If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

Two warring political factions in southern Philippines results in the deaths of 57 people, including women and reporters. This is one of the rare massacres of innocents today which did not involve Muslims.

Terrorist attack on Russian train kills at least 26. If you have heard about this story, then you have also heard that this is probably the work of Chechen terrorists, an ethnic minority that living in Russia's Caucasus region. What kind of minorities? This is rarely mentioned in these stories, or held back until the bottom of the story, but these are Muslims. It is possible that Major Hasan’s mosque has ties to these Chechen terrorists.

Even though Congress voted to de-fund ACORN (and it is not clear for how long), the White House has determined that it is legitimate to continue paying ACORN as per their current contracts (they have contacts with the government?).

In a related story, ACORN employees throw out 20,000 documents which may be germane to California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s investigation of ACORN.

Perhaps in response to President Obama’s new soft approach to diplomacy, Cuba began its largest military maneuvers in five years on Thursday, saying they were needed to prepare for a possible invasion by the United States.

5 leaders from Australia's opposition Liberal party have resigned their posts rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd's Government on a new Emissions Trading proposal (i.e., a cap and trade bill).

NIWA (New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) is now under assault for manipulating temperature measurements.

3 Navy SEAL’s grab up one of Iraq's most wanted terrorists and are now reportedly facing criminal charges related to his capture -- all because he has a bloody lip.

Tareq and Michaele Salahi crash a White House dinner, and manage to get through security. They get photos taken with Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel and meet the President directly. It is not clear whether White House security or White House policies are to blame. However, the fact that they got this close to the President of the United States is being taken seriously, given the fact that there are a variety of weapons without metal in them.

Concerning the recently revealed emails in Climategate, Jon Heonig said, “You would hang a businessman for this.”

“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.” a portion of one of the Climategate emails.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." from the Climategate emails.

“When the name of the "hacker" is finally released, we need to nominate him for a Nobel prize in economics, because his actions may well wind up saving the world economy trillions of dollars over the next decade.” posting by Georgfelis.

New York Times with regards to these emails: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here." (apparently forgetting about the Pentagon Papers).

In another article, the NY Times reads: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.”

The Wall Street Journal takes a different tact: “we...now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”

"If we don't take immediate action against climate change, we are in grave danger of disruptive and devastating changes," said Kim Carstensen, the Head of WWF Global Climate Initiative. I am guessing that stands for the World Wrestling Federation.

In an AP story this week, after citing temperature increase, oceans rising, and horrendous droughts and wildfires, tells us: “Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.”

“[Liberals] cannot be honest about their intentions; they cannot be honest about their agenda; they cannot be honest about who they are.” Rush Limbaugh.

“When you are successful [in Afghanistan],” John McCain explained, “the exit strategy takes care of itself.”

“When you hear a politician say, ‘I didn’t get $100 million, I got $300 million,’you just want to puke.” Gary Kay on the money paid to Louisiana to get one Senate vote for healthcare.

“It s the mindset of government that, ‘I can spend money better than you [the public] can,’ ” Dagen someone on a FoxNews panel.

With respect to global warming, Cal Thomas said, “Al Gore won’t debate anyone on it and the media presents it as religious doctrine.”

Political commentator Roseanna Barr observed, “I know that [Barack Obama] can only do what he can do with what was left. I mean, George Bush walked out the door with all the money.”

Time cover story: “The Decade From Hell And Why The Next One Will Be Better.” As an addendum, I want to remind you that a year or so ago, I gave you the numbers which are important to Americans: unemployment, interest rates and the inflation rate. When comparing Bush’s numbers to Obama’s, I believe that only the most committed liberal will say Obama presided over better times.

Martha Stewart, when asked why Sarah Palin was so polarizing, “She’s a very boring to me very boring and a very to me, uh kind of uh a dangerous person, I mean she’s dangerous; she speaks, and she she’s so confused and anyone like that in government is a real problem.” The CNN interviewer, “Have you been able to catch any of Sarah Palin’s interviews?” “Why is everyone asking that? I wouldn’t watch her if you paid me.”

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez met in Latin America on Wednesday and denounced US imperialism (apparently misunderstanding the definition of that term). Chavez also called Israel "a murderous arm of the Yankee empire."

Steve Crowder is interviewed about Club Gitmo, and we get a much more balanced view of what goes on there:

I will admit that, for the longest time, I thought that the more people who voted, the better. I have since changed my mind on this. Steve Crowder asks Hollywood if they know who the Vice President is:

Greta had a show on the TEA parties, and I think it was a re-working of this show; it was quite good (but the original show is a month or two old):

Glenn Beck re-ran a fantastic show, which I had not seen before, “The Death of the Dollar”:

Stuart Varney interviews Ed Begley Jr. (who is one of the few climate warming enthusiasts who is not a complete hypocrite). Begley and Varney both get rather excited.

Or, if you would prefer your news in such a way that you can dance to it (Hide the Decline):

Keith Olbermann spends about 5 minutes discussing Biblical prophecy and Sarah Palin’s beliefs (the video is embedded in the story as well as a transcript of Olbermann’s show):

I don’t know if this is a must-watch either, but it is the falling polar bear vid:

Martha Stewart’s nearly coherent opinion of Sarah Palin, whom she calls confused and dangerous.

In case you did not see it before, here is las week’s cold open to SNL, where Obama is actually mocked (about halfway through, the skit goes off the tracks with an obscene approach) (there is an NBC comercial first):

1) The reason that Obama did not give McChrystal the number of troops he wanted was, Obama could not have dithered for 3 months and then finally given him what he asked for. He has to make it look like he thought this thing through.

2) Obama, as the most left-wing of his party, has a tough line to walk in Afghanistan. He had been proclaiming this the real war, which George Bush took his eye off of. A few months ago, Obama gave the ultimate speech on Afghanistan, informing the public of our new approach and strategy. So, right now, he has to make the left wing of his party think that he can hardly wait to take our troops out of Afghanistan (and Iraq), while, at the same time, adding troops to Afghanistan. The one thing Obama cannot do now is lose in Afghanistan; this is what gave the Republican party a surge a few decades back—a Democratic Congress stopped funding the Vietnam War, and so we lost a war. Many Americans did not like that approach to war at the time and began to vote Republican. So, Obama’s approach: appear to be really thoughtful and almost give the general what he wants.

3) One of the attorneys for the 5 terrorists said, on FoxNews, that we are demonizing these men.

4) I believe that there has been a heightened awareness as to the ickiness and bribery involved in Congressional bills. Quite obviously, a majority of Americans do not have the time or the interest to give much thought to what goes into Congressional legislation; however, I believe that millions of people are beginning to realize that the present corrupt system we have for passing legislation (e.g., bribing a Senator $300 million to support a bill) is just wrong (even if most of this money just goes to that Senator’s state).

5) Some apologists for the Stimulus bill say that there were tax cutes in the Stimulus bill. This was tax money which was sent to people who did not pay taxes. There is a big difference sending money to people who are poor as opposed to providing long-term tax breaks to a small business. A small business has to look at the bottom line, and they have to look ahead for the next year or more, and make decisions based upon a variety of factors, including what government does. One of the biggest problems when FDR was president was, businesses did not know what FDR was going to do next. A businessman is going to take a wait and see attitude, if government is behaving in an unpredictable manner or in such a way to cause him to lose money, then he is not going to expand his business, and therefore, he is not going to do additional hiring.

8) Here’s a fascinating tidbit: global warming is continually sold as saving the planet for our children; and yet a higher percentage of people without children support global warming legislation than people with.

If we place a 100% tax on everyone who makes over $500,000/year, this will not be enough to cover Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit for this past year.

Government spending now accounts for 24% of GDP, which is unprecedented (President Obama’s favorite word).

466,000 newly filed claims this week for unemployment benefits; there is less and less reporting on these numbers in the alphabet news.

The last quarter growth was adjusted downward to 2.8%; since people are not spending more and businesses are not growing, this seems to be government-driven growth.

Proposed: 5% war tax, 5.4% healthcare tax and the Bush tax cuts will expire. The so-called rich will be on the hook to the federal government for about half of what they make each year.

49% of voters nationwide now rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. That marks a steady increase from 44% at the beginning of October, 35% in May and 29% a year-and-a-half ago.

38% favor the health care legislation currently working its way through Congress.

Every day brings more evidence of climate change scientists cooking the books. Is this being reported anywhere except on FoxNews, talk radio, the WSJ and by a few bloggers on the internet? Insofar as I know, ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored this story. CNN has reported on it, but to dismiss it as unimportant.

Senator Mary Landrieu for being bold enough to reveal that she got a $300 million bribe (for Louisiana) rather than $100 million, as was first repeated.

In the light of Climategate, will you allow science to more carefully examine the question of global warming before proceeding with any further legislation or treaties dealing with climate change?

Geithner, Romer and Summers are all the faces of Obama’s economic team, although they have not really fashioned any of Obama’s policies. 1 or more of these will resign or be fired in the next few months, as a sacrificial lamb for the lack of jobs out there.

Jim Pinkerton predicts that, because of their incredible unpopularity, the criminal trials of the 5 terrorists will not take place. However, I disagree. However, I don’t see Obama or Holder backing down here.

If a second stimulus bill is offered up, it will be just as ineffective as the first one. Even though I believe a so-called jobs bill will come out of Obama’s job summit, it will be Stimulus 2, and equally ineffective.

Every single proposal from Obama or the Democratic House is going to be a cleverly disguised wealth transfer.

Various global warming legislation and implementation will move forward, despite the fact that the scientific community is calling into question the theory of man-caused global warming.

I posted one of my stories on FloppingAces.net, and I am going to have to more carefully proofread what I submit:

There are two ways to deal with the healthcare problem (which is not as big of a problem as it is made out to be). You either transfer as much wealth as possible from those who have to those who don’t, and somehow, with government programs and oversight, morph that into healthcare-related agencies run by the government, and force all people to buy insurance (under threat of imprisonment and/or harassment of the IRS) or you do everything possible to lower the cost of healthcare and depend upon the majority of Americans to choose to purchase some sort of healthcare insurance.

The first involves a reduction of freedom, more government, an overall higher cost and more government mandates, the second involves a lower cost, less governmental interference, more freedom and more personal responsibility.

This is, ideologically speaking, the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals look at government involvement and government mandates as being the solution. Conservatives look at a reduction of government and more personal freedom as being the solution.

Let’s look at some of the mandates in the two bills which are in Congress right now: you cannot charge women more than men for a healthcare policy; or old people more than young people. Deductibles must be low. Healthcare policies must cover pre-existing conditions without charging more. All of these conditions means that healthcare insurance will cost more.

How does this help the poor? It doesn’t; not if they have to pay for their own healthcare insurance. Since Obama really does not have a stash of money, as some people think, who pays for their healthcare. Other people. We are told over and over again that just another couple percent will be taken from the rich—they can afford it.

The other option is to go the conservative route, which is the freedom option. Now, even though prominent Democrats will tell you the Republicans have no plan, almost any politically-knowledgeable Republican can tell you whta the conservative platform is: (1) tax credits for health insurance; (2) torte reform; (3) fewer governmental restrictions on policies; (4) ability to purchase insurance policies across state line; (5) you pay for what you get—additional coverage costs more. (6) And the reform I want to see: you ought to be able to understand what your policy offers based on the information on one page (I’ve gone into more detai lon this in previous issues).

The conservative approach drives down costs; the lower the cost of healthcare insurance, the more people who will buy it. The more people who buy it, the fewer who go without healthcare insurance and the fewer people who are bankrupted by medical debt.

There is another big difference: the liberal plan will cost in the trillions; and conservative plan will cost next to nothing to implement.

President Obama has done some things which have confused some liberals—he appears to be bailing out large Wall Street firms and some large big businesses, but he is letting the little ones fail. For instance, over this past year, over 100 banks have failed. The government goes in, dinks around with their books, and they open up again, but they are owned by a larger bank. But this doesn’t happen to, for instance, Bank of America. The government does not treat them the same way; the government gives them money (or loans them money).

When it comes to the tax code, it is the same deal. Obama is going to raise the taxes on people making over $200,000 or $250,000 per year. But about half of these are not individuals, but they are small businesses. What happens to these small businesses with all of these tax hikes (3 big ones have been proposed); they go under. They go into bankrupcy or allow themselves to be bought out by a larger company. Many liberals like small businesses. They like the ma and pa corner stores; they like the little coffee shops and bakeries; and yet, Obama’s taxes are going to hurt them more than anyone else.

Why? Isn’t Obama a liberal? Doesn’t he want to see these little businesses succeed? In a word, no.

Obama can persuade large businesses and corporations. He’s got the AMA and AARP on board for his healthcare plan, even though the groups which most vociferously oppose Obama-care are physicians and older people.

What is Obama unable to control? Hundreds of thousands of little businesses. Some of them like him and some of them don’t, but he (1) cannot step in and take over a host of small businesses like he can GM; and (2) he cannot get a majority of small businesses on board for any of his plans. Most small business owners understand that Obama’s plans will run their businesses into the ground (do you recall how many TEA party spokes-people were small business owners?).

So, don’t be shocked when Obama gives this or that large organization $5 billion or $50 billion, even if their current business practices suck. If he gives them money, then they have to do what he says. And that is what Obama likes.

The other day, you took issue with a Republican platform, where all Republican candidates were asked to sign on and agree with 7 out of the 10 positions. You said that this was limiting our party. Now, I don't know whether you said that to be provocative (I believe that you did), but such a declaration is just as much for supporters of the Republicans as for the candidates themselves. We want to know that Republicans are going to actually stand for something. I could care less if some Republican bill gets through as opposed to some Democrat bill, if there is only a slight bit of difference between them. Saying that a candidate ought to be able to sign on to at least 7 of the 10 tenets is completely in line with Reagan saying, "A man who disagrees with me 20% of the time, agrees with me 80% of the time." (or whatever the quote was). We, as voters, do not want someone with an R next to their name voting for and going along with Democratic bills with which we disagree.

On the other hand, you point about presenting a positive platform as opposed to a negative platform is well-taken.

The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails-confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

The Australian Antarctic research station Casey, where scientists study the effects of climate change.

Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. He's right that it doesn't look good that his May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" Mr. Mann says he didn't delete any such emails, but the point is that Mr. Jones wanted them hidden.

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited-in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI-the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released e-mails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.

The misconduct exposed by the e-mails is so apparent that one scientist, Tim Ball, said it marked "the death blow to climate science." Another, Patrick Michaels, told the New York Times: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud."

Although I am not a scientist, I know something about global warming, having written about the subject since 1993 and recently edited an 880-page comprehensive survey of the science and economics of global warming, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered," written by a team of nearly 40 scientists for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

The content of the e-mails doesn't surprise me or other skeptics in the warming debate. We have been saying for many years that the leading alarmists have engaged in academic fraud, do not speak for the larger scientific community, and are exaggerating the scientific certainty of their claims.

Tens of thousands of scientists share our views, including many whose credentials are far superior to those of the dozen or so alarmists the media quote and promote.

The implications of these e-mails are enormous: They mean the IPCC is not a reliable source of science on global warming.

And since the global movement to "do something" about global warming rests almost entirely on the IPCC's claim to represent the "consensus" of climate science, that entire movement stands discredited.

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinion about global warming to stop and reconsider their position.

The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is real evidence they should examine and then comment on publicly.

It's possible that the e-mails and other documents aren't as damning as they appear to be on first look. (I've read about two dozen of them myself and find them appalling, but others may not.)

[The odd numbers throughout are links to the emails and data to substantiate the claims made in this article; a link will be provided at the end in case you want to do further investigation].

They're calling it "Climategate." The scandal that the suffix -gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world's wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael "Mike" Mann that he has just "completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps . to hide the decline"(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some "trick."

Mann later (2003) announced that "it would be nice to try to `contain' the putative `MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back" (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann's desire to "contain" this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for "the publication of crap science `in order to stimulate debate'" and that they "must get rid of von Storch" (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a "fundamental problem w/ GRL now," referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because "they have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so" and "it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible." Tom Wigley responded that "we could go through official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted" (1106322460). A few months later, the editor of GRL having left his post, Mann comments, "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there" (1132094873).

Having seemingly succeeded with Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters, the most recent target of the scientists' ire has been Weather, a journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS). Phil Jones commented in March 2009, "I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS" (1237496573).

This issue is all the more important because the scientists involved in these discussions have repeatedly accused their critics of being irrelevant because they fail to publish in the peer reviewed literature. For example, in October this year, Mr. Mann told Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.

If you are saying on the one hand that you will not take notice of someone until they have been published while on the other you are working behind the scenes to stop any such publication, I would venture to suggest that you are not operating with any degree of bona fides either towards the media or the legitimate scientific process.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this better evidenced than in the email reproduced in full below (minus Dr. Jones' contact details):

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't

have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers' Alliance in the UK, "at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008."

The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.

This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to attitudes toward FOI. Numerous other references are made about ways to avoid divulging information (the following summaries are by the blogger Bishop Hill):

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them."(1106338806)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. (1107454306)

There appears to be a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to prevent the release of information subject to FOI.

There are many other disturbing revelations in the CRU Papers, including a particularly disturbing assessment by a computer programmer of the state of CRU data. These have yet to be fully analyzed.

So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science - paleoclimatology - has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.

Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is

grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire

Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

What's hidden in health care reform that you haven't heard about? Plenty. Without a news media interested in questioning the contents of the legislation, how could you know about the punitive taxes and job-killing provisions lurking in it?

My clients in the restaurant industry alerted me to the House bill's mandate that all restaurants and retail establishments that are part of chains, franchise groups or multi-brand groups of more than 20 outlets be required to prominently post accurate calorie counts for most food items sold - including items on salad bars and buffets or self-serve counters.

Maybe this seems "healthy" on its face, until you consider the costs, the legal liability incurred in getting inaccurate information and posting it, the competitive disadvantage foisted on businesses with 20+ outlets vs. those with 19 or fewer, and the broader point of health care reform being used as means of creating new and expansive regulatory activity and interference in our lives.

(Incidentally, should you happen to own 20 restaurants, I advise shuttering the least productive one or ones and putting the staff on the unemployment rolls immediately. If you were thinking of investing in opening another restaurant and creating jobs, don't.)

The Senate bill includes a tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures. Does it on elective cosmetic dentistry procedures? Or on massage therapy chosen for general "feel good" stress relief vs. injury rehabilitation? Of course, it's intended to only "tax the rich," as are most of the new taxes created by the Senate bill.

But women might note how much revealed in past week is aimed at their gender: a tax on cosmetic surgery; the panel recommendation that that life-saving diagnostic tests could best be postponed by a decade and then done less frequently. Democrats appeared hither and thon blathering about too much testing causing unnecessary anxiety and unnecessary, costly surgeries. It reminded me of the head of Health and Human Services' fairly recent opining about seniors getting scooter-chairs at Medicare's expense, when they could just walk.

These are just two examples, one targeting restaurants, bakeries, cookie stores, popcorn stores, convenience stores, coffee shops, movie theater snack counters, etc.; the other targeting cosmetic surgeons and the hoity-toity, rich women who waste money on wrinkle removal, when that cash could go to feed starving urchins or fight global warming. These are not the only two, in those 2,000 pages or so in each bill - 4,000 total; and climbing. Countless special interests are favored. Countless specific businesses, products and services and consumer choices are singled out for discriminatory, punitive taxation or costly, burdensome regulation.

Never mind that the government demonstrates daily its incompetence at administering the regulations already in place, or the responsibilities it already has - evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud pervading the present government health care program, Medicare. Forget about the rats and filthy conditions found in the veterans' hospital right there in Washington, D.C., under their noses, which most have already forgotten. It was a big news story, briefly. Ignore the fact that Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam in a heavily regulated industry. Don't give a thought to the government's inability to control the U.S. border . Need I go on?

Regrettably, mainstream media has not made dissecting these bills its mission, to itemize each and every individual target, tax, created power.

Here then, in general, is what is hidden in the House and Senate's versions of health care reform:

1. An impossibly complex collection of new rules, regulations, and entirely new bureaucratic boards and committees empowered to make up more rules and regulations after the fact - creating a crushing avalanche of unfunded mandates to state governments and untold new costs to hospitals and doctors' offices, and other affected employers, thus killing jobs. My admittedly unscientific, common sense, K-Mart calculator deduced estimate of the jobs slaughter is at least 5 percent to 15 percent of all in the private health care sector.

2. Myriad attempts to suppress the consumption of health care, now that the government and not the private sector will be paying for it. President Obama himself has accused doctors of unneeded operations, of taking out Tommy's tonsils when a cough drop might do, and said that Americans get too much health care, that more is not necessarily best. Translation: you're going to get less. Starting with seniors and women.

3. More direct and concealed new taxes than you could read off a teleprompter in a month. For example, there will be the equivalent of a value-added tax (VAT) on medical devices, with a bureaucrat at liberty to decide what might be a medical device.

They have made this clear: they are determined to get a bill passed (and their media friends are determined to help them). Any bill. No matter how poorly constructed, how incomprehensible, how expensive, how destructive, how laden with unknowns. They so desperately want a win, they'll sacrifice anything for it. Integrity. Sanity. The economy. Your life.

Apparently, there is some image out there which Michelle Obama looking like a chimp, and Mary Elizabeth Williams, of Salon.com, bashed Google of all places, for allowing it to be pulled up with their search engine. Now, is the end game to set into motion things which search engines can and cannot find on the internet? In any case, Salon.com had no problems with identifying George Bush with a chimp.

The Media is outraged when the church gets involved with conservative politics; but it supports churches when they become supporters of liberal issues:

About 5 weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh talked about a possible connection between Obama and the NFL back in October when the conservative talk radio host was forbidden to be a part owner of the St. Louis Rams:

I know all of the you people say, "Rush, don't be distracted!" I'm not being distracted because what is happening to the National Football League and what is about to happen to it, has already happened to Wall Street, has already happened to the automobile business.

DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the Players Association is an Obamaite. He's donated to Obama. He is a Washington lobbyist at Patton Boggs, and I think he even served on Obama's transition team. He has no experience in professional sports. The National Football League's agreement, collective bargaining agreement with the players expires soon. Next year, the salary cap -- if they don't get a new deal done, next year the salary cap -- will go away. And after that, there is a fear that the owners -- who think they're giving up too much of the gross in salary, compensation to the players -- might lock them out, a work stoppage. This is something that the Players Association doesn't want, obviously.

And the real reason, the real reason -- and there are many, many reasons that are valid, but the real reason -- that pressure was brought upon me by Sharpton and Jackson and DeMaurice Smith and the commissioner is that the Players Association is using my involvement in the Rams and this whole episode as a bit of leverage in their negotiations, the upcoming negotiations with the league and with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement. That is what's really going on, and the Players Association... I don't know how many players know this, but Mr. Smith has let it be known that if he has to he'll bring the White House into this. He'll bring the Congressional Black Caucus into this.

So Obama's America is quite possibly going to include the National Football League, and pressure from Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and other places might be brought to bear on the owners. I can't imagine that that's anything they want. You know, as all businesses are, they're regulated to a certain extent by the federal government but this would be a huge expansion of that. And that threat is being bandied about. And I don't expect anyone to admit it. The owners are not going to admit that. They don't want to. I'm sure that the reaction to this today will be, "Ah, Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about." It will be another one of these things, but that is one of the things that I do know is going on behind the scenes.

And of course to make me the poster boy here for, "Oh, my God look! These guys, would they ever consider Limbaugh?" It's designed to intimidate the owners, frighten the owners and say, "We're running this league now, gang, not you. Even though you may own the teams, we're running it, not you," and this was a little warning shot fired across the bow to the owners to say, "Get ready, here we come," for the next collective bargaining agreement.

This past week, President Obama joined the NFL players in a Thanksgiving Ad. The NFL was there to promote playing sports to curb childhood obesity, and Obama was there to sell children on the concept of community service. Here are more of the details:

RUSH: I'll tell you, these e-mails that we told you about last week from that group in Great Britain that formed the basis for the UN's climate change panel and their recommendations, those e-mails apparently now are the real deal, and they may not have been hacked. They may be from a whistle-blower inside the organization who is just unhappy about what's going on.

Now, the bottom line is, the whole man-made global warming movement is a fraud. It is a hoax. It's made-up lies. I have known this since the beginning of the movement. I'm the one who said that militant environmentalism is the home of displaced communists after the Berlin Wall came down. Now, scientists cannot rely on common sense. So the anti-global warmers have to go out there and get their own science to counter the science that the pro-global warming crowd is using, and they're making it up. I instinctively know this for two reasons. One -- and I've explained in great detail before so I'm not going to do it again because of time constraints -- is I believe in God. As such, I don't believe that progress in human beings God created destroys the planet. And that's what they are asking us to believe and have been asking us to believe for... Well, I first heard about this movement in 1979, back then it was global COOLING that was going to kill us. By 1984 it had become global warming. Basically what they're saying is advanced lifestyles, increased standards of living, progress is killing the planet. No. That premise is something I have rejected from the get-go. I don't think we have the ability to. But this is not science. I'm not a scientist. I'm just a guy imbued with an above-average abundance of common sense.

I've never been able to be convinced that driving automobiles will destroy our planet or our climate, when there are volcanoes that are far more pollutant-oriented than our automobiles are, and they've been going off since the beginning of time and we're still here. But I don't want to go through the lecture that I've done many times before. I want to focus on the fraud and the hoax that has been perpetrated, led by Algore. They have been making up data. They have been jiggling the numbers. When conflicting data was discovered that didn't fit what their agenda item was, they ignored it. These e-mails indicate that they despise and are obsessed with their critics. They set out to have to destroy them. It's just liberalism. You know, liberals are liberals wherever you find them. In the global warming movement, in the health care movement, in the US Congress, in the White House, wherever they are, liberalism is a lie from top to bottom.

Well, liberalism must lie because if it were honest, if liberals were honest about what they were going to do... For example, if Barack Obama said during the presidential campaign, "My plan is to fundamentally change the way this nation works. The capitalist system has been unfair. It's left too many people disadvantaged, too many people poor and too many people rich. What I am going to do is destroy it, and I'm going to make sure that there aren't any more really rich people. We're going to take everything that they've got and distribute it to other people -- and we're going to make the government larger and larger and larger in order to do this to ensure the new fairness that I'm going to bring to everybody. And one of the first ways we're going to do it is run up a debt of $12 trillion that's going to require massive tax increases from now 'til the end of time that will prevent the accumulation of wealth" do you think he would have won? No. What did he campaign on? A bunch of nothing: Hope, change, marvelous speeches, platitudes, words! If Barack Obama were honest about what he's doing and what he intended to do he wouldn't have gotten 10% of the vote, maybe 20. There are enough wackos in this country maybe to get him 20% of the vote.

By the same token, if the Democrats on Capitol Hill and Obama were honest about what the real purpose of their health care bill is -- to raise taxes, to totally control every aspect of human life in this country -- they would never, ever have gotten this far with it. If the global warming people had said, "We are aligned with our liberal socialist brothers all over the world. We believe in a one-world government, and we believe that the United States has too much of the world's wealth. So we are going to create a crisis that is designed to make Americans think that they are destroying the planet, so that they will then feel guilty and that they will feel guilty over polar bears being killed and so forth. We'll get their kids all in line and then we're going to go for world government and world tax increases to fleece the United States so that we can join our leftist brothers in the United States to control that population and as much of the world as we can." If they had said that, they would have never convinced one person to sell an SUV. If they had said that, they would have never convinced one person to buy a Prius.

My point is, they cannot be honest about their intentions; they cannot be honest about their agenda; they cannot be honest about who they are. Some of them are; some of them let it slip. Barney Frank, for example, has said that in the midst of all this change the middle class is going to be so distracted they won't have the guts or the energy to fight us. The middle class is the enemy. The liberals make the middle class think that they are the chosen ones, that the left cares about "the little guy," the average guy, and are going to soak the rich. The left goes after everybody. They hold everyone in equal contempt. They must. Their whole reason for living is the desire to amass power, to control everybody's lives. In doing so they have to assume and tell themselves that you aren't capable of living life on your own without them. I'm talking primarily about liberal leaders. The sad thing is that they have convinced so many Americans -- via academia and pop culture, they have convinced so many average Americans -- that we now have an actual Looney Toon bin of 20 to 30% of our population who also believes this stuff that is willing to destroy their own lives for an ideology that they don't even really understand.

So all of liberalism is a lie. Liberalism must lie if it is to stand a chance. And the lie has been good, because the lie of liberalism has been rooted in compassion and caring, and fairness and nondiscrimination, equality, saving the planet, cleaner air, clean water -- as though people are opposed to that. Behind the lie lurks disaster; insidious, hideous, near-criminal disaster.

RUSH: Years ago, folks -- years ago on this program -- I explained that communists, leftist ideologues flocked to the environmental movement after the end of the Cold War. Collectivists found cover for their new agenda, and the collectivists attracted leftist pseudoscientists who were milking the scam for grants from corporations, universities and government entities. There are so many whores in our midst, from members of Congress, members of the US Senate, and members of the scientific community who are whoring themselves out for money, abandoning science, the pursuit of truth, in exchange for advancing a leftist political agenda. I have known this, and I have warned of this. I've not been able to prove it, however. I've simply had to rely on my powers of persuasion, my common sense, and my belief in God to convince people I'm right. Now we have these e-mails. It was a lie from the beginning. I laid out the reasons why it should be scrutinized and nobody listened because the issue was so important, saving the climate, saving the air, saving the water, saving the polar bears.

Little kids were getting scared to death being forced to watch Algore's stupid, lying movie. Parents were required to come in and watch it with their kids in school under the threat that the kids would get docked grade points if the parents didn't show up to watch it. Serious thinkers, scientists began to dig into the science of this new theory warning of man-made global warming. People like Dr. Roy Spencer -- much was written that did not comport with global warming theories but the State-Controlled Media ignored their work and went to work on their reputations. The media preferred the opinions and declarations of politicians like Algore. You ought to see the New York Times story on this. The New York Times story on this is fascinating. New York Times: "We Won't Publish 'Statements that Were Never Intended for the Public Eye.'" We're not going to publish these e-mails. They were never intended for the public eye. Ever heard of the Pentagon papers? New York Times published those. Don't think they were intended for the public eye.

RUSH: Serious thinkers and scientists began to dig into the theory of man-made global warming and they found things to be suspicious of, they found things unaccounted for, and they found things ignored. But they did not assume they were being lied to. They always gave the pro-global warming people the benefit of the doubt. What was that? They gave them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they were scientists. So they examined with great care all of the items produced by the pro-global warming crowd. The mistake was not understanding that they are liberals. The mistake was not understanding who and what liberals are. The mistake was accepting the premise as genuine. But they're scientists. I believe in God and I have common sense, and I understand the role of man in the universe is not all that big. We simply aren't that important. The earth is older than any of us will ever be, inhabitably so. There have been nuclear bombs dropped on this planet. We've done everything in the world that they say will destroy it and it just keeps going.

I'm not a scientist and so what I say would not have scientific credibility. But common sense is common sense. Then we had Michael Crichton. Michael Crichton wrote the book, State of Fear and began to publicly challenge global warming alarmists. He said global warming is being treated more like a religion than science, a religion for secular humanists. Another one of my original theories was confirmed as the haze of global warming was just beginning to clear. Then Algore wins his Nobel Peace Prize for being the Bernie Madoff figurehead of this scam. Algore's movie and slide show began to receive the attention it deserved. It was picked apart, dissected and exposed. It was no more credible than your average Michael Moore movie -- and then the weather changed! It became impossible to ignore science when summers weren't so hot, when winters were way too cold and all the scaremongering about hurricanes just didn't transpire. And the darn sun, like a leopard, changed its spots! They went away. Sunspots went away, and the global warming crowd said, "Well, that's not a factor." The sun was not a factor in global warming! People ask me, "Why don't you believe it? The pro-global warming scientists say the sun is not a factor." Sorry. So these e-mails have been published. The lie is now there for all to see. The Bernie Madoffs of global warming were caught and hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin for cap and trade.

RUSH: Now, my friends, health care... The entire Obama agenda, stimulus, Porkulus, whatever -- the entire Obama agenda -- the auto bailout, the Cash for Clunkers, the home tax credit thing, every one of those items is the same kind of fraud as is the man-made global warming hoax. It is being advanced by the same kind of people for the same kind of reasons, because they are all liberals/socialists/ communists/fascists. Here's the Media Tweak of the Day: If anyone ever hacked into Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's computer, we would find the same kind of fraud and deceit that we have in the global warming scam.

Now, the media coverage of this is fascinating. New York Times (paraphrase): "We're not going to publish things never intended for the human eye." Andrew Revkin: "A thick pile of private e-mails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. Before they propagated, the purloined documents, nearly 200 megabytes in all, were uploaded surreptitiously on Tuesday to a server supporting the global warming website RealClimate.org."

Now, this from the Dot Earth blog at the New York Times. It was from Friday. I almost passed on it. What would you expect from a journalist and from a newspaper whose job depends on promulgating a lie? Which, by the way, is a situation so many journalists at the Times and elsewhere find themselves in day after day: Promulgating a lie. Journalists themselves promulgate lies. Global warming lies, health care lies, you name it. If they're promulgating the liberal agenda, they are promulgating lies. So what would you expect when confronted with one of their lies has been exposed?

Well, what do you do? You run a story or two: "Greenhouse Gases at Highest Level Ever!" That's the Associated Press. "Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion" in 50 years. Or 40. By 2050. That's from CNN. "A possible" possible "rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry." It's a hoax, and so when the hoax was exposed last week, here come the promulgators of lies, the State-Controlled Media, to double down on these stories that all feature panic. By the way, that's another thing to learn: Every liberal agenda item is first preceded by a panic that could kill you (or is killing you). Be it the climate change, be it health care, "You're gonna die! Your kids are gonna die!"

Liberalism is a rotting piece of scum, and everything it touches gets destroyed. One of the things that the Climate Research Unit e-mails show is that the global warming skeptics are not such a small, unimportant fringe -- as Algore and the rest have tried to say. The pro-global warming scientists obviously are completely obsessed with their critics, and it's clear from the e-mails that the pro-global warming scientists were and are doing everything they can to prevent the other side of the argument from being heard. This is what our media calls "consensus."

Now, Mr. Snerdley asked me a moment ago, "If these guys didn't figure it out, how come you did?" Well, because I guess I am imbued, again, with a decent education and common sense. I know that science has nothing to do with consensus. And so the primary selling point of the global warming crowd has been "a consensus of scientists." Consensus, meaning a majority. But there are some scientists that don't believe it? Well, wait a minute: That's not science we're talking, then. We're talking politics. If you're going to put a word like "consensus" and join it with scientific activity, then it's no longer scientific activity. It is impossible (if words mean anything anymore) for science to be science if all there is to prove a theory is consensus. So it's not been hard for me to understand who these people are. (interruption)

Snerdley is yelling at me again: "You also don't fall prey to this touchy-feely feel-good stuff." Yes, that is true, 'cause I realize it's phony. But I'm also an individualist and a self-reliant person, and I realize that feeling good is up to me. And I want everybody else in the world to feel good! It's up to them to feel good. Just because I want them to feel good doesn't mean they're going to feel good. Or: "We're going to do things to make ourselves feel better as a people. We're going to have health insurance for 20% of the uninsured and we're going to spend $2 trillion to do it, and the bill is over 2,000 pages." Do you ever ask yourself, "Why does it take 2,000 pages to come up with a plan to insure 30 million people with health insurance?" What the hell do you need 2,000 pages to do that for? Is there an insurance policy that is 2,000 pages? Give a lawyer a month and I'm sure he could write one. Two thousand pages to insure people? That's what people say. "Oh, yes, we're good people! We're insuring the uninsured, Mr. Limbaugh, and we're going to lower costs!" Two thousand pages to do this? Actually, 4,000, 'cause there's a 2,000-page piece of crap over in the House, too. So 4,000 pages. Senators whoring themselves out for millions, hundreds of millions to vote for it.

And it's the same wherever you find liberalism. It's looking more and more like these Climate Research Unit e-mails. And, by the way, I got a graph here from their website and the Climate Research Unit at the University where all these e-mails came from. Even their own chart here shows that there has been no warming for the last ten years. Even they weren't able to lie about that. There has been no warming the last ten years, and their chart even shows it! I have it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. It looks like, by the way, more and more that these Climate Research Unit e-mails were released by an insider, a whistle-blower. The file was called FOI 2009 for a reason. This information had been sought for years through UK Freedom of Information requests, and information was destroyed -- and the e-mails showed that information and scientific data that would disprove the man-made global warming theory, was tossed out. But the CRU, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia and other universities and organizations simply refused to comply with the Freedom of Information requests, even ultimately claiming that all the data had been lost. Now we know why they fought releasing the information to the public for so long is because it was made up. So you might say or ask, "How were they allowed to get away with it?" Good intentions: "Clean water. Clean air. No polar bears dying. Flipper swimming free in the oceans. No pollution. No smokestacks. No filth." Who's opposed to any of that? Plus, we "save the planet." Why, we will not flood our coastal areas if we do this. The problem is they weren't all on the same page. They're all a bunch of Froot Loop nutcakes combined with seriously sick liberal agenda people, and the fruitcakes will go out and say some of the most ridiculous claims in the midst of the purported science.

That's another thing, Snerdley. They come out and say, "That's already passed the point of no return. I mean, if we do everything we can't fix it." Wait a minute! Then my common sense says, "Wait a minute: If we can't fix it, how the hell did we cause it?" I think that may be my problem with liberals: I just have too much common sense. Common sense, belief in God, belief in right and wrong, I'm a threat. Ditto Sarah Palin. (interruption) Who's no help? Oh! No, logic is not much help, especially if logic threatens the safety of the false, phony, lying, sick cocoon liberals live in.

Oh, oh! I forgot to mention one thing. Do you remember there was an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati, the old TV show, where they drop live turkeys from a helicopter as a publicity stunt? There is... I need to get this website. It's a YouTube site. I'm going to link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. Dean, go ahead and put it up there. That's Koko Jr., because Koko is out on vacation. It is a video. You don't even need to hear it. It is a video of polar bears falling out of the sky, dying, crashing on top of cars in deserted cities. They're crashing into the side of buildings.

It's a UK spot and it's all to illustrate that every person who flies on a commercial jet is responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as the weight of one polar bear. So to illustrate that they have polar bears dying, they're falling out of the sky. I'm sorry, folks, but that kind of stuff does not persuade me. That kind of stuff tells me these people are nuts. Plus, I had a very fortunate thing happen to me: I was born a Limbaugh. And I learned starting at nine what liberals are, who Democrats are. I had a continuing education in it, and it never stops to this day. So it's Thanksgiving week. One of the greatest things I'm thankful for was being born a Limbaugh.

RUSH: If you missed the first hour of this program, let me sum up for you: Liberalism is a lie. All of liberalism is a lie. The media are liberals and they promulgate lies. We know that the man-made global warming hoax is now...a hoax. E-mails from members of the Climate Research Unit responsible for the UN's climate panel prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that data was rigged, made up and ignored all to advance a political agenda. Liberalism is a lie and people who are liberals have to lie about what liberalism is in order for it to have any chance at all at the ballot box or in any other democratic situation. I now have for you two illustrative sound bites that are purely disgusting. They both come from our president this morning in Washington. He launched the Educate to Innovative campaign, a nationwide effort that will motivate and inspire young people across the country to excel in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Here's a portion of his remarks.

OBAMA: [A]nd we live in a world of unprecedented perils, but also unparalleled potential. Our medical system holds the promise of unlocking new cures, but it's attached to a health care system that's bankrupting families and businesses and our government. The sources of energy that power our economy are also endangering our planet. We confront threats to our security that seek to exploit the very openness that is, uh, is essential to our prosperity. And we face challenges in a global marketplace that link the trader to Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, to the office worker in America to the factory worker in China, an economy in which we all share an opportunity but we also share, unfortunately, in crisis.

RUSH: The vast majority of that is just pure bilk. The vast majority of that is just drivel. We do "live in a world of unprecedented perils," and now they include internal perils, and he is one of them. "Our medical system holds the promise of unlocking new cures," but it won't if his health care is passed. Our health care system is not "bankrupting families and business and our government," he is! President Obama is bankrupting families, businesses, and government. The sources of energy that power our economy are not endangering our planet. He may not have heard that anthropological global warming, man-made global warming is a hoax yet. He may not have heard that. I doubt that he hasn't heard it. He has heard it. He knows it's a hoax. Gore knows it's a hoax. They all have known it's a hoax. It's just the latest diving board that they have used to jump into the pool with the next liberal policy. "We confront threats to our security that seek to exploit the very openness that's essential to our prosperity," like bringing terrorists to New York City for a criminal trial that the president is doing. That's certainly exposing us to threats. "We face challenges in a global marketplace," and we do, because President Obama is bankrupting the country and running up trade deficits, balance of trade deficits. It's a disaster in the making -- all by design. But in the next bite you will hear our president say all these problems can be solved.

OBAMA: The key to meeting these challenges, to improving our health and well-being, to harnessing clean energy, to protecting our security and succeeding in the global economy will be reaffirming and strengthening America's role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation -- and that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators. That's why education in math and science is so important.

RUSH: He is right, except science has been politicized. The science curriculum at every level has been politicized and is now just one of the many weapons the left uses to advance its agenda via lie after lie after lie. "The key to meeting these challenges, to improving our health and well-being, to harnessing clean energy, protecting our security, succeeding in the global economy, will be reaffirming and strengthening America's role as the world engine," which is being destroyed. The world engine is one of the things Barack Obama does not like about this country. America being the world's engine is something he's out to change. Jeremiah Wright doesn't like it. Bill Ayers doesn't like it. Frank Marshall Davis, who raised Obama, doesn't like it. Obama's father did not like the United States being the engine of the world. Calypso Louie Farrakhan does not like the United States of America being the engine of the world. These are all friends and associates of President Barack Obama. He doesn't like America being the engine of the world, either.

It took 15 years for people to trust me and believe me on global warming. I was out there all alone for all those years with the first environmentalist wacko updates, trying to warn people about Earth First trying to destroy the timber industry. That's what they were really all about. Because I was not a scientist people initially rejected me. After a while the kooks got kooky enough and the weather didn't cooperate with these people and so forth, and the truth eventually won out. But, by the way, I don't think that's over. I don't think they're just going to give up the cause. Don't for a moment think that. The New York Times, the Washington Post, say those e-mails are taken out of context. They don't give us the context of the e-mails in their reporting, they just say the e-mails are out of context. So when I tell you that Barack Obama does not like the United States being the engine of the world, and you say, "How can you say it?" Common sense, again, folks. I know who he is. I know who educated him; I know who raised him; I know who his mentors were; I know who his friends are. And I only had to listen to him apologize for his own country once to have all of those associations confirmed and their importance.

I only had to read about a brother of his that lives in a six-by-nine-foot hut in Kenya that Obama will not help. He's asked his family that lives there to apply for government grants somewhere in that village in Kenya. He won't help 'em personally, but somehow he's the nicest, most compassionate, smartest, most elegant president we've ever had. I'm sorry, I know liberals, folks. I know liberals. I know the premise of liberalism. It's a tough thing to accept it, but once you do, everything after that is easy. Liberalism is a lie. I know many of you know liberals and you think they're nice people, maybe just wrong. You don't want to think of them as liars. You prefer to think of them as just "misguided" or "wrong."

They're liars! Many of the rank-and-file liberals are dupes. They're well-intentioned and have no idea what they're actually supporting. They fall into this, "I feel good about myself. I see a homeless person and I say, 'Oh, why don't we do something?' I'm a good person." You haven't done anything! You just thought something and made you feel like you're a good person. Conservatism solves problems. Liberalism blows 'em up and amplifies 'em in the name of fixing them. So once you accept that every liberal politician in Washington or your state capital or on your city town council is a liberal and therefore is a liar, then the rest is easy. You simply don't believe anything they say and you will be right. "But, Rush, I don't want to go through life that way."

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thank you so much for being America's go-to guy. Let me go straight to my point. These Climate Research Unit e-mails, I guess they concern me. There's a growing discussion that some level of civil unrest is going to be required to get this government to pay any attention to the will of the people. And it's obvious these e-mails were released in some fashion -- whether it's a whistle-blower or a hacker, in some way they were obtained -- illegally and disseminated without the consent or permission of the parties involved in the e-mails. While I do believe a greater good definitely was served by the release of this information, I guess I need you to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it in light of how it was obtained and the manner in which we've learned this information.

RUSH: Okay, good, because the New York Times says they're not going to publish e-mails that were not intended for the public eye, even after they published the Pentagon Papers and war plans in Iraq and other damaging items to the Bush administration. At this point I'm not concerned. I mean, we have whistle-blowers. We don't know that it was this was a hack. We have whistle-blowers -- and all I know is that liberal Democrats reward "whistle-blowers" who blow the whistle on Republicans and conservatives. We are in a war. We are in a war to save the United States of America from being remade into something that you and I would not recognize, and people are very much alarmed about this.

I am for anything that exposes truth. Truth has become too big a casualty in our culture, in our society, in our media, and in our politics. Everything, it seems, is a lie to one degree or another -- and the people who do not go along with the lie, who do not believe the lie, are called extremists. Somebody in this organization, if it's a whistle-blower, did one of two things. Either somebody's got their nose out of joint over the way they're being treated by somebody in that organization or they have a guilty conscious and they can no longer sit by and be part of this while they watch an absolute fraud and hoax take place. So I myself am never alarmed when the truth happens, when the truth is made, when the truth is revealed. I am not bothered. Thanks, Scott, very much.

RUSH: Here is Judy in Payson, Arizona. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you. I was just calling because I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal from a few weeks ago about the island of Vanuatu. Their president -- or I can't remember if it was this prime minister whatever -- said that with global warming they were going to be enveloped in water and overcome with the rising oceans. And the reporter said that in that country, the people are dying of malaria. They don't have electricity. They have to go for three hours to find a doctor. And this guy's worried about that? It's incredible because he was trying to fleece the West, of course. Everything was our fault and the dollars would just flow into his country. But I was just astounded by what was really going on there because I really never knew.

RUSH: They're suffering from malaria in a lot of parts of the world because we got scammed by a woman named Rachel Carson who led to the banning of DDT. If we just put DDT back in, we'd cut malaria dramatically. As to the rest, this guy is a liberal. Liberals lie and he's got a liberal or socialist-type culture, and that's why these people are impoverished, and that's why he wants everybody to believe in global warming, because he's joining the crowd that wants to fleece the United States.

CALLER: Right. Right. It's unbelievable, Rush. I remember years ago when you first announced that when Mikhail Gorbachev wandered over to California, he went into the Green Party; and I've never, ever forgotten that. I thought, "Wow!" You know, "Where can you go to destroy business?" and he wandered right into that.

RUSH: Well, your illustration of this guy in this little failing island country is an excellent accompaniment to -- if I have a theme today, to -- the theme. Here you've got a guy whose population is literally impoverished and dying, and what's he talking about? Sea levels rising when they aren't. He's part of cabal. He's joined the chorus, the fearmongering crowd, and they don't care about people. You know, "putting people first," they always say. That's Clintons' slogan. They don't care about people, and your guy that you talked about seeing last night on TV, whenever you saw it, is proof of it. Obama doesn't care about people. If he did, he would at least show some emotional connection when talking about the unemployment rate, which is really 17.5%. One in five Americans is either unemployed or underemployed right now. He's not "cool and calm." The guy is COLD. But there are so many notions that we just have to sweep away, that liberals care about the little guy, that liberals care about people. They care about themselves and government, pure and simple.

CNN doubles down on global warming, saying that the 0.5 meter rise in the oceans (i.e., about 18 inches) will put at risk $28 trillion worth of assets. We need to put in deep cuts in emissions by 2015.

AP also doubles down on global warming. In this story, they proclaim doom and gloom as having been far worse that 1990's era climate models. They go into great details as to all of the arctic ice which has melted. Near the bottom of the story, they do add that the ice in Antarctic region is increasing, but that large chunks are breaking off (which, I guess has never occurred ever before?).

RUSH: This is posted in Environment, September 29th of this year: "A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the [UN's climate panel] assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British Climate Research Centre, CRU, at the University of East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

"At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a 'reconstruction' of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the ridges principally record CO2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake, and other local factors. In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This data set gained favor, curiously superseding a new and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

"How can it be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a...."

Anyway, they used all of this tree ring data to show that cold medieval times were actually sizzling hot -- or maybe the opposite; sizzling hot it was actually very cold, I forget. They used the tree ring data to alter the historical record about temperatures during the Medieval Times to advance their whole notion of man-made global warming. That's one of the primary focuses. There's a guy in Canada, and I just mentioned his name. His name is McIntyre. He has been trying for eight years to get this information to find out how they have been jury-rigging and doctoring the data, and he's been unable to get it. Much of the Yamal tree data was cherry-picked. The implication is clear. So they're doing everything they can to try to get these documents to find out how these guys at Hadley are coming to their conclusions -- and the guys at Hadley, these e-mails back and forth, write, "How can we hide the data? If we have to, we'll destroy it. A lot of people don't know there's a Freedom of Information Act law in Great Britain, and so we don't want anybody to find that out, so don't talk about that." I mean, these guys are clearly -- the "scientists" are clearly -- conspiring to see to it that their doctored, fraudulent, lying-ass data is not uncovered. Pardon my French, folks. This just burns me. I cannot tell you.

RUSH: Let me make this very simple and understandable about these tree rings. The trees, the Yamal trees in Siberia that formed the basis for revising the 2,000-year-old temperature record, the number of trees used were three. The global warming scientists used the rings of THREE trees, and they cherry-picked those three trees to prove what they wanted to be able to prove, and they ignored other trees which did not establish what they were trying to prove. They took three trees. That's all they could find. Three trees perpetrated a global warming hoax at every university in this country.

RUSH: Three trees among a forest at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia! Three trees and their rings were found by these fraud scientists at Hadley, the CRU at East Anglia University to prove the case that they wanted to make. They were manipulating science. They were making it up. They were not reflecting science. They had a political agenda and they faked, doctored, and created -- "scientific," quote, unquote -- scientific data to make their case. Meanwhile, all of this garbage science has been accepted as fact by the United Nations climate gurus, this IPCC bunch, the people hosting the Copenhagen deal next month. And the UN's climate change gurus will not even listen to other scientists who can show how flawed the data is. They will not listen to it.

Here from the final pages of an article in the UK Register: "When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails -- as it did here? The peer review failed to find that only three trees were cherry-picked and used to prevent lying, false data about warming thousands of years ago on the planet earth. The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade." They will not reveal the data that they used to come to their conclusion about ancient medieval temperature changes. This one guy just wants to apply the data they have to the theory so he can see if he can confirm it himself.

They will not allow that to happen, and a lot of these e-mails are about this guy, McIntyre -- and a buddy of his named McKitrick -- about keeping this information from everybody even if they have to delete it. Meanwhile, the Kyoto protocol and the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen is about carbon trade emissions, cap and tax, get-rid-of-your-SUV, everything! Incandescent lightbulbs being replaced by compact fluorescent! Everything about the environment has been a total fraud and a fake. You do not need to give up your SUV. You do not need to start running around getting washing machines that front load that stink up your house. You don't have to get rid of your incandescent lightbulbs. You do not have to run around and drive a hybrid to save the earth because there's nothing you can do to save it if it's in trouble, which it's not. We had a call and the guy may be right: This may be as big as proving that the earth was round when the "consensus" of scientists said it was flat. Hell, there still is a Flat Earth Society out there.

I'm sorry to be a one-trick pony today, but this has been -- if I can be honest with you, for two decades and even before that... I can remember talking about it when I was in Sacramento in 1984. I remember the show I saw this guy Oppenheimer on, and I said, "We are being scammed." It was This Week with David Brinkley, "We got 20 years to save the planet! We are warming at an unprecedented rate," and I remembered just five years earlier the TIME and Newsweek covers were all about global cooling and now all of a sudden we're warming and we're heating up. "We're going to destroy the planet! We only got 20 years," and Mr. Oppenheimer on that show, on that date in 1984 said, "We can't prove it yet, but we don't have time to wait for proof. In case we're right, we've got to start acting now," and I said, "Whoa! You are a scientist and you can't prove it?" and he talked about all the things we had to do.

Paul Ehrlich. I was in Pittsburgh for The Population Bomb, and Julian Simon made Ehrlich a bet that everything he predicted about the cost of metals and other commodities would go down as the population grew. And market forces led to demand which brought prices down. Ehrlich lost the bet and he's still a guru. Julian Simon has since passed away. We've posted this on my website over the years. This issue, global warming, has been one of the foundational building blocks for a future world global government. It has been a way for displaced communists to get their hands on the interworkings of the freedom of the United States of America. They have been toying with, polluting, and destroying people's outlook and minds. They've been lying to them and they've created and scared to death a bunch of kids over another fraud that the polar bears are dying. There are more polar bears than ever! In fact, little kids have to shoot 'em up there to save themselves. A little 17-year-old shot one the other day. They're not dying. Nothing about this is true.

It is insidious, and it has been for the express purpose of destroying the free markets of the United States of America and along with it the freedom of the people here, by creating such guilt that people would willingly go along with raising their taxes and having their choice restricted in practically everything involving energy -- all to establish dictatorial powers in governments around the world over their people, including in this country. I'm telling you, folks, it has been one of the things that I have been most concerned about. There are many things that irritate me, such as arrogance and conceit in a person's personality. I can't stand braggarts; I can't stand arrogance; I can't stand conceit, liars, and all that. But the one thing in addition to that that really bugs me is when people in power knowingly lie and manipulate the emotions of good, decent people for the express purpose of negatively altering those people's lives -- and I'm talking about you and your kids and your grandkids -- and I'll be damned if that's not exactly what's happening with health care legislation. It's what's happening with the stimulus bill.

RUSH: The same people who gave us the global warming hoax are the same kind of people that are now running the United States of America. They're up on Capitol Hill; they are in the White House. They have polluted the entire bureaucracy and their mission is exactly the same mission as these global warming hoaxers: To lie to you, to make you feel responsible for something that is not happening, to make your kids scared to death. These people should be more than ashamed. They need to be held up to public ridicule. It is simply unconscionable. Look at the audio from the video we had last week of the kids from people who work at the World Wildlife Fund, using their own kids: "Please, Mr. Obama, please go to Copenhagen! The polar bears are dying. The hurricanes are getting more frequent." Remember that? The hurricanes after Katrina, every year we're going to have 25 or 26 of them. Ocean temperatures are rising because of global warming! It's going to be a disaster.

The media camped out on Florida beaches on June 1st when the hurricane season opens looking for the next destructive hurricane. How many did we have this year? Zero! How many did we have last year? Less than five! And I don't know that all of them made land contact with the United States. How come that's not critically examined? Gore is Photoshopping pictures of the planet to show four hurricanes at one time -- one of them at the equator, which is not meteorologically possible. You cannot have a hurricane at the equator. They have one hurricane spinning in the other direction. In his Photoshop picture in his new book Cuba doesn't exist; it's underwater. Florida barely exists. A six thousand-foot sea level rise would be required to submerge Cuba -- and if it did, there wouldn't be a Denver. But Denver is still there. All of this is just flat-out, in-your-face lies -- and look who's getting rich off of it selling the scam of "carbon credits." Oh, yeah, you're flying too much on airplanes. So you gotta go out and buy some trees or invest in a company to go plant trees to soak up all the excess carbon that you sinners are polluting the planet with, when in fact you exhale it! It is not deadly!

Finally, the people who have been preaching to us about global warming have been doing so, as the left usually does, from the crisis mode standpoint. "We've got 20 years! We got ten years." Remember Ted Danson in 1988? "Ten years to save the oceans!" Ten years to this; 20 years for that. "We're killing ourselves. We're killing the polar bears!" Except it hasn't warmed in ten years, and now we've got the hoax fully exposed. Wouldn't you think that people genuinely believing in man-made global warming and its destructive results would be happy that it isn't happening? They're not. They are distressed and they're trying to cover up the hoax and they're going to try to weather the storm -- 'cause it isn't about global warming like health care is not about health care, like cap and tax is not about cap and tax, like Obama is not who he is. They're all frauds. They are all liars. They are skunks and they ought to be held up for public ridicule.

Obama said he wants to "restore science" to its rightful whatever? Then he ought to be leading the way to find out who these people are, what they've done, who they've infected, who went along with them -- calling them out by name -- making sure that every scientist at every university in this country that's been involved in this is named and fired, drawn and quartered or whatever it is. Because this is a worldwide hoax and its primary target was you, the people of the United States of America. Your freedom and your money. They knew and know the United States is full of decent people. The United States solves the problems of the world. We are not the world's problem. We solve the problems of the world. Whenever there's a natural disaster, it's we who show up. It's our military. Wherever the world is in trouble it's the United States that shows up. The world knows that we are a good and decent people -- and, in their perverted view, that means that we can be duped with the right appeal. We're destroying the planet, our progress is. That's another thing, folks. People said, "I don't get why you believe in God, Rush. Your belief in God, how does that tell you that global warming is a hoax?"

Well, belief in God is a very personal thing, but I happen to believe in a loving God of creation -- and I just intellectually cannot accept the fact that a loving God which has created all this beauty and has blessed this country -- I cannot believe that a God like that -- would punish the human being he created for progress, for improving the quality of his life. No longer do we have to follow plow mules in the fields. No longer do we have to have kids out milking cows. We have enhanced human life, the life experience, the quality of life, the standard of living. I refuse to believe that a God who created the universe would create creatures who, by virtue of improving their lives and making progress, would destroy another part of His creation.

It just doesn't compute in a logical sense. If you don't believe in God, then you probably are a global warmist or a liberal. If you don't believe in the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism or any other god you have to make some god. There has to be something bigger than you, and so it's the global warming movement now or it's health care or it's Obama or it's some earthly object that you apply godlike status to. Even atheists believe in something beyond themselves. But the point is they have used and targeted children, scaring them to death with lies. Ted Turner's been doing it with Captain Planet cartoons, getting kids to hate big business.

The left, my friends, is a truly evil bunch. They know no bounds. They have no compassion. They hide behind illusions that they are the ones who have all the tolerance, yet they are the ones who created political correctness to censor people they didn't want to have to talk to or hear from or hear about. Political correctness is a hideous way for a population to shut itself up so that there can be no objection to what the left is doing -- and the objection is therefore racist, sexist, bigot, homophobic, extremist, or what have you. People don't want to be called those names, average people going through their lives just trying to get by, especially in an economy like this.

Why run around and create controversy for yourself? So you shut up, and you might whisper to your wife or your husband in the bathroom what you really think is going on but you're afraid to say it where somebody might hear you because they might report you just like people in a grocery store might report the way you're not treating your kid right when you're pushing the cart through the aisles picking up the latest Pop-Tarts. The politically correct spies are everywhere. The left has people out there waiting to get you in line and your mind right, and the people that don't play along with it are the targets of the left today -- and you know the names. Sarah Palin, anybody in talk radio, Fox News. The Universe of Lies understands that the Universe of Truth where we all live.

The Universe of Reality, we are their biggest threat. People who have the truth on their side need to be discredited so the truth is not believed when it's uttered, and that is what is happening. But, folks, speaking of God: Thanksgiving week. Thanksgiving, the real story, is about thanking God for the bounty and the decision making the first Pilgrims made in organizing themselves after attempts at socialism failed. The true story of Thanksgiving is not the Indians saved 'em. It was about sharing their bounty. Anyway, speaking of God, this just may be a gift from God: This hacker, whoever, however this happened, this whistle-blower illustrating now the total nature of the hoax and the fraud. There is no way in the real world cap and trade has a prayer. Because it, too, is based on this hoax and this lie.

RUSH: Do you know that the Fox News Channel is the only television outlet to report on ClimateGate? The rest of the media is totally ignoring it. The Washington Post is actually attacking the "deniers." This whole hoax has been fully exposed. These people were hiding data. They were hiding data from a Freedom of Information request. There are e-mails from the guy that ran the place, this university in England, to all of his contributors and all the members of his committee: "Don't release any information. I'll delete it rather than release it, if I have to." They made up numbers. They totally ignored numbers that disproved global cooling. This is a giant, giant, giant scam. It deserves a huge investigation. And Obama, if he was worth his salt, would be the first one demanding it because this has been allowed to hijack an international agenda that is oriented toward further fleecing of the United States. That's all it is.

We're going to talk about Copenhagen. We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that's where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. A great illustration is what's happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax. We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University -- which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN's climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm. We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling. Even on this bunch's website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they've had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it. "Well, it's the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on," but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun! And without the sun, there's nothing. How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy. But the point is this: We have now the facts. I don't care how it happened, whistle-blower or a hacker.

Remember, all of this information was subject to Freedom of Information requests, and they were deleting information that would harm them. They were deleting information and fighting the release. So it's a hoax. We know these people -- and I've known it all along. I know who these people are. I know who communists are. I know who liberals are. I know how they have to get things done. They have to lie. This ought to be among the biggest stories to come down the pike in a year, and it is in that side of the universe where we all live, in the real world. As far as the left is concerned, the story hasn't happened. The Indian prime minister is talking about moving fast on Copenhagen. Copenhagen is where they hope to come up with the next Kyoto treaty to punish the leading energy producers and the leading economies of the world. Copenhagen ought to be discredited! It ought to be canceled. There's no reason for it. There's no reason for anybody to advance any piece of legislation aimed at reversing something that is not happening.

Instead, what is happening is the people in the Universe of Lies are ignoring it. Their agenda will be paramount -- and I guarantee you that as we speak, the hoaxers and everybody involved in it from Algore on up to this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University are plotting strategy on how to keep forging forward because of two things. There is a hell of a lot of money at the end of this train and these people want to get their hands on it. A lot of it is ours, a lot of it is grants from other governments, plus the power that's going to come with that. The second thing is that the scientists involved in this so-called consensus stand to have their reputations in ruin if this ever becomes a mainstream story. So they're going to move fast. Even as we speak right now, they're plotting strategy to discredit the truth of the hoax. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I know these people, and they're going to do that.

When they come out with whatever their answer is, they're going to be given total support by the worldwide media, the president of the United States, Algore. And once again it will be the people who look at the truth -- the e-mails back and forth, scientists in and outside this organization, those people -- are going to be attacked as invading the privacy of people, showing things that have never been intended to be seen in the public eye and basically characterized as extremists and "deniers" and knuckle-draggers. "I mean, people are so old-fashioned! Are we going to get serious with saving our planet?" They are not going to give this up. They're not going to give it up. Obama's even talking more about climate change legislation. Even though he may not go to Copenhagen, he's still talking about how we must at least move forward on cap and trade in this country because it's important to save the world. "We must use renewable energy. Coal and oil are destroying the planet!"

This can drive rational, reasonable, average people insane trying to juxtapose these two universes -- the Universe of Reality and the Universe of Lies. The Washington Times has an editorial on this, and the headline: "Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling," and they cite e-mails back and forth that have been uncovered that prove manipulation of data. "The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud.

"We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries," because they're involved in this. They have people that are involved. "Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory." It's worse than that. It's a made-up theory that has no scientific evidence backing up one shred of it.

RUSH: You know, folks, the two universes here -- The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality -- they don't overlap anymore. And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday. It's about everything that the left is involved in. What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media. Science has been corrupted. We know the media has been corrupted for a long time. Academia has been corrupted. None of what they do is real. It's all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome. It's bigger than global warming. And of course science has been corrupted here. Science is being used for political purposes.

It always has been, but this is a new low -- or a new high, depending on your perspective. But what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere. And if you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. "Saving the poor," while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Now, I looked up what Obama had to say about science in his immaculation speech back in January while I was thinking about the global warming science cover-up that's going on out there. Given how Obama feels and thinks about science (at least what he said about it) what will his reaction be to the "poof," as Lanny Davis would say, that top global warming scientists are really lying global warming political scientists? Here's what he said: "For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield the technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost."

Now, if, if he meant what he said, he would declare a national emergency. If he meant "restoring science to its rightful place," because it has been corrupted, he would call a national emergency. He would cancel every green program that's going on, which has as its foundation "saving the planet." He would cancel every tax increase that is scheduled or being discussed that has to do with saving the planet. He would unilaterally demand that every corrupt scientist be named and ostracized, if he really wanted to restore science to its "rightful place." He would get the bad apples out of the barrel and make sure they never got in, and he would name names and he would be outraged at this degree of corruption that has led the world down a path that will lead to the further harm, and perhaps destruction as we know it, of the United States of America.

He should be outraged! He is the leading protector and defender of this country and its Constitution. If he really meant what he said back in his immaculation speech when he said we will "restore science to its rightful place," he would be demanding heads. Heads would roll! He would want to know how this happened, how did this scam take place, who was it that thought it up, who have been the participators in this scam, and who have been their allies. Now, I don't expect any of this to happen. I'm saying this to illustrate just how far off-the-track this country has become.

He would call for an immediate investigation of all these global warming proponents to see just how much of the scientific community is practicing this fraud and this deceit. It's the biggest lie, it is the biggest fraud, the biggest scam in the history of the world. We have had treaties that nations have signed. We have seen treaties that we came close to ratifying. We're going back to Copenhagen and they're going to try to rebuild what's falling apart. All in the name of science, which is the pursuit of facts and truth, which no longer is what science is about. It has been corrupted. The only way to restore science to its rightful place is to speak out on this fraud, investigate this scam; make it right by exposing the fraud, the deceit, and the cover-up, and name names. But that's not going to happen. Because Obama himself isn't. "White House..." This is Politico.com. "White House Hits Back on Climate Critics -- It's been a bad few weeks for the Obama administration when it comes to climate change, as the White House has found itself trapped between a stalled Senate and constant hammering from world leaders on the lack of leadership on global warming. On Monday, the administration hit back."

Now, it was Thursday that the e-mails were released that we have all now read and seen and have concluded that the whole thing is a hoax, and Politico, living in The Universe of Lies, doesn't even refer to that! "White House Hit[ting] Back on Climate Critics"? I thought the story was going to be about Obama hitting back at people who are reading these e-mails and finding a hoax. No! He's hitting back at people saying he's not doing enough to advance global warming. "[A] senior White House official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity," said, "'It would be a mistake to conclude that the international community's failure to reach a final treaty in Copenhagen is due to a lack of domestic legislation in the United States.'"

So poor little Obama is feeling criticized by the people of the world who he thought were going to love him and respect him and respect the United States, and all of a sudden they're complaining to him because their history, the tradition they know, is we take the bullets. The pioneers take the arrows. We do the dirty work around the world, and Obama is not doing it on an issue that they thought he was in the can for, all signed and delivered. And now he may not even go to this thing. I don't even know how you can write the story. I don't know how you can write the story and ignore the proof that global warming, climate change -- how loudly do I have to shout it? -- IS A HOAX!

But if you live in The Universe of Lies, the last thing that you are governed by is the truth. The last thing you are governed by is reality. The only thing that matters to you is the advancement of your political agenda. And you tell yourself in The Universe of Lies that your agenda is so important the world will not survive without it and therefore you could lie, cheat, steal, destroy whoever you have to to get your agenda done -- because your opponents are eeevil, and in fighting eeevil, anything goes. There are no rules when you're in a fight with the Devil. And that is why in The Universe of Lies in this country, those of us who live in The Universe of Reality are the true enemy. We are the real enemy.

It's not Hugo Chavez, it's not Russia, it's not Iran, it's not Al-Qaeda, it's not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We are the enemy because we stand not only in the way of their agenda, but we also expose them daily for what they are: Frauds in the media, in academia, in science, and in government. In the old days before there was a New Media, whatever the government did was considered pure. The media was considered pure. Science was considered pure. Academia was considered pure. Now millions of Americans have had their suspicions of decades confirmed that all of these institutions are frauds, that they put forth a face and an image that hides their truth because it must.

They couldn't get anywhere were they honest. So The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media, have been exposed, and the real enemy are those who are doing the exposing. They will continue to live in The Universe of Lies. They will continue to report on meaningless templates like this: All these people around the world concerned about greenhouse gas emissions" and "Obama hasn't passed legislation here, and so the world can't act until Obama acts, " and you sit here, you read it and you scratch your head.

RUSH: Have you ever noticed how the media and others always declare that it's the "respected" scientists who are the ones who believe in global warming? "The consensus of respected scientists." And, by the way, I must remind you again that if there is consensus involved -- i.e., a vote -- then there's no science. If words mean anything, it's not possible. Science is not up for a vote. What is to be "respected" about lying, bending data, and cursing those who ask questions? That's the basis of science itself, is inquiry, curiosity, constant test of the data, make sure it's what it is before we say it's what it is. Algore says "the scientist I respect most," like that's some sort of accolade. They get to declare who's the scientist to listen to just like they tell us who our nominee should be based not on degrees or results, but on who they like. You can have studied for degrees and worked in the field for 30 years. They'll put up as your equal or even superior someone who wakes up one day and declares himself an "environmentalist," that has a fax machine and a cute-looking logo.

Now, the New York Times, our old buddy over there, Andrew Revkin. The New York Times is asking for information on the whistle-blower. The New York Times and Washington Post are more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistle-blower than they are in publishing the now-confirmed-as-authentic e-mails and documents. This is what passes for journalism from two of our foremost newspapers. They have been corrupted. They are parts of the Four Corners of Deceit. They are the media. Lest we forget, the New York Times and the Washington Post cheerfully directed their readers to Sarah Palin's hacked e-mails. Oh, they loved that, but e-mails which are now shown to be "authentic," these people are trying to track down the whistle-blower. They want to find out who this guy is, and they want to punish him. I have a sample e-mail from a nutcase. Michael Mann is a huge global warmest scientist. He's almost as bad as John Holdren, who is Obama's science czar -- and Holdren, by the way, is involved in this. Obama's science czar has involvement with Phil Jones' group, the CRU over at East Anglia University.

So here's an e-mail, September 30th of this year from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, who runs the unit over there.

Hey, Phil,

Let's not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your in-box with a very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes and threats that I have received. ... It's part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. it's a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer with the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the US Senate moves on to focus on the cap-and-trade bill that passed Congress this summer. ... It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper with press release came out the day before the US senate was considering the McCain. Lieberman climate bill in '05?

We're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our real climate post goes up some ways to exposing the campaign and preemptively deal with the continued onslaught we can expect over the next month. Thanks for alerting us to that detail of Koffman, et al, which I'd overlooked. We'd already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out he's really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same.

Now, it goes on to scientific data, but it clearly indicates that these people are purely political. Corporate-funded attack machine? As far as I'm concerned, most major corporations are on board with this crap! General Electric is basing its future on all this garbage. General Electric? Jeffrey Immelt is basing General Electric's future on a hoax and people's ability to be convinced that the hoax is real. Corporate attack machine? "Corporate attack machine," that's typical language of uber-leftists and statists and anti-capitalists, and that's what's the key about this. But there are countless other e-mails that talk about hiding the data that disproves their theory, rigging the data to show that cooling is not happening when it is, and they admit it in their e-mails.

RUSH: Bloggers in the UK are advising people over there that if they own stock in any alternative energy companies, start dumping them now because the conspiracy behind anthropogenic global warming has been exposed. James Delingpole is actually suggesting if you own stock in alternative energy companies, dump it.

RUSH: Now, look at me. In the real world, a media existing in the real universe would be tracking down Algore wherever he is and be demanding an interview. They would be demanding to ask him about the rigged science, the phony science and the hoax that he has built his post-political career on. Actually, it's not post-political. It is purely political. His post-elective career on. The media would be hammering him -- or should be -- were they operating in the Universe of Reality. He should be hounded until he grants interviews! When he refuses to grant interviews, the media in the real world would be telling their audiences, their readers and their viewers that they have tracked Algore down, they know where he is. They would also say, "Now we know why Algore never lets the media in to one of his lectures or the showing of his movie or his slide show or whatever it is." He never lets the media in and he doesn't take questions and he doesn't do interviews -- unless it's at the Academy Awards or on Saturday Night Live, a comedy show. Is this going to happen? No! Nowhere near the truth will the media get. They rely entirely on their existence in the Universe of Lies.

James Delingpole, UK Telegraph: "If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. When you read some of those files -- including 1079 e-mails and 72 documents -- you realize just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be 'the greatest in modern science.' These alleged e-mails -- supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory -- suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

"One of the alleged e-mails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L. Daly (one of the first climate change skeptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: 'In an odd way this is cheering news.' But perhaps the most damaging revelations -- the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal -- are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause," and they give samples of the e-mails, which we'll link to this story at RushLimbaugh.com. I don't want to read all these e-mails. Some of it does contain scientific data and would be boring to hear. Just read them for yourselves and you will see exactly what's being discussed here.

The Wall Street Journal: "Global Warming With the Lid Off -- 'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. ... We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.' So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 e-mail to 'Mike.' Judging by the e-mail thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center.

"We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet. The 'two MMs' are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions -- a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the e-mails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked. Yet even a partial review of the e-mails is highly illuminating."

The Journal goes on to provide more information and excerpts from the e-mails. They conclude thus: "For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he 'won't dignify that question with a response.' Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he 'did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,' but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

"However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the US Congress and other investigative bodies." It sure as hell does, and the media ought to be trying to find Algore this minute and to have him explain this. That would be happening if... (interruption) Four Corners of Deceit, Snerdley. They're all corrupt now. Media, academia, science, government, the Four Corners of Deceit.

The thing is, as I said yesterday, this doesn't surprise me because I know who liberals are. I know that liberalism is a lie. I know that liberals have to lie about who they are, what they believe, and what their agenda is. Look, what other movement needs a "wordsmith" to tell them how to say things which are not true to make people believe them, as in George Lakoff (rhymes with)? Who the hell has people like that? Who needs a wordsmith to tell people how to put together statements and write legislation that essentially has "yes" meaning "no"? Who needs that? Frauds need that! People filled with deceit, people who are trying to fool us every day need help in doing it from professionals. Honesty is the last resort, and it is seldom used by anybody on the left.

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

Here is a site I came across when looking for information on the Maguindanao massacre:

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

Conservative Review
Issue #103	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 29, 2009