If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

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

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Ed Morrissey’s posted some of the emails, in particular a few in which the contents look pretty damaging. Make sure to read his post in full.

A few things that go without saying: 1) Hacking into someone’s emails and private files is obviously wrong, and it should be prosecuted. 2) In spite of the title of this email, I’m well aware – as are those who read this blog – that global warming alarmists have been exposed as fearmongering chicken little liars (not to mention hypocrites) for decades, but rarely has it been on a level where you actually have “scientists” and their associates caught on paper attempting to suppress data that is contra to their pre-desired result. And the few times these “scientists” have been clearly exposed, the MSM – predictably – engages in a cover-up of their own.

But this scandal has the potential to eclipse past agw scandals, to the point where the MSM will have no choice but to report on it. That said, when – if – the reports start filtering in, expect the angle on the stories not to be about the damaging information in the emails – information that, to my layman’s eyes, appears to show “scientists” trying to hide data that would hinder their pro-alarmist agenda, but instead about how it was an “invasion of privacy” with quotes from “scientists” and those in related fields expressing “outrage” that the hard work of their colleagues has been “compromised.” The same MSM – and many of the same lefties – who yawned back when Sarah Palin’s personal email account was hacked into last year, will rise up in favor of stonger laws that would allow for tougher punishment for hackers.

As they say, this story is developing – so hold on to your hats.

Washington (CNN) – Nearly two years into the recession, opinion about which political party is responsible for the severe economic downturn is shifting, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday morning indicates that 38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country’s current economic problems. That’s down 15 points from May, when 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May. Twenty-seven percent now say both parties are responsible for the economic mess.

“The bad news for the Democrats is that the number of Americans who hold the GOP exclusively responsible for the recession has been steadily falling by about two to three points per month,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “At that rate, only a handful of voters will blame the economy on the Republicans by the time next year’s midterm elections roll around.”

That’s music to my ears.

Related reading:

• WaPo: Obama faces congressional anger about economy

If the U.S. captures Osama bin Laden, there’s no need to interrogate him, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of that committee, said that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured amount to a “red herring.”

“The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] was covering is not realistic,” Leahy said during an appearance on “Washington Journal” on C-SPAN.

“For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden — we’ve had enough on him, we don’t need to interrogate him,” Leahy added.

Graham had grilled Attorney General Eric Holder during a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday on whether bin Laden should be afforded due process in courts if he were captured.

“The big problem I have is you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn’t turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you’re saying he’s subject to criminal court in the United States and you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham said.

A senior Republican aide criticized Leahy, saying “it’s a good thing they kicked him off the intel committee in the late 80’s.”

I’ll say.

For all of Lindsey Graham’s faults – and there are many – major props for cornering Holder on this issue yesterday.

But back to Leahy, he’s defending Holder’s decison:

“We’re going to bring [KSM and other detainees] back to New York and prosecute them,” he said. “I think we ought to stand up and applaud that.”

No. “We” won’t be applauding this farce. They will.

Stay tuned.

Game time is at 8:20 ET and it will be broadcast on the NFL Network. For those of you like me who don’t have that channel, you can watch the game online here.

Update – 8:11 PM: Thanks to a tip from ST reader Anthony, I found out that NFL network games are shown in local markets. Charlotte area Panthers fans can watch the game on cable channel 10.

Update 2: Thank goodness it’s over. The Panthers lose in primetime 24-17.

I wonder if they would have done the same grilling on any of the young kids who have been coached at schools all across the country to sing Obama’s praises? “You do know President Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, right?”

Yeah – I know. That’s expecting way too much from these classless acts at the KeithO network.

Jules Crittenden sums up:

With its feverishness, weird syntax and promise to be “up half the night” obsessing, this is a masterful depiction of a mental breakdown in progress.

I am really starting to develop a deep appreciation for what Andrew Sullivan does. That guy needs a special Blog Award category to accommodate the hefty blogging girth he’s been swinging around this year. “Most Bat-Sh*t.” ”Best Crazytown Blog.” “Lifetime Wack-Achievement Award.” Something like that. “Best Unhinged Fantastist Palin Conspiracy Theorist Blog” is more focused and probably worth considering, though people might think that was rigged a little too far in Sullivan’s favor.

Well, in Sully’s defense, he does seem to be doing a darned fine job of emulating his hero. He’s sure as heck got the flip-flopping down pat.

Sigh … and the beat goes on.

Facing a wave of critics warning of the risks of putting Mr. Mohammed on trial, Mr. Holder bluntly asserted that “failure isn’t a option” when asked during a Congressional hearing whether Mr. Mohammed and other key terrorist suspects will be convicted. Acquittals, claims of asylum and even judicial orders freeing them won’t result in releases, he asserted.

“If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released,” Mr. Holder bluntly told the Congressional hearing, referring to Mr. Mohammed – the self-proclaimed planner of the Sept 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

“What if a federal judge orders the Department of Justice to release Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn asked. “Will you defy that order?”

Mr. Holder made it clear that by moving Mr. Mohammed to a prison offshore – such as Bagram in Afghanistan, where hundreds of detainees are held – a release order could be circumvented.

“We have taken the view that the judiciary does not have the ability necessarily to certainly require us to, with people who are held overseas, to release them,” he said. “It’s hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances, given the other things that we could do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” that would result in him being freed,” the Attorney-General said.

“Under the regime we are contemplating … the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention.

Mr. Obama, a former law professor, denied he was interfering with Mr. Mohammed’s right to a fair trial. “I’m not prejudging it,” he said in a televised NBC interview. “I’m not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” he said.

Like I said this morning, this so-called “trial for justice for the 9-11 victims” is a pretense for this administration. If their whole point in this trial is to demonstrate to the world that we have a “fair and just” system, then proclaiming KSM guilty and deciding his punishment before he’s had a trial – and suggesting that even if he isn’t found guilty that he will still be held and possibly sent to Bagram is certainly unlike any “fair and just” system I’ve ever heard of. Essentially, Holder is saying, “If we don’t like the verdict, we still have options for keeping him in custody.” Huh??

All the options he put on the table in the event of a not guilty verdict for KSM are options he should have taken advantage of instead of going the route he’s chosen to with this farcical show trial.

Really. Wake me up when amateur hour is over in this WH!

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was “an extraordinarily difficult war” where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

“The irony of the underlying bill as it’s written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He’s gonna have counsel. He’s gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government’s case…. I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out.”

Here’s the video:

Apparently, now that he has more “experience,” he believes otherwise.

(via GayPatriot)

This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then. When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it – and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided – is a bewildering task. She is a deeply disturbed person which makes this work of fiction and fact all the more challenging to read. And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin’s unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning – specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy – we feel it’s vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else.

There are only three of us.

And one really bigly book to read between the three of them. Let’s hope they at least finish the book before the write their respective earthshattering “reviews” – they’ll then at least be a leg up on Ana Marie Cox.

It feels like Christmas in December. First the release of Going Rogue. Now Andrew Sullivan’s announcement about Going Silent.

My advice for Sully? “Go silent” more often. Lots more. Not that I normally would advocate telling someone to “shut up” whenever they feel like speaking their (however ill-informed) opinions, but really – the guy does himself no favors anymore everytime he pens an opinion piece or publishes a blog post. Don’t believe me? Read my archives, and Patterico’s, for how low Sullivan has sank – and how highly hypocritical he’s become – since he turned on Bush over the gay marriage amendment issue several years ago.

Note to Sarah Palin: Next time you write a book, make it a series of 12 – and release them all at once. I figure it would take Sully at least 6 months, along with his team of two, to go through it all. That would mean the blogosphere would be Sully-free for six months.

Hey, a girl can dream, can’t she?

Related: Make sure to tune in to Hannity tonight. He interviewed Sarah Palin and the entire hour will be the broadcast of that interview. According to Hannity, they covered a broad range of issues both domestic and foreign. Can’t wait

Military tribunals are the appropriate setting for the trials of suspected 9/11 terrorists and the tribunals have the added advantage of safeguarding the nation’s security and intelligence operations.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder wants to try five 9/11 suspects in open court near the scene of the crime in New York City.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in defending Holder’s decision: “I don’t think we should run and hide and cower. Let’s use our system.”

Far left icon Markos Moulitsas:

American liberals are tough on terrorists and secure in their knowledge that the Sept. 11 conspirators are guilty of mass murder. American conservatives are timid cowards who fear that the U.S. government can’t actually prove that the Sept. 11 killers committed their heinous crimes. Sound weird?

Maybe. But what else can be concluded after watching conservatives collectively lose their heads over President Barack Obama’s easy decision to try Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other co-conspirators in U.S. District Court in New York City? Seems that macho conservatives are terrified of shackled terrorists in orange jumpsuits and the United States Constitution.

“This decision is further evidence that the White House is reverting to a dangerous pre-Sept. 11 mentality: treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best,” wailed House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), panic-stricken that the federal criminal justice system wasn’t up to the task of protecting him.

Conservative hack Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard fretted: “In open court, it will be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will hold forth, mocking his victims, exulting in the suffering of their families, ridiculing the judge, his lawyers and the American justice system, and worst of all, rallying his jihadi brothers to kill more Americans … just blocks from where 20,000 body parts were dug out of the rubble of the Twin Towers.”

Kristol’s words were as inflammatory as they were cowardly, betraying a sad fear that the pathetic Mohammed could shout out, “Allahu akbar!” in a courtroom and … what? Generate sensationalistic headlines in the New York Post? Immediately convert millions of Americans into radical Islamic extremists? Give slacking terrorists new resolve to attack America?

Last but not least, AG Eric Holder, defending the decision to have a civilian trial for KSM in NYC:

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Eric Holder will say, according to the Associated Press, that “I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is….I’m not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial and no one else needs to be either.” And, “we need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

8 years after 9/11, these morons still apparently don’t get it. This has nothing to do with ‘cowering’ in the face of KSM. How dare the Attorney General of the US insinuate that the opposition to holding KSM’s trial in a civilian court has anything to do with being “cowardly”? The issue at hand is what sensitive information will be revealed in a US court of law, since KSM is being tried as a murderer in a civilian court, rather than as a suspected terrorist in a military court.

Supposedly – in spite of the fact that many other Gitmo terrorists will indeed be tried by a military court – the Obama administration wants this high-profile trial to be a “beacon” to other parts of the world, to show, in particular Muslim countries, how our justice system can be fair. But the underlying rationale for putting on this show trial, as I’ve already discussed here, is not to put KSM on trial and to provide justice to the 9-11 victims but instead to try the Bush administration and in the process reveal potentially damaging sensitve information about our intelligence collecting operations. Andy McCarthy, no stranger to trying suspected terrorists in a civilian court himself, explains:

The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial.

That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen.

[...]

By transferring this case to civilian court rather than leaving it to be handled by the military-commission system created by Congress, Obama and Holder have needlessly created a perilous dilemma. Do we deny KSM & Co. the right to represent themselves and thus risk reversal of any convictions on Sixth Amendment grounds? Do we grant them self-representation but withhold critical discovery and thus risk reversal on due process grounds? Or do we grant them self-representation and disclose directly to our wartime enemies the nation’s security secrets, which they can then pass on to confederates who are actively targeting us for mass-murder attacks?

In the military court, there would be no such dilemma. Indeed, in the military court, this case would be over now. If President Obama had simply let it proceed, there would have been no trial, and these war criminals would be well on their way to the execution of death sentences.

But then the Left would not have gotten its reckoning. Can’t have that.

Spot on.

Hmmm. Let’s see. You’ve got one side desiring to protect sensitive intelligence information from the eyes of Islamofascist thugs who want to kill Americans abroad – including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – and both military officers and civilians here at home, a side hungry for justice to be carried out against admitted terrorist brutes like KSM, and you’ve got some on another side that is operating under the shameless pretense of “wanting justice” for 9-11 victims but who in realilty apparently have no problem with the possibility that sensitive national security information will be revealed in the process – and in fact wishes for such information to be revealed in order to put the evil Bush admin on trial, a side where not many are particularly interested in justice for the 9-11 victims but are apparently more interested in being pro-”justice” against their political opposition – a position that presents a clear danger to both Americans and their interests both at home and stateside. This isn’t about “justice” for the left – it’s about “revenge.” Interesting, when you think about it, because they’ve been telling us for years that the courtroom is not supposed to be about “revenge” but about “fairness and justice under the law.”

Um, just who are the “cowards” again?

- Ana Marie Cox, who has written at several sites including Time’s Swampland blog and the Playboy forum, who is a correspondent for Air America (and who is the original “Wonkette”), trying to explain away her brief effort at writing a “review” of Sarah Palin’s book.

Seriously, WaPo – why did you even bother publishing a review by someone who had not read the book in full?

—- The big “Oprah” interview, which aired yesterday: The Daily Beast has video clips of what they call “Palin’s 7 Best Moments” during the interview. YouTube user “SomePoliticalClips” appears to have the full interview, in parts. I’ve not watched it but it’s gotten generally good reviews from most of the conserative bloggers I read. According to them, even Oprah didn’t do too badly. Some have complained a bit about how the interview wasn’t more “policy-centered” but hey – come on. It’s Oprah.

—– The Rush Limbaugh interview: Sarah was on Rush’s show earlier today talking about substantive domestic and foreign policy issues. Click here to listen to what she had to say.

—- Palin also sat down with ABC’s Barbara Walters. ABC is showing snippets througout the week on various news/talk programming but you can read the full interview – and watch video clips – here.

—– National Review’s Rich Lowry and Robert Costa interview Palin here (via C4P).

—- Last but not least, Red State’s Erick Erickson conducted an interview with Palin earlier today, which you can read here. Great to see her keeping in touch with the grassroots

In related news, today Palin’s Facebook page made it to the 1,000,000th follower mark. Congrats!

And about that sexist Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin says it all. And a hat tip to several feminist liberal bloggers – and Media Matters, of all places, for agreeing that Newsweek has a “sexism” problem. I rarely give hat tips to liberal feminists or Media Matters, but today I have to give credit where it is due. On this one issue, Sarah Palin has united liberal feminists and conservatives. Who’da thought?

The link to listen is below (I think the show title will change on it once the show gets started – the discussion will not be about Fort Hood), or you can click here. For those who won’t be able to listen to the live broadcast, I’ll have the direct link to the archive of the show as soon as Rick makes it available.

Update – 9:26 PM: Here’s the audio link. I’m not on much until after the 10 minute mark. Good discussion about Gov. Palin, even though I felt like I sounded a little rusty and, of course, didn’t get out everything I wanted to say .