University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address - Admiral William H. McRaven A 36 Year Navy Seal.

Sarah Palin: Matt Drudge Prepares Obama's Daily Intelligence Report

by Tony Lee

 
 After President Barack Obama claimed he heard about the wait-list scandal engulfing his Veterans Administration by watching television reports, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin determined that he must be using the Drudge Report as his daily source of intelligence because of the incompetence of his advisers.

"Obama knows nothing, sees nothing, and hears nothing unless his lapdogs bark, then his ears perk up," Palin wrote on Monday. "Not exactly using a hunting dog to flush out the truth, is he? Kind of reminds me of that famous Will Rogers quote: 'All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.'"

Palin was dumbfounded that Obama did not know about the 40 veterans who reportedly died after they were put on secret waiting lists at a VA hospital in Arizona, especially when Obama had actually been briefed about wait-time problems that veterans were facing at the VA.

"The head of government that has the most sophisticated spying apparatus ever created can monitor who we talk to, what we talk about, how many twinkies our kids eat and the calories we consume, where we travel, etc. etc., yet announces our President’s daily Intelligence report is actually prepared by Matt Drudge," Palin wrote. "Hmmm. Perhaps the NSA should take out ads in the sports section to assure the President reads his morning Intelligence briefing."

Obama and Veterans Secretary Eric Shinseki have claimed they were "madder than hell" and "mad as hell," respectively, but the only disciplinary action taken was forcing an official who was slated to resign later this year to leave his post earlier than scheduled.

The White House announced Wednesday that Rob Nabors, a White House deputy chief of staff, would visit the Arizona hospital at the center of the scandal. More VA hospitals may have had similar secret waiting lists.
Palin linked to a video montage of Obama revealing that he learned about numerous scandals--including the VA scandal, the NSA spying scandals, the Fast and Furious scandal, and the IRS' targeting of conservatives scandal--through "press reports."

Obama had also missed a considerable number of his daily intelligence briefings.

As Breitbart News reported, a three-page Government Accountability Institute report shockingly "found that of the first 1,225 days of his time in office, Mr. Obama has attended less than half (43.8 percent) of his daily intelligence briefings." Also, the White House calendar did not show an instance in which Obama attended his daily intelligence briefings in the week prior to the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Big Journalism

Obama campaigned on the backs of waiting-list veteran heroes in 2008

By Judi McLeod

President Barack Obama did not, as the White House claimed yesterday, only learn of the VA wait-list scandal on TV, just as he claimed to learn of the IRS, Fast and Furious and AP reporting snooping scandals.

Obama campaigned on the VA scandal while still a senator in 2008, got elected president and then forgot about it—until the scandal came back into the light of publicity this month.

“Speaking at a campaign rally in Charleston, W. Va., then Senator Obama promised veterans he would fix the problems plaguing Veterans Affairs hospitals: (grabien.com)

“At a time when we’re facing the largest homecoming since the Second World War, the true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they’ve served us,” Obama said:

“We know that over the last eight years, we’ve already fallen short of meeting this test. We all learned about the deplorable conditions that were discovered at places like Fort Bragg and Walter Reed. We’ve all walked by a veteran whose home is now a cardboard box on a street corner in the richest nation on Earth. We’ve all heard about what it’s like to navigate the broken bureaucracy of the VA - the impossibly long lines, or the repeated calls for help that get you nothing more than an answering machine. Just a few weeks ago, an 89-year-old World War II veteran from South Carolina told his family, “No matter what I apply for at the VA, they turn me down.” The next day, he walked outside of an Outpatient Clinic in Greenville and took his own life.

“How can we let this happen? How is that acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is, it’s not. It’s an outrage. And it’s a betrayal—a betrayal—of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.

“But it doesn’t have to be this way. Not in this country. Not if we decide that this time will be different.”

And there is undeniable proof that Obama referred to the VA scandal only two years ago.

Through diligent research top talk show radio host Mark Levin’s producer, Rich (Sementa) unearthed a July 23, 2012 clip right off the White House website with Obama claiming new veterans wouldn’t be piled onto the backlog, saying: “I will not rest until we’ve got this right”.

“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wound up with egg on his face Monday as he told reporters that President Barack Obama first learned from a TV news report that his Veterans Administration was denying medical care to vets with secret off-the-books waiting lists. (Daily Mail, May 19, 2014)

“But new evidence emerged this morning that his transition team was notified five years ago about how VA medical centers’ official wait-list times bore little resemblance to reality and risked denying military heroes critical health care.
 “The Washington Times reported Monday that waiting times at veterans’ medical facilities were known to be wildly inaccurate at the end of the George W. Bush administration. By the time Obama’s transition team got a post-election briefing from the VA at the end of 2008, scheduling failures were already reaching a critical point.

“The newspaper received a copy of that briefing through a Freedom Of Information Act request.

EVA medical centers stand accused of keeping secret off-the-books waiting lists in order to cook the books and boost performance stats.

As many as 40 veterans died in Phoenix when they were denied critical care because their names didn’t appear on official waiting lists.”

Guess Obama’s 2008 promised ‘Hope and Change’ included everyone other than America’s courageous war vets.

Campaigning on the back of war vets didn’t stop Obama or his wife Michelle from going on to use the military as props ever since his election.

Most prominent among Obama using the military as props is what Canada Free Press (CFP) referred to as ‘The Incident in the Rose Garden’:

“Armed by the arrogant confidence that comes via a protective circle of self-serving, back-scratching politicians (including Republican ones), who do nothing to deter his increasing taunts against all things American,  President Barack Hussein Obama continues to publicly trash the cherished image of the military.

“Taking a leaf straight from the book of his overbearing wife, Michelle, who used military members in full dress as props on the night she invaded living rooms via satellite from the White House to announce this year’s Best Picture, yesterday big brave BHO used Marines holding umbrellas to shelter both himself and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan from a little light drizzle in the White House Rose Garden.”

Erdogan was last week accused of punching a mourner in the aftermath of his country’s worst mining disaster. (Daily Mail, May 15, 2014).  Photos of his adviser Yusef Yerkel kicking a mourner went viral on the Internet.

“The photograph of the two with the umbrella-holding Marines went viral on the Internet, but lost on an ever-taunting Obama was the stark contrast between the dedicated young men who serve the country and his anti-American self. (CFP)

“This president who holds respect for nothing American and who seems to consider nothing sacred referred to Erdogan as “our prime minister”.  Was he planning to later dive, yet again under the slip-of-the-tongue cover, or was it part of a deliberate attempt to underline photographic proof that an Islamic prime minister can be served by an umbrella-holding U.S. Marine?

“Worst of all, Obama, who still maintains the cover up on the September 11, 2012 slaughter of four courageous Americans in Benghazi, Libya, openly called the terrorist attack that cost them their lives, an “incident”.

“This from the same president, who with his vice president and secretary of state in tow, showed up to comfort and promise justice for the loss to the loved ones of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone S. Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith when their bodies were returned to the USA.”

Meanwhile, we can expect the ‘Mother of all Selfies’  when Obama, wearing a put-on mournful face, shows up on Memorial Day this coming long weekend to lay a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.

Canada Free Press

'Roaring to Nov.': Palin Touts More Endorsees After Nebraska Victories

Trey Gowdy silences press in 3 minutes regarding Benghazi

Wow! It took Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) just three minutes to indict the liberal media for its failure to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi that claimed four American lives including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

But the chair of the House Special Committee on Benghazi  does a whole lot more than that.
In a recently surfaced video of Gowdy speaking to a roomful of media members, he manages to use Barack Obama’s own words as proof of the president’s complete failure to do anything in the wake of the attacks, and Gowdy asks a series of still-unanswered questions–all glaring examples of media inaction–about the night of the attacks and the aftermath.

Gowdy clearly shows two other things as well. First, he shows why he never lost a case as prosecutor and second, why anyone involved with the Benghazi cover up had better be concerned.

Check this YouTube video out to see Gowdy’s epic takedown:



Conservative Tribune

Benghazi conspiracy? Hell yes!

May 12, 2014

By Victor Volsky

 

 The Ben Rhodes e-mail has demolished the Obama administration's defense that the White House had nothing to do with the infamous talking points ascribing the Benghazi tragedy to a spontaneous protest over an American-made anti-Muslim video.  Even some of the White House correspondents accustomed to carrying water for the Obama administration clashed with White House spokesman Jay Carney, who shamelessly tried to sell them this bill of goods.  Nobody likes being played for a sucker.

Now it is crystal-clear that the administration, right from the start, was intimately involved in a deceptive scheme aimed at deflecting the blame for the death of four Americans killed in the terrorist assault in Benghazi.  But rather than clarify the situation, the Rhodes e-mail has only deepened the mystery.

What is the reason for the frantic, concerted effort to cover up the truth about Benghazi?  Considering that it’s the cover-up rather than the deed itself that does all the damage, wouldn’t it have been safer to acknowledge the fact of a terrorist attack and disclose all relevant information, putting an end to the controversy?  And yet the White House and its allies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the American people from knowing what happened on that fateful day.  Why?

As reported by Kenneth Timmerman, top military brass at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany watched live video feed from a Predator drone over Benghazi, which clearly showed no protests.  The CIA station chief in Tripoli, in his report to Langley, not just indicated, but emphasized that there were no protests.  Former AFRICOM’s Deputy Intelligence Chief Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell testified under oath to the same effect, and so did even Mike Morell, the smarmy ex-CIA deputy director.

Former CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson has uncovered an e-mail sent by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones describing her conversation with Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45 am on Sept. 12, 2012.  Atkisson reported, “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

The classic cover-up question – “What did they know, and when did they know it?” – does not apply in this case.  We know that the White House and the State Department were fully informed about the events in Benghazi practically from the get-go.

Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department resolutely turn down the many pleas for enhancing security at the Benghazi compound with which Ambassador Stevens bombarded his superiors, warning about the growing extremist threat?

Why didn’t the administration prepare for likely terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?  Didn’t they know the Islamists’ propensity to time their attacks to mark important anniversaries, above all that of their “glorious victory over the Great Satan”?  The Bush administration knew it and always prepared for such attacks, but Obama’s White House ignored the danger.  Why?

Why was nothing done to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi?  The Pentagon insists that there were no resources available to mount a rescue expedition.  But many military experts insist it’s not true: much could have been done to relieve the pressure on the Special Mission Compound and the Annex.

Furthermore, according to Kenneth Timmerman (ibid.), orders were issued, then recalled, to deploy a 50-man Special Forces unit from Croatia that could have reached Benghazi within hours.  Who ordered that unit to stand down, and why?

What accounts for the stonewalling on the part of the administration?  Why has it strenuously refused to comply with the House subpoenas for its Benghazi-related internal communications?  Why have none of the Benghazi survivors been allowed to testify to Congress about their first-hand experiences? And why has the FBI refused to divulge the records of its interrogations?  Is the White House afraid of what those records might tell?

President Obama solemnly promised to track down and bring to justice the perpetrators who harmed Americans in Benghazi.  A year and a half later, he has yet to start fulfilling his promise.  It’s not that the perps are in hiding. They live openly in Benghazi, their addresses are well-known, and reporters have no problem getting in touch with them.  It’s only the FBI that just can’t find them.  Again, is the White House leery of what might transpire if the terrorists are allowed to talk?

Finally, the infamous video.  Why, early on September 11, did the U.S. Embassy in Cairo suddenly, without provocation, apologize to the Muslim world for an obscure American-made video critical of Prophet Mohammed, as if inviting the faithful to give vent to their indignation?  And four hours later, the Arab street obliged.  Why did the White House and its allies continue to spread the video canard, knowing full well that it was a lie?

Why did President Obama, in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly on September 25, two weeks after Benghazi, invoke the video seven (!) times?  Why, on September 14, did Hillary Clinton, at the coffin of Tyrone Woods, solemnly promise the grieving father to punish the man who she said was responsible for his son’s death – the author of the video?  Such monstrous cynicism is beneath even the lowly standards of that woman.

There is a plausible scenario that to my mind answers all these questions:

The 2012 presidential election is around the corner.  Polls predict a nail-biter.  Obama can’t run on his economic successes, for the economy is in sorry shape.  He certainly can’t run on his health care policy, as ObamaCare is more unpopular than ever.  The president’s advisers come to the conclusion that foreign and anti-terrorist policy is his ace in the hole.

They devise a catchy slogan: “Osama bin Laden is dead; al-Qaeda is on the run.”  President Obama and his minions mercilessly mock Mitt Romney as a hopelessly naive tyro who can’t hold a candle to the president, with his vast knowledge and experience.  Thus, it is vital to maintain the fiction of Obama’s victory in the fight against the terrorist threat.  Anything that would explode this myth could be disastrous to the president’s re-election chances.

The U.S. intelligence obtains advance knowledge that Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, is planning a major military-style attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.  What’s to be done?  To send reinforcements to secure the facility would inevitably cast doubt on Obama’s boasts and, more damaging, attract attention to the U.S. operations in Libya’s second largest city.

What are the Americans doing there, and why hadn’t they left, like the Brits and others, in the face of numerous terrorist threats and provocations?  There is every reason to suspect that the “diplomatic” facility was in fact a CIA center supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, including many al-Qaeda loyalists.  Without congressional approval, such a clandestine operation would be illegal (although Obama would certainly lose no sleep over such an all too familiar transgression).

But the terrible optics of Washington arming America’s mortal enemies would certainly be a major headache to the Victor over al-Qaeda.  Furthermore, news that Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity would call into question the merits of Obama’s little victorious war to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, destabilizing Libya in the process.

Clearly, the Benghazi terrorist attack had to be kept under wraps, no matter what, lest Obama’s campaign be blown out of the water.  Thus, a decision was made to do nothing so as not to attract attention to Benghazi – a decision inimical to the national interests, but logical from the political point of view.  Hence the White House’s refusal to mount a military rescue operation and its cold-hearted willingness to sacrifice Americans in Benghazi.

As a matter of fact, aside from the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi, there were another three dozen U.S. personnel who were abandoned by the Obama administration.  It was only thanks to CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, the ex-Navy SEALs who ignored orders and led to safety the besieged Americans, that those people avoided the fate to which they had been consigned by their commander-in-chief.  But we have every right to speak of twoscore actual and would-be victims rather than just four dead heroes.

Finally, the infamous video.  Considering the apology offered to the world of Islam by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo ahead of any disturbance and the speed with which the administration scapegoated the video, it is hard not to suspect that it was a trump card prepared in advance and held by the administration up its sleeve to be thrown on the table as soon as the need arose.

To summarize: the White House came to the conclusion that disclosure of the truth about Benghazi would be a monumental PR disaster for Obama and a grave threat to his re-election hopes.  Consequently, it resolved to minimize and gloss over the tragedy at any cost.  And if a handful of Americans had to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s political ambition, tough. What are the lives of a handful of little people compared to the lofty goal of saving the Obama presidency?

So was there a White House conspiracy?  You bet there was.

American Thinker

Benghazi Hearings Committee Announcement Showcases Democrat Schizophrenia

May 11, 2014

By Marilyn Assenheim

It didn’t take long for the Democrat ruling class, infesting Washington’s power corridors, to become habituated to saying something and having it accepted as truth without question.  When anything happens to disrupt their sojourn amongst the unicorns of their fancy, however, Democrats have a tendency to resort to doubling down on dogmatic mythology to score points, relying on volume and repetition instead of sense.

For years, despite the best/worst efforts of the Democrat party to subvert the cause and meaning behind the Benghazi attack, the people have remained outraged and have refused to be shielded from a Democrat political agenda that has yet to be laid bare.  When e-mails, previously redacted and withheld from Congress, were unearthed by Judicial Watch’s successful lawsuit against The White House, John Boehner reversed his previous stance on launching investigative hearings on Benghazi.  It appeared that not only had there been a deliberately fabricated tale, instructing Obama's minions on what to say and how to say it, but the e-mail specifically stated that the tale was designed to serve the president’s agenda – to make him look good and deny that Benghazi had anything to do with faulty presidential policies.

The White House immediately began to try to defuse the bomb they’d launched.  Jay Carney denied that he’d ever lied then denied that the e-mails, written in plain English, really were about Benghazi at all.  But it was too late.

The story had exploded, and the demand for House hearings could no longer be dodged, even by Boehner.  An undisguised antagonist of the conservative base, Boehner nevertheless appointed Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, a hard-line conservative, to chair the committee.  Gowdy’s appointment as chairman made matters worse for Democrats.  Cue Democrat panic.

Depending on who is being quoted, Democrat strategy for containing the fallout is all over the map. 

  Responses in the last couple of days range from muddled vehemence to sanctimonious pity to attempts to convince America that the committee is nothing but a political gambit.  FOX News quoted Nancy Pelosi. 

 Her comments appeared to display equal parts projection and Dissociative Identity Disorder: “What we've asked for is as much bipartisanship as possible,” but also, “[t]he fact is this is a stunt. This is a political stunt; that's what this is. We've been there, done this, over and over again.”

Then there is CNN’s report, citing Steny Hoyer, number-two Democrat in the House.  Hoyer seems to share the afflictions.  He called for meaningful bipartisanship: “If they [Republicans] want to have a substantive effort, it ought to be an equally balanced committee so this is not an exercise in partisanship.”  He urged a Democrat boycott in the next breath: “Hoyer said he would urge all fellow Democrats to vote against the bill creating the [committee].”  Just to be certain that he’d covered all of the bases, Hoyer’s parting shot attempted to sell the idea that a House investigation proves that Republicans believe that Darrell Issa is incompetent: “Either they [the House] think Mr. Issa is a competent chairman and is pursuing a competent investigation or they don't[.]”  Darrell Issa, who doesn’t think he is incompetent, supports the House hearing and is a huge advocate for Trey Gowdy serving as chair.

The back-benchers contribute to the Democrat spin cycle.  Charles Rangel, D-NY, shares his own Sybil-wannabe moment.  CNSnews.com provided a platform:

• Ennui: "I don't think people, Americans, Democratic or Republicans, are going to lose sleep over Benghazi.
• Pity: “I think it's tragic that the Republican Party would destroy itself in 2016 by not having one issue that the American people believe should be a priority…”
• Deflection: Issa's Oversight Committee “has had all of these hours and days and weeks and months investigating this, that now you're saying you have no confidence in him, so you have to bring in a new member to head up a new committee to find the answers?”

Democrats resurrect bipartisanship only when they are at a disadvantage.  Remember when they lost the House in 2010?  After losing over 60 seats, Democrats insisted that their meager numbers be seated among the Republicans, who vastly outnumbered them, during the State of the Union speech.  That had never been done before.  It had nothing to do with “bipartisanship”; they didn’t want to look bad in front of a television audience.  Strangely enough, the issue of bipartisanship didn’t trouble Democrats when they literally locked Republicans out of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meetings in 2009.

 Even The Daily Beast, a longtime supporter of POTUS, came out against the disgraceful behavior of Democrat subterfuge from the top down.  A column, written by Ron Christie, despite negative comments about the president, cannot be attributable to racism.  Mr. Christie, too, is black.

I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t…I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun…I’ll tell you what’s BS, Mr. Tomasky: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night in service to their country…We need a Special Select Committee on Benghazi to…ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. We need truth, not bullsh*t, from the president and his administration, but so far, that’s all they’ve been shoveling.

One can only hope that Democrats, in their misguided arrogance, will elect to boycott the House Benghazi hearings.  Unlike ObamaCare, IRS and NSA misdealing, and a rogue Justice Department, this is an issue with persistent “legs.”  Americans remain infuriated at the ham-handed, derisive, and insultingly incompetent arguments Democrats have thrown against the wall, hoping that something – anything – will stick.

If Democrats in the House take their ball and go home, it will provide final evidence to anyone watching that they are craven hypocrites rather than persecuted victims of Republican injustice.

American Thinker

Global Cooling Underway

May 7, 2014

By Sierra Rayne

With global temperature data now available for the first three months of 2014, an interesting trend has clearly emerged: global cooling.

No longer is it just a hypothesis.  For the first quarter of each calendar year since 2002, it is effectively a fact at reasonably strong statistical significance.  Here is the data.

That downward trend since 2002 has a p-value of 0.097 (r=-0.48), which is below the p=0.10 (90%) threshold used in many climate science studies for statistical significance, and very close to the standard p=0.05 (95%) threshold generally employed across the physical and biological sciences.  The same level of statistical significance is obtained regardless of whether parametric or non-parametric trend analysis methods are employed.

Some readers may be looking at this plot and thinking that the global climate data since 1880 looks a lot like a cycle, with a stable period (of neither warming nor cooling) of, say, 140 years in length between the approximately 70-year long alternating cool and warm periods.  It certainly has that appearance.  If such is the case, we would expect a return to "normal" January-March global temperatures by 2050, give or take a decade or two.

In the United States, the January-March 2014 temperature was well below the 20^th-century average.  There has been no statistically significant trend in January-March temperatures in the contiguous USA since 1980.

None, for 35 years and counting.  The same lack of trend applies for the December-February temperatures.  Depending on how you define winter, either – or both – of these timeframes is considered the wintertime period.

So there has been absolutely no change in wintertime temperatures in the United States since before Reagan was president, and yet the The Guardian is reporting that the latest National Climate Assessment finds climate change to be a "clear and present danger" and that "Americans are noticing changes all around them ... Winters are generally shorter and warmer."

There is no trend – I repeat: no trend – in wintertime temperatures in the United States since 1980.

On an annual basis ending in March, there has been no change in the contiguous U.S. temperature since 1986 (actually, probably since 1985, but we'll give the alarmists the benefit on this).  You get the same result on a calendar-year basis.  That's right: there has been no change in annual temperatures for the United States since Bon Jovi had a number-one hit with "You Give Love a Bad Name," the Bangles were telling us to "Walk Like an Egyptian," Madonna was asking her papa not to preach, and Robert Palmer was "Addicted to Love."

According to Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey, "all areas are getting hotter."  All of them?  So bold, yet so inaccurate.  The entire Ohio Valley climate division has not seen any significant warming on an annual basis since 1896.  The entire U.S. South climate division hasn't warmed since 1907.  Neither has the entire Southeast climate division since 1896.

The National Climate Assessment claims that "summers are longer and hotter."  Hotter summers?  There is no trend in the average June-August temperature (aka summer) in the USA since 1930.  Same lack of trend for July and August average temperatures.

On an annual basis ending in March (allowing us to use the most complete dataset possible), global warming stopped cold in statistical terms during 1997.  And since 2002, the correlation coefficient has – in fact – turned slightly negative.  Very weak evidence for global cooling, but on the balance of probabilities, since 2002, there is more statistical evidence for global cooling than there is for global warming.  Scientists such as Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, have been making similar predictions for global temperatures.

In the Southern Hemisphere, where climate scientists are now apparently warning that the "Antarctic Ice Shelf [is] on [the] brink of unstoppable melt that could raise sea levels for 10,000 years," the annual cooling trend since 2003 is even more probable (r=-0.22, p-value as low as 0.34 using non-parametric approaches).

The poor-quality science reporting on climate change is ubiquitous.  Over at the Daily Kos, we find a plot of "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)."  Given that oceans cover 71 percent of the planet's surface, what possible meaning could a "global temperature" derived only from "meteorological stations" have?  The answer is none.  Any talk of a global temperature must include both land and sea data, and be properly weighted according to station type and location.  And this assumes that the data itself is correct.  Various climate skeptic websites have repeatedly shown that we need to doubt the data itself, not just the analyses.

As the countdown to the proposed climate agreement in 2015 ticks along, expect more of this hysterical nonsense not founded in the underlying data, as well as more concerted and emphatic denials of the global cooling phase we may be entering.  One can only hope that the moderately conservative leaders in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom will not fall prey to the hysteria, but instead take a principled scientific stand in 2015 and lead the charge to reject any international climate agreements.

Unfortunately, many crony capitalists – including a number in the fossil fuels industry itself – are starting to see greater financial benefits for themselves by going along with the hysteria, rather than fighting for reality.

Perilous times indeed.  The next couple years may not only see the end of America's economic domination on the world stage, passing the torch instead to communist China, but also witness the final death throes of rigorous, objective science in the public interest.

American Thinker