The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
Rich,
If you just want your ass handed to you by Vince, be my guest.
“dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change”
Slarti,
Thank you. Our media and pundits are so shallow that they can only discuss issues in terms of headlines, rather that view the entire problem. We are facing a world ecological crisis that has everything to do with stupidly unbridled development and which through intelligent intervention can actually accomplish more, do it cheaper and provide a good standard of living for the entire human race.
Vince Treacy said; “The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act.”
LIE LIE LIE!!!!
Slartibartfast,
The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.
Ҥ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.”
Mike,
I found it very sad they had created an island of trash where a lagoon used to be.
Rich S.,
Yes but do we understand why George W. bush received the Presidency in 2000 on a decision written by a Justice who son worked for the plaintiff and yet refused to recuse himself?
That’s a lot of words to say nothing.
Vince Treacy has already thoroughly addressed and debunked the quo warranto issue without resorting to anything other than, what’s that stuff called? Oh yeah, PROOF.
Obama is a citizen. He’s a graft swilling sellout to K St. just like the GOP, but he’s still a citizen.
Slarti does just fine in evaluating evidence in an impartial manner. As a trained scientist, I’ll take his analysis over the prime facie nonsense arguments of birthers any day.
You on the other hand, Rich? Not so much.
Buddha,
Who needs the damned Maldives anyway? More important is that we support T. Boone Pickens who is pushing his current environmental drivel so that through use of natural gas leases he can control America’s major water sources. The man has always been a self centered scoundrel and now he wants to have a monopoly on water. I wonder why?
As far as the poor Chrysler dealers go, my father was one, part of the viability problem for Chrysler was an overabundance of dealerships, which did little for sales but screwed up the Company by having them produce too many cars for a poor market.
That lawyer Donofrio is involved in this latest stupid lawsuit, only shows that the gullible among us will use anything to justify their hatred and ignorance.
Slartibartfast,
The U.S. Constitution is a relatively brief document. Please take the time to read it. When finished answer there questions:
Does the U.S. Constitution state that impeachment is the sole means of removal of the President? Is a failure to meet the qualifications a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is it treason or bribery? Proven election fraud, if not linked directly to the President, would still mean that the President had no right to occupy the office, but it would not be an impeachable offense. What should be done in that instance? What if the President won’t resign?
You’re an intelligent person. You’re capable of rational thought. Instead of getting your legal advice from a partisan source, take the time to review history on the subject. This isn’t the first time that the legitimacy of an elected President has been the subject of controversy. Familiarize yourself with the fallout of the Hayes vs. Tilden election of 1876. Though it took almost 25 years to pass the DC quo warranto statute, the 1877 Congressional records demonstrate that Congress considered the qualifications of the President to be a constitutional question that could be answered by the Court, not Congress.
Mr. Mills, of Texas, said : “The exercise of the power by the Forty-fifth Congress over the question of the election of President of the, United States is a usurpation. We have no power over that question at all. By the Constitution of the United States that power to inquire as to who was elected President of the United Srates was vested in the Forty-fourth Congress, and when that Congress spoke or failed to speak on that question, when it made a law by which it abdicated that power conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States, it parted with it forever, and so far as this, the Forty filth Congress, is concerned, there remains not a shadow of authority to investigate the election of the President.”
“Resolved, That no subsequent Congress, and neither House has jurisdiction to revise the action at such joint meeting, and any attempt by either House to annul or disregard such action or the title to office arising therefrom would be revolutionary and is disapproved by this House.”
“Suppose the canvassers had made a mistake in footing up the returns, that changed the result of the election—a mistake that they discovered before the vote was counted: was there no remedy?” “No !” was the answer. “Then,” said the Justice, “a mistake in arithmetic, in the adding up of figures, may elect a President of the United States, and Congress is powerless to prevent it ! ” Again he asked :
“Suppose the canvassers were bribed ; or had entered into a conspiracy to commit a fraud ; and in pursuance of the bribery or conspiracy, altered the returns, declaring elected persons not chosen by the voters, and had transmitted their vote to the President of the Senate, but that before the vote was counted the fraud was detected and exposed: was there no remedy ? ”
“If this be sound doctrine, it is the only instance in the world where fraud becomes enshrined and sanctified behind a certificate of its authors. It is elementary knowledge that fraud vitiates all proceedings, even the most solemn ; that no form of words, no amount of ceremony, and no solemnity of procedure, can shield it from exposure or punishment.”
Now do you understand why the DC Quo Warranto statute was created? Now do you understand why Congress found it best to rely on the Court to determine a constitutional question instead of leaving it to a partisan body?
This is from the excellent sited at
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/leo-donofrio-and-pidgeon-another-desperate-move/
“Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
“1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
“2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.”
So, once again, Leo rises from the ashheap. He has resigned several times to the birfer battles. [Enter Leo Donofrio in the “Search” window above for more info.] On the occasion of his latest swan song, he took all of his postings down from his website. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ . Now he seems to be launching another futile, frivolous QW effort in the District Court for D.C. Since his site went dark, we can’t even read his convoluted mistaken arguments anymore.
Slart is right. The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment.” The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment” and the Senate the “sole Power the try all Impeachments.”
Removal is such a grave move that it was committed to the representatives of the people in Congress. There is no room in the constitutional scheme to bypass this means of removal by resorting to a single judge and jury in the District of Columbia. The quo warranto theory is a truly bizarre idea without any foundation in the language or history of the Constitution.
This has been debated before on the Turley thread. Almost all of the QW cases have involved state and local officials. The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act. The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.
Whatever their gripes, the auto dealers are not claimants to the presidency.
Say goodnight, Leo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34115298/ns/news-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1
Copy of an e-mail exchange I had with a very liberal friend of mine. So lets be clear, I’m all for taking care of mother earth.
—– Original Message —–
From: REDACTED hotmailcom
To: bob.
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: Winter is Here
Bob I agree that we should do everything possible to make it a clean planet, everything. When you look at what the alternatives are, it still reverts back to the earths natural resources. Boone Pickens presented the best Idea to get us heading in that direction. Question, why is the government not heading to his natural gas solution. In order to have a major effect Trains, Planes, Tractor Trailers and Ships must be re tooled. Clean energy is a great idea. They say nuclear power is the way to go to solve PART of the carbon emissions but then you have the by product to deal with and that gets buried in the ground.
The whole issue here is the CLAIM that CO2 is responsible for heating the earth, it’s responsible for everything thats dying, crying going extinct ect ect. It’s almost like the blame Bush for everything attitude. I’m not defending Bush, I’m a 9-11 truther, I think Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so don’t get me started on that.
CO2 makes up LESS than 5% of all known greenhouse gases. CO2 continues to get dumped into the atmosphere in mass amounts everyday but yet we have no warming in the last ten years, and thats a fact. In fact it’s getting colder. You may not want to believe that but thats a fact. (Hide the Decline confirmed here today) and it is as I told you before, they got the COMPUTER MODEL to do what THEY wanted it to. Remember my old saying Look at the ACTUAL FACTUAL DATA not a computer model http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
I once told you that Greenland got it’s name because it was Green. The Vikings raised cattle and farmed the lands. Now Greenland is covered in Ice. If that Ice melts it could have devastating effects, at least thats what they tell us. If it does, it won’t be because of CO2.
With that said, while we try and transition over to cleaner energy and clean up the planet, should we allow a world government to tax us to death with Cap and Tax over something that does’nt effect the planet in the manner that they say it does. Should we allow the government into our homes and tell us what light bulbs we can use. Again the light bulbs save energy but like nuclear waste pollute the ground (mercury)
This is a 145 trillion dollar question, this is what is at stake here. For 145 trillion I think we could plant a whole lot of trees around the world if CO2 is really the problem.
Bdaman,
While the auto dealers might have standing (they can unquestionably show that they were personally harmed), there are a couple of problems with this case – first, I think that the President has immunity from this sort of action (Vince or one of the other lawyers please correct me if I’m wrong) and more importantly, a quo warranto proceeding cannot be used to remove the president (the Constitution gives congress the SOLE power of impeachment). This is destined to be another loss in the birther’s epic losing streak.
http://www.nbc.com/?vty%20=%20fromWidget_Video&dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video
Mike S,
Thank you for eloquently making the point that dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change. Even if AGW is a myth (which is highly unlikely), cleaning up our act, so to speak, is necessary for the continuation of our civilization or we’re going to end up drowning in our own waste. I wish the deniers like Bdaman would go and live on the Texas-sized island of discarded plastics in the middle of the Pacific (since they’re pro-pollution that should be the kind of place they like) and let the rest of us work to solve our pollution problems.
And the hits just keep right on rolling. Question, If Hawaii has an ORIGINAL birth certificate on file in accordance with state policy and procedures, why not show that one instead of the one posted on the internet.
With so many lawsuits filed every day in America, one more might seem irrelevant. There is one however that should be watched, but will most likely escape notice. For a little while at any rate…
Last summer, hundreds of Chrysler and GM Dealers lost their franchises in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. Many of those dealers vowed to fight what they saw as a heavy miscarriage of justice. It was simply un-American, and shocking to find that something like this could happen here, that the government could take over a private business, and then take that business away from hundreds of private dealerships. Many of those dealers had profitable businesses; in some cases those businesses had been run by families successfully for 50 years, in some cases more.
Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Cars-quo-warranto-and-Obama
To me the people who want to deny “global warning” are basically morons. The problem is that in selling the concept that mankind through constant, unplanned development is destroying our environment and therefore the Earth’s ability to sustain us, has been sidetracked by a slogan. While “global warning” is no doubt a real phenomenon, it doesn’t encompass the discussion of the entire environmental issue. It allows its critics to attack facets of the problem, as a result of their own lack of comprehension, without seeing the big picture.
The big picture is that through careless industrial development we are destroying the sustainability of the Planet. Coal mining strips mountaintops bare and leeches poisonous chemical into rivers and streams, causing death of flora and fauna. Inefficient electical appliances (from household to industrial) increase the need for electricity, which is supplied through inefficient and destructive measures. Inland water is polluted by the effluvient of unregulated industry and the Ocean’s viability is depleted through unrestrained dumping of noxious materials, overfishing. The polar ice cap is melting, as are many glaciers, gradually raising the height of the oceans and setting up futre inundations of many of the world greatest Cities that are built next to the ocean. The Rain Forests, necessary for maintaining environmentl balance are being depleted in the name of economic development. The list goes on and on.
I’m not a luddite though. I believe in scientific progress and technological development. However, it must be done rationally and in concert with environmental needs. This is not only doable, it is actually the least expensive and most efficient way to go. The “global warming” naysayers are a conglomerate of
religious fanatics more interested in a soon to arrive armageddon, industrial/financial pirates desiring unfettered development, their political minions who are bought and paid for and the fellow travellers ready to believe any political crap handed to them as long as it has the “conservative” brand on it.
The evidence for the need for mankind to take an ecological perspective is not only overwhelming, much of it is non-technical enough so that you don’t need to be a scientist to figure it out. To be against the ecological perspective is to really be either alarmingly self-centered, apocalyptically minded, or someone who doen’t give a damn about the future of mankind and/or their country.
“But are those manifestations of our current system (a mixed economy which is regulated) or are they the very nature of a free market? I think they are caused by man tinkering with the markets while you think they are the very nature of a free market.”
Byron,
Of course they are “men tinkering with the markets” because this is the natural progression of people trying to increase their profit. By definition a corporation is in business to not only make, but to continually increase profit. The only way to do so is to continually increase market share, if your in the business of selling something.
Our current stock market system only rewards those whose profits keep increasing thereby pressuring CEO’s to find new ways to improve the bottom line. There is neither respect, nor reward from stock prices for those companies that manage well but don’t continually show profit increases. This has what has caused businesses to work hard at diversification, no matter the fact that many times it doesn’t make sense.
In the past before Reagonomics there were companies recognized as “blue chip stocks,” denoting that these were well managed companies, that had a good share of their market and produced reasonable profits from year to year. In other words stable business enterprises. Then Reagonomics hit in the 80’s and with it deregulation and lack of anti-trust enforcement. You had the ridiculous result of smaller companies gobbling up larger ones through shady stock deals, while the SEC looked the other way.
Industry destabilized and began outsourcing production overseas to areas with no unions and ridiculously cheap labor costs.
The result was the diminuation of our manufacturing base and a country where business almost totally focussed on the Financial Services Industries, which can make obscene profits, but cannot sustain a robust economy. I don’t like Henry Ford, because he was a bigot, but the man understood that if he paid his workers well they would buy his product. Somewhere along the line the greed driven geniuses of the MBA/economist kind forgot this lesson and replaced it with one of rapacious greed. I’m not saying things were perfect before Reagan, they weren’t, but at least the US had a strong industrial base. Now we’re mostly a service economy, with a shrinking middle/working class and the prosepcts of becoming a third world nation. The answer to this is not more laissez-faire economics, but a return to the regulatory conventions established by both Roosevelts and the recognition that institutions like the Fed and treaty’s like
NAFTA/CAFTA are really anti-American, in that they aim at only at
allowing the elite to further prosper without regard for all of the rest of us.
Earth could plunge into sudden ice age
Experts: ‘Big Freeze’ about 12,800 years ago happened within months
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Did humans cause the Younger Dryas? No. Did humans cause
all of the other ice ages? No. But let’s blame them anyway.
Temperatures go up? Blame humans. Temperatures go down?
Blame humans.
There is no reason why a big freeze shouldn’t happen again, says Patterson. “If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic.”
Sure, IF that should happen. But there’s no reason to expect the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt. Temperatures have been declining since 1998, and we’ve had record snowfall around the world. If anything, we should expect the Greenland ice sheet to grow.
“People assume that we’re political, that we’re either pro-global-warming or anti-global-warming, when it’s really neither,” Patterson added. “Our goal is just to understand climate.”
If their goal is “just to understand climate,” then why don’t they, and other climate scientists, include the known climate cycles in their models? These cycles have been known and acknowledged since the 1970s.
In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
spearheaded a project called CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range
Investigation Mapping and Prediction) to map the history of
the oceans and climate.They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork,every 11,500 years. It’s a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, they called it.
Too Hot, Too cold, not warm enough, not cold enough, one day maybe it will be just right.
UN climate chief: hacked e-mails are damaging
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091206/D9CDQI000.html
E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world’s leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others’ work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
“This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”
The Smoking Code, part 2
No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
Correct! That’s why I am (and always have) taken the following stand: Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period.
The fact that the “fudge-factor” source code exists in the first place is reason enough for alarm. Hopefully, they didn’t use fudged results in the CRU research results, but the truth is, we just don’t know.
You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
This is assuming the raw data are valid, which I maintain that it probably is. Several people question the validity of the climate data gathering methods used by the different climate research institutions, but I am not enough of a climate expert to have an opinion one way or the other. Furthermore, It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data.
So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/#more-13773