The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had “hacked” into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the “Hadley CRU,” by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.

The user, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.

Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.

Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user’s choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.

This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story

Read the original article to see the timeline, it is quite damning evidence that this was no hacker, but an insider and it all boils down to:

Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.

Doesn’t surprise me one bit that they would resort to violate the law….all in the name of “science”

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?
By Jonathon Karl
ABC News
November 19, 2009 3:03 PM

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

Is it any wonder Americans are rebelling against this big spending/big taxing/big government takeover of health care?

It should be abundantly clear by now that this really isn’t about health care but about the acquisition and use of political power.

Saturday’s vote in the U.S. Senate will open the door to this monstrosity becoming law. History shows that a vote to continue the debate sets this hideous legislative abomination on a glide path to approval.

I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.

Watts has the text of some of the huge file’s emails posted on his website. Saunter over to the first link above to read at his site.

Of special note is CRU’s Prof. Phil Jones’ admission of fudging the numbers to hide the temperature decline.

[Emphasis added by Mata]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. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 or NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Another email was from another associate, Jonathan Overpeck, discussing a proposed letter to the Senate to combat the “continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill”. Overpeck is less than thrilled at being part of alterating data to comply with political aims, suggesting that such nefarious deeds were best left to other organizations.

Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. [Emphasis added by Mata] It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this – e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond, then…

I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Dissention in the CRU ranks over a scientific “concensus” has been growing, noted by Watts in his May 2009 post, where Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (aka CRU), Mike Hulme, shed his closet AGW proponent sheeps clothing, and actively started speaking out against the science behind the UN’s IPCC paper. In an interview with UK’s The Register, he is quoted as saying:

“To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science”

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit – currently overloaded with cyber traffic – posted that CRU cancelled all existing passwords… saying “actions speak loudly”. McIntyre – a veteran in the mineral exploration business – focuses on analyzing “peer reviewed publications” that purport the AGW theory.

Stay tuned… Anthony and crew are atop this story.

Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.

Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Video at the link….

This is in response to the latest video, this time from the LA office….the same one that the LA Times proclaimed would be vindicated.

Gallup Daily tracking results just in. Obama will be below 50% for the first time when we update our numbers at 1pET. http://bit.ly/F3Izu

Moore scored big with Fahrenheit 9/11, it had a 120 million domestic gross. Since then his films have been falling faster than a fat man on ice. Sicko made a fairly respectable 24.5 million. Then Moore made an ego trip movie, Captain Mike Across America; vanity movies are not well received by the public and movie patrons seemed to be on to the greed and poor dollar value of Moore’s Socialist Propaganda. He had to give the movie away to get exposure and save face.

It’s become painfully obvious that Leftist propaganda movies are boring, even for die hard Marxists. It has been estimated that approximately two million people viewed Moore’s latest propaganda effort, that represents less than 3% of the Leftists who voted for the Hope and Change mantra, indicating that Obama voters are losing interest in the drab austere life of universal poverty that Obamamania promises.

For the fashion conscious politicos Marxism, Moore, and Obama are fast becoming so yesterday, the new mantra seems to be No Moore Obama!

A HarperCollins insider told The Daily Beast that the book sold a staggering 300,000 copies on the first day alone, which was Tuesday. “Sales are phenomenal, and we are convinced that the book will continue to sell phenomenally for some time to come,” says the insider. They’re not prevaricating: As of 2:30pm today, the book was #1 on Amazon, ahead of both Stephen King’s new novel, Under the Dome, and Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol. The latter sold 1 million copies on its first day, but that figure included the UK, and top fiction generally trumps non-fiction.

The books are selling so well the publisher is printing out an additional 100k of em:

Sarah Palin’s memoir just hit the stands today but demand for “Going Rogue: An American Life” is so strong that HarperCollins Publishers is going back to press for an additional 100,000 run, bringing the total number of hard-covers in print to 1.6 million copies.

~~~

Three major booksellers declined to release sales figures for “Going Rogue” on Tuesday. However, a spokeswoman for Amazon.com… Inc.’s Web site noted in an email that the title “is already one of our bestselling nonfiction books of 2009.”

And a few numbers the lefties will not like, and will try to turn around is these:

As Sarah Palin blankets the media on a whirlwind book promotion tour, the former vice-presidential contender is clearly back on America’s radar screen. Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.

And one nut (out of many) on the left is just a bit obsessed.

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today. “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

He’s probably right

cue to 1:28 for “YOU LIE”

Last summer and earlier this fall Obama repeatedly claimed that those on our side who expressed concerns about many aspects of the health bills working their way through Congress were lying about certain provisions. One of those “lies” was the GOP claim that money from the government run plans would be used to fund abortions.

When Joe Wilson shouted “YOU LIE” during Obama’s speech to Congress, Joe wasn’t just talking about illegal immigrants getting benefits under these plans (they do). Despite the vote taken in the House to strike abortion funding from their version of the bill, Harry Reid put it back in the Senate bill.

This from House Leader John Boehner (R-OH):

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

[Read more here]

Senate Republicans will fight hard against this and other abominations in the Reid bill.

And once again, when Democrats talk about lying, they are talking about themselves!

While the global economy is recovering from the worst recession since World War II, the United States flounders in the same doldrums of New Dealism that kept America locked in The Great Depression while the rest of the world enjoyed growing prosperity.

Crude is $79.92, Gold is $1,147.72, Platinum is $1,43.10; India has just contracted to buy two metric tons of Gold, China is sucking in most of copper, aluminum, and iron ore on the market; the United States languishes in the doldrums of skim milk Marxism, while other nations are forging into un-before known prosperity, we have economic pundits forecasting hyper inflation; and the AP worries whether Sarah Palin has errors in her new book Going Rogue, rather than examining the integrity and writing skills of the Great Ditherer.

The Great Ditherer has come by his nick name honestly, in the 89-90 school year he was elected by the Law students to be the President of he Harvard Law Review. A position that was to become symbolic, for other than gushing reviews from the New York Times over his “irresistible” writing skills, he contributed nothing and wrote absolutely nothing, other than one ineffectual unsigned case note, and since that brilliant contribution he has not written a legal article in nearly 20 years.

In reality, Obama was probably elected to the position, for much the same reason that he was elected to the Presidency of the United States, to appease White Liberal ambivalent guilt feelings over their wealth and prestige. Thus Obama became their Token Negro in the front office to lessen elite guilt, for how can you be a Liberal without demonstrating your uncompromising fairness without having Negro window dressing. Thus an irresistible writer was elected to a prestigious position and was expected to do… nothing. Thus the role of Great Ditherer was becoming more defined for a talent that thrived on being noted as a mediocrity and reinforced by the Ivy League Liberal Elite of Harvard. A precedent was set that the young Obama could finally grasp, the concept of dithering.

On November 28, 1990, Obama was issued a six figure contract by Poseidon Press, an imprint of Simon and Shuster for a memoir titled In Black and White. A memoir is the easiest of all books to write, there are no references, nor footnotes, the truth can be stretched as long as the writing is at least plausible. The manuscript was to be completed by June 15, 1992, thus Obama had 18 months to complete the manuscript and was advanced $75,000 of a $150,000 contract. A contract that is virtually unheard of unless you are Liberal window dressing. For some reason, the University of Chicago Law School loaned Obama an office to write his manuscript.

On October 20, 1992, after almost two years of earnest dithering, Poseidon terminated the contract for noncompliance.

Obama pleaded with Simon and Shuster that he and Michelle were in debt with student loans and that he had already spent the advance: in effect, he expected a bailout. Again, fate and liberal guilt allowed Obama to skate.

Soon after this debacle, Obama secured a $40,000 advance from Times Books to write the same book. In a fabricated story by the New York Times, Barack and Michelle went to Bali on a romantic interlude for four months so that he could unlock and write the book. The truth has now emerged that Barack went to Bali by himself for one to three months and at the very least spent his time dithering once again, for the sum total of his writing excursion was…. nothing. Thus the behavioral pattern of the Great Ditherer was becoming even more formalized and entrenched.

Of course the discrepancies in the Legend of the Anointed One aren’t as important as the new book of a former Vice Presidential candidate.

In 1993, Michelle realized that the Great Ditherer had once again lived up to his nick name and after having read, To Teach by William Ayers, and approving of the novel like journalistic style she approached their “friend and Hyde Park neighbor, Bill Ayers” about writing the Dreams book.

Christopher Anderson in his new coffee table book that portrays life with the Obamas, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage succinctly describes how the book Dreams of My Father was written in this quote from Michelle, “[The Obama Family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunk load of notes were given to Bill Ayers.”

Thus an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, who told an undercover FBI agent that 20 to 25 million Americans would have to be exterminated in camps to establish a Marxist Utopia here in the United States is the one who actually writes the “irresistible” prose for the President.

While the AP hounds from hell are lunging past one another to shred the slightest variance from fact in Sarah’s ghost written autobiography, the most obvious and foul story of malfeasance is ignored. Thus the MSM contributes to its own demise of intellectual and journalistic integrity.

Jack Cashill, a professor at Purdue and a blogger at American Thinker has written convincing arguments concerning the similarities of Dreams and Ayers’ previous writing, similarities that are like fingerprints for seasoned writers. I follow Dr Cashill’s opinions on this matter and I have drawn most of my notes from his work.

Ann Althouse:

Holder imagines that he can hide inside that “thoughtful” routine that Obama so often relies on, but it is utterly pathetic here. Either he knows damned well what he’s doing and he’s lying or he’s outrageously unqualified for his job. His evasive style is so similar to Obama’s that he makes Obama look worse.

Dan Karipides at Wizbang isn’t buying it. He doesn’t believe Holder is this much of an amateur:

Which unfortunately leaves the second option. That, as Jay Tea suggested earlier, the administration plans to use the trial to go after Bush, Cheney, and the evil-Republicans-that-torture. Perhaps they were still counting on a public environment where such a tactic would be cheered. What Holder was truly unprepared for was anyone questioning the decision in the first place.

Bingo! And there you have it. This Administration is so cocky….so arrogant…they just could not believe that a decision like this would be questioned.

Jay Tea:

You first have to start off with the old truism that “conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil.”

With that in mind, the Obama administration’s actions suddenly make perfect sense.

To them, the trial of the accused terrorists is merely a means to an end. And that end is, to them, a greater justice that must be served.

Some critics are asking questions like “what if they are not convicted?” What would happen if a jury finds — for whatever reason, such as mistreatment of the defendants at the hands of the government during their years of pre-trial detention — that to convict them would be unjust?

That doesn’t matter. The Obama administration is convinced that the fix is in. The conviction is a foregone conclusion to them; they simply can’t envision anything else happening. (As others have noted, these are the same people who couldn’t conceive of Chicago NOT winning the Olympics, or of the Democrats NOT winning the recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey — but we’re not dealing with reality here, but the Obama administration’s perceptions.)

So the conviction is in the bag. This is when the spirit of Rahm Emanuel raises its baleful head and repeats the mantra “never let a crisis go to waste.” Since there’s going to be a trial anyway, and the outcome is already gonna happen, what else can get get from it? What other benefit can we reap from this trial? What other enemies — besides these all-but-convicted-and-executed terrorists — can we pummel with this?

Why, of course, the Bush administration and the CIA.

How would a trial like this be an attack on Bush and the CIA you ask?

…the defense raises the “torture” argument. Obama’s Justice Department objects, just strenuously enough to get the whole issue argued before the judge and the press (if not the jury). This gets all the gory, lurid details out in the public, and demonstrates once and for all what evil, malicious, hideous, inhuman monsters Bush, Cheney, and all their supporters are once and for all.

In the end, all the evidence gathered by the “enhanced interrogations” will be set aside and the trials will continue towards their predestined guilty verdicts. And then the real fun begins — all that currently-confidential information is now not only public, not only part of the official legal record, but the Obama administration can claim to have resisted its release and only did so in compliance with the law. At that point, more legal action — civil and, possibly, criminal — can be brought against Bush-era officials, bringing more discredit on the Republican party in general — just in time for the 2010 or 2012 elections.

Which, of course, is the main focus on an administration that viewed the days between last November’s election and this past January 20 as a vacation between campaigns, and has yet to figure out when — or how — to start governing.

Win the fight against radical Islam? Who cares. Keep the homeland safe and secure? Who cares….just win the election baby!.

Just keep power.

That’s all that matters to them….

A new record on the Rasmussen index:

After the huge election wins for the GOP in Virginia and New Jersey the “news” media did it’s best to deny that the GOP surge had anything to do with Obama. I guess they are going to have to learn the hard way.

Not only did Independent voters desert the candidates in those races who were vigorously supported by Obama, but independents continue to flee from Obama nationwide.

Chris Cillizza analyzes the new Washington Post/ABC News national survey and finds:

Only on international affairs does Obama get majority support with 57 percent of independents offering approval for the job he is doing.

The rest of Obama’s approval scores among independents on the seven issues tested in the poll range from fair to borderline poor. Forty six percent approve of his handling of “the threat of terrorism” while 45 percent said he has done a good job on the economy.

Obama’s job approval ratings are weaker among independents when it comes to health care (41 percent), Afghanistan (39 percent) and the budget deficit (37 percent).

While Obama maintains a positive job approval among independents (50 percent approve/47 percent disapprove) the broad skepticism toward how he is handling some of the country’s critical priorities could spell trouble down the road for the president.

That same trend is being tracked by the Gallup daily poll and other national polls like the latest Quinnipiac survey in which Obama’s job approval rating has dropped below 50% for the first time.

What’s happening here?

I can’t put it better than Obama’s former Pastor Rev. Wright: