Common sense skeptics want to know

Gradually, the scandal in the U.K. over the hidden and doctored climate data is slowly swimming across the ocean to lap up on our beached media whales. Wall Street Journal, the most liberal of our news sources, had an article on p. A-16 today. Not ready for prime space yet--it's only been 2 weeks.

"The East Anglia institute that Dr. Jones headed has become a key player in building evidence for the U.N.'s argument that humans are behind global warming.In statements released by the institute in recent days, Dr. Jones has defended the integrity of the institute's scientific work, while saying that he and his colleagues "accept that some of the published emails do not read well."

On Tuesday, Penn State University confirmed that Michael Mann -- a climate scientist on its faculty who figures prominently in the emails -- was under "inquiry" by the university. In one email, Dr. Jones suggested to Dr. Mann that they should try to keep out of scientific journals the research of scientists who challenge the idea of manmade global warming.

The U.K. probe, to be completed next spring, will also review the climatic research unit's policies and practices on disseminating data and research findings and subjecting them to peer review, and look at how the unit handled requests under Britain's Freedom of Information Act."

Our media have been totally consumed with the couple who strolled into a White House party without an invitation, and the Tiger Woods' semi-private party. Apparently, scientists, reality show wannabees and celebrities can all be bought for the price of a dream--be it money, power, fame or sex. They've all turned out to have clay feet firmly resting on the pedestal we've built for them. The White House party crashers, Michaele and Tariq Salahi, not a climate/economy scam scheme, are worthy of a congressional hearing. I'm in complete disagreement with Glenn Beck on this one. He thinks the President was in danger. They were security screened for weapons just like all the other guests, so I doubt that; and someone on Obama's staff got them in. They might be stupid, but they love the guy.

Let's think about it. Tiger couldn't have pulled off a couple of long term affairs without his staff and friends helping him and bringing the women to him; the Salahis couldn't have made it into the party without their connections with NBC (which owns Bravo) which has been drooling over Barack Obama for 3 years; and the climate data people couldn't have pulled off what they've been doing for 10 years without a lot of backing--probably from people in the "green" industry, and a second guess would be those who want all western governments and cultures to fail, or maybe they were colluding with both. That one definitely has the money/power smell to it. Tiger's mess just smells like soiled sheets.

The U.K. probe won't be completed until next Spring; by then Obama should be ready for another economic coup if we don't stop him. He told us during his campaign that our energy costs would skyrocket. He didn't tell us that the fuse was a complete phony and might blow up in his face. 1) Manipulating peer review journal publication of anything that dissents with the AGW religion; 2) denial of requests under the freedom of information act; 3) "losing" the data on which the whole AGW scare is built.

Facebook--again

Don't blame the Secret Service. They are non-political. Political appointees are not.

"People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to attend Tuesday's gala, even though they weren't on the official guest list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis' lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.

Several people familiar with the Jones-Salahi correspondence, including some who requested anonymity because it's part of an ongoing investigation, said the e-mails support the Salahis' case that they were cleared to attend Tuesday night's gala." WaPo

I've talked to Columbus school teachers who've told me they are not allowed to have Facebook accounts. Sounds like a good idea for anyone in public education, academe, or government. Why do you want to tell nosy people who your friends and associates are? Especially reporters from the Washington Post who are good at gossip but not tracking down global warming myths and document screw ups? I looked up Michele S. Jones. She's another "first," and a two-fer, and maybe she just wasn't carefully vetted or wasn't given enough instruction and training on security and the importance of protecting the president from friends of friends. Or then again, perhaps she had nothing at all to do with this and the e-mails to her went nowhere.

Incidentally, far removed from this story but about social networks, have you heard of the book Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler (Little, Brown, 352 pp., $25.99). It's reviewed at City Journal--go take a look. It's not about electronic social networks but the old fashioned type--like the brother-in-law of your best friend.

"Controlling for environmental factors and the tendency of birds of a feather to flock together—happy people prefer hanging out with other happy people—Christakis and Fowler found that we really do emulate those we care about, whether we mean to or not. Being connected to a happy person, for instance, makes you 15 percent more likely to be happy yourself. “And the spread of happiness doesn’t stop there,” they note. It radiates out for three degrees of separation, so that, say, your sister’s best friend’s husband’s mood exerts a greater influence on your personal happiness than an extra $10,000 in income would. If he gains 50 pounds, it will be that much harder for you to stay slim, as the frame of reference for what’s “normal” changes through your network. Or, on the positive side, if he quits smoking, your chances of kicking the habit improve, too, even if you’ve never met him."

Sounds like a title for next year's book club, and that maybe I've put on 10 lbs because my friend's husband can't lose weight.