• Don’t expect a retraction • Ignoring the reasons Don’t expect a retraction Robin Clark’s long letter (“Climategate,” Letters, Dec. 28) never confronts the stunning intellectual fraud revealed in the 160 megabytes of hacked e-mails. Below are some samples that
• Don’t expect a retraction
• Ignoring the reasons
Don’t expect a retraction
Robin Clark’s long letter (“Climategate,” Letters, Dec. 28) never confronts the stunning intellectual fraud revealed in the 160 megabytes of hacked e-mails. Below are some samples that reveal beyond any doubt that Professors Jones of East Anglia and Mann of Penn State, both global warming ideologues, are engaged in a massive cover-up of scientific data disproving man-caused climate change.
Jones to Mann: “… trick of adding to the real temps to hide the decline in temperature …”
Mann “clarifying” this embarrassment to the New York Times: “Scientists often use the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem and not to hide something secret.”
Jones to Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK … I’ll delete the file rather than send.” And, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Jones further urged Mann to delete incriminating e-mails. And another “scientist” discussed with Mann how truncating a series of empirical evidence could hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be shown to exist. Mann replied that the data he was sending had to be blocked because it further disproved the hoax of global warming.
This only scratches the surface of what has so far been revealed, and who knows how much has been deleted since the story broke in November. This is all public information but don’t expect to get it from Time, Newsweek, or the big three broadcast networks. It doesn’t fit their template.
There is a reason Al Gore never appears with skeptics or debates in public. His recent assertion that “just a few kilometers down, the earth is several million degrees” shows how pathetically uninformed he is. The surface of the sun is only a tiny fraction of “several million degrees.” However, Al’s getting even richer peddling this bilge so don’t expect retractions from the inventor of the Internet anytime soon.
John Burns, Princeville
Ignoring the reasons
I agree with you, Judge Laureta, that we don’t know that much about the two new appointees to the BOE (“What are the real reasons?” Letters, Dec. 31). However, I will be at their interview before the council on Tuesday and will find out more about their qualifications and reasons for wanting to be on the Board of Ethics.
The point that you seem to miss is that Mr. Bieber had served only one year and wanted to continue serving and the mayor’s only stated rationale for failing to reappoint him was that he wanted “more balance” on the board.
My concern with that statement remains just what does the mayor mean by “balance.” The appointments of Mr. Bieber and Mr. Weil brought to the board a greater willingness to apply the law to the board’s decisions. Is it balance to curtail this proper purpose? You might have a more educated position on these matters if you were to attend the meetings as many of our citizens do.
I did not say that the appointment of the new members, Mr. Perry and Mr. Nagano, would not keep a proper process going. That remains to be seen.
Judge, you are right that there are no laws or customs that mandate Mr. Bieber’s reappointment. But the mayor’s explanation rings rather hollow and his meaning of “balance” needs clarification.
You make the point that the mayor does not appoint the board and commission members “blindfolded.” But we do not know the process the mayor uses for his selections. We doubt that many persons are appointed that he believes will not conform to his views. Does this result in the objectivity that our boards and commissions should have?
Yes, the council confirms or denies confirmation of the mayor’s appointees, but, to my knowledge, in recent years no appointment has ever been denied. Is the council really doing its job under our charter?
It seems to me that most appointees are chosen to keep the status quo. A few mavericks will come along once in a while but without a majority to represent our citizens the system will not serve its purpose.
And now, judge, you finally get to the main point of your letter inquiring what are the real reasons of proponents wanting a county manager system. You seem to infer that we proponents have some nefarious reason for wanting a change. Perhaps, if you had more critically observed our governmental departments over the years you might understand why we believe that a manager system with a qualified executive and accountability would better serve our county.
You have been given a multitude of reasons why we so badly need expertise in running our government. But you still state that, “so far, my persistent inquiry has not received any response.” Could this be because you simply continue to ignore the reasons we give?
Happy New Year, Judge Laureta.
Glenn Mickens, Kapa‘a
