In the same Q&A he also says…

“The positive trend is quite close to the significance level … Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

“I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed … there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

And that the theory of global cooling since the start of the millennium is also “not statistically significant”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Are we still in denial that global warming is indeed caused by our own work? What are we waiting for, a slap in the face in terms of catastrophe?

by sandyheiwowowowowo

Are we still in denial that global warming is indeed caused by our own work? What are we waiting for,

Question: Where does the Carbon Tax go?
Answer: it is used to fund wars so we can maintain the supply of oil.

Sorry guys – but to be fair and balanced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc

The governments responsible for climate manipulation, can stop “global warming” and “global dimming” whenever they want to http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WOR406A.html

The methodic demise of natural earth http://proliberty.com/observer/20060504.htm

New Zealand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MAeeALtvD8

The “climate change” that the establishment would have folks get all worked up over is by design.

Owning the Weather in 2025 csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

Getting climate change deniers’ heads out of the sand:

“An illustrated guide to the latest climate science”

February 17, 2010

Decadal

Here is an update of my review of the best papers on climate science in the past year. If you want a broader overview of the literature in the past few years, focusing specifically on how unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gas emissions are projected to impact the United States, try “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.”

I’m adding some of the best figures from those papers, too. For those who like their science delivered through videos, let me suggest the panel I hosted earlier this month, may I suggest Video and PPTs of “The Science of Climate Change” with Dr. Christopher Field and Dr. Michael MacCracken (which is the source of the above figure showing the decadal temperature trend, together with the annual temps).

In 2009, the scientific literature caught up with what top climate scientists have been saying privately for a few years now:

* Many of the predicted impacts of human-caused climate change are occurring much faster than anybody expected — particularly ice melt, everywhere you look on the planet.
* If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we are facing incalculable catastrophes by century’s end, including rapid sea level rise, massive wildfires, widespread Dust-Bowlification, large oceanic dead zones, and 9°F warming — much of which could be all but irreversible for centuries. And that’s not the worst-case scenario!
* The consequences for human health and well being would be extreme.”

For fuck sake we are being slowly killed off people!!
(NaturalNews) What’s most striking about the present BP oil catastrophe is not that it is an aberration but rather part of a dangerous pattern of mankind’s propensity to destroy nature. To destroy life in a large region of an ocean isn’t even new: The world already has over two hundred “dead zones” where fish can’t live because the ocean water has no more oxygen left thanks to the runoff effects of man-made chemicals.

Not content with mere deforestation and the vast destruction of biodiversity on land, Man has now expanded to destroy the oceans through overfishing, ocean acidification from CO2 emissions, agricultural runoff, flushing pharmaceuticals down the drain and unleashing crude oil directly into the ocean waters. It almost seems as if mankind were somehow bent on destroying itself by first destroying everything else on the planet just to see what happens.

Human beings, by any honest accounting, are repeat offenders engaged in crimes against nature. This article, by the way, isn’t some clever way to try to push us all toward a U.N.-controlled world government where every human action is regulated by environmental cops; it’s merely an observation of what’s really happening right now on our planet. I’m a Constitutionalist and remain strongly opposed to UN control as much as any properly-informed American. In no way do I support suppressing our individual freedoms or liberties. In fact, the problems here are not with the People but rather with the corporations.

The criminal corporations
It is the corporations that are committing these crimes against nature: Big Pharma’s mass poisoning of the waters, BP’s oil catastrophe crime against the planet in the Gulf Coast, the manufacture of Depleted Uranium shells by wealthy “defense” contractors, factory farming by meat producers, the poisoning of our farms by Monsanto and its campaign to dominate nature with genetically modified seeds… you get the picture. If you really look hard at the issues, it’s the corporations who are destroying our planet and thereby destroying future survivability for the rest of us.

It is the corporations, in essence, that are the criminals who are now destroying the very world around us, and if We the People continue to let these corporations engage in such actions, it won’t be long before we wake up and find ourselves enslaved in a Corporatocracy that has stolen from us the very world in which we had hoped to raise our children.

What is abundantly clear now is that corporations will do anything to make money, from the cruel and inhumane factory farming of cows to dumping millions of gallons of toxic chemicals in the ocean to try to sink the dead sea animals in the Gulf. Corporations would set fire to the entire planet if that act could somehow boost profits by 50% next quarter.

The unbridled greed that drives these corporations is simply incompatible with sustainable life on our planet. Through their careless, greed-driven actions, corporations are threatening YOUR life and the lives of your children.

I say enough is enough.

An armed revolt against the corporations?
There is already some mainstream talk about arresting the CEO of British Petroleum for his crimes against nature. It will never happen, of course, because these corporations wield too much power over government entities. We’ve seen it time and time again: Corporations are almost never held accountable for their crimes.

It is becoming increasingly clear that any action to hold these corporations accountable for their actions must come from the People — most likely in the form of a dedicated revolt, or perhaps even an armed “mass citizens’ arrest” of the corporate criminals.

Imagine ten thousand armed, angry citizens from Texas, Louisiana and Florida converging on the BP headquarters in Houston, led by a local Sheriff, marching in and arresting all the top CEOs of British Petroleum. That’s the kind of action that needs to start taking place if any justice is ever to be found in our modern world of corporate corruption and government collusion.

When it comes to corporate crimes, the justice system has utterly failed. The corporations that commit crimes are almost never held responsible. Consider the aftermath of the Goldman Sachs fiasco in 2008 – 2009, when Wall Street banksters ripped off the American people to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and then got bailed out by the U.S. government with trillions of dollars in gift money. How is that justice?

Similarly, after drug giant Pfizer was found to have committed massive marketing fraud that violated federal law, the company was deemed “too big to fail” and was simply given a free pass by the government to stay in business, defrauding customers, states and nations. Pfizer set up a shell company to take the fall for its crimes, then went right back to business as usual. Read the story on CNN if you want to learn more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/0...

As CNN reports: Imagine being charged with a crime, but an imaginary friend takes the rap for you. That is essentially what happened when Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, was caught illegally marketing Bextra, a painkiller that was taken off the market in 2005 because of safety concerns. When the criminal case was announced last fall, federal officials touted their prosecution as a model for tough, effective enforcement. “It sends a clear message” to the pharmaceutical industry, said Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. But beyond the fanfare, a CNN Special Investigation found another story, one that officials downplayed when they declared victory. It’s a story about the power major pharmaceutical companies have even when they break the laws intended to protect patients…”

Whether it’s Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Food or Big Agriculture, every large and powerful corporations gets away with murder because laws are never properly applied to them. BP is destroying an entire ocean — and the livelihoods of millions of people — and will probably get off with a large fine and a slap on the wrist. In two years, it will all be back to business as usual, polluting the oceans, destroying life and ignoring safety rules and regulations once again while the American people suffer.

More dangerous than terrorists
Corporations are a greater threat to our lives than terrorists. That much should be clear by now: When corporations poison our food supply with toxic chemical ingredients; when they poison our bodies with fraudulently-marketed pharmaceuticals; when they poison our oceans with careless oil drilling… they are threatening our lives and our livelihoods. They are destroying the only world we know, and they are proving themselves to be far more dangerous to our collective future than any terrorist organization.

The real terrorists, it turns out, have “Inc.” after their name. And if we really want to go after the terrorists who present a clear and present danger to our health and lives, we must rise up against the corporate machine that now controls our media, our food, our sick-care system, our patents, our elected officials and our energy. We must gather our forces to make legally-justified citizens’ arrests of those at the top who are responsible for these atrocities against nature and the People. We must unite out of a common desire for survival against the corporate criminals who are destroying our very futures as we speak.

We must seek the aid of the local Sheriffs, Constables and community law enforcement officials who would join us in making these arrests, and then we must march on the corporate headquarters of these criminal corporations, right through their front doors and into their corporate offices where arrests will be made at gunpoint.

And why gunpoint? Because corporations do not respect law, nor ethics, nor morality, nor compassion towards others. They only respect one thing: force. So we must reluctantly use force — backed by the common sense of common law — to make these corporations stop destroying our planet and our livelihoods. I’m not saying we march in there and shoot them; I’m saying we march in and arrest them and bring them to trial in local courts, with local jurors who can make local commonsense decisions about what to do with these criminal corporate executives.

The feds cannot be trusted on this. We must deal with these corporations on a local level, with the widespread support of the everyday people whose lives are being destroyed by these corporations.

The extinction of the human race
This is more than just holding corporations accountable for specific crimes such as poisoning the Gulf Coast; it’s about our very survival. We’re not merely talking about small, local damage to specific regions or industries here — we are talking about the possibility of the extinction of the human race.

If the world’s powerful corporations are allowed to continue operating as they have done, they will destroy our world and cause the collapse of human civilization. We cannot survive when suffocated under a cloud of chemical toxicity, financial fraud, genetically-modified seeds and widespread environmental destruction. Corporations are incapable of acting within the guidelines of long-term sustainable living. Their power and reach are now so great that they have the capacity to destroy modern civilization (which is quite fragile already).

Rising up against the corporations now means fighting for our very survival. What BP has made as clear as day is that we must now make a choice: We can choose to appease powerful corporations and exempt them from any real enforcement of rules, regulations or common sense; or we can take a stand against them, arrest their top executives, shut down their operations, revoke their corporate charters and set course in a new world without the destructive influence of endless greed backed by incessant profit-taking.

The worship of profit has become a scourge on human civilization. Unbridled greed is now our curse. “Economic activity”, taken as a lone figure without the context in which it was generated, holds no measure of real value, and it should never been pursued for its own sake.

We must now shift our consciousness to a new era of the protection of life. We must value quality of life, not imaginary numbers in a bank account, and quality of life is a complex, interdependent equation that necessarily involves the sustaining of all the diverse ecosystems that now remain on our planet. For humans to live sustainably, happily and abundantly, we must stop destroying nature and start protecting it. We must be its steward, not its exploiter. And those corporations engaged in the mass destruction or poisoning of living ecosystems must be courageously arrested as criminals and prosecuted for their crimes against both the People and the planet.

There is no other way that we will survive the next century. Poisoning our planet on such a massive scale in an inexcusable act. We the People will either rise up against it, or we shall be destroyed by it.

I, for one, am willing to fight for our survival. Because I don’t want human civilization to just be a sorry footnote in the history of life on planet Earth.

On top of that there is the insanity of those who are in charge of the war machines eg Israel:
Yigal Peleg, 61, a colleague of Yatom’s who had been treating Defense Minister Ehud Barak for Security Addiction Disorder (SAD), was found dead at his home in Tel Aviv Monday evening from an overdose of Valium. A suicide note indicated that Yatom’s failure had provoked widespread despair in Israel’s psychiatric community, which fears a therapeutic remedy for doublethink is much more remote than previously believed. Security Addiction Disorder, often characterized by blizzards of doublethink, is also now believed to be well nigh incurable.

The loss of two such highly successful analysts to clinical depression in such a short time has left Israel fearing a wave of “shrinkicides” may be in the offing. Many government officials are currently undergoing analysis, with virtually all of them sporting the same penchant for doublethink that drove Yatom and Peleg over the edge. If current treatments continue to prove ineffective, a psychiatric “Jonestown” could well be the result.

“Laypeople don’t realize the stress involved in treating ideology-induced psychosis,” observes Dr. Rafael Eilam, best-selling author of Zionist Lunacy On The Couch: The Perilous Quest For a Cure (Sanity Books, 2010). “Take Security Addiction Disorder. A client afflicted with this illness simply cannot perceive that domination and security are not the same thing. To dominate another is to guarantee insecurity, since the dominated instinctively seek to escape domination by any means available.” Given the almost total blindness of SAD patients to their own aggression, psychiatrists who treat them often can’t resist impulses to bash their own brains out with the nearest blunt object. This tends to reduce the quality of their subsequent research.

Similar problems confront psychoanalysts treating Massive Attack Disorder (MAD), which is said to be rampant among Israeli leaders. Patients afflicted with this dread disease lack the maturity to understand their own needs, let alone those of others, and destroy everything in their vicinity like a cranky toddler smashing his toys. The illness has a poor prognosis, as victims typically don’t notice that they are worse off in the wake of each tantrum. According to Dr. Eilam, Israel’s savage attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in recent years may be credited to their MAD proclivities, with both attacks having contributed substantially to Israel’s current pariah status.

In a somewhat surprising development, psychiatrists world-wide are rallying to support their embattled Israeli colleagues by forming a Free Israel movement. As their first major action they are planning to sail a flotilla to Tel Aviv loaded with humanitarian relief supplies for Israeli psychoanalysts and their high-profile patients; that is, tons of anti-depressants for the former and elephant tranquilizers for the latter. Flotilla organizers admit that these are only palliatives, but argue that the elephant tranquilizers in particular have been shown to be at least moderately effective in calming the symptoms of Zionist Infantile Outburst Neurosis (ZION), the most serious of which is a chronic impulse to rob, swindle, torture and murder all those who, in the victim’s judgment, which is by definition infallible, impede the onward march to the Zionist paradise.”

Then we have our general population wasting our final days and hours with neurotic ego-centered babbling, as so often here, on Uncensored, when we should all join together and plan revolt, as one, against the mad crims in charge, who are killing us and stop division amongst ourselves, which the crims just love!

http://bestpoet.com

Poor brianjohnevans. He can’t even understand the subject matter.

No one is surprised by kook Deniers like him.

poor troll edwards does not know what he is talking about or he would understand that mr evans does indeed believe in global warming.
but then we all know that troll edwards doesn’t actually ‘read’ he just copies and pastes.
cos he is an abusive dupe and a slave.

Poor troll edwards boohoo.

Climate Change Deniers nailed again:

21 June 10

“Stanford Study Exposes Lack of Credibility and Expertise Among Climate Skeptics”

A study by Stanford University researchers examining expert credibility in climate change has confirmed that climate skeptics and contrarians within the scientific community comprise at best 3% of the field, and are “vastly overshadowed” in expertise by their colleagues who agree that manmade climate change is real.

As readers of DeSmogBlog know well, the credibility of climate science and scientists has come under attack in recent months. In the wake of the Climategate episode –portrayed in the right wing media as a scandalous cover-up while independent investigations found no evidence calling into question the integrity of climate science – skeptics have loudly argued that the public shouldn’t trust the overwhelming consensus among scientists that man-made climate change is real.

Flipping that faulty assertion on its head, this new Stanford study, published today in the highly-regarded journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides even more reason for the public to scrutinize the credibility of the skeptics and contrarians themselves, showing them to possess less direct expertise and far fewer published works in the climate science literature than colleagues who agree with the consensus view.

Examining a group of 1,372 climate researchers, their publications and the number of times their work is cited by peers in related studies, the Stanford researchers found that:

1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of [man-made climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [man-made climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

The authors found that:

“the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians.”

Reviews of the scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists “indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” according to the study.

continued at:

http://www.desmogblog.com/stanford-study-exposes-lack-credibility-and-expertise-among-climate-skeptics?

“Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done.”

Newsweek
June 25, 2010

“A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.” In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.”

continued at:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done
Greg Rico / AP

Vindicated too late? Penn State climatologist Michael Mann

A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.” In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

In another retraction you never heard of, a paper in Frankfurt took back (apologies; the article is available only in German) its reporting that the IPCC had erred in its assessment of climate impacts in Africa.

The Times’s criticism of the IPCC—look, its reports are full of mistakes and shoddy scholarship!—was widely picked up at the time it ran, and has been an important factor in turning British public opinion sharply against the established science of climate change. Don’t expect the recent retractions and exonerations to change that. One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X. As Twain and Churchill knew, sometimes the truth never catches up with the lie, let alone overtakes it. As I wrote last summer in a story about why people believe lies even when they’re later told the truth, sometimes people’s mental processes simply go off the rails.

Media Matters: The greatest science “scandal” “in the history of man” predictably falls apart

In their never-ending quest to prove that they understand the intricacies of climate science better than actual climate scientists, conservative media figures routinely promote any ridiculous “evidence” they think undermines the scientific consensus about climate change.

This is a group that repeatedly points to snowstorms in February as proof that global warming is not real; claims that CO2 can’t be a pollutant because “we breathe” it; and ignores actual temperature data to baselessly claim that the Earth is really “cooling.”

Last year, conservative climate change skeptics, in the words of Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, thought they had found a “gold mine.” Conservative media figures seized on emails stolen from climate scientists and proceeded to completely distort their contents. As we pointed out repeatedly at the time, this “scandal” relied on outrageous misrepresentations of the stolen emails and did not in any way undermine the scientific consensus about climate change.

Nevertheless, conservative media figures incessantly hyped the non-scandal with their usual overblown rhetoric:

* Glenn Beck — who says he is not a conspiracy theorist, remember — suggested in the wake of “Climategate” that climate change is a “scam.” He also said that if the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report “had been done by Japanese scientists, there is not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri.”

* Noted climatologist Rush Limbaugh, who frequently decries the supposed global warming “hoax,” proposed that all of the scientists involved in “Climategate” should be “named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is.”

* Andrew Breitbart called for “capital punishment” for NASA scientist James Hansen, because “Climategate” was supposedly “high treason.”

* The Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Investor’s Business Daily, The American Spectator’s Robert Stacy McCain, Rich Lowry, Newsmax’s James Hirsen, and Michael Ledeen all joined forces to smear the scientific consensus on climate change as a “cult.”

* Fox News’ Mike Huckabee explained that “Jesus would be a truthseeker” while discussing the “revelation” that scientists had “cooked” climate change data.

The crew at Fox & Friends spent this year’s Earth Day promoting an important cause. No, not encouraging environmental consciousness — they devoted the show to pushing “Climategate” falsehoods in order to falsely claim that “scientists held back data that discredits theories on global warming.” They were joined by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, who was there to complain about non-Fox networks “dismiss[ing]” and “ignor[ing]” the story.

Last December, Bozell told Lou Dobbs that “Climategate” is the “biggest scandal in terms of science, finance, and politics … in the history of man.” After Bozell compared the climate science “cover-up” to “the craziness” of Dan Brown’s fiction, he actually managed to draw laughter from Dobbs. Unfortunately, contrary to Bozell’s suggestion that media outlets ignored the story, numerous non-Fox “Climategate” stories adopted conservatives’ dishonest framing of the non-story.

And now for the inevitable conclusion of this manufactured controversy.

As reported by The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin — who, by the way, Rush Limbaugh thinks should “just go kill” himself — the Independent Climate Change Email Review “cleared climate scientists and administrators” involved in “Climategate” of “malfeasance.” This follows several other exonerations of the scientists involved in the phony scandal. In response, Media Matters, joined by numerous progressive and clean energy groups, called on all outlets that reported on the original “Climategate” controversy to set the record straight.

So this leaves us where we were before the “Climategate” freakout: There is still overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming.

And once again conservative media proved that they don’t hesitate to rely on blatant distortions, outright falsehoods, and a complete disregard for reality to advance their political causes.

Mainstream media outlets would be doing everyone a service if they remembered that the next time they decide to report on whatever Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the perpetual conservative outrage machine are yelling about.

Conservatives’ phony scandal of the week: The Obama Justice Department and the New Black Panther Party

While we’re on the subject of manufactured scandals that respectable media outlets shouldn’t take seriously, Fox News and its friends in the conservative echo chamber spent much of the week promoting phony, trumped-up allegations against the Justice Department.

In short, conservative media outlets have been aggressively promoting the charge by GOP activist J. Christian Adams that President Obama’s Justice Department engaged in racially charged “corruption” when it partially dismissed a case against members of the New Black Panther Party for allegedly engaging in voter intimidation outside of a Philadelphia polling center on Election Day in 2008.

As we have documented extensively, Adams should not be trusted. He is a long-time right-wing activist with extensive ties to the Bush-era politicization of the Justice Department. Adams himself has admitted that he lacks first-hand knowledge to support his accusations. Additionally, Adams’ charge that the DOJ’s action in the New Black Panther case shows unprecedented, racially motivated corruption is undermined by the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants, and that the Bush DOJ declined to pursue similar allegations against a group of Minutemen — one of whom was carrying a gun — in 2006.

Even the Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the New Black Panthers case “very small potatoes” and said an investigation into the DOJ’s decision is full of “overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges.”

And yet again, the fact that this is a completely manufactured scandal didn’t stop conservative media figures from engaging in one of their time-honored traditions: attempting to obscure their own problems with race by accusing others of racism.

Radio host Jim Quinn — who once told “race-baiting” African-American “ingrates” to “get on your knees” and “kiss the American dirt” because slavery brought them to the U.S. — hyped the New Black Panther story by calling the civil rights community “race-baiting poverty pimps.”

Rush Limbaugh — who earlier this week announced that if Obama wasn’t black he’d be a “tour guide in Honolulu” and claimed Obama is using the office of the presidency to seek “payback” for the country’s history of racism — forwarded Adams’ charge that the case was dropped because of racially charged corruption.

Beck, who infamously called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” declared that the Obama administration is “full” of “people that will excuse” the “hatred” of the New Black Panthers. He also relied on falsehoods to try to connect Obama to the New Black Panthers, and claimed today that the New Black Panthers are part of Obama’s “army of thugs.”

Of course, the New Black Panthers are a fringe hate group, and only a cynical race-baiter like Glenn Beck would claim they are somehow part of Barack Obama’s imaginary “army of thugs.”

But I’m sure they appreciate all of the publicity, courtesy of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Bek Younuhvercity

This week also marked the launch of Beck’s latest attempt to grab money from “educate” his audience: Beck University.

As Beck described it, the online Beck University is an “academic program” that would be a “unique experience bringing together experts in the fields of religion, American history, and economics.” At the outset of the first “course” — Faith 101, with frequent Beck guest/promoter of historical misinformation David Barton — Beck announced that viewers “will learn more in the next hour than you’ve probably learned in your entire life about American history.”

Laughable hyperbole aside, as we pointed out this week, Glenn Beck is uniquely unqualified to found a university, considering he regularly traffics in bizarre conspiracy theories, distortions, and downright falsehoods on a wide variety of subjects.

The day after the first “course” at Beck University, Beck stood in front of his blackboard and labeled various historical figures “heros” or “villians.”

And lastly, by my count, between his TV show last night and his radio program today, Beck launched no fewer than four baseless charges that, by his standards, should get him fired.
http://bestpoet.com
……………………..

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/T50ESIT30OD77D4FO/p2931#c63610

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm