Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood

I Have to Ask

2009-12-17T05:57:00.003-06:00

It's not going well over in Copenhagen at the Global Warming Tent Revival, but there's reason to hope. Hugo Chavez is in the house:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Very nice. Thrifty Scot over at Boots On noticed that our very own greener-than-thou state representative, Kate Knuth, is over in Copenhagen and has been tweeting away. One of Kate's tweets is as follows:

After days of science, policy, negotiations, and protesters, inspirational speech by Sen Kerry at #cop15 was appreciated. Now let's deliver.

We'll leave the absurd notion of an "inspirational speech by Sen Kerry" aside for the moment. Okay, Kate, I have to ask -- what, pray tell, do you want to deliver?

12th of 10

2009-12-16T12:30:00.003-06:00

The Big 10 Conference is again thinking about expansion and, as before, speculating on which team ought to join makes for a fun parlor game. Herewith is a by no means exhaustive list of potential candidates to join, in no particular order:

Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Iowa State
Missouri
Nebraska
Texas
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Kansas

So let's the play the parlor game: if you were adding one team from this list, which one would you add? And why? I have my view on the matter and I'll offer it anon, but I don't want to color the discussion. Yet.

Land of the Free, Law of the Vague

2009-12-16T05:58:00.003-06:00

I said this yesterday on one of the comment threads:

The correct number of regulations is the smallest number that gets a good result, because hugely complicated regulations can make criminals out of people who are acting in good faith.

There is a larger problem to face, though: laws that are almost impossible to understand because of how vague they are. In an excellent column, Gene Healy points out the following example:

Michael Drebeen, a deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration, had a rough morning last Tuesday. He argued two Supreme Court cases back to back, defending a notoriously vague federal criminal statute -- and the justices worked him over vigorously.

The 1988 law at issue aims at public corruption and corporate misconduct, but sweeps far too broadly, criminalizing schemes to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

If that language seems a little, well, intangible to you, you're not alone. Hurling hypotheticals, the justices strained to find a limiting principle that could prevent the law from covering an employee reading a racing form on the clock (Stephen Breyer) or calling in sick to go to a ballgame (Antonin Scalia). Of some 150 million workers in the United States, Breyer told Drebeen, "I think possibly 140 million of them would flunk your test."

We see way too many examples of this sort of vague legislation going on and a lot of it ends up in the front of the Supreme Court. And it really hurts all of us. Read the whole thing.

Radio Free Dilettante — Cold December Afternoon Edition

2009-12-15T15:25:00.001-06:00

A very puzzling narrative, indeed:

Last Five:
Chloe, Spike Jones and His City Slickers
Stomp, The Brothers Johnson
Goin' Back, The Byrds
Jamie's Cryin', Van Halen
I Gotcha, Joe Tex

Next Five:
Too Many Fish in the Sea, the Marvelettes
Car on a Hill, Joni Mitchell
Streams of Whiskey, The Pogues
Delirious, Prince
Trampled Underfoot, Led Zeppelin

Lightning Round 121509

2009-12-15T05:54:00.002-06:00

Still following the AGW beat, but some other stuff, too:

Clive Crook in the Financial Times brings up several important points in this column, but here's the key one: "Once scientists are engaged as advocates, science is in trouble. Like intelligence agencies fitting the facts to the policy, they are no longer to be trusted. The IPCC may be serving a righteous cause, but it is not the honest broker this process needs. It has made itself a political agency – at times, a propaganda unit. All this, the public can see." Indeed, if the public chooses to. Read the whole thing.
Speaking of honest brokers. . . during the Watergate scandal, the key admonition was to follow the money. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a busy man. Follow the money here. And by all means, read the whole thing.
Mitch Berg celebrates the 30th anniversary of the release of one of my all-time favorite albums, the Clash's London Calling. It's amazing that we are 30 years on. And to my ears, the album hasn't aged a bit. Mitch identifies two of his favorite songs in the post. Here are two of mine.

4 years of Dilettante

2009-12-14T05:44:00.002-06:00

The date actually passed yesterday, but it's worth noting: this feature began its existence four years ago. After over 1,750 posts, we're still going strong. There are a number of very good blogs that have gone away in the last year and it's easy to understand why. It's tough to keep coming back to face the blank screen. It's a joy, too. Thank you for reading. And thank you for your support and your challenges. I'm guessing the coming year will be a lot of fun.

Conventional Wisdom

2009-12-13T09:08:00.002-06:00

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

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

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.” – Al Gore, Climate Change activist

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, ex-member of Greenpeace commenting on the secret of Greenpeace’s success

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…” – David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” – David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” – Judi Bari, principal organizer of Earth First!

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of TBS and CNN

“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it.” – Jacques Cousteau, interview with the UNESCO Courier

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species … Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Les U. Knight, founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

DIY

2009-12-12T11:43:00.002-06:00

If you've ever had a hankering to undertake some statistical analysis (and let's be honest, who hasn't), the always entertaining Iowahawk shows you how the famous AGW hockey stick was constructed. If you have a half hour and a computer, you can make your very own. And when you're done, you'll understand a little bit more about how we got to where we are.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Week 14

2009-12-11T21:39:00.003-06:00

College football is just about done with the regular season, but now we get to see the advantage of the BCS. BCS stands for Bad Computer Software! What do you think Dad?

I'm not sure, Seabiscuit. What should I think?

Anyway, let's get down to business. I like the way you ducked that one, Decrepit.

Army Cadets/Black Knights (+14) vs. Navy Midshipmen at Philadelphia. Hey, Cadets and Mids -- can you FEEL THE HYYYYYPPPPE! Gonna visit the bars? Then see which service academy is better?

Uh, Ben, sorry to interrupt, but the service academies have a code of conduct and I'm guessing they won't be doing too much carousing before the game.

Whatever. Anyway, back to the game. Navy beat Notre Dame, which isn't as big an accomplishment as it used to be. But it does mean something. Army is an okay team, but they're a long way from the days of Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside. These days, they're almost always on the outside. Looking in, that is. Mids 40, Cadets 21.

So you still have the HYYYYYYPPPPE machine going, young fella? Ah, that adolescent thing is so soothing, isn't it? Weep for me, America. Anyway, I think the Mids will win the game, too. Navy has had the better of this rivalry for the most part for rather a long time now. Navy 31, Army 14.

Cincinnati Ochocincos (The Artists Formerly Known as Bungles) (+6.5) vs. Minnesota Vikings. For all those Spanish speakers out there, Chad Ochocinco really means "Chad Eight Five." The dude really needs to take a remedial Spanish class. It should be Ochenta y Cinco, but he apparently didn't have his head screwed on right. Minnesota got its butt handed to it by Mr. Warner last week and Cincinnati is going to do the same thing. Throw the ball to Ochocinco in the end zone. I want him to steal Ragnar's horn. Linguistically Challenged 50, Vikings 17.

Uh, no. Nice point about Mr. Ochocinco's lack of chops in speaking Spanish, but otherwise I don't know what you're thinking, Grasshopper. The Vikings are actually now a desperate team at home. That's the winning formula, as we've learned. Watch for them to bounce back, although it won't be easy. Vikings 27, Bengals 20.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (-3) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Gino, I've got news for you, pal. Jay Cutler reminds me of a combination of Ryan Leaf and Rex Grossman. Jay Cutler could probably do just as well as Jay Glazer, or maybe Jay Leno. Anyway, Matt Forte also reminds me of former Packer great Keith Woodside, except not as good. Without Mr. Urlacher, the Swiss Cheese that is da Bearz defense will get torched by Mr. Rodgers and the Land of Make Believe. Packers 90, da Bearz 10.

So your sister Fearless Maria is sitting over in the other room saying, "Ben, that's not going to happen." She's also suggesting that you need to expand your vocabulary and stop using "meanwhile" so much. Da Bearz were looking pretty good earlier in the season, but that's gone now. As for our green-clad heroes, things are looking better. But not 90-10 better. Packers 31, da Bearz 16.

Motor City Kitties (+13 1/2) vs. Baltimore Edgar Allen Poes. Well Detroit, I assume you know what I think of your so-called professional football team. Baltimore is coming off a disappointing loss to the Packers in Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood. Even with a short week, this game is going to be a piece of pie. Mr. Poe 50, Common House Pets 16.

We've seen the Ravens and the Lions in the last two weeks, and based on that, I can safely say that neither team is especially impressive. We'll give the Ravens the nod based on home field advantage and the common sense of knowing that the Lions just don't win very much. Ravens 24, Lions 21.

Oregon High School Football Championship: Hillsboro High vs. Jefferson High. Okay, I don't know anything about these teams. I have never even heard of these high schools. Dad made me pick this game because his pal Chuckwagon Boy lives out in Oregon and his kids attend Hillsboro High. So I'm picking Hillsboro. Hillsboro 3, Jefferson 0.

I'll be honest, I don't know anything about these teams either. But let's hear it for Hillsboro High! Hillsboro 24, Jefferson 17.

New Orleans Saints (-10 1/2) vs. Hot-Lanta Falcons. Since Decrepit made me pick that weird game, here's a more normal one. Something's cookin' on the bayou! The Saints are led by fantasy star extraordinaire Drew Brees, my man. Atlanta is probably going be without my other fantasy league stud, Michael Turner "The Burner" and their QB, Matt Ryan. Hate to be you, Chris Redman! Saints 102, Hot-Lanta 7.

I'm not sure there's even enough time in a game for a team to score 102 points, Youngblood. But given your propensity to pick absurd routs, this one was destined to happen. Here's what I don't get -- if you wanted to pick a normal game, why did you pick one team to score 100 points? I'm just aghast. Oh, and the Saints will win. But not by 95 points. Saints 42, Falcons 24.

Anyway, if you're going to pick a team to score 100 points, pick the Saints! Ben out!

Drip, Drip, Drip

2009-12-11T12:18:00.004-06:00

The details continue to emerge in the Climategate story. Today we learn about the problematic "Briffa reconstruction." Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org tells the whole sordid tale, and you should definitely read the whole thing, but here are a few highlights.

First, some brief background. Keith Briffa is one of the climatologists who worked at the East Anglia CRU. He supplied much of the primary data, based on studies of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, that form much of the rationale that led to the famous "hockey stick" model that shows a dramatic increase in global warming in recent years. Bristlecone pines are especially important, because they live for thousands of years and thus we could glean data about conditions going back to at least A.D. 1000.

There was a problem with the data, though: it was cherry-picked. This was not public knowledge for a long time, but McIntyre finally was able to go through the data here. And the problem is pretty simple: without the cherry-picked data, the assumptions about warming didn't hold up. The East Anglia CRU didn't want to release the information, despite repeated requests. McIntyre tells the story here:

CRU staunchly refused to provide the measurement data used in Briffa’s Yamal reconstruction. Science(mag) acquiesced in this refusal in connection with Osborn and Briffa 2006. While the Yamal chronology was used in a Science article, it originated with Briffa 2000 and Science(mag) took the position that the previous journal (which had a different data policy) had jurisdiction. Briffa used the chronology Briffa et al (Phil Trans B, 2008) and the Phil Trans editors finally seized the nettle, requiring Briffa to archive the data. As noted before, Briffa asked for an extension and, when I checked earlier this year, the Yamal measurement data remained unarchived. A few days ago, I noticed that the Yamal data was finally placed online. With the information finally available, this analysis has only taken a few days.
If the non-robustness observed here prove out (and I’ve provided a generating script), this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies that have relied on this study. Studies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph, Wikipedia spaghetti graph or NAS Panel spaghetti graph (consult them for bibliographic refs) that use the Yamal proxy include: Briffa 2000; Mann and Jones 2003; Jones and Mann 2004; Moberg et al 2005; D’Arrigo et al 2006; Osborn and Briffa 2006; Hegerl et al 2007, plus more recently Briffa et al 2008, Kaufman et al 2009. (Note that spaghetti graph studies not included in the above list all employ strip bark bristlecone pines – some use both.)

As it turns out, the data did not support the hypotheses of unprecedented warming. And this was a problem for the climatologists who have been driving the narrative. And now, thanks to the e-mail trail that has emerged from the CRU, we have an idea of how the climatologists dealt with the problem. McIntyre:

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick email is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing. There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider the “zero-order draft” of the Third Assessment Report. The emails provide clear evidence that IPCC had already decided to include a proxy diagram reconstructing temperature for the past 1000 years and that a version of the proxy diagram was presented at the Tanzania meeting showing the late twentieth century decline. I now have a copy of the proxy diagram presented at this meeting (see below).

The emails show that 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”, that this was then the “most important issue” in chapter 2 of the IPCC report and that there was “pressure” on Briffa and other authors to show a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.

We'll discuss how this was done in the next post. Meanwhile, read McIntyre's post in full. It's long but hugely significant.

Guilty Pleasures Part Fifty-Nine: The Ho Ho Wii Christmas Extravaganza

2009-12-10T19:33:00.007-06:00

Dad, it's Christmastime! Thump thump thumpity, thump thump thump, look at Fearless Maria go!

Wait, isn't that an Easter song?

No, Dad! You're thinking of Peter Cottontail! Get the cotton out of your ears and listen. That's Frosty the Snowman! Maybe you should go back to kindergarten and learn the words, because that's where I learned it!

When I was in kindergarten, I don't remember singing Christmas songs.

But I'll bet you spilled glitter all over your pants in art class. Bet that messed up your Garanimals pretty good, huh?

Actually, yes Maria. It did.

But Dad, you've got us off track. We're supposed to be doing Guilty Pleasures and I want to do some Christmas music!

So you're thinking about Christmas, Maria? Why on earth would you be thinking about that?

Excuse me, sir. It's already December 10th. Didn't you hear Ella Fitzgerald going by?

Sleigh Ride

That's a happy sound, Maria. Ella is a wonderful singer and that's one of my favorites.

Glad you like it, Dad. Say, if I pick good songs will you get me a Wii for Christmas?

Maybe. You're off to a good start so far.

Dad, I think we need to take a vacation. How about to the Holiday Inn?

What's at the Holiday Inn, Maria?

Well, according to guys in the 1940s and the attractive ladies who seem to be hanging around the grand piano, there's a good chance of a:

White Christmas

So who is that attractive lady who barely does anything, Dad?

Her name is Marjorie Reynolds. She was in that movie, but I'm not too up on the rest of her career.

It's Christmas, Dad. I'll give you a break on knowing that. But am I still in the running for the Wii?

Yep, if you keep picking winners, you're in good shape.

Well, Mom plays this one all the time.

The Christmas Song

That's Nat King Cole. A wonderful singer.

And he was a merry old soul, right?

I believe that's right, Maria.

Benster just whispered a suggestion in my ear. How about this?

All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth

If I didn't know better, and I don't know better, I'd think that Ben was trying to sabotage you.

Ben! Knock it off! I want that Wii! And so do you, Mister.

Maria, you don't want to be so hard on your brother, now do you?

I guess not, Dad. Ben wants a second chance. Try this one, Dad!

Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer

I'm not sure he's helping your cause, Maria.

Don't you like that song, Dad?

After hearing it about 4000 times, maybe not so much. But that's not your fault. So what other songs do you know about?

Maybe I should play it safe and play some more Bing Crosby:

The Little Drummer Boy

I remember watching that when I was a kid, Maria. That was from Bing Crosby's last Christmas special and David Bowie was the guest star. It's a somewhat odd pairing, but now, more than 30 years later it's not so weird any more.

So how's that Wii coming along?

Well, we'll have to see.

Maybe I'll have to try this one, Dad!

Do They Know It's Christmas

I remember that one well too, Maria. It was Christmas 1984 and there was a terrible famine going on in Africa. A lot of performers decided to make a benefit record and if look closely you'll see a lot of famous singers, like Bono of U2, Boy George, Phil Collins, George Michael and Sting.

Who are the girls? Is that Bananarama?

Yes. They had lots of people involved in it.

Doing something nice for people at Christmas is cool, Dad! You know that I went to Feed My Starving Children last week, right? So I was trying to help feed the world, too!

That was a great idea, Maria. And there are a lot of other great charities you can help right now.

That's a great idea, Dad! But I think I need at least another song or two to make sure I get that Wii. So maybe you'd like one of these?

Happy Christmas (War is Over)

Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)

So those are definitely the Christmas (Parentheses) Pair of songs, huh Dad?

Yes, but well chosen.

Thanks, Dad. But now we need everyone else to make their choice. Send a letter to Santa Maria in the comments section!

Is This The Smoking Gun?

2009-12-10T18:45:00.000-06:00

Potentially. There's a lot more at Watts Up With That? It's a long piece but very much worth your time. The very short version of this chart: The blue numbers are the raw data. The red numbers are the "homogenized" data following the addition of secret sauce. The black line indicates the amount of secret sauce that was used. The reason it was used? We're still waiting to find that out.

Meanwhile, as the worthies meet with furrowed brows in Copenhagen, there's a little trouble with one of their potential solutions to the issue they purport to address.

Occam-pational Hazards

2009-12-10T05:46:00.002-06:00

Yes, it's time for Occam's Razor again. Let's start with a question for all of us evil AGW "Deniers": do you really think there's a massive conspiracy to falsify data and that the East Anglia CRU is some sort of criminal cabal, conspiring with other climate scientists?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my answer is: no. It's not likely that such a conspiracy could really work. However, there are other possible explanations. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic is on the right track:

I can imagine a sort of selection bias in the grant process. I cannot imagine hundreds of scientists thinking, well, I put ten years into getting my PhD--time to spend the rest of my life faking data in order to get some grant money! One, yes. All of them, no.

To me, the worry is the subtler kind of bias that we indisputably know has led to scientific errors in the past.

McArdle then turns to an example from the great physicist and popular science writer Richard Feynman:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

Is that what happened in this case? It's a far more likely explanation than a massive conspiracy. McArdle:

That is the actual worrying question about CRU, and GISS, and the other scientists working on paleoclimate reconstruction: that they may all be calibrating their findings to each other. That when you get a number that looks like CRU, you don't look so hard to figure out whether it's incorrect as you do when you get a number that doesn't look like CRU--and maybe you adjust the numbers you have to look more like the other "known" datasets. There is always a way to find what you're expecting to find if you look hard enough.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

Blizzard Round

2009-12-09T05:49:00.002-06:00

Same as a lightning round, but more weather appropriate. . . .

One of the things we're supposedly going to miss when the MSM goes belly up is the objective reporting that its members provide. Take for example this measured analysis of Joe Lieberman on offer from the Washington Post: "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has once again inserted himself into the middle of an inflamed partisan debate, raising questions about his motives, his ego and his fickle allegiance to the Democratic Party, which forgave him after he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president." I hate it when a legislator gets involved in legislation, don't you?
We have been assured that one of the benefits of ridding ourselves of Republican rule is that the Justice Department would cease being so politicized. Here's some evidence of that.
I don't mind snow so much, but I just wish it wouldn't fall in my driveway or on 35W.
Almost got through this without beating the drums on AGW again. Almost. I would like to commend to your attention this piece from Joel Kotkin that appears in Forbes. Lotsa good stuff, but here's one key observation about Barack Obama's "Science Advisor," one John Holdren:

The notion that the hoi polloi must be sacrificed to save the earth is not a new one. Paul Ehrlich, who was the mentor of President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, laid out the defining logic in his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb. In this influential work, Ehrlich predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and "an age of scarcity" in key metals by the mid-1980s. Similar views were echoed by a 1972 "Limits to Growth" report issued by the Club of Rome, a global confab that enjoyed a cache similar to that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
To deal with this looming crisis, Holdren in the 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Anne and Paul Ehrlich) developed the notion of "de-development." According to Holdren, poorer countries like India and China could not be expected to work their way out of poverty since they were "foredoomed by enormous if not insurmountable economic and environmental obstacles." The only way to close "the prosperity gap" was to lower the living standards of what he labeled "over-developed" nations.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ehrlich and Holdren don't have a great track record for predicting the future. They'd not last a minute at a Vegas sports book. So remind me again, why ought we be listening to them now?

Radio Free Dilettante – Blizzard of Imminent Death Edition

2009-12-08T14:11:00.000-06:00

No, it's not hype. It's marketing.

Last Five:
Shine a Little Love, Electric Light Orchestra
Message in a Bottle, Police
World Where You Live, Crowded House
You Are, You Are, Curtis Mayfield
Minneapolis, That Dog

Next Five:
Song for the Dumped, Ben Folds Five
Independence Day, Bruce Springsteen
Honest I Do, Spinners
Winterlong, Neil Young
I Believe (When I Fall in Love It Will Be Forever), Stevie Wonder

Oops

2009-12-08T12:08:00.002-06:00

Darn the luck.

In a massive security breach, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) inadvertently posted online its entire airport screening procedures manual, including some of the most closely guarded secrets regarding special rules for diplomats and CIA and law enforcement officers.

The most sensitive parts of the 93-page Standard Operation Procedures were apparently redacted in a way that computer savvy individuals easily overcame.

The document shows sample CIA, Congressional and law enforcement credentials which experts say would make it easy for terrorists to duplicate.

Sounds like a problem, but let's look on the bright side. If having to scrap the current procedures leads to even longer lines at the airport, maybe some of the great unwashed will stop wanting to travel by air so much and just stay home, where they belong, and just reduce their carbon footprints.

And further, I'm not especially worried about governmental agents guarding information anyway; once we're all set up for that nifty new Obama Care, there's no chance that the results of my latest physical will end up on the internets. It's all good, people. It's all good.

Every Breath You Take

2009-12-08T05:49:00.003-06:00

Stuff keeps happening faster than I can comment.

The moment of complete overreach has arrived -- the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that CO2 is a pollutant. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if CO2 is a pollutant, I've been polluting the air with every breath I take. And unless the enforcement agents are cyborgs, they have been too. There isn't any activity that I undertake that isn't potentially subject to regulatory enforcement now. I'd suggest that if the EPA were really concerned about setting a good example, they could have all their bureaucrats stop breathing. But that would be churlish. The good news? I suspect this move will go back to the Supreme Court and will get slapped down, even though the Supremes (perhaps) inadvertently gave this folly the green light back in 2007. But it never should have come to that.
Meanwhile, the Branch Carbonians continue to gather in Copenhagen for a week of holy ritual and holy writ. Many of these well-appointed scolds have been arriving in Copenhagen via private jet. An excellent point made here: "Taking a private jet to a conference on stopping global warming is a bit like traveling in a sedan chair carried by indentured servants to a summit on stopping human trafficking." These folks oppose incandescent lights. They apparently don't worry too much about incandescent hypocrisy. Read the whole thing -- lotsa good one-liners, including this one: “It’s too cold to walk from the hotel to the convention on global warming. Let’s take a limo!”

Lightning Round 120709

2009-12-07T06:00:00.002-06:00

Trying not to be so much of a one-note samba. But there's at least two AGW things in this list, but I'll get them out of the way right away.

If you want to understand how consensus is formed, here's a clue. Behold the splendor as Timesman Andy Revkin is put on notice.
If the worthies who will gather in Copenhagen are so concerned about their carbon footprint, they might want to comport themselves a little differently. Of course, they aren't especially concerned about their carbon footprints. They're concerned about yours.
Max Baucus gets a little action. Not on health care, mind you.
Hey Vikings fans -- now you know what Bad Brett looks like.
The Big 10 couldn't fill their bowl allotment so the Little Caesar's Bowl is now a MAC conference game, with one of the teams being 6-6 Marshall. If you ever needed proof that there are way too many bowl games, there it is.

Bjorn Again

2009-12-06T16:37:00.003-06:00

One of the smarter voices in the AGW debate is Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist. He makes some valuable points in this essay for Time. First, of all, he's a realist.

For years, we have been spinning our wheels on what I call the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen road to nowhere, slavishly following the notion — first endorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and then extended in Kyoto 13 years later —that the only way to stop global warming is by means of draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. All we have to show for this devotion is a continuing series of unmet targets, along with a startling increase in the number of people who no longer think climate change is worth worrying about.

That's right. I've written a lot, maybe even too much, about AGW in the past few weeks since the East Anglia revelations have come to the fore. But it's important to say this: those of us who are in the skeptic camp are skeptics for a variety of reasons. But if you want to turn people into skeptics, one of the best ways to do it is to propose ridiculous solutions. As Lomborg notes, the cure is worse than the disease it purports to treat:

In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Tol, a lead author for the U.N. climate panel, determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to meet the 2° goal, the leading industrial nations would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels — one that by the end of the century would reach something on the order of $4,000 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or $35 per gallon of gas ($9 per liter). According to Tol, the impact of a tax hike of this magnitude could reduce world GDP 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. In other words, to save ourselves $3 trillion a year, we'd be giving up $40 trillion a year. No wonder we're not getting anywhere.

I put gas in my vehicle this afternoon and paid about $2.38 per gallon -- I had a coupon that saved me a few cents. We had incredible anger when gas prices reached $4/gallon last year. Does anyone really believe that there would be any way for the typical citizen to afford to pay $37.43 per gallon for gasoline? It's not going to happen. While I can see the reasons a government would like to have that sort of money, and there'd certainly be some sort of refund mechanism in place to offset some of the cost, there's always a bureaucratic carrying charge.

Lomborg's view is that if we believe fossil fuels are imperiling the planet, the way to solve the problem is to find better alternatives. And how does one do that?

It's time to stop trying to put the cart before the horse. Instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper. The cost of fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol (in terms of lost economic growth) has been estimated at roughly $180 billion a year. For just a little more than half that amount, we could fund a fiftyfold increase in spending on R&D for the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs — like smart grids, ultra-efficient batteries or even cheap, manageable fusion — we will need to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Such a commitment would resolve many of today's political challenges. Developing nations would be much more likely to embrace a positive path of innovation than a punitive one that handicaps their ability to grow their economies.

All true. And much of the research could take place in the private sector. Which is one reason that so many governmental figures oppose it.

Read the whole thing.

New Adventures in the Age of Enlightenment

2009-12-06T10:50:00.004-06:00

The Times of London reports that the British Meteorological Office is going to re-examine 160 years of climate data:

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

That seems reasonable. So how would the British government respond to such reason?

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

Shut up, they explained.

There's Probably a Perfectly Good Explanation

2009-12-05T09:15:00.003-06:00

Okay, so the data set from the East Anglia CRU is perhaps hopelessly compromised. Doesn't matter, we are assured, because there are corroborating data sets that confirm the AGW theory. And because one of the most important data sets is in the hands of NASA, it should be easy to get and share, right?

Wrong.

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

As longtime readers of this feature likely know, I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony. In a nutshell, what William of Occam postulated was this: the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. In this case, I can think of two Occam's Razor reasons for the 2-year delay in responding to this FOIA request. They are:

NASA, like any government agency, is riddled with unresponsive bureaucrats and the delay is the result of typical government red tape; or
NASA has something to hide.

Under ordinary circumstances, if I were a betting man I'd put my marker on explanation #1. Given today's context, #2 is uncomfortably possible.

According to the article, NASA is trying to respond:

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

Given that the deadline for complying to FOIA requests is 20 days, and given the way things are currently playing out, I'd humbly suggest that someone light a fire under Mr. Hess's ass.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Week 13

2009-12-04T19:20:00.003-06:00

BIG GAME TOMORROW! FLORIDA AND ALABAMA! CAN YOU FEEL THE HYYYYYYYPE!!!!

Ow. My ears. Why are you screaming so loud, Seabiscuit? Or are you part of the hype machine?

Winner goes to Pasadena for the Title Game, Decrepit! That's a big deal, huh? Huh? Is this mike on?

Sorry, I turned it down a bit on you. So I'm guessing you'll be offering your views on this one, young fella?

Well, yes, but first we have other business. Like this:

Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (-12) vs. Hawaii Rainbow Brites. Did I really just call them the Rainbow Brites? Man, that's cold. Anyway, Wisconsin would be a 9-win team if they win this final game and it should be pretty easy. Hawaii is a .500 team this year in a generally poor conference, so it's not as if they've won a quality game this time around. And it won't start now. Badgers 50, Rainbow Brites 0.

Bucky was actually pretty smart in scheduling Hawaii this year. The last time they played out there in Paradise, Colt Brennan was not a factor. Now he's gone entirely. I was pretty disappointed with how the Badgers failed to respond against a decent but hardly outstanding Northwestern team. I suspect their best performances are a year away. But they'll certainly have enough to beat the depleted Rainbows. Wisconsin 31, Hawaii 20.

Nebraska Cornhuskers (+14 1/2) vs. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You. The game will be played in Arlington, Texas, at the new Cowboys stadium. It's very expensive to get into that place. I'll admit that Nebraska is a good team, especially to have made it to the Big XII title game, but Texas should win. If they don't win, then watch for either TCU or Boise State to have a chance to play for the BCS Championship. We're Texas (And You're Not) 42, Nebraska 21.

I don't have a really good feel for this game. I only saw about 20 minutes of one Nebraska game this year and my sense is that the Big XII is down a little. The Longhorns are deep and talented, but I don't think they really belong in the BCS title game. They will be, though. And a big performance for Colt McCoy will cinch his Heisman. Texas 34, Nebraska 17.

Alabama Crimson Tide (+5 1/2) vs. Tim Tebow Nation and the rest of the Florida Gators. Seems like an even game, right? You thought wrong! I'm trying not to scream and SET LOOSE THE HYPE MACHINE. Deep breaths, Benster. Just chill. Okay, I'm better now. I regard that it is going to be a tough game for Alabama. Mark Ingram, the standout Alabama tailback/Heisman hopeful, suffered a hip pointer last week against Aw-barn. I think he'll play but not a lot and not effectively. Florida is going to the BCS game and Tim Tebow will get his second Heisman. As usual, you are wrong to doubt the POWER OF TEBOW! TEBOW! TEBOW! So I must inform you that you are mistaken, Decrepit. Gators 60, Bama 50.

Uh, Benster? No. I think the Hype Machine has filled you with laughing gas or something. I'll have to have a word with the Hype Machine later. Anyway, back to the game. I saw a good chunk of the Alabama/Auburn game. While I understand that Alabama played better in other games this season, I wasn't impressed with them at all. Auburn is an ordinary team and Alabama scarcely looked better. In fact, the Tide reminded me of Iowa a little bit. No one thinks Iowa is a national championship team. The Gators? Just maybe. Florida 23, Alabama 16.

Minnesota Vikings (-3 1/2) vs. Arizona House of Cards. Hey Vikings fans! Do you remember what happened the last time you were in Arizona? Click on this for the soundtrack! Sorry Mom, I just had to do that. By the way, Mom just told me I'm going to eat leftover liver and onions for posting that link. Anyway, back to this year. Minnesota should win, unless they put Benny Sapp on Larry Fitzgerald. I can just imagine the words coming out of Paul Allen's mouth again. Norsemen 39, Matt Leinart Nation 17.

I don't know about you, but I never get tired of that link, Benster. Heh. Anyway, this year it's different. The Cardinals are a much better team, but so are the Vikings. And while I suspect this will be a fun game, I think the Vikings will be better than the somewhat enigmatic Cardinals. Vikings 34, Cardinals 23.

St. Louis Sheep (+9) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Da Bearz are wounded. They do however get a team that's just as good as a camera without batteries. In other words, the Sheep don't get the picture. Da Bearz 90, Sheep 7.

I may have to check the sports page. I'm not sure Da Bearz have scored 90 points in total all season. Okay, they've scored 216. So let's put it this way. They aren't likely to score 90. But they are likely to win against a truly awful Rams team. Jay Cutler gets a feel good game. Da Bearz 27, Rams 13.

Baltimore Ravens (+3) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. Green Bay has been playing much better since the awful episode with the Creamsicles a few weeks back. This game, however, will not be easy. The Ravens have a talented young offense and I can't get out of my mind a vision of Ray Lewis throwing Alan "Swinging Gate" Barbre aside like a sack of potato chips and getting into Aaron Rodgers' grill. Still, I think Green Bay will win. Packers 37, Edgar Allan Poe 30.

It occurs to me that we're going to agree on everything this week, Grasshopper. Well, the good news for the Packers is that "Swinging Gate" Barbre probably won't see much of the field this time around. The Raven defense is still fierce but they can be had. And very quietly the Packers have become the #1 defense in the National Football League this season. I think this one will be tight but the Pack will win, too. Packers 20, Ravens 17.

Dad, YOU CAN'T RESIST THE POWER OF THE HYPE MACHINE!!!!!! TEBOW! TEBOW! TEBOW! FEEL THE SPIRIT OF LEE CORSO! PUT ON THE GATOR HAT! YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO, DECREPIT! LIVE IT! BE IT! DANCE FOR ME, GREEK! I THINK I'M DONE! BEN OUT!

This much is certain -- no Mountain Dew for you, Sparky.

Paying the Piper

2009-12-04T05:55:00.002-06:00

One of the complaints you hear about bloggers is that they aren't really a replacement for newsgathering organizations. That's true, but it's largely irrelevant. While other bloggers consider themselves citizen journalists, I never have.

Still, you have to wonder about moves like this one that Mitch Berg documents, which would deny bloggers the "press shield" protection offered working journalists. He produces the proposed language from Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois:

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the
following:

[a "journalist" is shielded if he/she] (iii) obtains the information
sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for,
an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

There's a lot of mischief here. Would this feature be considered a periodical? Or would I, in the course of producing my work, have to periodically publish a hard copy of this blog and distribute it somehow?

But more important is this:

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:
(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

So anyone who blogs but does not use his/her own name is basically SOL.

Mitch, who of course blogs under his own name, has a particular concern about this issue, since he does a lot of reporting on issues he holds dear, especially charter schools. He actually does fit the bill of citizen journalist. He also makes the following relevant point:

The conservative blogosphere is dominated by independents who cover their fields of expertise, whatever they are (this blog: music, financial planning, wine, tomatos and Minnesota politics) for the pure, unadulterated love of the game. From Power Line (which covers all they survey) to Speed Gibson (who patrols the ramparts of northwest-suburban education), we mostly do it because we want to, money be damned.

Speed Gibson is a great example: he's a concerned citizen. He's tough but he's fair and he does a lot of original and important reporting on what goes on in his school district. And it's hard to see the benefit of denying him the press shield.

Of course, it may not matter that much longer anyway. Consider this (via Instapundit):

Section editors at Dallas Morning News now report to sales managers -- More here and here.

That's the next post.

Object of Desire

2009-12-03T21:09:00.002-06:00

Mrs. D came through in a big way for my birthday. She got me this. I don't know if it's appropriate for a 46-year old guy to say this, but I'm totally geeked about it.

They Call the Wind Zelaya

2009-12-03T12:25:00.003-06:00

If you haven't been paying attention to Honduras lately, the Times of London has an update:

MPs in Honduras have voted overwhelmingly against reinstating President Manuel Zelaya, shrugging off international pressure four months after a coup that has isolated one of the poorest countries in the Americas.

As the vote continued, more than two-thirds of members of Congress had voted not to return the deposed president to power for the remainder of his term, which ends on January 27, as Washington and many Latin American governments had urged.

Honduran media put the ongoing vote at 98-12, well in excess of the simple majority needed in the 128-member, single-chamber Congress for the vote against restoring Mr Zelaya to succeed.

So what does President Obama's man in Tegucigalpa have to say?

Mr Zelaya, who listened to the proceedings from the Brazilian Embassy, where he has been given sanctuary since he returned to the country, had said he would not return for a token two months even if asked.

Well, good. It would mean that Zelaya seems to have accepted his fate, right? Not so fast:

He urged other governments not to restore ties with the incoming administration of Porfirio Lobo, who won Sunday's presidential election.

So, here's the question: what would that accomplish? Even if Zelaya had been restored to power months ago, he'd still have had to leave and there would have been a new government in place. The U.S. government does not dispute the legitimacy of the election that the Hondurans recently undertook. In fact, the political party of both Zelaya and his successor Roberto Micheletti, lost to Lobo's party. If Honduran democracy were in peril, would Micheletti have agreed to abide by the election results?