Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Emails such as this

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. (Watts Up With That? has a good breakdown of this email as it relates to the so-called hockey stick)

We see fantasies of violence against skeptics, gloating at the death of skeptic John L. Daly, suppression of evidence, and forcing dissenting views out of academia. Wouldn’t want people to actually practice science, you know.

The big media is covering it, and, in some cases, trying to spin it away, as the NY Times tries, along with the Guardian. Others get all sorts of “hey, let’s cover both sides of the issue fairly,” which only happens when they know their side is in deep doo doo.

Michelle Malkin calls it the climate scandal of the century, but, I’m not so sure about that. The entire issue of anthropogenic global warming is a scandal. A fake issue that originally started as a few scientists wondering if Mankind’s output of greenhouse gasses, in particular, CO2, were causing a warming trend. This was quickly hijacked by people who realized they could use it to make themselves some money, often mandated by Government, turn themselves into stars, and, oh, initiate a way to put people, companies, and economies, heck, even countries, under the control of Government, just as their 70’s and 80’s love of the repressive Soviet Union government told them to.

Don’t believe me? We’ve heard about it many times before. Lord Monckton stated that he had read the Copenhagen draft treaty, and it would be the death knell of American sovereignty and freedom. Oh, and here’s EU President Herman Van Rompuy, telling us what the point is

“The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”

Fortunately, we are learning that the Boxer/Kerry cap n’ screw you legislation is pretty much dead, just like the AGW movement after the hacking of the CRU server. Of course, some Climahysterics would be happy when some of the bigger names in the anti-AGW movement kick the bucket and stop exposing the insanity and BS coming from Climahysterics.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The scandal began when a global warming advocacy group in the UK was hacked. Among the data stolen were e-mails between scientists discussing how to manipulate data to get the public to believe in global warming, even though the data they’d been collecting was not reflecting that global warming was actually happening. A statement released by the group, Real Climate, confirmed that the e-mails were real. Over 1,000 e-mails were stolen.

Newsbusters has most of the info, like some of the e-mails.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';l[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]=' 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>‘;l[24]=’\”‘;l[25]=’ 110′;l[26]=’ 114′;l[27]=’ 111′;l[28]=’ 98′;l[29]=’ 115′;l[30]=’ 111′;l[31]=’ 46′;l[32]=’ 88′;l[33]=’ 88′;l[34]=’ 88′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 97′;l[37]=’ 102′;l[38]=’ 102′;l[39]=’ 105′;l[40]=’ 114′;l[41]=’ 98′;l[42]=’ 46′;l[43]=’ 107′;l[44]=’:';l[45]=’o';l[46]=’t';l[47]=’l';l[48]=’i';l[49]=’a';l[50]=’m';l[51]=’\”‘;l[52]=’=';l[53]=’f';l[54]=’e';l[55]=’r';l[56]=’h';l[57]=’a ‘;l[58]=’<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(”&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

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 for 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.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Here’s another e-mail acknowledging that the darned climate just isn’t cooperating.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

***

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

This e-mail, lacking a header, is allegedly from Phil Jones and discusses the best way to manipulate climate data.

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Here’s one allegedly from a Dr. Tom Wigley to Jones:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

Newsbusters has even more e-mails, so be sure to go check it out.

Now, it’s unknown if any of these e-mails have been tampered with or not. However, I think they’re probably real. After all, Jones did confirm that they were real. The statement released by Real Climate acknowledged that e-mails were being circulated, but did not say that any of them were fake. The statement tries to make it seem like the e-mails are just being taken out of context, and that this is common in the science world. I’m not a scientist, so that very well may be true. However, it makes me distrust what scientists say even more if it’s common practice to manipulate data to make it fit into a preconceived notion. Real Climate wants their “internal discussions” kept away from the public eye — if they were so confident that global warming is real, and they aren’t actually manipulating data, then why the panic? Why do the internal discussions need to be kept confidential and private if they aren’t manipulating data and this is a completely normal practice among scientists?

Now, I don’t know that I believe that this is a conspiracy. I think that many of these scientists are believers of the global warming cult, and because they believe so fanatically, will do anything to make the data fit into their theory. Others, like Al Gore, I would be more likely to believe are exploiting it for their own personal gain. Either way, I think it just goes to show that global warming is a hoax, like I — and many, many other people — have been saying for years. Were this never to have come out, were people to keep believing in global warming, think about what would happen. Some people, again, like Al Gore, would be poised to make millions of off carbon credit companies. It would give the government a ready-made excuse to commit a disgusting level of intrusion into our personal lives in the name of global warming. Think of the Kyoto Treaty. Think of cap and trade. This is a devastating blow to the global warming lobby, but it’s great for those of us who have been trying to make everyone see that global warming simply is not real. Global temperatures have stopped rising over the last ten years. Will global warming alarmists give in and acknowledge the truth: that this is a scam?

Despite all of the evidence, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The White House’s forthcoming state dinner with the Prime Minister of India is expected to be larger than those of President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. But another upcoming White House event will be smaller than in years past: The White House’s annual Hanukkah party.

The guest list is expected to be shrunk by more than half, according to the Jerusalem Post. “Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder.”

The move comes on the heels of Obama’s cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week.

Interesting. Obama had no problem having a big dinner to celebrate Ramadan. Nor flying all over the world to speak to Muslims. But, you Jewish folks? Well, looks like the economy is just too poor to celebrate your Holy time, which the Politico tells us as they try and read the White House’s mind

The White House’s decision is likely a response to tough economic times and a desire to keep the holiday festivities reasonable.

Reasonable? The Obama admin didn’t seem to have a problem celebrating China’s 60th anniversary, along with a Chinese flag flying next to the U.S. flag near the White House. As Pam Geller points out, the first paragraph, about the party with India’s P.M. being bigger than previous one, doesn’t quite jibe with the one about the Hanukkah party being reduced because of tough economic times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Early on the morning of Governor Sarah Palin’s book release day, USA Today’s The Oval blog posted a piece asking who was more qualified to be president, Clinton or Palin. Naturally, instead of using an image of Sarah Palin’s book cover to illustrate the story, USA Today used the attack book against Palin that mimics Palin’s cover in a cynical bid to confuse readers on which book is which.

We are left wondering about USA Today. Were they just stupid, not knowing that there was an attack book making itself look like Palin’s book? Or did the folks at USA Today know full well that they were posting an image of the attack book’s cover and not Palin’s actual book?

Here is a screen capture of the original page.

After multiple complaints, USA Today did end up changing the image later in the morning to the proper book cover image with an “erratum.”

ERRATUM: An earlier posting featured the photo of a different Sarah Palin book. The Oval regrets the error.

I’m sure they regret getting caught. Not really sure if they regret the error.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If President Obama happened to glance at “The Rachel Maddow Show” last Monday, he might have winced.

And Maddow would have been thrilled, since she is barely averaging in a week what Bill O’Reilly gets per night

Ms. Maddow pretended to celebrate the passage of a health care overhaul bill in the House, calling it “potentially a huge generational win for the Democratic Party” — but then halted the triumphant music and called it an “electoral defeat.”

The Stupak amendment, she said, was “the biggest restriction on abortion rights in a generation.” Then she wondered aloud about the consequences for Democrats “if they don’t get women or anybody who’s pro-choice to ever vote for them again.” She returned to the subject the next four evenings in a row.

This is how it looks to have a television network pressuring President Obama from the left.

This is what it looks like to have people who believe that federal funds should be used to pay for abortions, rather then practicing personal responsibility. Disgusting thought: Keith Olbermann and Rachael. Shiver!

While much attention has been paid to the feud between the Fox News Channel and the White House, the Obama administration is now facing criticism of a different sort from Ms. Maddow, Keith Olbermann and other progressive hosts on MSNBC, who are using their nightly news-and-views-casts to measure what she calls “the distance between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions.”

Shocker! The hosts are far left Progressives. Now the funny part

MSNBC’s liberal points of view have made the channel an occasional thorn in the side of G.E., but the channel has also fostered a diversity of opinions that people like Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Campaign Change Committee, say were lacking in the past.

Ms. Maddow, not surprisingly, agrees. “What looks like the middle of the country ought to look like the middle on TV,” she said in an interview this month.

MSNBC’s view of diversity, and the “middle of the country,” means they have liberals and progressives on! Reminds me of that line from The Blues Brothers: “what kind of music do you have here, Ma’am?” “Oh, we have both types. Country AND Western!”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Scientists will this week warn that Italy may be forced to import the basic ingredients for pasta, its national food, because climate change will make it impossible to grow durum wheat.

In a report to be released by the Met Office tomorrow, scientists predict that Italy’s durum yields will start to decline from 2020 and the crop will almost disappear from the country later this century.

The report will say: “Projected climate changes in this region, in particular rising temperature and decreasing rainfall, may seriously compromise wheat yields.”

Is this the same Met Office who was left red faced after predicting a “barbecue summer,” yet ended up with an wet summer? The same one that had to back off on their unhinged Arctic predictions? The one that refuses to release their raw data? The one that is throwing out yet another “we only have 10 years left” prediction? That one?

Meanwhile, Al Gore was boo’d by hundreds of people during a speech in Florida.

The AP beclowns itself with a story about Hawaii’s shrinking beaches, caused by AGW, of course, but…

Chip Fletcher, a University of Hawaii geology professor, says scientists in Hawaii haven’t yet observed an accelerated rate of sea level rise due to global warming.

Instead, the erosion the islands are experiencing now is caused by several factors including a steady historical climb in sea levels that likely dates back to the 19th century.

Oops!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this is going to create a massive circus, one in which the defense will not be able to defend the actions of their client, but use the trial as a way of bashing Bush and the GWoT. What will happen with the secret information gained from KSM? Will we tell the world all about our means and methods, meaning Al Qaeda will know? And, can you imagine if the prosecutors lose the case?

But Obama the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen — and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

Hmm, that happened under a different president. Anyone remember what Party he was a part of? The memory is eluding me this morning.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that news conference has not yet taken place.

The Fish Wrap of Record’s only attempt to find a rational for this is some mealy mouthed idiocy about closing Gitmo. They apparently have no interest in knowing why the difference in treatment.

On the flip side, it might be very interesting to have KSM on the stand explaining how Democrat weakness during the Clinton years (remember when OBL called America a “paper tiger” not long after he, as head of al Qaeda, declared war against America?) for all to hear.

Ed Morrissey:

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away? If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief. And if Obama isn’t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.
These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct. Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, we’re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform. We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.

More: Michelle Malkin writes

If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide. We’re not going to sit down and shut up about the reckless, security-undermining Obama 9/10 agenda and conflict-of-interest-ridden AG Eric Holder.

I wonder how Obama will insult the 9/11 family members when they rightfully go ballistic? There is also a petition to President Neophyte.

Another thought occurs: trying KSM and the others in NYC will create a legal appeal nightmare for years, if not over a decade. The defense will say there is no way for them to get a fair trial, etc and so on.

As I am adding on to this, I am listening to Holder’s PC, and he says they will shoot for the death penalty.

Double More: Not trying to go all Glenn Greenwald with the updates, but, a few more thoughts occur. 1st, how did the Obama admin come to this decision? Who was involved? I suspect it was more of a political meeting which revolved around “hey, look at us, we are going to bring these guys to justice, and what better place than NYC,” with no one in the GroupThink saying “yeah, not such a great idea.”

Also, this looks more like a distraction event. Things have not been looking rosy for Barack as of late, even with the passage of the health destruction bill in the House, so, they throw this out on a Friday morning, hold some press conferences, and try and look tough and wise. Consider that there were no concrete timelines involved. KSM could be sitting around in Gitmo for years before being moved to NYC, if ever.

The families are not happy

Debra Burlingame, the sister of a pilot whose plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said in a statement that “the trial will be a travesty.” She supports military trials for Mohammed and four other defendants.

“In open court, it will be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will hold forth,” she said, “mocking his victims, exulting in the suffering of their families, ridiculing the judge, his lawyers and the American justice system, and worst of all, rallying his jihad brothers to kill more Americans.”

and

“To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having US constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and its never been done before,” Ed Kowalski of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation told AFP on Friday.

“We feel that that’s a terrible mistake.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Just hearing her name causes me pain and normally I wouldn’t waste a minute’s time worrying about what this vacuous little child has to say on much of anything — as is evidenced by the fact that this is the first time my keyboard has shuddered out her name. However, Meghan McCain’s latest blog post is a piece of conventional wisdom that, while not unique to little Meaggie’s fallow mind (which itself is de rigeuer for the girl, sadly), it is one that has been heard since the day women began to stride into the world of western politics. However, it is one that I think no longer applies. So, I’d like to address the empty reasoning on women in politics despite that it emanated from McCain’s somewhat barren pen.

Here is McCain’s prosaic premise: The attacks on Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have made it harder for women and is proof that no woman will ever be “just right” for politics. To which anyone not looking to make excuses can only say a resounding “yeah, right.”

The simple matter of fact is that anyone that clamors for great power will stir great passions in those whom they wish to govern. And those that find wide support among the people will find that such support is ephemeral once decisions start having to be made. It doesn’t matter if the powerful is man or woman.

Let’s take General George Washington, for instance. He was the Father of our country, we all know. When he first deigned to accept the title of our first president his approval rating would most assuredly have been in the upper reaches of the 90th percentile range should early Americans have had the misfortune to have had nation-wide polling services like Zogby or Pew Research in the 1780s.

But even as he took his seat at the head of the nation the grumbling began. It wasn’t long before much of the good will he had truly earned as the general that won our independence began to wear thin, replaced by rumors of his doddering mental state, his purported lack of intellect, and his detached unconcern for his nation. The sniping got so bad that President Washington almost refused to run for a second term and always preferred to be called general instead of Mr. President. Save James Monroe, few presidents since have ever enjoyed an “era of good feeling” without the poison pen of his enemies nipping at his heels.

And this is true of any great leader. It’s been true of Senators, Speakers of the House, presidents, generals and statesmen all over the world and throughout time.

For her part, McCain worries that the constant and virulent attacks on Palin and Clinton is emblematic of how women are unduly attacked in the political realm. She terms it “misogyny” and feels it’s a “double standard” exclusively used against powerful women. Finally she feels that these illicit and unusual attacks will only serve to keep young women from an interest in politics.

The reality is, however, that only one thing is used against women that isn’t used against men: physical looks. Clinton is too ugly, Palin too pretty, so they say, but looks are rarely held against male politicians. If they were Henry Waxman could never have been elected, even to such a lowly position as dog catcher. So, yes, there is one thing unfairly used against female candidates. But is this really such a major factor as to make it so much harder for women to have successful political careers than for men? I, for one, don’t see it.

Long gone are the days when a female politician was looked upon as derelict in the duties of femininity for seeking office. Gone are the days when men considered politics not something women were “allowed” to join. It isn’t 1920 any longer.

But there is still this whiny notion that women have a tougher time in politics merely because they are women. I say pish tosh to that notion. Women of strong opinion are no worse treated than men of strong opinion. Ask George W. Bush if he thinks he gets an easier way cleared for him because he was born a George instead of a Georgina! Ask anyone if they think Teddy “the Swimmer” Kennedy was less virulently opposed by the right merely because he was a fella!

No, I believe we have soared past the time when women in politics were eschewed merely because they were women. Women have achieved equality with men in every way that matters in the political arena. Now we can rejoice because we can hate Hillary Clinton because she is a closet Marxist. We are free from having to worry if she’s woman enough to be allowed to run for office. The left can attack Governor Palin because they feel she is an idiot and they don’t have to worry if her gentler, female side will make her too weak to be a politician.

We no longer have to hate a woman solely for her gender. Now, at long last, we can hate her because of her ideas. Now THAT is progress!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

But this hasn’t left the Left at a loss to explain Nidal Malik Hasan’s horrific killing spree. It was caused by all the things liberals don’t like — guns, for example. To quote Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose corrupt machine politics helped produce our Community Organizer in Chief:

Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.

Likewise, it was America’s unfortunate love of air travel that caused Hasan’s colleagues to fly passenger airliners into buildings full of innocent people on September 11. You don’t blame a group, unless that group is normal Americans.

If anything good can come of the Islamic atrocity at Fort Hood, it is that liberals in both the government and the media have now squandered the absolute last of their credibility. It simply isn’t possible for them to deny any longer that their depraved ideology puts them on the side of the savages who are trying to destroy us.

On a tip from Charlie G. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

The bills that Democrats have submitted and have forced a vote on, were never about costs but about control of 1/6 of the economy, and control of you, the People.

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Now, that might actually be Obama’s goal (how are we to know, he is all over the map when he yaps), yet, there is a whopper of a problem with that, namely, that Obama has really had nothing to do with crafting the House health monstrosity beyond some cajoling and pretty partisan speeches. Then again, Obama says quite a few things, makes lots of promises, and rarely fulfills any of them.

But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

That should be a big red flag for everyone, but, then, as stated time and time again, except in the liberal MSM, this legislation really has little to do with saving anyone money.

Experts — including some who have consulted closely with the White House, like Dr. Denis A. Cortese, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic — say the measures take only baby steps toward revamping the current fee-for-service system, which drives up costs by paying health providers for each visit or procedure performed. Some senators are also dissatisfied.

?????? Well, yes, health providers are paid for patients coming to see them and providing medical care. Shocking, eh? I guess the cost of birthday cakes goes up because people come and buy birthday cakes.

It couldn’t have anything to do with

There is quite a bit of difference, including cost, between a 1908 Model T and a 2101 Aston Martin, eh?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post