Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

If a peer review fails in the woods…

By Andrew Orlowski

29th September 2009

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.

Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples – a choice open to a scientist’s biases.

Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold claims using tree ring data.

In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret – failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open – and Yamal’s mystery is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

(This oversimplifies the story somewhat: for more detail, read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill here (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html).)

Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by Keith Briffa (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/) at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.

Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar: warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this distinctive pattern became emblematic – the "Logo of Global Warming".

IPCC’s Assessment Report from 2001 – with the error bars in grey emphasised

Hokey hockey sticks

Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann’s data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled ‘BACKTO_1400-CENSORED‘.)

Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann’s statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures – which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" – even using red noise.

Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same point to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a global hit with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious dendroclimatology, the acts repeated the formula.

"Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere," wrote the two authors of Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 – Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU.

For example, Briffa’s 2008 paper concludes that: "The extent of recent widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to 200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years."

The same authors in 2004:

It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S Kaufman, and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on Yamal, and produced the signature shape.

Now here’s Yamal.

And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the implications of the choice is striking:

A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red – as archived with 12 picked cores; black – including Schweingruber’s Khadyta River, Yamal (russ035w) archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).

"The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster growth – 8 sigma anomalies in some of them."

McIntyre’s determination to reproduce the reconstructions has resulted in the Yamal data finally coming to light.

All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other’s work. All use Yamal data. And without the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape.

What went wrong?

The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC’s mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails – as it did here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade.

This is what the CRU folks were fighting.

They don’t want information like this to ever come out.

And they have done everything in their power to prevent that.

Festival of mass animal sacrifice begins in Nepal

By Gemunu Amarasinghe, Associated Press Writer

BARIYAPUR, Nepal – The ceremony began with prayers in a temple by tens of thousands of Hindus before dawn Tuesday. Then it shifted to a nearby corral, where in the cold morning mist, scores of butchers wielding curved swords began slaughtering buffalo calves by hacking off their heads.

Over two days, 200,000 buffaloes, goats, chickens and pigeons will be killed as part of a blood-soaked festival held every five years to honor Gadhimai, a Hindu goddess of power.

While cows are sacred and protected by law in Nepal, animal sacrifice has a long history in this overwhelmingly Hindu country and parts of neighboring India. The Bariyapur festival has become so big, in part, because such ceremonies have been banned in many areas in the neighboring Indian state of Bihar.

And while it is criticized by animal-rights protesters, the festival is defended as a centuries-old tradition…

Animal rights groups don’t have much power in Nepal, but they have staged repeated protests in recent weeks. Local news reports say some activists set up stands in towns on the way to the Bariyapur temple, offering Hindu pilgrims coconuts and other fruits to sacrifice instead of animals.

There was no sign of them Tuesday.

"We were unable to stop the animal sacrifices this year but we will continue our campaign to stop killings during this festival," said Pramada Shah of the group Animals Nepal…

Experts say it will take many more years before there are changes in these deeply rooted traditions.

"They continue these animal sacrifice rituals because they believe it is a tradition that can’t be broken," said Ram Bahadur Chetri, an anthropology professor at Katmandu’s Tribhuwan University. "The people who follow these traditions believe that if they discontinue, then the gods will get angry and there could be catastrophe in the country."

Buffaloes, goats, chicken and ducks are sacrificed at most Hindu homes in Nepal during the Dasain festivals, which fell in September this year.

As we have mentioned several times before, we hold no brief for the ritual slaughter of animals. (That is, where their throats are cut and they are left to slowly die as their blood runs out.)

But this Hindu festival only happens every five years.

Surely more than 200,000 animals are cruelly ritually slaughtered during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha year in and year out all around the Moslem world.

Have the animal-rights protesters ever protested Eid al-Adha?

We’ve never seen them.

Banks earn $2.8B in 3Q; insurance fund in the red

By DANIEL WAGNER (AP)

November 24, 2009

WASHINGTON — The apparent end of the recession and stabilizing financial markets have not cured the banking industry, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Tuesday.

Banks earned $2.8 billion in the third quarter, but loan balances plummeted and the fund that insures their deposits was $8.2 billion in the red. Souring loans continued to hurt bank balance sheets, but they were buoyed by higher operating revenues and a revived market for securities, the FDIC said.

The number of banks on the FDIC’s "problem list" rose to 552 from 416 on June 30, the highest level in 16 years. Fifty banks failed during the quarter — the largest number since the second quarter of 1990.

The FDIC’s fund that insures bank deposits fell by $18.6 billion, mostly because $21.7 billion was set aside for expected losses on future bank failures. The FDIC voted this month to require banks to prepay three years of deposit insurance premiums at the end of the year to help replenish the dwindling fund, which is at its lowest point on record. The last similar deficit was in Dec. 1991, when a predecessor fund was more than $7 billion in the red.

Bank failures this year through 2013 are expected to cost the fund $100 billion — mostly in 2009 and 2010. But depositors’ money — insured up to $250,000 per account — is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government.

Bank profits returned in the third quarter after a $4.3 billion loss in the previous quarter and $879 million in earnings last year.

"While bank and thrift earnings have improved, the effects of the recession continue to be reflected in their financial performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said.

A 2.8 percent drop-off in loans outstanding — the largest percentage decline on record — showed that credit for consumers and businesses remained tight, she said…

The government is now controlling the banking system in our country like never before.

Look at what a great job it is doing.

Economy’s rebound not as strong as first thought

By JEANNINE AVERSA (AP)

November 24, 2009

WASHINGTON — The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace last quarter, as the recovery got off to a slower start than first thought.

The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product wasn’t as energetic as the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago.

The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn’t spend as much, commercial construction was weaker and the nation’s trade deficit was more of a drag on growth. Businesses also trimmed more of their stockpiles, another restraining factor.

The new reading on GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States — from machinery to manicures — was a tad weaker than the 2.9 percent growth rate economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected.

Still, the good news is that the economy finally started to grow again, after a record four straight losing quarters. The bad news is that the rebound, now and in the months ahead, probably will be lethargic.

The worst recession since the 1930s is very likely over, but the economy’s return to good health will take time, Fed officials and economists say.

Growth probably won’t be strong enough to quickly drive down the nation’s unemployment rate, currently at 10.2 percent. It’s only the second time in the post-World War II period that unemployment has topped 10 percent.

Some economists think economic growth will slow to around a 2.5 percent pace in the current quarter, although others say it could clock in at about 3 percent if holiday sales are better than expected.

Most say they think the economy will weaken again next year, with growth at a pace of around 1 percent as the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package fades and consumers keep tightening their belts under the strain of high unemployment and hard-to-get credit.

Much of the economy’s return to growth last quarter reflected federal support for spending on homes and cars…

What’s not clear is whether the recovery can continue after government supports are gone.

If consumers clam up, the economy could tip back into recession. President Barack Obama recently cautioned that the economy could suffer a "double dip" downturn…

Notice how the Associated Press is using these GDP adjustments to argue for a second stimulus. And never mind that we haven’t even spent a quarter of the first stimulus.

And never mind that it is senseless to prop up the GDP with taxpayers dollars, since there is no real growth to the economy. That is it is ‘senseless’ – unless you are running for re-election.

Which is why we could very well have a second stimulus before the midterm elections in 2010.

Isn’t it funny? Somehow under Obama the first GDP numbers always seem to be higher. They are then adjusted down when nobody is looking.

But during the Bush administration it seemed like the numbers were always first reported as lower than what they turned out to be. And we rarely heard much about it when they were adjusted upward.

For instance, in the case of the the second quarter of 2008 (which we have mentioned before), our one party media practically declared that we had entered a recession when the GDP was reported to only grown at a rate of 1.9%.

This is how the New York Times treated the news:

More Arrows Seen Pointing to a Recession

By PETER S. GOODMAN

August 1, 2008

… Economists construed the tepid growth in the second quarter, combined with a surge in claims for unemployment benefits, as a clear indication that the economy remains mired in the weeds of a downturn. Many said the data increased the likelihood that a recession began late last year…

But when this number was bumped up to 3.3% a few weeks later, we heard very little about it.

Meanwhile, when the last quarter’s GDP was announced to be 3.5% the same media mavens declared it a sign of strong economic growth and the official end of the recession.

And even now that it has been dialed back to 2.8% – a number below the real GDP for the second quarter of 2008 — it will still high enough to signal that the recession is (now) ‘like to be over.’

But low enough to prove we need a second stimulus.

Isn’t that convenient?

New Norway power plant uses salt to make electricity

November 24, 2009

TOFTE, Norway (AFP) – Norway unveiled the world’s first osmotic power plant on Tuesday, harnessing the energy-unleashing encounter of freshwater and seawater to make clean electricity.

"While salt might not save the world alone, we believe osmotic power will be an important part of the global energy portfolio," the chief on state-owned Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen, told reporters.

Statkraft, which presents itself as the biggest renewable energy company in Europe, is running the osmotic power plant prototype on the banks of the Oslo fjord, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) south of the Norwegian capital.

Osmotic energy is based on the widespread natural phenomenon of osmosis, which allows trees to drink through their leaves and plays on the different concentration levels of liquids.

When freshwater and seawater meet on either side of a membrane — a thin layer that retains salt but lets water pass — freshwater is drawn towards the seawater side. The flow puts pressure on the seawater side, and that pressure can be used to drive a turbine, producing electricity.

The point of osmotic power is "to use power not against nature but with nature," summed up Sverre Gotaas, in charge of innovation and growth at Statkraft.

Osmosis has been used by industry to desalinate seawater, but the company’s prototype at Tofte marks the first time it has been used to produce energy.

Although the plant will for now produce just enough electricity to power a coffee-maker, it could prove to be a great potential clean, environmentally friendly power source.

"It has very, very limited environmental consequences. It’s only positive and it can be used in many places," Frederic Hauge of environmental organisation Bellona [sic] told AFP, adding the development of osmotic power was "very exciting."

Because they produce energy from the encounter of freshwater and seawater, osmotic power plants could be installed almost anywhere where rivers flow into the ocean.

"Even countries that do not have oil, coal or mountains will be able to produce their own energy," Rasmus Hansson, the head of the World Wildlife Fund in Norway told AFP.

"It is very nice when industry imitates nature," he added, lauding Statkraft’s decision to invest around 150 million kroner (17.9 million euros, 26.8 million dollars) in a "revolutionary technology."

Statkraft hopes to start building the first commercial osmotic power plant, which would have a 25 megawatt capacity, enough to provide about 10,000 households with electricity, in 2015.

They almost had us going until they mentioned the World Wildlife Foundation was involved.

Note that they are calling salt a renewable resource. Also note that no mention is made about the environmental impact of this on the river and ocean, where these rivers and oceans meet.

Surely something must change for the fish and other creatures involved.

From Wikipedia:

Osmotic power

Possible negative environmental impact

Although the use of salinity gradients is a considerably environmentally friendly method of obtaining electrical power, there are possible negative effects to be considered. There is at least one way in which the use of this method of power production could harm the environment; the impact of the brackish water waste on the local marine and river environment.

Marine and river environments have obvious differences in water quality, namely salinity. Each species of aquatic plant and animal is adapted to survive in either marine, brackish, or freshwater environments. There are species that can tolerate both, but these species usually thrive best in a specific water environment. The main waste product of salinity gradient technology is brackish water. The discharge of brackish water into the surrounding waters, if done in large quantities and with any regularity, may alter the aquatic environment significantly.

Fluctuations in salinity will result in changes in the community of animals and plants living in that location. However, while some variation in salinity is usual, particularly where fresh water (rivers) empties into an ocean or sea anyway, these variations become less important for both bodies of water with the addition of brackish waste waters. Extreme salinity changes in an aquatic environment may result in findings of low densities of both animals and plants due to intolerance of sudden severe salinity drops or spikes.

The disappearance or multiplication of one or more aquatic organisms as a result of an influx of brackish water has the potential to cause ecosystem imbalance. The possibility of these negative effects should be considered by the operators of future large blue energy establishments.

Isn’t preserving wildlife supposed to be the fundamental mission of the World Wildlife Foundation? Well, obviously not any more.

"It has very, very limited environmental consequences. It’s only positive and it can be used in many places," Frederic Hauge of environmental organisation Bellona [sic] told AFP…

‘Bollona’ (bologna) is right.

But obviously all of these ‘green’ groups are willing to ignore any negative environmental impact as long as they can hold out hope for some new miracle energy source that doesn’t involve coal or nuclear power.

Especially just in time for Hopehagen.

By the way, one has to wonder why we haven’t heard more about the power from seawater before. It sounds almost too good to be true.

Apparently Statkraft is only going to invest $27 million dollar, out of which will come at least one power plant:

Statkraft hopes to start building the first commercial osmotic power plant, which would have a 25 megawatt capacity, enough to provide about 10,000 households with electricity, in 2015.

Compare that to the US’s new largest solar power plant, which Mr. Obama just (er) christened back in October in Florida, about which the Associated Press said:

The Desoto project cost $150 million to build and the power it supplies to some 3,000 homes and businesses.

Which means that this Norwegian seawater power plant will cost one fifth the money and provide more than three times the electricity.

Last time we checked, there was a lot of seawater around Florida.

It sounds to us like we had better hold off on building any more solar power plants (or windmills) until we figure out what is the most efficient way to proceed.

(Thanks to Helena for the heads up.)

Obama Thanks Hollywood With Coveted Invites To First White House State Dinner

By Nikki Finke

Monday November 23, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: If tradition stands, the details of the guest list will be revealed only a few hours before the Obama administration’s first state dinner tomorrow. The welcome for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be the biggest social event of the Obama White House. Already the Washington DC press corp is buzzing about the "got-to-be-there" fever. But this first dinner is primarily a thank you to the Obamas’ most important political supporters. So I’ve learned that, among the Hollywood contingent asked to attend, are onetime DreamWorks partners David Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg; Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman Michael Lynton; and WME Entertainment Agency co-CEO Ari Emanuel.

Spielberg’s inclusion is interesting since he was a much ballyhooed Hillary Clinton supporter during the first months of her primary campaign when she looked like a sure thing, then quietly threw his clout behind Obama after he became the clear winner. But, given that the guest of honor is India’s highest ranking statesman, Spielberg’s new financial relationship with India’s giant corporation Reliance more than explains his presence. Geffen was an early Obama backer who publicly took on the Clintons with pointed criticism at the start of the primary season. Katzenberg was not an early bird, but he became a faithful fundraiser. Both he and Geffen were considered Obama’s biggest Hollywood bundlers during the campaign…

And Chicago native Emanuel not only was one of Obama’s first Hollywood political and financial backers, but, like duh, his brother Rahm is the White House chief of staff. They’ll join the President and First Lady and 400 guests in an elaborate tent erected on the South Lawn. As for who has been chosen to provide the evening’s entertainment, this White House has shown eclectic taste: Stevie Wonder already has played a concert in the East Room, Marc Anthony already took to the South Lawn for an evening of Latin music, and the Foo Fighters played the Fourth of July party.

Of course we normally eschew such celebrity gossip, but given the historicity or Mr. Obama’s first state dinner, we thought it of note.

And it also raised a few question in our mind:

• Is the tent on loan from from Mr. Gaddafi? Will the teleprompter invited? (Let’s hope so, if Obama is going to speak.)
• What is the carbon footprint involved in heating a tent that size in late November when temperatures are predicted to be as low as Mr. Obama’s new approval ratings?
• Have the food servers agreed to these arduous conditions? Are they unionized? SEIU?
• And why are they serving the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, curry? Can’t he get that at home?
• Has there ever been a White House State Dinner for celebrities? We thought they were supposed to be for statesmen and diplomats and people of rare accomplishment. Won’t the Indian Prime Minister be offended?
• Were any Bollywood stars invited?
• Was Mr. Obama’s ‘decisional’ to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan leaked out so that people weren’t appalled he was having such a large party with his Hollywood pals while our soldiers were at risk in Afghanistan?
• Did Mrs. Clinton’s invitation address her as Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab), as an Obama memo notoriously did during the campaign?
• And speaking of which, does Mr. Obama now finally get more money from the ‘Indian money men’ than the Clintons do?

But alas, we will probably never get any answers.

Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan

By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

November 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn’t originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week…

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to brief America’s NATO allies after next week’s announcement, and the allies are to meet again on Dec. 7 in Belgium to discuss whether some other nations might contribute additional troops.

The Monday evening meeting was the ninth that Obama has held on the crisis in Afghanistan, where the worsening war entered its ninth year last month. This year has seen violence reach unprecedented levels as the Taliban and allied groups have gained strength and expanded their reach.

A U.S. military official used the term "decisional" to describe Monday evening’s meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.

The administration’s plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it," the U.S. defense official said…

The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won’t keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said…

Last week, Clinton suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone toward Karzai, whom she and other administration officials had been pressing to clean up the rampant corruption and cut his ties to local warlords, some of whom traffic in opium.

In an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, she said that Karzai had demonstrated "good faith" and added: "Well, there are warlords and there are warlords."

As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.

The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops…

The administration’s plan is expected to encounter opposition on Capitol Hill, where some senior Democrats have suggested that the administration may need to raise taxes in order to pay for the additional troops…

All of this dithering over a measly 6,000 soldiers? (Lest we forget, General McChrystal’s original request was for 40,000 more troops, according to the first reports all those months ago.)

And notice that we still have the same purportedly corrupt regime in Afghanistan. (Only now they will be even less inclined to cooperate with us, after our brilliant President has tried to push them out of power.)

It simply goes to show that Mr. Obama’s delay had nothing to do with the actual decision, and everything to ramming ‘healthcare reform’ through Congress. Which is now effectively accomplished.

Obviously, Mr. Obama believed sending to reinforcements to Afghanistan would tick off a sizeable portion of his constituency who are (supposedly) flooding switchboards and email boxes with their messages of support.

In the final analysis, Mr. Obama cared more about protecting his ‘army’ rather than the nation’s. Which is why he has been so apoplectic about the ‘leaks’ of his deliberations.

But we believe Mr. Obama was mistaken even his concern about losing his anti-war supporters. For there is no ‘war protestors’ around nowadays.

And yet we still have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Albeit, to a lesser extent in Iraq.) Those wars are still going on. But somehow all protestors have disappeared.

There are no demonstrations. No anti-war bumper-stickers on cars. No graffiti. Apparently the same wars that were so terrible under Bush are now completely acceptable under Obama.

Why is that?

Oh, and speaking of ‘healthcare reform,’ note this laffer, buried at the end of the article:

The administration’s plan is expected to encounter opposition on Capitol Hill, where some senior Democrats have suggested that the administration may need to raise taxes in order to pay for the additional troops…

You see, we have to raise taxes to be able to afford to send 34,000 soldiers (who, after all, are already on the government payroll) to Afghanistan.

It has nothing to do with their $2.5 trillion dollar healthcare reform.

But how much do you want to bet that this is the real reason Obama is finally ‘decisional’ about sending the reinforcements. And why he has been talking up their expense in recent weeks.

He now figures can use them as an excuse for raising our taxes for the rest of his insane spending.

He is that calculating. He is that despicable.

That transparent.

ACORN Docs Pulled from Dumpster

By R. STICKNEY
Mon, Nov 23, 2009

As Derrick Roach tells it, it was either luck or Divine intervention. His version of events may be hard to believe for ACORN supporters but the former Republican state assembly candidate believes something drew him to the dumpster behind the ACORN office in National City on the night of Friday, Oct. 9.

Roach recalled the moment he discovered thousands of ACORN documents simply bagged up and thrown in the trash.

He was driving home, he explained Monday, when a thought occurred to him to put his skills to use.

Roach, who describes himself as a local private investigator concerned about what was happening in his neighborhood, told how he “came by” the ACORN office and “observed some individuals in the office and also observed the individual dumping documents into the dumpster around the corner,” he said.

“I came back later that evening, after business hours, and from an unsecured dumpster removed those documents and they have been in my possession since,” he said.

The documents, which filled Roach’s vehicle, numbered close to 20,000 according to Tony Krvaric, chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County.

“This is a massive data breach at the very least of individuals who come to ACORN for help and assistance,” said Krvaric. “To have their information, tax returns, immigration documents thrown in the trash like common trash is absolutely an affront to every San Diegan.”

“[ACORN] cannot be trusted to be helping people here,” Krvaric said.

When reached for comment, Amy Schur of ACORN’s state office, explained why the paperwork was in the trash.

"In early October, when our San Diego staff were doing an office clean-up in preparation for a major 10-station phone bank program being set up in our offices, it appears that included in the piles of garbage being thrown out may have been some documents containing private information," Schur wrote in an e-mail to NBCSanDiego. "To the individuals whose paperwork was pulled out of the dumpster by this guy Derrick Roach – unsuccessful Republican candidate for State Rep in San Diego – we truly apologize. We will seek return of this information so that we may give proper notice of the compromising of the information as required by law."

When asked about ACORN’s policy for disposing of sensitive documents, Schur said, "It is ACORN’s policy to shred documents with personal information at the point when they no longer need to be retained."

Roach, who told reporters Monday that he has not been hired by the Republican Party of San Diego, said he has shared some of the documents with various law enforcement agencies.

“I have been specifically asked by certain government officials to not release some of the documents,” he said. He could not identify those officials at this time.

For Krvaric, the main question is what is the California State Attorney’s General doing about this discovery?

“We have nothing to indicate the attorney general is conducting a thorough, fair, without fear or favor investigation,” said Krvaric. “They’ve not stated anything. Clearly there are documents that they’re missing because of this document dump that occurred only six days prior to the attorney general coming into town.”

They have not heard from Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office, according to Krvaric. He would like Brown’s office to contact him.

“The question is was ACORN tipped off as to when and where or when the attorney general would be arriving?” Krvaric asked.

Schur confirms the ACORN office was aware of Brown’s upcoming visit but said that did not prompt the removal of thousands of documents.

"Absolutely not. Our files were not part of the scope of the visit by the Attorney General’s office, and the majority of what was thrown out was junk – old leaflets, newsletters, etc… It looks like our staff were careless and some documents with personal information were included in the piles of garbage," Schur wrote.

In a written statement, Evan Westrup wrote "The Attorney General’s Office has contacted the office of the individual who allegedly recovered these documents and has requested that he turn over all information which he believes relates to a violation of law or otherwise relates to our investigation."

"There is absolutely no truth to the assertion that the Attorney General’s Office has come to any conclusions or that the investigation is complete. This investigation, like all investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office, will be fair, comprehensive and independent."

Roach smiled when he discussed how he happened to be in the right place at the right time for the discovery. He credited both luck and God at times during Monday’s news conference.

“This was an investigator’s dream to get information like this,” said Roach who did run for the California State Assembly 79th District Seat in 2008…

Notice how even in this article every effort is made to cast aspersions on the investigator.

But of course Mr. Roach had uncovered some untoward actions by Republicans he would be a hero.

And we would never hear a word about his political background or leanings

A prayer rug rest against the wall in the apartment of Maj. Nidal Hasan in Killeen, Texas, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens more Nov. 5 at the Fort Hood military base.

Atty: Fort Hood suspect may use insanity defense

By Angela K. Brown, Associated Press Writer

FORT WORTH, Texas – An Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during an attack on his Texas post will likely plead not guilty to the charges against him and may use an insanity defense at his military trial, his attorney said Monday.

John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said he is considering an insanity defense among other options, but that it’s too early to determine his defense strategy.

"Based on the evidence thus far, his mental status must be raised," Galligan told The Associated Press by phone from his office near Fort Hood, about 130 miles southwest of Dallas. "Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career — an insanity defense has to be considered." …

Galligan said military law requires his client to plead not guilty if prosecutors seek the death penalty, but he said that decision has not been made…

Galligan said he is frustrated because prosecutors are taking too long to respond to his questions and requests. He said he has asked why no witnesses were allowed to testify during Saturday’s hearing, and why it was closed to the news media….

This attorney is undercutting his own case.

"Anybody who allegedly engages in conduct that is completely contradictory to his lifestyle and military career — an insanity defense has to be considered."

Given that Mr. Hasan was a practicing Muslim, how did anything in his life contradicted his actions? 

Instead, we think Mr. Hasan would be far better served by claiming he was acting upon his religious beliefs.

Which would amount to the same thing.

(Thanks to Melissa for the heads up.)

(Click to enlarge)

Christmas can’t be mentioned, but Eid al-Adha can be?

Lest we forget, Eid al-Adha is that beautiful "Festival of Sacrifice" when Muslims celebrated by ritually slaughtering camels, bulls, sheep in the streets, by cutting their throats and letting the blood run out until they die.

Which of course makes it holiday much more worthy of mention than boring old Christmas.

And while we are asking questions. Why are people now saying ‘happy holidays’ instead of ‘happy Thanksgiving’?

Is Thanksgiving too religious now?

Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion

By Peter Wilkinson, CNN

November 23, 2009

London, England (CNN) — A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world’s largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry.

The value of infrastructure exposed in so-called "port mega-cities," urban conurbations with more than 10 million people, is just $3 trillion at present.

The rise in potential losses would be a result of expected greater urbanization and increased exposure of this greater population to catastrophic surge events occurring once every 100 years caused by rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

The report, released on Monday by WWF and financial services Allianz, concludes that the world’s diverse regions and ecosystems are close to temperature thresholds — or "tipping points."

Any one of these surge events could unleash devastating environmental, social and economic changes amid a higher urban population.

According to the report, carried out by the UK-based Tyndall Centre, the impacts of passing "Tipping Points" on the livelihoods of people and economic assets have been underestimated.

Global temperatures have already risen by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius [1.25 Fahrenheit] and the report says a further rise by 2-3 degrees in the second half of the century is likely unless deep cuts in emissions are put in place before 2015.

The consequent melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Shield could lead to one such tipping point scenario, possibly a sea level rise of up to 0.5 meters [19.6 inches] by 2050.

The report focuses on regions and phenomena where such events might be expected to cause significant environmental impacts within the first half of the century.

For example a hurricane in New York, which could cost $1 trillion now, would mean a $5 trillion insurance bill by the middle of the century, the report adds.

"If we don’t take immediate action against climate change, we are in grave danger of disruptive and devastating changes," said Kim Carstensen, the Head of WWF Global Climate Initiative.

"Reaching a tipping point means losing something forever. This must be a strong argument for world leaders to agree a strong and binding climate deal in Copenhagen in December."

Note how misleading this article is, right from the start:

A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world’s largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry.

That makes it sound like this is an insurance industry report. Or, at the very least, that it was done at the insurance industry’s request.

But we get the facts a little later in the article:

The report, released on Monday by WWF and financial services Allianz…

This is really all you need to know about this so-called report.

The World Wildlife Federation are rabid proponents of ‘global warming.’ This is their bread and butter.

And the insurance company, Allianz, must have found some way to make a buck off of the climate scare hoax:

"We must prepare our clients"

"As an insurer and investor, we must prepare our clients for these scenarios as long as we still have leeway for action," says Clemens von Weichs, CEO of Allianz Reinsurance. "Setting premiums risk-appropriately and sustainably is of vital interest to everyone involved, because this is the only way to ensure that coverage solutions will continue to exist."

Allianz intends to address climate change by entering into dialogue with its clients at an early date. This will allow it to point out countermeasures in a timely way, and work together to develop specific coverage concepts, whether for existing assets or for future climate-compatible projects like alternative energy and water supply concepts, dyke construction, or protection against failed harvests…

And Allianz has been working with the World Wildlife propagandists for some time now.

They have even roped unsuspecting school kids who survived Katrina into their propaganda ploys, as this undated article from the WWF’s website reports:

WWF Allianz Southeast Climate Witness Program

Climate change is among the most pervasive threats to the Earth today. We have the power to address its root causes and limit its impact on the planet. Educating young people plays a critical role in this effort.

In the Gulf Coast region, many students have already felt the trauma of devastating climate events. WWF and Allianz gave displaced youth from Hurricane Katrina an opportunity to learn more about the science of climate change, as well as tools for exploring and explaining the vulnerability of their region to climate change, a forum to tell their stories of how climate change has affected – and will continue to affect – their lives and way of life, and the opportunity to do something about it.

Southeast Climate Witness Student Research Opportunity

Through the Southeast Climate Witness Program, 25 students were chosen from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi to participate in vulnerability research of their region. Participants were high school students who were interested in the environment, planning on attending college, and who had been displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Selected students attended Climate Camp in June 2008 as well as a Youth Summit in Washington D.C. July 7-11, 2008; and received a $1500 stipend and an HP laptop computer for college.

While in Washington, the students had the opportunity to speak at a briefing sponsored by Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. During the briefing, they presented the findings of the research project they participated in…

Of course the WWF is simply following the propaganda guidelines we reported earlier (from the CRU documents) set out in ‘The Rules Of The Game’:

20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more successful

Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

Of course CNN is a “partner” here, as well, since they merely parroted the WWF’s press release without giving any opportunity to the other side.

And of course all of this nonsense is being rushed out in time to impact the upcoming life or death for the earth conference known as ‘Hopenhagen.’

A Call From Senator Kennedy’s Widow

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

November 21, 2009

Moments after the vote to begin debate on the major health care legislation, a reporter asked the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, if he had spoken with President Obama.

“I was pretty well focused on getting the votes,” Mr. Reid said with a smile. “I took all senators’ calls but no one else’s.”

But there was someone else: Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose life’s work in the Senate was largely dedicated to the issue of health care.

Mr. Reid first mentioned the call in an aside to Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and one of Mr. Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate, as they stood at a news conference after the vote. While Mr. Kennedy was battling cancer, Mr. Dodd stepped in as acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and helped shepherd the health care bill through a committee vote in July.

“She believes that Ted was watching,” Mr. Reid told Mr. Dodd.

Asked about the call, Mr. Reid said that Mrs. Kennedy had telephoned him in the Democratic cloakroom just after the 60 to 39 vote, which allows debate to begin on the Senate’s health care legislation.

“She called right after the vote,” Mr. Reid said. “I’ll remember the call always. She of course was crying pretty hard. We both felt that he’s watching us tonight.”

This is from the New York Times blog, Prescription, which uses the sub-title: “Making Sense Of The Health Care Debate.”

Which would imply some kind of rational thinking.

But, no, the Senate is supposed to pass this terrible legislation because “Ted Kennedy is watching.”

(Note that they didn’t say whether he was looking down or up.)

A budget-buster in the making

By David S. Broder
Sunday, November 22, 2009

It’s simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan.

The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.

This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.

It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"

The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters — 19 percent of the sample — think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.

That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress.

I have been writing for months that the acid test for this effort lies less in the publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than in the plausibility of its claim to be fiscally responsible.

This is obviously turning out to be the case. While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama’s test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.

Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there’s not much reform in this bill. As of now, it’s basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases."

Here’s another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn’t do enough. Given the political system’s aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like."

These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored "budget gimmicks" that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid’s bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.

Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid’s decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 — long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.

Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" — not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion — $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion.

But this depends on two big gambles. Will future Congresses actually impose the assumed $420 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs? They never have.

And will this Congress enact the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies (the so-called Cadillac plans) in Reid’s bill? Obama has never endorsed them, and House Democrats — reacting to union pressure — turned them down in favor of a surtax on millionaires’ income.

The challenge to Congress — and to Obama — remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don’t pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.

You read that right. This is by that David Broder.

The ‘dean’ of the ‘inside the beltway’ pundits.

Still, even Mr. Broder misses the biggest lie of all in the current ‘healthcare reform.’

Under either of the healthcare bills, the cost of healthcare is going to sky rocket.

But we were told at the start of all of this that reform would make healthcare cheaper. And in fact, Mr. Obama claimed it would save trillions of dollars.

Nobody even bothers to pretend about that now.

SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

George Marshall

November 22, 2009

The theft of 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers have learned lessons from dirty politics and are running a new campaign to undermine public trust in climate scientists. The feeble response from the UEA and the climate science community shows that scientists are still totally underestimating the fragility of that trust and the crucial role it plays in building public belief.

The Importance and fragility of Trust
The lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments  about climate change deploy the heuristic (a fancy word for a mentalof short cut) of believing the people they most trust. Trust in the communicator  is therefore a crucial precondition for belief in climate change.

Unfortunately the three main climate change communicators: politicians, journalists and environmental campaigners, are among the least trusted people in society- fighting it out for bottom place in the ranking with lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all if they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists.

Climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority.  With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.

However, whilst it is true that there is an underlying respect for scientific expertise, there are many other more emotional and contextual components to real trust. We tend to trust people we know, who seem to be like us, who speak to our values and life experience, who appear to have integrity or- that most intangible quality- people whom we seem to like.

The Deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free thinkers standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness…

And they [the skeptics] seek to demonise real science by picking out individuals to abuse. None more so that Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a paleoclimatologist who prepared the famous hockey-stick graph.  Dr. Mann has had the bravery to stand publicly by his findings and has been subjected to an extraordinary campaign of vilification and accusations of distortion and falsification (there are 20,000 responses to a search for “’Michael Mann’ climate fraud”). Mann seeks to keep above the fray but he has plentiful grounds for a string of libel actions.

Hacking into UEA

… The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these e-mails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self interested and politicized ends. Even better for them, some of these quotations come from Michael Mann.

But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the e-mails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on Realclimate.org, the website that Mann helped found, the e-mails contain “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”.

But this is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context. The speed with which the emails have been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable. The story has been led from the beginning by the denial site climatedepot.com (I absolutely refuse to provide a  hyperlink)  where you find the entire page given to ‘Climategate’, ‘smoking guns’,  ‘blood in the water’ – lines that have all been fed to and doltishly repeated in the mainstream media.

Swift Boating the Climate Scientists

The coordinator of climatedepot.com is Marc Morano, a libertarian right self publicist and former aid to the outspoken denier Senator Inhofe, who has been seeking to become a kingpin in the climate denial industry. Marc Morano is not new to this kind of dirty fighting. According to the investigative site Source Watch,  Morano, whilst working as a journalist for the right wing Cybercast News Service,  was the first source in May 2004 of the smear campaign against John Kerry that later became known the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Although different in context and content, there are marked similarities between the Swift Boat campaign and the hacking of the UEA e-mails. Both were sophisticated strategies to undermine trust. Both identified trust and integrity as a major strength of the opponent and then played carefully chosen story lines to undermine them. At the very least the UEA e-mail campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.

Personally I suspect it goes further than that. The storyline is too clever, the timing on the brink of Copenhagen and the US climate bill too convenient. Obtaining compromising internal documents is the holy grail of presidential campaigns, so why would not campaigners who cut their teeth in US politics not seek to apply the same tactics against the poorly defended servers of a provincial university. I wait with interest to find out how these e-mails were obtained.

Call me a bastard and I’ll show you my birth certificate

And, the most disturbing similarity between the UEA hacking and the Swiftboat campaign, is that both rely for their success on the unwillingness of the opponent to rise to the debate and defend themselves. It is a generally accepted analysis that Kerry’s slow response was a huge strategic mistake which strengthened the smear. A weak response to an attack on your integrity, however ill founded, is read as guilt.

The UEA response has been frankly pathetic. It was informed by Real Climate of the hack on Tuesday 17th  but only responded reactively two days later when journalists caught onto the story. It refused to confirm whether the e-mails were accurate or not and, for a long time, refused to comment at all.

Now, in typical scientist fashion, it seeks to argue the data rationally. The UEA website states that “the selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way”. Mischievous? Irresponsible? What naughty pixies…

So might I suggest this would have been the appropriate response for Professor Jones:  speak to every journalist who calls, go on the offensive and defend your science. Clearly state that you are not prepared to have your hard working and committed colleagues  around the world defamed or slandered by the kinds of people who illegally hack into computers.  State that this is a desperate last ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate.

And how about taking action against the criminals who hacked in? The stolen emails are currently on a website called www.anelegantchaos.org that has been set up for the purpose and is linked from all the denial websites. The owner of the site has written a self important introduction about the public interest of the site and the “disappointing insights” it provides. He has also put in a function to search the stolen property.

He is probably an egotist who enjoys the attention, so I am not going to name him. However his name, address and telephone number are all on the site registration.  If he had my private emails splattered all over his site he would be hearing from my lawyers – if he was lucky. The fact that there appears to have been no attempt to prevent this site is yet further evidence of the half hearted response of UEA.

Sadly, due in part to the lackluster response, I am sure that these wretched e-mails have now entered permanently into the mythology of climate denial. Scientists are going to have to be a lot more savvy and on the ball in future.

Surely this is the absolute proof that the CRU emails are authentic, and that everything the ’skeptics’ are saying about the is true.

For we now know that ‘to Swiftboat’ anybody means to tell the truth about them.

Private Climate Conversations on Display

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

November 20, 2009

A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. Before they propagated, the purloined documents, nearly 200 megabytes in all, were uploaded surreptitiously on Tuesday to a server supporting the global warming Web site realclimate.org, along with a draft mock post, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist managing that blog. He pulled the plug before the fake post was published.

I have a story in The Times on the incident and its repercussions, which continue to unfold. But there’s much more to explore, of course (including several references to me). The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.

Here’s the news story:

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents…

[UPDATE, 11/22: Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report. I'm running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]

We almost passed on this article when we first saw it last Friday. After all, what is to be expected from a writer whose job depends upon promulgating a lie. (A situation so many journalists at The Times and elsewhere find themselves in, day after day.)

But then we remembered all the vital national security secrets that the New York Times felt obligated to publish, claiming that the public’s ‘right to know’ superseded any danger to the nation – and, indeed, that same public. (The ‘Pentagon Papers,’ come to mind, just for starters.)

But then when we saw the article’s ‘update,’ we could no longer resist.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are more interested in tracking down and punishing the whistleblower, than they are in publishing the (now confirmed as authentic) emails and documents.

This is what passes for journalism from our two foremost newspapers.

By the way, lest we forget, both The Times and the Washington Post cheerfully directed their readers to Sarah Palin’s hacked emails.

Granted, they didn’t post any emails verbatim themselves. But they both were careful to link to a site that had images of Mrs. Palin’s emails.