• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Twee hoaxen ontmaskerd op 1 dag.

Het geluk kan niet op ten huize Hayek.

Twee hoaxen, samenzweringen tegen het gezond verstand
zeg maar, in 1 dag ontmaskerd.

Het broeide al wat tegen de Climate Change/Global
Warming, de carriere-pseudo-wetenschapper Michael Mann
van de Climate Research Unit (CRU) van de Universiteit
van East Anglia (UK) was al eerder het vuur aan de
schenen gelegd ivm met zijn methode van boomringen
interpreteren en daaruit de fameuze hokeystick grafiek
af te leiden.

Blijkt  dat het allemaal nog véél erger is. Michael Mann
en zijn "research unit" weigerden pertinent hun data-set
vrij te geven waarop heel hun global warming theorie
gebaseerd was. Nu komt ook nog uit dat ze hun data-set
ronduit *vervalst* hebben door alle boomringen die niet
in hun kraam pastten, gewoon niet mee te tellen. Zoiets
als beweren dat alle mensen groter zijn dan twee meter,
door alle die kleiner zijn niet mee te tellen in je
onderzoek.

Bovendien heeft een ex-insider al hun e-mails gehacked,
en blijkt dat de samenzweerders er bijvoorbeeld voor
gezorgd dat de redacteur van Geophysical Research
Letters ontslagen werd omdat die zich kritisch opstelde
tegen de klimaatleugens.

Onderaan post ik mijn bron(nen) integraal over dit.

En dan is er de tweede samenzwering en leugen, de
varkensgriep.

Reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, CBS Nieuws correspondent en
"investigative reporter" ging even dieper in op de
varkensgriep, en vroeg bij de Centers for Disease
Control de cijfers op. Ze kreeg ze niet, en begon dan
maar alle US-staten apart op te bellen. Ze kwam tot de
verbijsterende ontdekking dat van al de gemelde
varkensgriep gevallen het slechts enkele procenten om
echt vastgestelde zwijnegriep ging. En de cijfers waren
al heel laag, maar nu bleef er helemaal niks van over.

Bron :
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/24/Superstar-CBS-Reporter-Blows
-the-Lid-Off-the-Swine-Flu-Media-Hype-and-Hysteria.aspx
Quote
Sharyl Attkisson is a CBS News correspondent and
investigative reporter. She’s covered Capitol Hill since
February 2006 and has been a Washington-based
correspondent there since January 1995. She was also
part of the CBS news team that received the Edward
Murrow Award in 2005 for overall excellence.
Additionally, she received an Outstanding Investigative
Journalism Emmy in 2002 for a series on the Red Cross.

In case you didn't realize it, Sharyl Attkisson is
the investigative reporter behind the groundbreaking CBS
News study that found H1N1 flu cases are NOT as
prevalent as feared.

In fact, they’re barely on the radar screen.
How did this startling information come about, and
why is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) painting a different picture entirely?
I spoke directly with Sharyl Attkisson to find out.

Two Videos

The first video is an amazing interview I did with
Sharyl about ten days ago and what the bulk of this
article is based on

The second video is brand new and was done at noon
yesterday in which I was videoed in the CBS studio in
downtown Chicago. Sharyl was gracious enough to invite
me to be on with Dr. Bernadine Healty, the former
direction of the NIH. We both were in agreement about
the swine flu and opposed to the stance the CDC is
taking, but we had different views on mammograms.

Please also watch the second interview as it is
very entertaining.

Getting Started on the Swine Flu Trail

Ms. Attkisson says:

“The reason I looked into this is a couple of
months ago, I got tips from three or four different
segments of public healthcare, with folks telling me the
CDC has recommended that they go ahead and stop testing
for and counting swine flu cases.

Each different entity that contacted me was
concerned, thinking that this should not be happening.
They really felt that it was necessary for the swine flu
to continue to be tracked in some details. So I went
about trying to find out why this decision was made and
what the ramifications would be.

… I started by contacting the CDC and the HHS
and asking some basic questions. I felt like I pretty
much got stonewalled with some of the information I
really needed to get at, especially what I needed from
the states data, and information on the rationale behind
this decision to stop counting and testing for swine flu.”

Because the CDC did not initially respond to
Attkisson’s requests, she contacted all 50 states
directly, asking for their statistics on state
lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual
testing and counting in July. She also asked states, one
by one, to help explain the rationale behind the CDC’s
decision to stop tracking H1N1 cases.

Attkisson continues:

“One of my good sources within the government
said to me that they’re either trying to, in his
opinion, over-represent the swine flu numbers or
under-represent by not counting them anymore. He said,
“You need to find out which it is.” And so to find out
which it might be, I really wanted to see the data that
the CDC had at the time it made the decision to quit
counting the cases.”

What Her Investigative Report Reveals

If you listen to most media outlets and even to
government agencies, you get the impression that
virtually every person who has visited their physician
with flu-like symptoms in recent months has H1N1, with
no testing necessary because, after all, there's an
epidemic.

We are all being led to believe that every case
diagnosed as “swine flu” or even as “flu-like illness”
is, in fact, swine flu.

But Attkisson’s investigation revealed a very
different picture right from her first contact with
individual states. She explains:

“Across the country, state by state, they were
testing [for H1N1] until CDC told them not to bother.
They were testing, in general, the cases most likely to
be believed to have been swine flu based on a doctor’s
diagnosis of symptoms and risk factors such as travel to
Mexico.

These special cases were going to state labs
for absolute confirmation with the best test -- not the
so-called “rapid testing,” but the real confirmation test.

Of those presumed likely swine flu cases out of
approximately every hundred of what was tested, only a
small fraction were actually swine flu. In every
instance, perhaps the biggest number of cases that were
swine flu was something like 30%. The smallest number
was something like 2% or 3%.

Maybe there’s one state where it was just 1%.

The point is, of the vast majority of the
presumed swine flu cases recognized by trained
physicians, the vast majority were not flu at all. They
weren’t swine flu or regular flu; they were some other
sort of upper respiratory infection.”

And here is the clincher that it seems the CDC just
doesn’t want the American public to know …

“The CDC explained that one of the reasons they
quit counting was because of all the flu that’s out
there, most are swine flu. Well, that’s true. Most of
the flu that was out there was indeed swine flu, but
they failed to say that most of the suspected flu was
nothing at all. And I think that’s the caveat the public
just didn’t know,” Attkisson explains.

She gives even more striking examples of the
numbers the investigative report revealed. For instance:

* In Florida, 83 percent of specimens that were
presumed to be swine flu were negative for all flu when
tested!
* In California, 86 percent of suspected H1N1
specimens were not swine flu or any flu; only 2 percent
were confirmed swine flu.
* In Alaska, 93 percent of suspected swine flu
specimens were negative for all flu types; only 1
percent was H1N1 flu.

Freedom of Information and Getting the Truth Out

It is not easy for journalists to access this type
of information, and they often have to wait weeks,
months or even years for information from the CDC and
the FDA -- information that is readily available and
supposed to be clearly public.

Attkisson expands on the difficulties she faced in
trying to get simple data regarding swine flu cases in
the United States:

“They [CDC’s public affairs] quit communicating
with me when I pressed on why I couldn’t get certain
information. They just wouldn’t answer my emails
anymore. So I had to file a Freedom of Information
request, which is usually my last choice because I know
I was going into a deep black hole many times and I’ll
never get an answer.

But in this case, I got an interesting response
on October 19 from the CDC when I had asked for some
simple, public documents that would have been easy for
them to obtain too quickly.

Journalists are allowed to ask for expedited
processing of their Freedom of Information request
because, for obvious reasons, they’re working on a story
that may have public impact or be of public interest.
The agencies are not supposed to use the Freedom of
Information Law to obstruct or delay the release of this
information.

This may be the first time I was denied that
expedited processing from Freedom of Information that
we’re entitled to as members of the press; a letter from
HHS or Health and Human Services (the CDC is under HHS)
said to me that one of the reasons they’re denying my
expedited processing is because this is not a matter of
“widespread and exceptional media or public interest.”

In other words, the CDC doesn’t think these
questions about swine flu prevalence and these other
things that we’ve been asking are, at least in their
opinion in this letter, not a matter of widespread and
exceptional media or public interest.”

Yet, while the CDC expressed that questions about
swine flu prevalence were not a matter of widespread
media or public interest, the President had declared the
swine flu a national public health emergency!

The inconsistencies at the CDC are nearly
incomprehensible.

The Ramifications of the Swine Flu Policy

According to Attkisson’s CBS News study, when you
come down with chills, fever, cough, runny nose, malaise
and all those other "flu-like" symptoms, the illness is
likely caused by influenza at most 17 percent of the
time and as little as 3 percent! The other 83 to 97
percent of the time it's caused by other viruses or
bacteria.

So remember that not every illness that appears to
be the flu actually is the flu. In fact, most of the
time it's not.

Curiously, the CDC still advises those who were
told they had 2009 H1N1 (and therefore should be immune
to getting it again) to get vaccinated unless they had
lab confirmation.

But because very few people have actually had a
lab-confirmed case of H1N1 (and in most cases those
people told they had swine flu probably did not), this
means nearly everyone is still being advised to get the
swine flu vaccine.

Attkisson has been one of the few to speak out
against this flawed system and point out the serious
ramifications that come when a public health agency is
secretive about their health data.

Attkisson says:

“From a public and journalistic standpoint, I
believe the mistake comes when you don’t fully disclose
to the public as you go and discover the mistakes. Try
to disclose and fix things that come up.

Everybody understands that there isn’t a
perfect system, but I think you need to be upfront with
them, explain what you’re doing, and explain what you’re
discovering. If you’ve made a mistake or you feel like
you need to correct something, say that, too, but don’t
just try to keep information from the public.”

I couldn’t agree more, and Attkisson’s CBS News
report has stood out like a bright light of truth among
all the clouds of misinformation.

If you’d like to learn more about the report and
its findings, you can read all the details in the past
article CBS Reveals that Swine Flu Cases Seriously
Overestimated.

UNQUOTE

Bron van Hoax 1
Tiadaily

http://www.tiadaily.com/
(Niet leesbaar zonder abonnement, maar ik neem de tekst
hieronder integraal over)

TIA Daily • November 23, 2009

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Fix Is In

"Climategate" and the Real Meaning of the Global Warming
"Consensus"

by Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about
evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records
maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of
man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had
unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley
Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East
Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey
stick" graph showing a dramatic—but illusory—runaway
warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that
looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits
have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker—or possibly a disillusioned insider—has
gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and
made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU
have verified the breach of their system and
acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data—but the purpose of the
theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more
brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police
to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call
in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of
the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails
that have already been discovered in the hacked data.
Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it
going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading
British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private
admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global
warming theory. In acknowledging that global
temperatures have actually declined for the past decade,
one scientist asks, "where the heck is global
warming?... 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." They still can't account for it; see a new
article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by
Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these
people got their scientific education, but where I come
from, if your theory can't predict or explain the
observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global
warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick"
to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts
provides an explanation of this case in technical
detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two
different kinds of data—temperature "proxies" from tree
rings and actual thermometer measurements—in a way
designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that
ends the way the global warming establishment wants it
to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data,
the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade
legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act,
for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science
that you don't just get to report your results and ask
other people to take you on faith. You also have to
report your data and your specific method of analysis,
so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it.
Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of
the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce
global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of
subjecting scientific papers to review by other
scientists with relevant expertise before they can be
published in professional journals. The idea is to weed
out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but
there is a clear danger that such a process will simply
reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review
can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to
exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give
critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming
that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU
head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid
themselves of this troublesome editor"—hopefully not
through the same means used by Henry II's knights.
Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate
Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps
we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite
papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about
global warming is wrong because it is not supported by
scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed
journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an
article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists'
panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific
literature. When another article by a skeptic was
published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann
complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We
can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom
Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome
editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse
skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence
of this, we could go through official AGU channels to
get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a
later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been
plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific
journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure
friendly reviewers who could be counted on to
rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a
list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of
them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an
attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of
a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being
in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you
hear someone invoke the authority of peer review—or of
the UN's IPCC reports—as backing for claims about global
warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into
other media used to promote the global warming dogma.
For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an
objective website at which global warming activists and
skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the
CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts
that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use
RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I
are going to be careful about what comments we screen
through…. We can hold comments up in the queue and
contact you about whether or not you think they should
be screened through or not, and if so, any comments
you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your
disposal…. We'll use our best discretion to make sure
the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a
megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on
it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew
Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails,
masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of
global warming, either in the scientific literature or
in the mainstream media, the outcome is always
predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced
by the CRU are always tricked out to show an
upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of
global warming has to show that it is occurring and that
humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific
paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared
as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the
established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a
scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global
warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate"
scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now
we know what this "consensus" really means. What it
means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud,
but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a
criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars
devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent
scientists have established a criminal racket in which
they seek government money—Phil Jones has raked in a
total of £13.7 million in grants from the British
government—which they then use to falsify data and
defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of
fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as
public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they
even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation
of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and
prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts
and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few
billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific
research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions
of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a
fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that
starves the global economy of its cheapest and most
abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be
thoroughly investigated—and the culprits need to be
brought to justice.

UNQUOTE

Uwe - alive well, and almost famous - Hayek

Nu nog de hiv-hoax ontmaskeren en er is weer hoop voor
de mensheid, buiten Europa dan.

--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België]
naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.

Antworten