RUSH: Try this headline. This from the UK Guardian: The ChiCom government "wants to crack down on press freedom and introduce a new training system that requires journalists to train in Marxist and communist theories of news." That's easy. Send them to the University of Missouri journalism school. Send them to Columbia school of journalism in New York. Send them to any university in America that has a J-school. You want to teach Marxist and communist news theory? We got it down pat here. Now, the deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publication is a guy named Li Dongdong. If Eric Massa ever meets this guy it's going to be fun to watch. There's a tickle fight for you. Eric Massa with Li Dongdong, who heads the General Administration of Press and Publication, the ChiComs training in communist and Marxist news theories. "He told the South China Morning Post that some mainland reporters were giving Chinese journalism a bad name because they were not properly trained." You know what that means. They forgot the template; they're busting out of the mold.
"Under communist theories of journalism, media should support the leadership rather than operate as a watchdog." Well, as I say, we have it down pat here. The State-Controlled Media, the Drive-By Media, the mainstream media, the legacy media, the old guys, there's nothing the ChiComs could teach them. There's nothing that Pravda could teach 'em. So the journalists here in the United States have already taken this training. (interruption) Oh, really? I'm told that the guys at KMOX in St. Louis, our affiliate, say this is the kind of story that I would love? Yeah, KMOX announcer Mark Reardon, said, "If you really want to spread the paranoia you could intro this story: the all knowing --" (laughing) Mark at KMOX wins your bet. It is the first thing I talked about, and I did not know. I just got this note that Mark Reardon predicted it. I wonder what Tom Friedman, by the way, of the New York Times thinks of the enlightened ChiCom leadership now. How do you go against this if you're an American journalist? How do you go against it?
Great news, folks, and, you know, I gotta pat myself on the back here for this one. "Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence." I mean, folks, I have led the charge on this for well over 20 years. The nation is thanking me. The numbers are pretty big here, more and more people are now figuring out that this thing is, well, not a hoax yet, but over-exaggerated to the point that they don't believe it anymore.
ClimateGate, all the stuff at East Anglia, all the fraud uncovered at the UN has gone virtually unreported in this country because of Marxist journalism theory. So I say, who is responsible for this dramatic turnaround in what Americans think about global warming? I love the headline that goes with the story: "Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop." So the American people getting the facts on Algore's fraud, his scam, and the big lie. (interruption) Well, we'll have to see. Snerdley wants to know how this news, the Gallup poll, will affect the Sullivan Group's suspended February audit of my opinions that's on hold because they have yet to assess whether or not I was right or wrong in suggesting the House Republicans refuse to attend Obama's summit.
RUSH: Folks, this is big. I've had this bombshell in my hands for quite a while, and I've been intending to use it ever since it hit my hands. But this health care stuff, obviously, took a little precedence.
"E-mail messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered -- by the top climate scientists within NASA itself -- to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU)" which we now know was totally fraudulent. "The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database. These e-mails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data. Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007. The reporter never published it."
Let me translate this: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies did their own and had their own climate research data, and it was considered by their own scientists to be inferior to the fraudulent stuff we now know that was being put out at the Climate Research Unit at the Hadley Institute, the East Anglia University. We know that NASA scientists and the media knew about bogus climate data three years ago, and they sat on it. A reporter for USA Today sat on it, just like when the first e-mails somehow got out of the confines of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, they were sent to a reporter at the BBC, who sat on the information. He didn't use it. We have since learned that the BBC has invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs and other things that are dependent on this hoax being perceived as truth.
So here are two media units, the BBC and USA Today, who at least (in USA Today's case three years ago along with NASA scientists) knew! Now, during this time James Hansen is running around lying through his teeth about everything. He's NASA. Algore was running around lying through his teeth. What we have here is 100% junk science. USA Today! I don't know the name of the reporter, but he knew that the data was "considered to be inferior" to stuff that was fraudulent. Even now, it has not been published. It took an FOIA request to learn this just as it did at East Anglia to get that data. Actually, no! The FOIA was refused. That's why the e-mails had to be leaked by somebody inside because the scientists (Phil Jones and these clowns, Michael Mann over there at Penn State) were doing everything they could to not release the data.
That's why they destroyed the data rather than release it to people who were requesting it through Freedom of Information Act requests. So there are frauds on both sides of the Atlantic now. Media fraud, NASA, East Anglia, the UN. Folks, everybody involved in this knew it was junk. Media on both sides of the Atlantic knew it was junk and didn't report it, and they continue to this day to spread this hoax and this lie. One of our first stories today was that the ChiCom government is upset that their media has forgotten the Marxist theory in reporting news, and I suggested: Send them to any American university with a journalism school, 'cause our guys have it down pat. Our guys have got Marxist news reporting theory down pat. If the ChiComs guys are losing control of their journalists send 'em here, because our guys know exactly how to do it.
RUSH: Okay. I now have in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the PDF file of e-mail correspondence between the USA Today reporter (whose name is Doyle Rice) and the people at NASA in the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (and there's one in here from Jim Hansen). So Doyle Rice at USA Today is the guy who sat on the data in 2007. This e-mail date range is August 29th of 2007 from about 12:30 in the afternoon through three o'clock in the afternoon. "Dear Doyle..." This is from Reto Ruedy, who is at NASA. "Dear Doyle. My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means," meaning mean temperatures. "Our method is geared to getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to assess our model results. We're basically a modeling group. We're forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the seventies and early eighties since nobody else was doing the job at the time.
"Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Centre's data to get what we need evaluate our model results. For that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough, but we have no intention to compete with either of the two organizations in what they do best." Basically he's saying, "Our data is inferior to theirs. We're not competing with them. They got much better data over there at Hadley," which is East Anglia; and then, "Thank you for sending the clarification. I also received the graphs from Makiko. So it's correct to say that NASA's data is more accurate than NCDC's?" No, no, no, is the response. This is the e-mail that preceded the one I just read you. "No, your statement is NOT correct." It's not more accurate to say that. Our data is not as accurate but we want you to go with ours, and USA Today dutifully did. Then there's a e-mail here to Doyle Rice from Jim Hansen explaining how to go about all this. "Doyle. Since this is a technical question and Dr. Hansen is busy this afternoon, I'll answer it. No, your statement is NOT correct. To get the US means, NCDC's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for..." because their data is better than ours. There you have it.