Inside the Asylum

I've had fun continuing to do my own searches through the hacked emails from the CRU global warming alarmism institute.
I found a few gems. For example, there's the occasion where Phil Jones writes in an email:

Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.

In other words, "I've managed to persuade the University of East Anglia to ignore all Freedom of Information Act requests from people who have anything to do with an organization that is asking inconvenient questions. I'd hazard a guess that this actually constitutes an illegal act, as I doubt very much that the FOI Act allows a university to ignore requests based on the identity of the person making the request. Whether the illegality is the responsibility of the university, of the person who persuaded them to behave illegally, or both, is a question of law. Later, there's another email from Phil Jones:

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.

Yeah, they're really acting like people with nothing to hide. Open scientific debate based upon the evidence. Hoorah!

I just scanned CNN's lead stories in both the "US" and "World" News sections, then I went to NBC News, then MSNBC, then Fox News, and ... well, I gave up at that point. What's the story that I've been searching for, and failing to find? Well, Xinhua (Chinese) news agency describes it as "high profile" ... but not as far as the US media is concerned anyway. What is it?

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh flew into the Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington on Sunday afternoon, starting a high-profile visit to the United States. Before the trip, Singh said the issues he wants to discuss with the U.S. side are "global threats and challenges of our times," including terrorism, climate change and the economic downturn.

That's right. The leader of the world's second most populace nation (and soon to over take even China) comes to visit the US ... and none of the freakin' media considers this worthy of headline news? I didn't bother searching beyond the main news opening pages, but that's where a story like this belongs. I've got an idea for the MSM. How about some actual news content? Novel idea I know, but it might just work.

This has already been posted in numerous places, but I haven't laughed so hard in a long time as I did in the last minute or so of this Saturday Night Live skit. Enjoy.

They say a joke is funniest when it most closely resembles the truth.

A recent survey in Britain concludes:

Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third, or 32 percent, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 percent believe the world is not warming.

The leaks from the CRU could not have had any impact on this survey, because it happened too recently. Now that the global warmenists involved with the CRU have been exposed for the unscientific unobjective snake-oil merchants that they are, I somehow doubt that these figures are going to move in a direction that Greenpeace would approve of. Anyone care to bet against the likelihood that the figure for those "who blame environmentalist propaganda" is going to rise? Let's face it, even given the possibility that man made global warming really is a problem, are the interests of humanity really best served by concealing the data and trying to suppress opposing view points? Those with the strongest argument are usually least afraid of public debate. If they really believe in their cause, let them argue it without lies, without concealment, and with honest public debate. If they don't (and their conduct certainly gives the impression that even they don't believe their arguments will stand up to careful scrutiny), then let them resign in shame from their publicly funded positions. Since most of the public doesn't understand the science, they instead judge the issues using things they do understand ... and they understand the difference between the behavior of fraudsters, and those with a good case. The warmenist "scientists" are harming the very cause they claim to believe in. That makes them either enemies of mother Gaia, or con men, or both.

Mann's comments (previous post) about only trusting arguments published in peer-reviewed studies are put into their proper context by yet more revelations pouring out of the leaked data from CRU. There's a clear pattern of "fixing" the peer-reviews, by attacking publications and editors that dare to allow skeptics to have a voice. There's also evidence of ensuring that critical papers go to reviewers who could be "relied upon" to give the "right" feedback to it. Yes, the fix is in.
Let's take a look at a sample (use the link in the last post to find the full versions for yourself. No more MSM gate-keepers to keep you away from the real data, and now (finally) no more global warming charlatans masquerading as scientists hiding their data and biases:

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research... Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
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. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

On October 28th, I did a post about the controversy in Egypt surrounding Lebanese hottie Haife Wehbe's use of the term "Nubian monkey" in one of her songs. Now, much later, the western MSM notices the story. Not bad ... only three and a half weeks behind the times. And they expect people to pay to read their "news"? My post was considerably better than the news story too, including a Youtube clip of the actual song. Seriously ... sell all your shares in newspapers now while they're still worth something.

I'm amazed I haven't heard more about this. Well, actually I'm not amazed. Would you really expect the MSM to report a catastrophic cock-up by the Obama regime that is causing major problems in Pakistan? A few days ago, the New Yorker reported:

current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that his Administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis.

First off, we're starting to see a bit of pay-back to the Obama regime. Bush had to put up with constant leaks undermining his policy objectives, and now Obama gets to discover that it works both ways. Or (and this is more worrying) Obama regime officials weren't deliberately trying to harm Obama, and were just openly discussing highly freakin' sensitive information for release in the media. It's not like it might make any difference to the situation in Pakistan after all... like, just say for example, undermining the Pakistani government...

Sharp differences between Pakistani leaders over safeguarding the country's nuclear arsenal are placing increasing pressure on the embattled administration of President Asif Ali Zardari.

It's not as if the Pakistani's will care about Obama saying he has grave concerns about the country's nuclear security.

General Tariq Majid, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, said the claims were "absurd and plain mischievous"

Oh. Well, at least it's not like we have evil Republicans in charge who would favor the military over the civilian government.

In just over a year, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, the army chief, has eclipsed Zardari and he is now Washington's point man on the Pakistani side

OK. Well, at least there don't seem to be any signs that it's weakening US influence in the country.

The military establishment has seized the moment to hand over a list of names to Zardari of people it believes should be immediately replaced. At the top of the list is the ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, whom the army has always regarded as a foe for being too close to the American administration. Minister of the Interior Rahman Malik is second in line. Although he has been credited with helping destroy the financial arteries of militants, he is regarded as too close to Western intelligence agencies and he often bypasses the military establishment in anti-terror operations.

It's called "smart diplomacy" apparently.

I posted an entry about this story from a very popular Chinese magazine a while back. It basically makes the point that even in China they know that American media is in the tank for the Democrats.

It's one of the posts I'm most proud of, and I was disappointed it didn't attract more attention at the time. I thought of it again today because of a story linked by Instapundit that Asian voters (in this case South Asians) seem to be trending Republican. As I commented in that earlier post,

If you just sit down with an average Chinese person and explain the core differences in economic policy between the Democrats and the Republicans, 99% of the Chinese will vote Republican every time. I remember a Chinese guy I knew in Australia. He said that when he first became an Australian citizen he voted for the Labor Party, because (much like the Democrats in USA) they have the image of being immigrant friendly, and not a "white man's" club. After he was in Australia a bit longer, and was running his own little one-man company, he starting voting for the Liberal Party (the more conservative option), and says he can't imagine what he was thinking voting Labor.

Expand the welfare state? No way! Impose higher taxes on people who work harder? No way! Let government take over more aspects of society? No way! As a Chinese woman said to me about Obama's program ... "oh, we tried that. It doesn't work." I posted about that one as well:

Dr Xu Xaonian, economics professor at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, lambasted [Australian Prime Minister] Mr Rudd's essay [that criticized capitalism] ... Dr Xu maintained it was not time to resurrect Keynesianism, as proposed by Mr Rudd in the essay. "Instead, it's time to announce Keynesianism's failure, time to announce the emperor Lord Keynes has no clothes," he said... "He wants to use expansionary financial policies to pull the economy out of recession. Instead, it will only add a fresh failure to the Keynesian list, while piling up votes, in the meantime, for the social democrats."

Obama has declared that USA will be out of Afghanistan by the time he leaves office. That means they only have to hang on for another three years, and they can declare victory. (Even with my unbounded cynicism, I don't think the American people are quite dumb enough to elect this guy again.)

I'm not saying that I think USA necessarily should remain in Afghanistan that long, or indeed whether they even should still be there now. I think that's an open question, because no one seems to quite know why they're there. Without a definable goal, how can you move towards it, or know when it's accomplished? However, to come out and say something like this does nothing other than give heart to the enemy, and undermine the people USA supports. Even if that is his plan, he shouldn't have declared it. In fact, if you really are planning to pull out in such a short time, then you ramp up the rhetoric about long term commitment and deploy a lot more troops. Smart diplomacy... yeah, some of that would be nice.

There's a report out, trumpeted across the media, that claims

More than 49 million Americans -- one in seven -- struggled to get enough to eat in 2008

Of course it's all politics, and there's no actual hunger.

While Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said programs such as food stamps softened the impact of an economic recession, anti-hunger groups pointed to the huge increase from the preceding year when 36.2 million people had trouble getting enough food and a third of them occasionally went hungry. "The survey suggested that things could be much worse but for the fact that we have extensive food assistance programs," Vilsack told reporters. "This is a great opportunity to put a spotlight on this problem."

It's all about the wonders of government. Without government, even more people would be hungry. Thank your government. The major food problem in USA is not hunger ... it's freakin' obesity. Just look around you ... there's no doubt at all that the poor people are more likely to suffer from obesity than the wealthy. I remember when I first got to this country and was amazed at how cheap is fast food (and bad alcohol). I thought, "this is the best country in the world to be a wino!" There's no hunger epidemic in the United States, except by some very unusual definition of the word "hunger". When obesity disappears as a problem in the poor sectors of USA, then you'll know there's a hunger problem. This is so obviously bunk that I'm amazed anyone is taking it seriously. As the Asylum's Dr Strangelove once said (I think he may have been quoting?):

Most of the world's problems could be solved with five minutes thought. But thinking is difficult, and five minutes is a long time.

In this case, I think it would take more like five seconds to know this study is political fiction. Yet look in the media and you'll see how many journalists and politicians could even get their brain into gear for those few seconds.

Iran has an interesting position on the uranium swap program the west has been proposing. It goes like this:

Iranian president's senior advisor Parviz Davoudi said Monday that Iran favors to receive West's high grade uranium first and then send its domestically enriched low grade uranium abroad.

Instapundit recently linked to a Powerline story about the Russians playing Obama for a fool with a similar tactic.

During a party scene in the movie "Monkey Business," Groucho Marx spots a waiter carrying a drink, but the waiter tells him the drink is for the guest of honor. Groucho pulls out a dollar bill and says to the waiter: "See this?" The waiter responds by giving Groucho the drink, whereupon Groucho pulls the dollar away and says: "Come back in a half hour and I'll give you another look at it."

But don't worry. Iran has a rational reason for its behavior.

Tehran was pursuing its national interest in the issue of nuclear fuel exchange, Davoudi said.

No kidding.

I think someone mixed up the speech Obama was supposed to give in Tokyo, and accidentally loaded the one he was going to deliver while in China. Obama, being both ignorant of international affairs and wedded to his teleprompter, failed to notice. The Japanese have been concerned for a number of years about the growing strength and influence of the Chinese. So what does Obama do? While in the Japanese capital, he delivers a speech that says:

"The U.S. does not seek to contain China, the rise of a strong and prosperous China can be a source of prosperity for all nations... We welcome China's appearance on the world stage."

Fantastic line to deliver in Beijing. Fantastically stupid line to deliver in Tokyo. What was he thinking? More to the point, what are the Japanese thinking? Or was it deliberate? A message to one of USA's most reliable allies, "screw you." It would certainly be characteristic Obama foreign policy.

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says that just a few minor changes to the US position can lead to positive relations with Iran. He even spells out what changes are needed from America:

a) distancing itself from Israel
b) lifting long-running sanctions on Iran
c) ending its support of Iran's opposition groups
d) drawing its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
e) stopping opposing Tehran's nuclear program as the country insists that its program is aimed at peaceful ends.

Simple really.

Speaking of not learning the lessons of history (from my previous post), it's not as if socialism hasn't been proven to be an utterly ineffective way of running an economy. Again. And again. And again. Somehow the lesson never seems to sink in. Chavez has held effective dictatorial control in Venezuela to do as he pleases in implement his "revolutionary offensive" (his words). How's it going?

This country may be an energy colossus, with the largest conventional oil reserves outside the Middle East and one of the world’s mightiest hydroelectric systems, but that has not prevented it from enduring serious electricity and water shortages that seem only to be getting worse.

Oh, that well, really? And that's from the New York Times, no less! The story continues:

President Hugo Chávez has been facing a public outcry in recent weeks over power failures... Now, water rationing has been introduced here in the capital.

And this:

Even as the oil boom was enriching his government and Mr. Chávez asserted greater control over utilities and other industries in this decade, public services seemed only to decay.

Well, yes ... that's what happens when the government takes over a major sector of the economy. [Side note: Hey New York Times ... that's what happens when the government takes over a major sector of the economy. Get it? Hint hint.] Chavez's response to concerns about his mismanagement of Venezuela's water resources? To tell them to only take 3 minute showers.

“I’ve counted and I don’t end up stinking,” he said. “I guarantee it.”

Yes, for every government action, there is an equal and opposite reaction in the economy:

the president encouraged consumption with a 2002 decree freezing electricity and other utility rates. A time-zone change by Mr. Chávez in 2007 that turned clocks back half an hour also led consumption to climb (the sun sets earlier here than before).

Hmmmm ... I wonder if there could be a lesson for USA that the New York Times could apply to other stories. Hmmm ... government interference in the economy leads to disastrous consequences. Good intentions don't make up for economic mismanagement. Even rich countries can go down the toilet through government incompetence and a belief that they should be passing more regulations and taking over more aspects of the private sector. Nah, I can't see anything here that could apply to the United States ...

Dr Strangelove has posted about the tactic in international relations of doing your best to appear irrational. After all, it puts your enemies on the back foot, and makes them very very cautious in dealing with you. (I can't find Strangelove's post. Maybe it was on a previous incarnation of the Asylum.) Anyway, you have to wonder if that's the case with the rhetoric coming out of Venezuela, and from his enablers in Cuba and elsewhere in the socialist world. First let's look at Castro:

A military agreement entered into by the United States and Colombia "is tantamount to annexation," said Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Friday... [we can't keep quiet] when a country [Colombia] is devoured by the empire [USA] as easy as a lizard catches a fly."

What does this "annexation" really consist of? As Nicolas von Kospoth, editor of defpro.com (Defense Professionals) says:

these protests are ridiculous considering the actual extent of this 10-year deal: a total of 800 military personnel and 600 civilian contractors will be deployed at seven military bases in Colombia.

So is Castro irrational? Deliberately trying to appear irrational? You be the judge.
OK, next we get Chavez himself:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez late on Tuesday denied claims that he wants to provoke an armed conflict with Colombia. He refuted allegations that he is a "warlike" man.

Yes, because deploying 15,000 extra troops to the border of a neighbor and telling your people to prepare for war isn't at all "warlike." He also had this to say, in reference to a coming visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

“Imperialism and its lackeys have Iran and Venezuela on sight but we will defeat them,” said President Chavez. “As Iran has Israel, we have Colombia's government at the service of the Yankee empire.”

Yes, you heard that right. Chavez feels about Colombia the same way Ahmadinejad feels about Israel. Where's the international condemnation of Chavez? On November 11th of all days, where is the outrage? Have we really forgotten so much of the 20th Century that world leaders think that you shouldn't take this kind of talk seriously? Well, with Obama not even caring about the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, I guess the answer is yes. And you know the saying about people who forget the lessons of history. Taking another historical analogy, Colombia isn't a Poland, but it might end up being a Czechoslovakia. That would make Obama our Neville Chamberlain. I guess that fits.

I had a chat today with a woman from England. She asked me what I thought of the Obama health care plan, and I told her I am appalled. She told me she is too. The basic gist of the chat was "we know exactly what nationalized health care is like, and Americans don't have a freakin' clue." It reminds me of another recent conversation with my parents, who live in one of these wonderful places with "free" state health care. My mother's been having some health issues recently. Fortunately, because she has private health insurance, she's been able to get immediate and affordable medical attention, which renders the problems easily controlled. On the other hand, if she'd had to wait for a year or more to get any treatment, then it would be another story, and that's what would happen if she didn't have insurance. So that chat I had with my parents (and I've had this one more than once) went like this: My parents: "we've been having this problem, and this treatment." Me: "NEVER let your health insurance expire, no matter how much it costs. I'll pay for it if necessary, but just keep it!" Another friend recently moved from the US back to his home country, and he commented that he had always been very happy with the treatment he got in America, but he shuddered at the idea of having to go into the local hospital for anything.

Oh well ... America, you voted him in. Now you have to live with the consequences. You get what you pay for... so what do you expect to get with "free" health care?

Obama's "smart diplomacy" included reaching out to Venezuela's crackpot dictator Chavez. Well, in response to Colombia's decision to allow US bases in their territory, here is how Chavez has responded. First, he sent an additional 15,000 troops to the Colombian border, and now

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged the army and civilians on Sunday to prepare themselves for war. "We cannot waste one day to fulfill our mission: to prepare for war and help the people to get ready for war," Chavez said during his weekly TV-radio show.

Hmmmm... Chavez sends thousands of troops to the border of a neighboring country and tells his people to prepare for war. He arms rebel groups inside that neighbor with rocket launchers. When Obama tried to make friends with him, Chavez soon after declared, "this is a revolutionary offensive!" I wonder what he's planning? I've never been very good at interpreting subtle hints.
[Update] Faced with such threats, Colombia appeals to the United Nations. It's telling that they haven't appealed to the Americans. Chavez's bully-boy tactics and Colombia's soft-pedaling response are all predicated on a presumption of American weakness or at least a lack of desire to help an ally. Obama's probably rather proud of himself.

[Further Update] Somehow I think this is probably related.

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro has criticized U.S. President Barack Obama over a U.S. agreement with Colombia that allows American troops access to Colombian military bases. In a column published in Cuba's state-run Granma newspaper, Mr. Castro says allowing the United States to use Colombia's military bases threatens not only neighboring Venezuela, but all people in the region.

In other words, the real target of Chavez's war talk isn't Colombia at all ... it's Obama.

Following on from my recent post about China's diplomatic and economic offensive in Africa, we have this:

China's prime minister said his country will give $10 billion in loans to African countries without any political strings attached.

Of course, western media must tell it form a Western point of view:

But critics say Beijing's no-strings-attached investments and loans undercut political and economic overhaul efforts by Western governments and bodies such as the World Bank.

As noted in the last post, Western aid and bodies like the World Bank have been stunningly ineffective in doing anything for Africa, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if they are undermined. Chinese aid might not do anything more to help the region, but at least we won't stupid things like Chinese imposition of DDT bans, as well meaning Westerners have tried with catastrophic consequences.