brian Stelter
The New York Times

Walter Cronkite, an iconic CBS News journalist who defined the role of anchorman for a generation of television viewers, died Friday at the age of 92, his family said.

Mr. Cronkite anchored the “CBS Evening News” from 1962 to 1981, at a time when television became the dominant medium of the United States. He figuratively held the hand of the American public during the civil rights movement, the space race, the Vietnam war, and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. During his tenure, network newscasts were expanded to 30 minutes from 15.

Rest in peace.

Christopher Hitchens poses an interesting question:

What Happened to the Suicide Bombers of Jerusalem?
Nasty, fanatical old men, not human emotions, decided who died and when.
By Christopher Hitchens

It is sometimes important to write about the things that are not happening and the dogs that are not barking.

To do so, of course, can provide an easy hostage to fortune, which is why a lot of columnists prefer not to risk it. For all I know, some leering fanatic is preparing to make me look silly even as I write. But I ask anyway: Whatever happened to the suicide bombers of Jerusalem?

It’s not that long since the combination of self-immolation and mass murder was a regular event on Israeli soil. Different people drew radically different conclusions from the campaign, which had a nerve-racking effect not just on Israeli Jews but on Israeli Arabs and Druze—who were often among the casualties—and on visiting tourists. It was widely said by liberals, including people as eminent as Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie Blair, that the real cause of such a lurid and awful tactic was despair: the reaction of a people under occupation who had no other avenue of expression for their misery and frustration.

Well, surely nobody will be so callous as to say that there is less despair among Palestinians today—especially since the terrible events in the Gaza Strip and the return to power of the Israeli right wing as well as the expansion of Jewish-zealot settler activity. And yet there is no graph on which extra despair can be shown to have eventuated in more suicide. Indeed, if there is any correlation at all, it would seem to be in reverse. How can this be?

Because despair was never the issue.

Read the whole thing,