March 24, 2010

CNN answers all your burning healthcare questions

As in, the most important. Their answers are truly amazing. Astounding. I will highlight some of what I consider the best (although they are the worst) of the batch with bold below. Also, make sure you don't miss the part about who will be taxed if they don't sign up for some kind of insurance... and who won't be.

Truly enlightening. It's a good thing we have the CNN spin machine to run all our sincere worries through so that they can come out all sparkly clean. No, it's not "rationing" healthcare. But, there is this term called "comparative effectiveness..."

Snakes in sweet suits. I'm talking to you, Anderson Cooper.


Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?

Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. (But it didn't mention "unemployed," only "self-employed, " and there's a difference.). Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?

Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage. (This only mentions small businesses - with less than 100 employees. What about corporations, or any company with more than 100 employees? The answer doesn't even address them.)

Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?

Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though. (Thanks for your compassion, CNN!)

Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?

Answer: Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms. (Yeah, right.)

Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?

Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget. (There's a pretty big disconnect between the first two and last two sentences. The latter portion of the "answer" doesn't address the actual question, which was about overtreatment increases. It only talks about malpractice lawsuits.)

Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?

Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.

Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?

Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies. (Plenty of money for abortions and birth control via "Planned Parenthood," but nothing for infertility cases between married people. Yup, that makes sense.)

Praying for our Country

This came as an e-mail from my former pastor. I think it's a good answer to my thoughts from yesterday.


I don't normally send out e-mails to the congregation that are political in nature. However, this one I think we should read because of it informs us in part on how we need to pray and how we ought to be good citizens.

There is in our land a constitutional crisis and we have just witnessed the most glaring evidence of it in the passing of the healthcare bill. Agree or disagree with the President, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing that happened this weekend past the founding fathers had envisioned as the fruit of our constitution. See the closing paragraph below.

We need to pray for our government and for our elected officials. If you are interested in current events and the article below resinates with you I recommend you find yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers (I keep a copy of these on my iPod). These were originally op-ed pieces written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton between October 1787 and August 1788 advocating the ratification of our present constitution. They remain the best commentary we have on the interpretation of our constitution. For additional reading I recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by men such as Patrick Henry who for saw much of the present problems in Washington.

My point in this e-mail is not to promote a view on healthcare but to encourage us to be concerned for the legal and moral basis for our government.

Pastor Doug


Constitutional Awakening
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 24, 2010

If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.

While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?

One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.

Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.

The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.

Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

March 22, 2010

This is it

I really feel like it's all hopeless. Politics, what's the point of caring? Putting effort into contacting reps and standing up for principles doesn't yield results. At least, not those that are good. Why bother?

How to fight to stay positive when everything feels like it's imploding? I'm feeling very ecclesiastes. I know I'm always supposed to feel psalmic and praising, but I don't. I just don't.

Sorry if I ruined anyone's day by posting this.

March 10, 2010

Post from the Vault

*I wrote this post back in September (note the references to then-current news stories), but never published it. How come? Eh, I write a lot and when it seems redundant I just save it. But the writing seems ok and I don't have another post so here it is.

At first glance it seems dated, but just imagine that Obama is talking about health care instead of vague rallying and it will make sense.


I wondered why no one commented on my "indoctrination wagon" post a while back. Was it because everyone agreed, and there was nothing else to say? Or did people think I was some left field conspiracy theorist, trying to rally people around suspicion of President Obama's well-meaning education speech?

After watching any of the following videos, you might be leaning toward the former. Better yet, you'll be sitting upright in either exasperated anger or fear, hoping there is something you can do about it.

The changeover from capitalist American government to socialist dictatorship didn't necessarily start with Obama, he's just the first one to run with it. Subtle changes in the way children are now educated to think about the world, and themselves, started decades ago.

When science was shown to be a valuable tool for discovering things about the outside world, it was then turned inward, on man himself, in a complete misuse of empiricism. Now man depends on himself for answers and truth, being autonomous where he once recognized the Creator as being in full control, and with solitary knowledge of what is true.

Meanwhile, philosophical theory turned toward as well.

God did not vacate the schools when prayer time was taken away. God was ushered out through the side door when scientists proclaimed, "We've got a hypothesis we can test" and set out to dissect man's mind. What other explanation is there for social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology - to be so dominant in the universities today while language and history (traditional, not revisionist) have dwindling enrollment? That which is objectively, demonstrably true is not chic. Instead, so-called "social justice" programs are some of the most popular. Why study what was to know what is? Why not simply rewrite the story to suit your own agenda, or the agenda of those people who make you the most uncomfortable? After all, because students are no longer told what Americans have done right, what could they possibly think but that they are to blame and reparations - for everything - are in order?

Group of adults meeting in support of health care reform bill. Are they saying "hear us, Oh God" or "hear us, Obama?"

Song to praise Obama. "All are equal in his sight."

Another song to praise Obama. "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Si we can!"

The orignial "fired up, ready to go video." He seems pretty happy to be announcing his upcoming presidency. Keep in mind this video is from 2007.

Another angle of the most recent 2009 'fired up' video. "We will change the world with our voices." I would say this is more campaigning, but he's actually acting like a celebrity instead. Just enjoying his status for now.

They want him just as much as he wants them. Disgusting. Not a shred of critical thought in the place.

March 9, 2010

Women and Children First

A lot of you will probably not be able to stomach much of this story. I, for one, will not watch the video the woman made for YouTube, though I may read a transcript of the CNN interview. Something tells me actually seeing this woman visually while hearing her talk about her "experience" might make me so angry I will punch a hole in the wall.

Before I say anything about the story that potentially makes me that angry, let me give a preamble.

"Womanhood" is a hotly-contested subject. What makes a woman a woman? How should she behave, in public and in private? What should she think of caring for others, especially children? Does she have an instinct or inborn desire to act femininely, or must it be cultivated? Is that trait even necessary? Should she sacrifice for others, or put her own interests first, regardless of the consequences to family, friends, etc.?

If you've read this blog intermittently, you'll know I fall pretty squarely in the Biblical womanhood camp, meaning I believe a woman has a God-given desire (and it is a positive, character-building gift) to care for others, to nurture, to be gentle, to be kind. My pro-life stance has naturally followed from this idea.

But I didn't always feel this way. Ashamed as I am to admit this, there was a time when I was very self-serving, and ambitious in a limited way, only doing what would help my causes regardless of who got stepped on in the process. And I felt completely at ease with doing so because I felt it was my duty and right as a woman to "reclaim power" that I had been "denied." My point is that women feel differently about "what it takes" to be a woman, some falling into the former camp (Biblical womanhood) and some in the latter (what I will call the "empowerment" group).

Accordingly, the opinions on children and how women ought to care for them vary widely, depending on the group one falls into. I know women on both sides, and everywhere in between. Women who strongly oppose abortion but have had one themselves. Women who had children at a young age, not knowing if they wanted to be a mom or not. Women who are strongly pro-choice but who desperately want children of their own. Women who have great careers but grieve over not being able to have children. Women who had miscarriages and risked another pregnancy anyway. And, women who have absolutely no interest in kids at all, their own or anyone else's.

There are grand statements and misinformation readily available from supporters of abortion. One in particular is that abortion is acceptable because there are many cases of rape, incest and threat to the woman's life in which abortion is the only way to save them. In reality, cases of pregnancy by rape or incest, or cases in which the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy account for less than 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. That is to say, the abortion industry does not primarily perform for high-risk pregnancies; it is used most often as an "on-demand" option.

Another statement frequently made by so-called "pro-choicers" (in quotes because they really only vie for one of the choices; what about family planning and adoption efforts? Nearly non-existant in most abortion clinics) is that "it's not a baby, it's only a fetus." But what exactly are the criteria? He can't communicate verbally? He's not big enough? He can't make memories? I highly doubt that they would allow the same argument for cases of stroke patients who become non-verbal, cannot form new memories and withdraw into their own worlds. How about dementia patients and brain injury-sufferers; are they also inhuman (or non-human)? If so, are they not also expendible? That is not a claim I think they would accept.

And even though I support it, the pro-life arguments seem to be very simplistic at times. People will say, "Consider the life of the baby first" without qualifying that the mother's life is also a concern. Not more of a concern, mind you, but something to consider nonetheless. And, of course, the assumption is here on the pro-life side that womanhood requires a committment to making sacrifices for someone else. The "pro-choicer" does not believe that a woman must act for anyone but herself, so the urging to "think of the baby" always falls on deaf ears. The "pro-choicer" also doesn't believe it's a baby (as we've already noted, it's totally unqualified, but..) so that's not an issue for them either.

Sadly, "pro-choicers" see choosing to have an abortion as a symbol of "empowerment," a loosely-defined term encompassing the idea that, because women at other times have not had access to abortions in a medical facility, women today must take advantage of this option. In a similar way, women of my mom's generation seem to grasp tightly onto the notion that women my age must take advantage of every opportunity to participate in society simply because we can. They want us to go to college and get married and have children and stay at home and go back to work and be politically active and active in church and somehow make time to be reflective of all these roles. I think many my age see choosing not to abort a baby as giving up their freedom. Which may be true in a time committment sense, but goes right back to the question of what it means to be a woman. Is a woman defined by doing the same things a man does, and nothing separately (like having children)?

Which brings me to the original story, which is basically thus: a woman, Angie Jackson, got pregnant, claims her life was in danger because of the pregnancy, decided to take the RU-486 abortion pill to abort the baby and subsequently sent both twitter updates while the pill took effect, and made a YouTube video describing the event. Later, CNN interviewed this woman, who claimed it was an "empowering" experience, and she was determined to "demystify" abortion. She also says that "when a woman wants to talk about it [abortion]" there is a "strong reaction," implying that women aren't supposed to talk about it whenever they want to.

Maybe. But perhaps people are repulsed less by the dialogue in general (after all, abortion is a pretty widely talked-about topic these days) and more by the circumstances: describing an abortion to the general public, publishing the event on public forums twitter and YouTube, claiming the baby growing is a "parasite, " and more. The most depressing, and anger-inducing, aspect is this woman's glibness about the event. I've known a few women who had miscarriages and it was a horrible experience for them, surely not something they would want compared to a self-induced abortion. After all, abortion is a choice whereas miscarriage is most certainly not.

One last thing: Jackson, known as "Angie the anti-theist" on YouTube (not mentioned in the CNN interview at all), claims that her life was in danger, yet nowhere does she mention the diagnosis except for saying she had back labor during her first pregnancy (which she delivered normally - the child is now 4 yrs old). If you're going to go public with such a personal thing, why not disclose the reason for doing it in the first place? Seems like a huge missing piece to the story. Jackson was supposedly also advised after the first child not to get pregnant again, because it posed a risk to her life. So... why did she take the chance? That is pretty irresponsible.

You can judge for yourself. I'm interested to read and encourage your comments, from either sides of the debate. Here are a few links:

the HotAir story, complete with video of the CNN interview and the YouTube video from the woman

a blog with comments about how "awesome" and "empowering" it was for this woman to post her abortion experience, which will surely "demystify" abortion and encourage others with her "courage"

another report, which says Jackson is a "cult-survivor"

commentary from a pro-choice woman - who had an abortion she describes as "painful emotionally and physically" - pertaining to the self-aggrandizing nature of twitter

and, the obligatory abortionist-sympathetic Huffington Post article which actually says this: "Worried about her health and her young son (who's four years old), she decided she would have no more children. But, despite using birth control, she and her boyfriend found themselves facing another potentially dangerous pregnancy." So, she knew she shouldn't have kids, didn't have a tubal ligation, and yet we are to believe they innocently "found themselves" facing another pregnancy? That is to say, the HuffPo has taken the couple's responsibility completely out of the picture.

If it is Jackson's choice to abort the baby, why isn't is noted that it was her choice to get pregnant in the first place? Or, was she unsure that pregnancy was still an option unless she was rendered impregnable by surgery?

March 8, 2010

Hail to the Chief

I couldn't help but giggle when one of the panelists said, "Why shouldn't Jay-Z be sitting in the President's chair? After all, he's created more jobs than Obama."

But seriously, first Shakira is sitting down to tea and child poverty talk with B.O., now Jay-Z and Beyonce are getting a President-led tour? Aren't there more important things our President should be doing?

March 3, 2010

In this Case, With Extra Foam

Have you heard about the "Coffee Party" movement? It's a new and super hip group founded by an equally hip documentary filmmaker, Annabel Park. It's kind of a misnomer to call it a "movement," since so far it's only a Facebook page and a handful of 6-person meetings. But if you read the New York Times or the Washington Post (who ran a 1,700 word piece^ on it!) you'd think this is a group growing by the thousands nationwide, with plans to overthrow the Tea Party agenda altogether!

One problem is that the Tea Party movement doesn't exactly have an agenda, despite what MSNBC, et al. would have you believe. The grassroots groups loosely organized under titles like "Tea Party Patriots" simply believe in a number of principles: limited government, economic stability based on fiscal responsibility, the American Dream, supporting small business ventures, etc. But there have so far been no agreements on specific steps to take in order to restore those principles in our current situation.

So why does the Coffee Party's founder/chief organizer, Park, write things like this on twitter*: "we need to re-engage the grassroots movement that got Obama elected. we need to get busy. cannot give it away to teabaggers?"

First of all, it doesn't need to be said that the teabagger term is completely offensive. I do NOT think people who use it are ignorant of its meaning, and their continued insistence on using it to describe the Tea Party members is not only juvenile but obstinate. Secondly, what is being "given away" to the Tea Partiers? Is there a monopoly on grassroots political movements? Perhaps Ms. Park thinks - like many other liberals do - that only liberals can/are allowed to be passionate about politics and compassionate toward particular groups of people?

This is actually a common phenomena; an issue comes to light and the liberal response is, "We care, republicans don't." Take poverty in America for example. A typical liberal reaction is, "We care so much about poor people! We want them to be better off! It's not their fault they're poor. We have to revamp welfare to include more people. And by the way, those filthy republicans only care about money for themselves so obviously they don't care about the poor." And so welfare gets expanded and liberals get to feel good about themselves for being so compassionate.

The reality is, welfare does not help poor people; it almost promotes a lifestyle of dependence on the government because it offers nothing in the way of encouragement to find a job. And if, at the same time, liberals in Congress are preventing jobs from being created (because they've bankrupt our economy with programs like welfare), then there will be less chances people can get off of it upon landing a job. You can't get hired if there's nothing to be hired for.

Yet the popular opinion is still that democrats/liberals care about the poor, minorities and children, and republicans/conservatives don't, the reason being that they love money so much that it blinds them from seeing other peoples' needs.

Well, I fall in the latter of those political camps and I can tell you why I don't support welfare: I think more of people than that. I think people can succeed, if given some basic tools to do so. Like, job counseling for example. Or grants to go to technical college** so that they can actually land a needed job, one that is somewhat recession-proof (like basic needs people have: plumbing, carpentry, electrical, sewer and of course cable tv - hee hee). And the best tool that can be given to a job seeker, especially in an economy like this one, is encouragement to keep trying, keep applying. I believe in every single citizen's ability to "make something" of themselves.

So what does this have to do with the "Coffee Party" group? It's just another instance of liberals trying to mimic a sincerely felt passion for an issue (in this case, limited government) with a reactionary, cleverly titled (to them, at least) spin off group. They are trying to co-opt the Tea Party and "modernize" or perhaps "youthanize" (ha) it so that it appeals to a younger crowd. I guess they think that the Tea Party picked "tea" for the literal reference? Like, old people drink tea and young people drink coffee? I guess Annabel Park didn't catch that the Tea Party associates itself with - DUH - the Boston Tea Party? Whereas the "Coffee Party" has, for me at least, a reference to those elitist pseudo-intellectuals who sit around an "dialogue" in coffeehouses.

But I don't think I'm too far off in making that connection, since it's basically what Park has said she hopes will happen with the Coffee Party, as quoted here from the Washington Post article: "let's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion."

Yup, because there has been no "real" political dialogue at any of the tea party rallies. Park just can't seem to keep the superiority out of her tone. Yet, her "movement" sounds a lot less like a strong brew and more like extra foam.

Post Scripts:

^If you are really itching to read the WaPo piece, you can find it here. Ugh.

*Does anyone else find it annoying that twitter publishes without capitalizing anything? I guess the idea is, "What I'm writing is so important that I couldn't be bothered to capitalize" or something. But then, why include punctuation? Those hipsters over at twitter confuse and irk me.

**And not scholarships to liberal arts colleges (which liberals, including Pres. Obama, love to promote), which train people to be liberals and not for any real career! Which, of course, is precisely why they want kids to go to them over other kinds of schools (tech, private, seminary, etc.).

March 1, 2010

Liar, Liar, Climate on Fire

Copied directly from Hot Air (Ed Morrissey). But that my title =)

Basically the story is that the Institute of Physics has submitted a scathing commentary about the Climategate scandal. In short, not only did the distorted climate change "facts" push an agenda, but the whole act calls into question whether or not they were practicing credible scientific methods at all. Not only that, but they repeatedly refused to publish their "findings," which were in discord with loads of other published data on the same topics.

The British Parliament has begun an investigation into the meaning of the East Anglia CRU e-mails, and part of that process is a form of peer review, in a sense. Their Science and Technology committee has welcomed commentary from the scientific community, and among those members is the non-profit charity, the Institute of Physics. In their submission, the IoP says that the UEA CRU e-mails don’t just indict East Anglia, but the entire AGW industry — and that “science” wasn’t what they were doing at all (via Watts Up With That and Mike Ross, emphases mine):

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

And as far as the science being settled, or even “science” as understood by the public as conclusory data, the IoP has issues with that characterization as well:

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

In other words, the claims made by AGW advocates didn’t match the data available elsewhere. When challenged on this, the AGW advocates refused to release the data to other scientists, and finally refused to release it under a Freedom of Information demand. When it looked as though the government would get their hands on the data anyway, the CRU conspired to destroy the data, along with other AGW advocates around the world.
The IoP doesn’t trust East Anglia to restore confidence in the AGW movement’s claim to science, either, because the fraud went well beyond the boundaries of the University of East Anglia:

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

This is a devastating critique from an objective scientific community. It exposes as risible the notion that, as EPA Director Lisa Jackson attempted to insist, the UEA CRU e-mails only revealed a lack of interpersonal skills among AGW advocates. As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.


Here is a link to the original post on Hot Air


Related Posts with Thumbnails