Polanski ponders the unfairness of it all

The film industry's favorite sex offender is back in the news. Mr. Polanski has written a letter of thanks to all his supporters as he takes his Christmas holiday at a Swiss Chalet while awaiting extradition to the United States.

Apparently this man's penchant for young girls barely raises an eyebrow from the otherwise hyper-hostile feministas:

"My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things"

So said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Peggy, a forty year old man raped and sodomized a thirteen year old girl at Jack Nicholson's house while she was ostensibly there for a 'photo shoot'. This occured after he had attempted to lubricate his efforts with the aid of alochol and quaaludes, which Mr. Polanski had slipped into her drink. And yet, the primary concern on the mind of the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation is the cost such a prosecution would be on the government. Well, no worries there, Peg. The government not only can spend its money on other things, it most certainly will spend its money on other things. Lots of other things, and lots and lots of money. That is not the issue.

Enforcing the nation's laws will require an expense, but the reasonable person will appreciate that those costs are a burden worth bearing for the sake of remaining a nation whose laws govern the peace. The nation is not made uncomfortable by the expenditures of the legal process. Just ask Conrad Black. No, it is Polanski whose life will be made uncomfortable, and who shall also run the risk of discovering the definitive downside to non-consensual sexual relationships.

Our Polanski defenders are quick to point out that Samantha Geimer, the victimized thirteen-year-old now forty-five and mother of three, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed. Good for her. I very much hope she has been able to move past the abuse she suffered at the hands of this self-obsessed whack-job. Yet still I doubt she will look back fondly upon her time spent in the company of Mr. Polanski. As for the State, we the people are obligated to bring this man to justice, regardless of the healing that the victim has been able to achieve.

On the television show "The View," Whoopi Goldberg said, "I think he's sorry. I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society."

Really? Well, what did Mr. Polanski have to say on the matter? His comments to Mr. Martin Amis in 1979 are likely a truthful reflection of his actual thoughts on the matter:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

He doesn't sound particularly sorry. In fact, two years after the fact it sounded as though he believed his uncontrolled lusting for early teenage girls is the norm. 'Everyone wants to f- young girls.' Well, no Roman, not everyone wants sex with preteens and the like, and fewer still want to dope them up and rape them.

Jonah Goldberg had a pretty good column on the matter back in October. But by far and away my fav Roman Polanski post was written by everybody's favorite, April Gavaza, over at the Hyacinth Girl. Her post titled Worthless Piece of Crap summed up the issue quite nicely.

In an opinion piece in London's The Independent, pro-Polanski petitioner and producer Harvey Weinstein, wrote:

"Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

The government is acting criminally Mr. Weinstein? According to the Grand Jury testimony, Ms. Geimer (then Gailey) stated "I was going 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid." The girl's testimony stated she repeatedly asked Polanski to take her home, but he did not.

How exactly would you characterize that?

The crime was to lure the young Ms. Geimer's mother into a false sense of security, to take the young girl up to his house for a 'photo shoot', to ply her with booze and spike the booze with quaaludes, then force his member into every oriface the young girl had possession of, over her protests.

Would Mr. Weinstein consider these acts to be a 'so-called' crime if the young girl had been his daughter, or his grand-daughter for that matter? Not likely. Common people just aren't that much to this guy. Oh sure, the idea of common people has appeal, but the actual common people, up close and personal? Throw-aways. This same Mr. Weinstein has characterized Ms. Geimer as a loose young girl who should have known better, and has placed the blame for the incident squarely on the child's overly trusting mother. Quote Mr. Weinstein: "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion."

Right. As demonstrated here Mr. Weinstein?

Thirty years ago Mr. Polanski did not demonstrate compassion for the young Ms. Geimer... or for her poor mother for that matter. His flight from justice and refusal to return to the United States to face the court has resulted in these issues becoming a life long sentence for her, as the press returns to her door again and again. Will Mr. Polanski be an upright guy, take responsibility for his actions and spare her this pain?

I don't believe he has chosen to live his life that way.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me!

Newly elected Senator Al Franken (I still can't believe I am writing those words in the same sentence) is securing his well deserved reputation as a putz. A good measure of the character of a man is to see how he treats those that cannot respond to him. Our own Stuart Smalley, Minnesota's junior Senator has made quite a reputation of berating the junior staff members of his republican colleagues. Following a sharp exchange on the Senate floor, Senator Franken invited Senator Corker (R-Tenn.) ostensibly to mend fences. Unfortunately, Senator Frankens particular talents do not lie in that direction:

"The meeting quickly deteriorated when Franken began berating one of Corker’s aides, according to GOP aides familiar with the incident. Franken’s sally was so harsh that Corker told Franken to lay off his aide and direct the comments at him instead."

Another aide to a Senate Republican leader found herself at the sharp end of Franken’s wit at a recent reception in the Senate’s Mansfield Room.

"After the conversation began ordinarily, Franken started to grill the aide about what he sees as the failings of the GOP. Franken demanded to know why it had become the "Party of No" and had exaggerated facts in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, according to another GOP leadership aide."

Nice. Beat up staffers with your partisan viewpoints. She should have inquired of the senator why Democrats so ardently opposed the civil rights legislation of 1964.

"The incidents with GOP staff have reminded some Senate observers of a mocking interaction Franken had with a conservative student, Peter Fritz, at Carleton College during his Senate campaign. After learning of Fritz’s political orientation, Franken pressed him to defend Reaganomics and mimicked his speech patterns"

Class act. If history really is Al's interest, why did the Dems tear the nation apart with the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln?
The dolt.

"A spokeswoman for Franken declined to comment on either exchange."

Indeed. It is behavior more becoming an SNL skit writer than a US Senator. What in the world were Minnesotans thinking when they elected this guy?

CRU data sets not holding up to scrutiny

TM Lutus over at Chicagoboyz had another look at the Hadley CRU code problems. To no one's surprise another clunker turned up. All this underscores a point I have repeatedly made here, that the defense "There is no smoking gun here. No money trail comes to light between George Soros and the researchers and there is no evidence that a conspiracy was at hand" is no defense whatsoever. After reveiwing the manner in which Hadley CRU was handling the data sets Mr. Lutus concludes:

"So without any conspiracy we seem to be betting trillions on science that does not adequately coordinate to prevent control data from entering real data sets, has practices in the discipline that are inadequate to guard against undue weight, and is taking large chunks of its data from weather stations whose error bars far exceed the global warming signal we’re all supposed to be worried about."

It does seem rather problematic. Whether the alarmists across the globe were working in collusion, or their small numbers and intimate and incestuous relationships just made it work out that way, the bottom line is the programs Hadley CRU were relying on to support their conclusions were hopelessly flawed.

Balloon boy parents get jail time

It appears the court was none too pleased with the hoax.

I wish the healthcare hucksters in the Senate would be held to at least as high a standard. The hoax going down in the congress will be far more impactful than the needless worry the balloon boy's parents put us through.

Democrats distort powers vested in US Senate in healthcare debate

Republican Jim Demint (S.C.) points out the rubbish in the bill as the Democrats have their ugly way:

One such rule DeMint read, regarding subsection C in Section 3403, states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate, or the House of Representatives to consider any bill resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

"This is not legislation, it's not law," said DeMint. "This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law, and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."

The US Congress represents the people. The people can change the laws. No laws are beyond the scope of the people. The only provisions that cannot be revisited are those defined by the US Constitution, and the people can change those as well.

What a bunch of assholes.

Women behaving badly

Why is it that men always earn the bad press, but when it comes to failing to control emotional outbursts:

"The customer tried to return the items about 3:30 p.m. Saturday, and pushed over a large plastic display stand holding several hundred sample-size bottles of perfume that cost $3.50 each, police said. The display stand broke, and every bottle of perfume smashed against the floor as the woman stormed out of the store and drove away in a green van, according to the report."

What would you say to her if you were the husband?

(Nothing at all if you have any sense).

Where the Buffalo Roam

I'm feeling out of sorts about the rush for 'Health Care Reform'. It seems to have no public support, is in violation of the Constitution and directly at odds with the idea of a free and democratic society, yet it is nearly ready to pass into law. How can this be happening? Is not the simple answer the election of 2008, and all the baloney that went into the campaign of the Hope and Change huckster?

The Wall Street Journal calls it "a bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve." From the article Change Nobody Believes In:

"The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state."

Barrack Obama did not run on the policies that he actually has governed by. No one knew who he really was or what he was going to do. It was as if the "D" by his name coupled with his dark toned skin melded together to form a Kevlar coated body suite, impenetrable. And too many of us just felt so damn good about ourselves for electing a person of African descent, as if that mattered. What we actually elected was a radical liberal who wanted to expand government oversight and government control. We were buffaloed by this guy and the media.

And now that's where we all live.

Judge's ruling undermines civil society and rule of law

Judge Reddihough shows himself to be a blithering idiot in his ruling on this case in England. Modern interpretation of English law has caused England to devolve into a society in which law abiding citizens are forever in fear from a criminal element that revolves in and out of the justice system, while otherwise law abiding citizens are ruined by the very same legal justice system.

"Munir's barrister Michael Wolkind QC said he had been inundated with emails from people overseas too - all "staggered at the state of English justice".

Disgraceful.

Mysteries Revealed

You might not expect to ever read anything of value on a Yahoo advice column, but the idea of actually discovering something from a piece titled 12 Things You Don't Know about Women intrigued me. Well, women intrigue me, and I have learned the hard way that there are a lot of things I don't know about them. Thought maybe this time I could learn a little something else I didn't know and save myself some potential future grief.

What followed were the answers to the question "What do men not know about women?" from twelve women from the entertainment industry. Several answers were quite good, such as this from Jenna Fischer:

"If we run into your ex-girlfriend in public, the first thing you should do is put your arm around us. And if we have to introduce ourselves, you are in big trouble."

Sounds about right to me.

Then there was Tea Leoni's comment:

"Supersecret: Unless we're blind or have no night-light in the bathroom, the whole toilet-seat thing is exaggerated and meant to control you."

I figured that. It's just nice to have confirmation.

But by far and away my favorite was from Kyra Sedgwick, who offered this:

"Our friends are not your enemies, and our enemies better not be your friends."

Wow. Attractive, grounded and smart? That Kevin Bacon made out like a bandit.

John Gosselin is a total loser

Seems judgmental, and I am far more harsh on this guy than the famous golfer who will not at this time be mentioned, but what can I say?

Putz.

Global government to advance, despite lack of climate crisis

The Copenhagen summit has moved forward, despite the freezing temps, and South American thug dictator Hugo Chavez was welcomed there with thunderous applause.

Why would the Climate Summit errupt in thunderous applause for Hugo Chavez? How does he tie in as a major proponent for saving the planet from disasterous over-heating of the thermosphere? Well, apparently for reasons that would seem to have nothing to do with the AGW crisis the summit is purportedly addressing.

Whether or not the earth is warming, whether or not whatever warming may be caused from trace greenhouse gas atmospheric CO2 levels rising from the infinitesimal 0.024% of the atmosphere to the barely greater 0.038% percent of the world's atmosphere, whether or not this increase is related to industrial activities or is natural, whether or not the earth's climate is currently the ideal climate and would be disastrously worse if the average temperature were 0.5 degrees warmer, it matters nothing to these people.

As discussed here, former US Senator Tim Wirth, the current chairman of the United Nations Foundation, has said the following:

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman may think the earth is hot, flat and crowded (he actually believes such assertions are penetratingly intelligent, and wrote a book with that title) declares he doesn’t care if global warming is a “hoax” because, even if it is, the fear of it will force us to do what we need to do. By this he is apparently referring to developing means to derive energy from... something else. And no energy ffom nuclear fuels either (that's a no-no as well for the green crowd).

By design, our leaders were to come from the people, serve their nation and return to their lives at home. The reason the proponents of global warming and thus government have such unmerited faith in government and so little concern for the freedom of the people is they do not consider themselves...

of the people.

Julien Sanchez peers into the soul of conservatism, finds reflection of himself

Robert Stacy McCain had an excellent post regarding Julien Sanchez and his take on the current state of the conservative movement.

The long and short of Sanchez's piece is that the ascendancy of Sarah Palin represents a psychological dysfunction that will forever consign the Republican Party to irrelevance.

"Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, an assignation of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. "

and

"Ultimately, this is a doomed project: Even if conservatives retook power, they wouldn’t be able to provide a political solution to a psychological problem, assuming they’re not willing to go the Pol Pot route. At the same time, it signals a resignation to impotence on the cultural front where the real conflict lies. It effectively says: We cede to the bogeyman cultural elites the power of stereotypical definition, so becoming the stereotype more fully and grotesquely is our only means of empowerment."

It is a rather highbrow and myopic view of the political landscape. If Mr. Sanchez is looking for "a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration" he need look no further than the rank and file left, with their palpable hatred of GW for all sorts of imagined sins, from the plundering of Iraq to supposedly expand his personal oil profits to the hair brained notion that he was in on the fix of the 9/11 attacks.

"If the goal is just to antagonize liberals, making her the Republican standard-bearer seems tactically bizarre, since ideally you want someone who isn’t so repugnant to independents as to be unelectable. If the animating force is ressentiment, the leader has to be a loser to really deserve the role."

Palin should not have been made the Republican standard barer because she is a loser.

Right.

So, if she is such a loser, why is she earning interest from the likes of you?

The fact is, Mr. Sanchez, she rose to prominence on the national level when John 'don't mind me' McCain chose her as his running mate, perhaps the only sound decision he made during the campaign. She accepted, and conservatives were energized and given voice by her. The popularity she has among conservatives is a reflection of her willingness to espouse and defend conservative principles, a refreshing change from the rest of the herd like Republican party types.

Excellent post, Stace.

Sheldon takes state title

The Sheldon Irish captured the OSAA 6A state title by defeating Jesuit 50 to 43 last Saturday at OSU's Reser Stadium in Corvallis. The Irish were lead by an outstanding performance from senior quarterback Jordan Johnson. Jesuit came close to tying when they reached the Sheldon 14 yard line with time running out. Nick Steele's tackle of Jesuit quarterback Jeff Elorriaga on a scramble sealed the victory for the Irish. The loss overshadowed an outstanding performance on the part of Jesuit running back Keanon Lowe, the fleet footed receiver who stepped in to play tailback when the highly regarded Dylan Jackson withdrew from school just prior to the start of the season for a violation of team rules. Keanon played his heart out in the final, gaining 310 rushing yards, 408 all purposes yards, and scoring all six of Jesuit's touchdowns.

Though the game was well played and hard fought, the final score is indicative of the changes that the game has gone through during the modern age. Some of the scoring is a result of greater efficency and accuracy between quarterbacks and their recievers, but much is due to the relaxation of blocking rules. The changes essentially allow holding, not only on the part of offensive linemen, but all across the field. The use of hands to hold defenders has heavily favored the offensive team.

For me, defense is the heart and soul of a football game. Good defense is fun to watch. Holding players does not allow them to play defense. You cannot close to make an open field play if someone is holding your jersey. Such contributions do not qualify as great running plays in my book. In my opinion, a score of 17 to 10 reflects a far more enjoyable and entertaining game to play in and watch.

The problem is far worse in the college ranks. We will never see defense in the college game like we did from the Washington Huskies of the early eighties or the Brian Bosworth led Olahoma Sooners a few years later. Those were fun teams to watch.

I would that we had those days again.

Reporters freeze in the snows of Copenhagen

This little bit of news from old Copenhagen warmed my heart:

Journalists Freeze Waiting To Get Into Global Warming Conference

"People started handing out food -- one gave out tangerines, another croissants. A man screamed "I don't need food. I need socks! I'm freezing my ass off out here."

Apparently they waited hours to get in to escape the cold. You gotta think these guys can appreciate the irony, don't you? I suppose it's all written off as simply the weather - no relationship of course to the pending over-heating of the world's climate. Ah yes.

I'm sorry, that's just too rich.

'Hide the Decline' Context Provided

Steve McIntyre has an excellent analysis of the context for the ‘trick’ used to hide the decline of Keith Briffa’s tree ring data discussed here. Drawing from the e-mail records made available from Hadley CRU, the context becomes clear:

the late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”

The information in the Briffa tree ring data were at odds with the prevaling message, and did not support a consistent warming over the past 1,000 years. In this respect it was at odds with the papers written by Mann and Jones. A number of manuavers were attempted to present a more uniform message, as was the goal of the IPCC.

This is outrageous. Science is not about hiding the data to streamline the discussion. Such manipulation is done in the realm of politics.

As to the mandate to adopt the measures to curb CO2 emissions, based on the science, no mandate exists.

The Politics of AGW

Jonah Goldberg writing in NRO further buttresses the political aspects ofthe AGW debate with the following examples:

Tim Wirth, a former senator and now chairman of the United Nations Foundation, once said: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

and

New York Times columnist and prominent warm-monger Thomas Friedman has repeatedly said (most recently this week) that he doesn’t care if global warming is a “hoax” because, even if it is, the fear of it will force us to do what we need to do.

Fear is the tool by which they wish reach an end. I for one do not believe that is in the best interests of a free people.

Welcome to Obamaville

A tent town for the homeless in Colorado has gained some notoriety for its welcome sign. The Obama villagers have claimed that mentioning the name of our esteemed president has increased their visibility, a good thing in their view. However, people outside the village prefer the town to have a smaller profile, and feel the town name misses the mark.

"This economic collapse happened on President Bush's watch!" said one commenter, which is as off base as most anything coming out of the left.

Claiming President Bush was responsible for the market collapse after his repeated petitions to Congress to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is as off base as the claim that President Bush fell down in his efforts to protect America because the 9/11 attacks occurred in the first few months of his presidency. Though frequently raised by the left, this clunker of a claim ignores the repeated attacks on our embassies, military and citizens that occured during President Clinton's tenure in office, none of which did he respond to in a substanative way.

Perhaps they would have a point about renaming tent town if the name were changed to Dodd City or Frankfurt, but that aint gonna happen from the left side of the world, so we are stuck with Obamaville.

That suits me just fine.

The Familiar Deep Rough

The private affairs of golf's most dynamic figure have become the source of much copy, to the point that I really do not wish to be made any further aware of the details. I understood all I needed to know with the first report, and the rest is a carnival ride through the assorted details of someone's sundry intimacies, meant to titillate and shock.

Thus, you will not find here the answers to the sordid questions people ask about Tiger's impressively long drive into the deep rough. But I will offer this one insight for the benefit of all the male readers: the fact that Tiger finds women attractive is not the problem. That's not a design flaw or personal weakness. The issue for each of us is a question of judgment, and of purposing to make good choices.

Chasing after what looks good will keep you from finding the really good things in life. Tiger's story is one of those. Whatever we're chasing, it all comes down to the same thing. It is a familiar story to me. I believe it is a familiar story for all of us. We miss the good things because we were chasing after the things we wanted, things that ultimately were worthless, and may have even been harmful. But the stumble and the loss does not define the man.

It is what happens next that matters the most.

The Devil is in the Details

The response offered from the alarmists is largely an effort at slight of hand. It is wholly inadequate in addressing the heart of the problems that the Hadley CRU documents have raised.

Most scientific debate remains in the field of science, and as such is best left there. But the alarmists entered the political sphere with an idea, and the idea they presented was a whopper: the things we do to make our lives easier are causing the destruction of the planet.

With this theory as the justification, a tremendous amount of political activity has both been proposed and enacted, resulting in massive taxation, wealth transfers from first world nations to third world nations and massive governmental regulation of the world economy.

As the alarmists are the ones proposing actions to be taken, it is the alarmists that carry the burden of proof. Failure of the alarmists to prove their claims is more than enough reason to refuse to take the actions and bear the inherent costs they recommend. The skeptics are not obligated to prove anything.

Up until the Hadley CRU document release we were obliged to accept the claims of the alarmists on faith. Multiple efforts to examine their data were rebuffed. This is poor practice for science in general, criminally poor practice when the recommendations have such wide impact on every person on the face of the earth. The details released with the document dump have provided far greater transparency, and have lifted the veil that concealed the truth.

Our very own Wakefield Tolbert (the Devil's Advocate as it were) has proposed a smoke screen of a defense to the shattered AGW argument. Let us address the major attempts at rebuttal presented in his post:

First, there is a notion advanced that if global warming is not shown to be an elaborate conspiracy then the skeptics have failed, as articulated by Mr. Johnson at LGF:

"Despite efforts by the climate change denial industry to promote this as the definitive proof that global warming is a “hoax” by evil scientists trying to get rich and dominate the world, the fact is that there is nothing in the emails that even comes close to this exaggerated, hysterical claim."

Get a hold of yourself, Mr. Johnson. No one is making this exaggerated, hysterical claim. The skeptics merely question the alarmists interpretation of the data. If there is no clear evidence to support the alarmists view then they can ponder the future all they like, but no cause for action will exist. This strawman notion of a global conspiracy is without merit.

Next up is the denial that the CRU destroyed the raw data by which their projections were made. What was destroyed was the raw data records that the "adjusted" climate models were based on. Yes, one can go back to the original records from the stations, but why would one have to do so? This was the essential data that the CRU folks were using to justify their claims. Why would anyone throw the raw data away? The excuse offered, that they were moving between buildings and discovered they lacked the storage, is ridiculous for a number of reasons as discussed here. Far more likely, the team at Hadley did not want anyone seeing how the temperature adjustments had been accomplished.

Willis Eschenbach looked at just the set from Darwin Station Zero, as we see in this post. After reviewing the raw data he is struck by the fact that there is no good reason the data had to be "adjusted". Worse, the adjustments made changed a well established downward trend to a highly unsupportable upward trend.

"What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming."

Egyptian style, so says Mr. Eschenbach, due to the markedly unnatural step-like changes the "adjustments" made in the graphical representations.

The efforts to paint the skeptics as hired hands, bought and paid for by industry leaders is laughable. A money stream may trickle toward the skeptics, but utterly cascades down upon the alarmists, via the unholy alliance that exists between the AGW scientific research community and the government programs and grants that fund them. The disproportion of money spent studying climate science is illustrated in an article titled Climate Money by Joanne Nova from July 21, 2009.

"In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies."

That's a pretty hefty investment. How likely is it that research dollars will be granted to projects that would undermine the "science" of global warming? And against those many billions, how great has been Exxon's investment into skeptical points of view? 23 million - or 0.03% of what is spent on researching and developing technologies to combat "anthropogenic global warming".

Perhaps the most damning evidence for the Devil's attempted defense has to do with the examination of Professor Jones and his use of a trick to manipulate Keith Briffa's tree ring data to match the IPCC story line of a thousand year history of rising temperatures. The innocent explanation that the word "trick" was a commonly used expression for a solution to a technical problem does not wash. The entire e-mail file was searched, over 1,000 e-mails. The word 'trick' only came up eight times, and only once in reference to managing data, as shown here. A critical look at what the practical significance of the helpful trick Dr. Jones employed can be seen with Steve McIntyre's excellent technical article here. The obvious explanation for the meaning of the word is correct - Dr. Jones was removing the tree ring data and replacing it with temperature data after 1960 to hide the declining numbers. The key point: you cannot falsley increase the confidence of a measurement by masking it's breakdowns. To do so is to fraudulently present the information.

Back to the Devil:

"As to the other condemnations of faux outrage (this time, morals of the methodology and "suppressing" dissenting papers):

'Some of the leaked emails reveal the climate researchers' unhappiness with the publication of certain scientific papers questioning the global warming consensus, and discuss removing journal editors they perceived as being sympathetic to global warming sceptics. This sounds horrifying to some non-scientists. But many are confusing two very different things: attempting to block publication in certain scientific journals and the suppression of information.'"

First of all, let me assure you, the outrage is real.

As to this ridiculous explanation, the efforts on the part of the alarmists were to control the debate, limit access to the information and control the peer review process. Ordinarily, scientific theories are subjected to rigorous debate. It is a necessary part of the process at arriving at the best view of the facts. It is how we go about discovering truth and advancing our knowledge. The global warming community attempted to avoid this process and arrive at a consensus. Science is not about consensus. Politics is about consensus. The alarmists advanced an ideologically based political argument. This is highly objectionable behavior, and was as blatant as anything you will see.

Next in the line of defense comes a disparagement of the claim that the present climate may not necessarily be the "ideal" climate.

"Said one commenter to the NS article, in response to the glib notion that some Denialists posted that at least we'll have lots of CO2 "plant food" in reserve to help with crops, etc

Like many of the arguments made by global warming deniers, this is simplistic. Plants will consume more food--up to a point--then, like an over-fed goldfish's bowl, they'll die.

Utter nonsense. Plant life adapts to the climate it exists in. Why do cabbages grow so large in Alaska? The summertime day is longer, so more sunlight is available for the plant to grow. Likewise, carbon dioxide is the basic component of photosynthesis, upon which nearly all life on the planet depends. It makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Increasing CO2 levels will not poison the air for plant life. It is a preposterous notion. Furthermore plant life and CO2 cannot be compared to the feeding of goldfish. Excess food given to goldfish will be consumed by other organisms, that much is true, but what other entity will consume 'excess' CO2 and choke out plant life? Really, to even advance such an argument is to display utter contempt for your audience. It will not due.

As to the Freedom of Information Requests:

In some emails, Jones discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK's freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it this does not look good, whether any researchers broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.

The bar is not whether or not the state will be able to convict Dr. Jones. The bar is has an attempt been made to deny the public access to the information which is being used to change the world's economy. As such Dr. Jones has the following to say regarding his stated reasons that the Freedom of Information requests were denied:

In email 1106338806.txt, Jan 21, 2005 Professor Phil Jones states that he will be using IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) to shelter the data from Freedom of Information requests.

In email 1219239172.txt, on August 20th 2008, Prof. Jones says “The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

Clearly he is looking for means by which he can avoid scrutiny. This is unacceptable and by itself is reason to forego any further discussion of cap and trade and limiting CO2 emissions until the whole matter can be openly studied and subjected to proper inquiry.

"But the pressures climate researchers are under does help to explain why many are so reluctant to make all data public."

Indeed.

Tigerland

I was at Disneyland a few years back with a girlfriend of mine, and got my chops busted for noticing that other women were also present in the park that day. I had no actionable interest, but a dog is a dog, and I hear the howl of the hounds as well as the next guy. This unhealthy and inappropriate behavior that we are all reading about these days has a faint familiarity. I disapprove, both because it is unhealthy, wrong and disgusting, and because it is ... worrisome. The good news is that Solomon checked all this out for me a time back as I recall, and had some helpful things to say.

As to the news of the day, they are all a twitter, with great speculation on how it will effect Tiger's golf career. As I recall, they also were quite helpful in pointing out that Tony Romo couldn't throw worth beans when Jessica Simpson was somewhere in the stadium. They also were quick to point out that she had gained a little weight ... then she lost it again.

That’s nice to know.

Barrack's focus on Bush pays dividends

Public Policy Polling reports an upswing in support of former President Bush, while current President Obama'a numbers continue to decline.

As it has now been over a year since the last Presidential election in which then Senator Barrack Obama defeated Senator John McCain, it does seem odd that we would continue to be polling Obama verses George W Bush.

"Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor."

I know its fun to shift blame elsewhere, but perhaps if the current president would stop looking back to President Bush we could all start thinking of today and tomorrow.

Politically, it might be the prudent thing to do.

AL's tears for Kilimanjaro misplaced

A scientific team from the Netherlands has completed its investigation of the ice cap cycles of Mt. Kilimanjaro, and has concluded that changing ice cap levels on the massive African peak are a part of the natural variation of climate in this region, and are not a result of CO2 emissions or any other man made factor.

Publishing in the scientific journal Nature, the ice cap changes were seen to be related to changes in precipitation, which in turn were affected by the southeasterly and northeasterly monsoons generated off the western Indian Ocean, which in turn were strengthened in alternation when the inter-hemispheric insolation gradient was at a maximum. A brief summary is discussed here at Pajama's media.

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous ice cap."

Once again, it appears AL Gore's emotional response to the world's climate is impressive, but when it comes to the actual science, he is left out in the cold.

Big AL called out by GraniteGrok

Granite Grok has a nice post on Al Gore's fraudalent flogging of this whole global warming boondoggle. The man is truly reprehensible, for surely he is aware that it is sheer nonsense, yet on he goes scaring children and expanding the reach of government. The Soviet Union's version of a people's paradise must be pretty close to what AL believes is good government.

I will be more than ready to see him off the public stage. I can't believe such a misguided and morally bankrupt individual could garner our attention this long.

For Pete's sake AL, sit down.

Bloggers fly the coup

I have become used to arguing with Canadian lawyers, and I find myself a tad out of sorts with Jay Currie's sudden disappearance off the Internet. He's done this before ... some system glitch. So I am sure I will hear from him again in short order.

I look forward to his return, and the return of the Hyacinth girl from her trip to Australia.

Gore takes turn as poet

In his latest offering, Our Choice, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Academy Award winner AL Gore has broadened and remade himself, this time reaching truly Renaissance heights as he applies his various talents to the art of poetry:

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

As if his wooden, verbal presentations were not enough, AL has seen fit to soar to new heights in his ongoing assault of our senses:

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea

The only fever being experienced here is in AL's fetid brain. Continents are not going to disappear AL. And my driving into work will not make them disappear. It is amazing what we as a people have come to accept from this piker. The reviewers over at Vanity Fair found it curious that previous reviews of AL's new book have concentrated on his prose and photographic images, yet made no mention of AL's gifted poetry:

"It’s odd that none of the reviews of Our Choice have mentioned this poem. Even my old friend Bill McKibben, the dean of America’s climate journalists, didn’t see fit to mention it, though Bill himself wrote a column a couple of years ago pleading for poets, musicians, and other artists to bring their talents to bear in the climate fight."

Perhaps that is because old Bill was thinking a tad differently as to his conception of artists.

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

"Ice fathers floods for a season." That's remarkably awkward. Well done, AL. It reminds one of Dan Akyroid's turn as opera critic on the SNL skit, A Night with Bad Opera. Horrible. Dreadful. Bravo, AL!

"The result is a surprisingly accomplished, nuanced piece of writing."

Yes, how very nuanced. Nuance is all the rage on the left. They ascribe it to individuals for whom they want to grant superiority. John Kerry was purported to be nuanced. Barrack Obama is nuanced, or so we are told. Now, it appears big AL is also the possessor of nuance. Very good. Sadly, it does not actually translate into compelling poetry.

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration

In other words, AL anticipates forest fires. Never before did the world experience forest fires, I presume, but now that Ice has fathered floods it is time for the world to burn.

"The images Gore conjures in his (untitled) poem turn a neat trick: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate."

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived

I'm crying right with him. Please, let us choose to turn the page.

Climate conference burning brightly

It would seem the climate sensitive among us are planning to burn it up at their Copenhagen gathering, according to this report in the UK Telegraph.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

Seems quite a bump for the carbon neutral crowd.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Yes, I am sure they all would be bicycling and walking about, forgoing the limousines, if it weren't for that darn weather! Yet these same types of bureaucrats would take a keen interest in the travel arrangements, weather be damned, if say you or I were to embark on such an excursion. Not only would they conceive of a carbon tax to pay, but they would certainly desire to restrict our use of vehicles, both in terms of their size and their fuel source. It's all right though, all in the interests of global preservation.

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

Having to drive them in.. from Germany and Sweden! Good heavens, that's quite a carbon footprint that is shaping up over there in Denmark.

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets

More like a carbon boot print. Even big AL doesn't burn it up like this.

According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

That's Middlesbrough England, home of the closed circuit TV surveillance system, complete with loudspeakers for the vocal reprimand of the citizenry, all 143,000 of them, when they are observed to misbehave.

One must take to heart the advice dished out by such climate elites, especially when you consider that their gathering will match the energy consumption of a moderate sized English town. It must distress them greatly to do so, underscoring just how important this all must be to them.

Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

Good grief, if only we could be so lucky.

Things heating up in Copenhagen

Things are already heating up in Copenhagen. The town mayor has sent postcards to the city’s major hotels warning climate summit guests to limit their carbon signature by icing the services of a select group of Copenhagen’s work force. Her efforts to influence the activities of the world’s climate elites has resulted in a heated response by local industry leaders, who have offered free services to anyone who can produce the mayor’s post card ... and their COP15 identity card.

The calculation of industry leaders appears to be that it is better to meet their expected emission level targets despite the initial cost in lost revenue than be frozen out completely from this particular market sector.

Local industry leaders understand the economy of the IPCC better than most.

AGW listing to the right, yet sails valiantly on

The HMS Titanic of anthropogenic global warming may have suffered some damage in its collision with CRU Hadley, yet she sails onward seemingly unaffected, as Arnold Schwarzenegger blithely points out here. Still there are signs she is starting to list to starboard and is taking on water down under her waterline, as political observers in Australia note here:

“This may be a first: a major political party has dumped a global warming believer as leader and replaced him with sceptic who last month called AGW ‘crap’.”

Meanwhile, Captain AL Gore continues to shout orders from the bridge, apparently oblivious to the damage his vessel has suffered:

"Even if a deal is reached at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen next week it will only be the first step towards the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions, Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, told The Times last night.

Mr Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned.
“Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” he said. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Where does this guy live? Is he completely isolated and out of touch with reality? Two Academy members are asking the Academy to rescind big AL's Oscar for the now farcically titled An Inconvenient Truth. Let’s hope Cap’n AL and his crew of fellow alarmists soon find themselves aswim and taking a more personal and rudimentary measurement of the ocean's temps.

My guess is they will find it a tad cooler than expected.

Another look at what was not found at Hadley CRU

After the dispersal of the mushroom cloud over Hadley CRU following their file records being dumped onto the internet, our friends over at Real Climate responded with the rather vacuous argument that though some boorish behavior on the part of the scientists in question was exposed, not at all uncommon for the highly educated professorial types, what was more important was what the e-mail exchanges had not revealed, namely:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."

This rather empty straw man exercise was dispensed with here. But on further reflection it is clear that something missing from the record files is significant, namely the absence of any mention of the raw data sets that had been repeatedly petitioned through various Freedom of Information requests. These data sets were the bedrock upon which the AGW argument was built, and now we are told that they have been lost. Yes, apparently in the move from one building to another, the raw data somehow got lost in the shuffle. It happens. Can't be helped. Let's be mature about this. No sense crying over spilled milk. Nothing to do about it now.

The data upon which all this scientific research rests became lost? This is the same data that had repeatedly been requested by Steve McIntyre, and others, for which he had received refusal after refusal from Dr. Jones. Now all lost, apparently.

Chris Horner explores this problem further over at Watts Up With That?

"First, it does seem odd that Jones would so firmly and crisply articulate his many, very specific excuses for so many years about why he could not provide something that in fact they had, as he now tells it, lost."

One would think Dr. Jones could have saved himself all the work of those detailed explanations as to why the data could not be released, and simply said: "The data cannot be released for your review because I lost it when we moved." But he did not.

What's more, he never mentions their absence in any of his e-mail correspondence with his CRU colleagues. Many mentions of arguments detailing reasons why the documents could not be released. Many mentions that e-mails should be deleted. Many mentions of issues with FOI requests. Many mentions that those requesting the information were jerks. No mention that the information no longer existed. It no longer exists now.

Odd indeed.

Absence of Soros link exculpatory, in Alarmist's view

As the radioactivity count drops over at Hadley CRU, our friends at Real Climate responded to the general outrage at the manipulation, dissembling and outright obstruction on the part of the world's most prominent AGW proponents with the rather vacuous response that after all was said and done, there really was no significant revelation, and it was what was not found in the Hadley files that was most revealing:

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."

Well, I can certainly see why the alarmists would want to shift attention away from what is revealed by the data and quickly move on to what for them is the more familiar ground of things which the data does not actually support. Old habits die hard. The fact that the e-mail stream contains no mention of George Soros or government payoffs is hardly the sanctification realclimate is claiming it to be.

“no admission that global warming is a hoax”

Why, no. Were you concerned one would be found there?

There is no George Soros involvement paying off the scientists promoting the AGW theory. Does his absence mean everything must be okay then?

Well, not quite.

What we have been saying is that the conclusions drawn may not be fully supported by the empiric (measurable) data, that the projections stem from computer models that are not predictive of the future and that have no record of reliability, that you have attempted to skew the debate to your favor by not allowing adequate examination of your methods and influencing the peer review process, and that you have essentially pushed an agenda driven ideology.

Looking at just one explanation offered:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Just a good way to deal with a problem boils down to 'it just looks better when I present it like this.' If your goal is to make your findings agree with your theory, then I agree, problem solved, and yes, that was a neat trick. But science has an aura of objectivity to it, and the AGW theory has had huge influence on policies which affect us profoundly.

The lay people of the world have placed their trust in these scientists, and have generally bought into the notion that the 'science is settled'. In this setting, the effort to “fix” problems is criminal. A true objective scientist would be forthright in addressing the problems. You cannot claim to be objectively representing the facts and simultaneously making use of tricks to “solve” problems with your data.

Computer software at CRU measured and found wanting

Shannon Love over at chicagoboyz has examined the software code used by our friends at Hadley CRU to determine that the end of the world was eminent, with the expected results:

"Programmers all over the world have begun wading through the code and they have been stunned by how bad it is. It’s quite clearly amateurish and nothing but an accumulation of seat-of-the-pants hacks and patches.

The code is at the heart of the CRU predictions which have been the framework for the IPCC's recommendations to reduce greenhouse emissions. Their appearance on the internet have left them open to inspection by computer software engineers, a proverbial hanging out of dirty laundry:

"Indeed, the comments of the second programmer, the hapless “Harry”, as he struggled to understand the work of his predecessor are now being read as a kind of programmer’s Icelandic saga describing a death march through an inexplicable maze of ineptitude and boobytraps."

This is what we are basing the dismantling of the entire industrialized world upon?

"As far as I can tell, none of the software on which the entire concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is based has been examined, reviewed or tested by anyone save the people who wrote the code in the first place. This is a staggering omission of scientific oversight and correction. Nothing like it has happened in the history of science."

It is one thing to be unable to handle the information one is accessing. It is quite another to shield those issues from the scientific community at large.

"Given that literally hundreds of millions of lives over the next century will depend on getting the climate models correct, we have to start all our climate modeling over from scratch."

Good grief.