Sweden Takes Fascist Turn

In Sweden, evidently, the state is everything, and everyone enjoys their freedom on the whim of the state. Well, they must be happy they agree with Hitler on something. (After all, we must remember Sweden found the "moral courage" to sit out WWII.)

Swedish authorities forcibly removed Dominic Johansson from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, in June of last year from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because they believe home schooling is an inappropriate way to raise a child and insist the government should raise Dominic instead.

“It’s one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed,” said HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly. “The Swedish government says it is exercising its authority under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in their unnecessary break up of this family. In addition, the Swedish Parliament is considering an essential ban on home schooling. We have heard that other home-schooling families in Sweden are having more difficulty with local officials. We fear that all home-schooling families in that country are at risk.”

Swedish social services initially limited visitation to the child to two hours per week but now have curtailed that to one hour every fifth week and no visit at all for Christmas because the social workers will be on vacation.

Actually, even a perfunctory reading of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, shows that Sweden is in gross violation of it:

Article 7:

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Article 8:

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

Article 9:

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

It is clear the objection of the State concerns the religious views of the parents, and no charge of abuse has been levelled against them. That Sweden has determined that one hour of contact every fifth week counts as "direct contact with both parents on a regular basis" is nothing short of a sick joke.

Furthermore the actions of Sweden are in direct violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 26: 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The meaning is clear. The right of parents to decide upon the kind if education their children receive comes before the interests of the state. End of discussion.

The belief that the interests of state are always primary is the bedrock belief of fascism. It is also the motivating force here, thus justifying this action by Sweden as fascistic.

2009: The Year Of The Swin(dl)e Flu

Gaius points out what should be blindingly obvious by now, the "swine flu" wasn't all it was cracked up to be: Swine WHO?

The “pandemic” of swine flu killed something like 11,500 people, worldwide. (Well, until they take two years or so to cook the books, then it will be revealed that 78 zillion people actually died in less than a nanosecond). The US CDC estimates that 36,000 Americans die each year from “regular” flu.

A sure sign that all the hype, all the Obama-induced panic, all the money wasted on swine flu vaccines was crap from start to finish?

...The same hype, hysteria and fraud rules the global warming frenzy. Also a UN sponsored effort.

The linkage with AGW is quite apt. In both cases we see the desire of the rising global elite to fan the flames of fear in order to aggrandize their own power positions. In both cases we see the argument being put forward that some crisis require coordinated elite driven action, be it controlling the economy to limit greenhouse gas emissions, or rationing supposedly scarce health care services. The reality is there would have been no scarcity of "swine flu" vaccine were it not for the frenzy created by the powers that be. They scared so many healthy people into getting the vaccine that I wonder how many people with underlying health concerns (the ones dying most often from the flu, swine or regular) didn't get the vaccine as a direct result?

May God save us from bureaucrats.

Oh Yeah....

"Please Don't Criticize Our Evil Scumbag On His Birthday!"

Russia Communists: don't slight Stalin on his bday:

The Russian Communist Party asked the nation Monday for a daylong moratorium on criticizing Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as they celebrate his 130th birthday.

Screw that.

Stalin, was a punk; an irredeemably evil son-of-a-bitch who when given a chance embraced Adolph Hitler rather than opposed him. He was a worthless piece of shit who deserves no credit at all in defeating Hitler. In fact, Stalin's cowardice and obvious in-bred hillbilly stupidity led to the near annihilation of Russia by the fascists. Russia was ultimately saved by real soldiers like Georgy Zhukov, despite the moronic ravings of the quite possibly psychotic Stalin.

Luckily for humanity in general, Stalin has been burning in hell for 56 years.

I hope he likes the next few million years.

AGW As Antipathy To Democracy

Roger Pielke Jr makes a good point about the way the scientific process has been managed of late:

John Christy and David Douglass provide a detailed accounting of how a comment on one of their papers was handled in the peer review process (even more detail here). Their experience, with the gory details revealed by the CRU emails, show in all of its unpleasantness how activist scientists sought to stage-manage climate science from the inside.

Their story hits very close to home with me, as I went through a very,very similar process with respect to a comment and reply on the "shameful article" on hurricanes and global warming that I co-authored in 2005. (If my emails ever get hacked you'll see that ugly episode from the inside.;-) That situation had a positive outcome only because at the time I protested efforts to deny us a right to respond in accordance with journal policies and threatened to go public with the improper efforts at stage-management. I am sure that these sort of shenanigans go on in academia more than we'd like to admit, however that does not justify them.

What these episodes reveal is an effort by activist climate scientists to stage-manage the peer review process much like how one might manage a partisan blog for public consumption. [Go to Pielke's site for useful links.]

I resonded thusly over at Roger's place:

As a political theorist by profession it is hard for me to read these sorts of things and not see them as expressing a deep antipathy towards democratic values.

The following quote comes from Karl Popper "The Open Society and its Enemies: Vol II Hegel and Marx" (pp.217-218):

"Two aspects of the method of the natural sciences are of importance... Together they constitute what I may term the 'public character of scientific method'. First, there is something approaching free criticism. A scientist may offer his theory with the full conviction that it is unassailable. But this does not necessarily impress his fellow-scientists; rather it challenges them. For they know that the scientific attitude means criticizing everything, and they are little deterred even by authorities. Secondly, scientists try to avoid talking at cross-purposes. (I may remind the reader that I am speaking of the natural sciences, but a part of modern economics may be included.) They try very seriously to speak one and the same language, even if they use different mother tongues. In the natural sciences this is achieved by recognizing experience as the impartial arbiter of their controversies. When speaking of 'experience' I have in mind experience of a 'public' character, like observations, and experiments, as opposed to experience in the sense of more 'private' aesthetic or religious experience; and an experience is 'public' if everybody who takes the trouble can repeat it. In order to avoid speaking at cross-purposes, scientists try to express their theories in such a form that they can be tested, i.e. refuted (or otherwise confirmed) by such experience.

"This is what constitutes scientific objectivity. Everyone who has learned the technique of understanding and testing scientific theories can repeat the experiment and judge for himself. In spite of this, there will always be some who come to judgements which are partial, or even cranky. This cannot be helped, and it does not seriously disturb the working of the various social institutions which have been designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality; for instance the laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses. This aspect of scientific method shows what can be achieved by institutions designed to make public control possible, and by the open expression of public opinion, even if this is limited to a circle of specialists. Only political power when it is used to suppress free criticism, or when it fails to protect it, can impair the functioning of these institutions, on which all progress, scientific, technological, and political, ultimately depends."

I really believe it is the introduction of the expressly political into this process which is undermining it. But it isn't merely because it is political, but because it is a variety of the political hostile to the ideals of free inquiry in the first place. It is hard to believe in democratic ideals of free inquiry and speech and also support the turning of the "laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses" into instruments of intellectual repression.

Maybe Voting Republican Brings Happiness?

Interesting: Happiest people live in Louisiana, survey shows

The happiest people in the U.S. live in Louisiana, according to a study published in today's edition of the journal Science....

The happiness ratings were based on a survey of 1.3 million people across the country by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It used data collected over four years that included a question asking people how satisfied they are with their lives.

Economists Andrew J. Oswald of the University of Warwick in England and Stephen Wu of Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., compared the happiness ranking with studies that rated states on a variety of criteria ranging from availability of public land to commuting time to local taxes.

Oswald pointed out that part of the survey occurred before Hurricane Katrina struck the state, and part of it took place later. Nevertheless, he said, "We have no explicit reason to think there is a problem" with the ranking.

Let's look at the Top 10 Happiest States and see who they voted for in 2008:

1. Louisiana - McCain

2. Hawaii - Obama

3. Florida - Obama

4. Tennessee - McCain

5. Arizona - McCain

6. South Carolina - McCain

7. Mississippi - McCain

8. Montana - McCain

9. Alabama - McCain

10. Maine - Obama

So a full 70% of the Top 10 happiest states are Republican in leanings.

Let's look at the Top 10 Unhappiest States next:

42. Rhode Island - Obama

43. Ohio - Obama

44. Massachusetts - Obama

45. Illinois - Obama

46. California - Obama

47. New Jersey - Obama

48. Indiana - Obama

49. Michigan - Obama

50. Connecticut - Obama

51. New York - Obama

Yep, that's 100% of Obama states as miserable bastards.

In one sense this isn't surprising, as if you were generally satisfied with life you might not feel the need to switch party leanings. Likewise if you were highly dissatisfied you would be more likely to vote for the folks who hadn't been in power of late.

However, if you look at the bottom 10 states all of the iconic Democratic bastions of the last 30 years (New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Michigan) are represented. Also, if you look at the happiest states, only Hawaii could be said to be overwhelmingly Democratic over the same period. Of the unhappiest, only Indiana could be said to be overwhelmingly Republican.

If the people living in Democratic places are so unhappy maybe they should look at the people who have been ruling them for generations now.

Climate Talks Go Bust

What a shame:

Talks stalled overnight on procedure, after some developing nations and China rejected a proposal by the Danish hosts to break talks into smaller groups to speed up progress. They insisted that everyone should see Denmark's proposal.

"I fear a triumph of form over substance," said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

China told participants it saw no possibility of achieving a detailed accord to tackle global warming, an official from another nation involved in the talks said. The official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the Chinese had instead suggested issuing "a short political declaration of some sort."

India's environment minister accused rich countries of planning a "propaganda campaign" to blame developing nations for any breakdown in negotiations. Developing economies are expected to add almost all future growth in carbon emissions.

"We are in the end game," said Jairam Ramesh. "It's only a matter of time before the blame game starts. Already some developed countries are accusing the G77 (developing nation group), Africa. This is completely, incomprehensively wrong."

European environment ministers said talks were in danger.

"We've got a serious situation," German environment minister Norbert Roettgen told Reuters.

I guess I should not say it is a shame. In reality it's a sham. Fundamentally, nothing has changed from 2005 when I wrote:

If the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide they are welcome to it. What you will see is that the countries who refuse to go along with Kyoto, like the U.S., China and India, will still have thriving economies while the Kyoto countries make their headlong rush for the 19th century.

Of course that won't happen. Countries will start pealing off of Kyoto one by one as the economic realities pile up one by one.

Unfortunately for most of the world, the "leaders" gathered in Copenhagen are not interested in realities of any sort, economic, scientific or political. It is a serious question as to how we human beings have managed to have so many sophomoric leaders all at the same time.

Where have all the adults gone?

Think The "Climate Summit" Was About Science?

Think again: Hugo Chavez cheered

THE Copenhagen climate summit was pretty much summed up in the high-level segment yesterday when [Australian climate change minister] Penny Wong's speech was interrupted by whistles and chanting and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez got a standing ovation....

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.

Hitler or Lenin couldn't have done it any better.

And the sheep listening to him couldn't be any dumber.

On Being Advocates Instead Of Journalists

And, really, if you want to be one you cannot be the other.

Who Is Reality Based?

This is kinda funny:

A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals some startling differences between Republicans and Democrats on issues of spirituality and supernatural phenomenon....

"Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortunetellers or psychics," the Pew study says. For example, 21 percent of Republicans report that they have been in touch with someone who is dead, while 36 percent of Democrats say they have done so. Eleven percent of Republicans say they have seen a ghost, while 21 percent of Democrats say so. And nine percent of Republicans say they have consulted a fortuneteller, while 22 percent of Democrats have.

There's more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do. Fourteen percent of Republicans say they believe in astrology, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Fifteen percent of Republicans say they view yoga as a spiritual practice, while 31 percent of Democrats do. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of Democrats do.

This must be what comes of worshipping the earth goddess Gaia.

The U.N. Is A Fascist Organization

Watch this and tell me it isn't.



You have to step up to fascists when they arise. It's too bad these "scientists with values" have thrown their lot in with these enemies of human freedom.

IPCC Reports Based On "Double Secret Research"

Last week I mentioned how the IPCC report erroneously transposed numbers claiming Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 2035, when the research actually predicted 2350.

This week the IPCC is trying to claim 2035 is really correct because it is based upon secret research that only they are privy to.

Sadly, I'm not joking:

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

These are the references the IPCC report actually points to, none of which are themselves peer-reviewed literature (thus they shouldn't have been used in the first place.) The only peer-reviewed piece that talks about the disappearance of glaciers is the piece that puts the date at 2350.

But being on the IPCC means never having to say you made a mistake:

Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.

But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.

This is not science, and anyone who is pursuing "science" using these "methods" should be removed from the discipline, as they are frauds.

Think Progress Uncovers "Probably Unpaid Intern-Gate" Scandal

Call the media! Fox News messed up a graphic! (It's a conspiracy!!!)

Last week, Fox and Friends showed a Rasmussen poll graphic revealing that a whopping 120 percent of the American public believes scientists may be falsifying research to support their own theories on global warming:

Quick! Someone inform the Pulitzer committee!

Obviously, the graphic was supposed to distill information from this Rasmussen poll into two categories; "at least somewhat likely" and "at least not very likely."

3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure

Given Rupert Murdoch's public avowal of advocacy in favor of AGW (of the lunatic "Hurricanes will get huger" variety no less), if one were conspiracy minded you could argue the screw-up was intentionally added to divert people from the truly dismal nature of the numbers for the scientific profession.

Of course, the real answer is some intern probaly just screwed up.

I'm just hoping they were not a math major.

The Disinformation Continues

This time via CNN:

One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.

1) This is a little like asking the head of a mafia family to comment about the arrest of one of his underlings.

2) Notice how Dr. Pachauri, who holds no degrees related to climate science, is casually described as "One of the world's leading authorities..." when many research scientists in climate science are merely called "skeptics" or "deniers" by the media when they don't spout the information the media already wants to hear. Just further proof what is being discussed here is politics, not science.

Hey "Scientist"! Your Slip Is Showing.

Finally, the can all know what the AGW crowd is really all about. Hint: it isn't about science:

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency....

...Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries...

Yeah, well, thanks... but no thanks. Marx, Lenin and Stalin are dead, even if their wannabe 21st Century counterparts still live and breathe. I'll leave their "ideas" safely in the dustbin of history.

But, hey, if you really want to debate competing ideologies at least have the balls not to hide behind "scientist" lab coats.

Continuing The Gleichschaltung

So NPR has decided to throw its weight behind the effort to make this a one-party state. That's great. NPR reporter pressured over Fox role

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

One source said the White House’s criticism of Fox was raised during the discussions with Liasson. However, an NPR spokeswoman told POLITICO that the Obama administration’s attempts to discourage other news outlets from treating Fox as a peer had no impact on any internal discussions at NPR.

Yeah, right. What are the chances that lefty leaning NPR just happens to "accidentally" be carrying the administration water again. NPR must truly believe everyone who listens to them is blithering. (They may be right.)

Of course this is merely a continuation of the Obama administration's attempt to implement the policy of Gleichschaltung, or "bringing into line" of the media.

Roger Kimball noticed this back when the NEA scandal broke in September:

“This is just the beginning.” Who could doubt it? Reading through this transcript, I was struck by two things. One was the aroma of self-intoxication. These bureaucrats and artists and activists are utterly besotted by the contemplation of their own virtue. They know what’s good for the country, and what’s good for you, and they’re willing to devote themselves ceaselessly to making it happen.

The second thing that strikes one about this transcript is the aura of menace that floats just behind the talk of passion, pushing the president’s agenda, connecting with “labor unions, progressive groups,” etc., etc. As Yosi Sergant’s pep talk suggests, these people regard legal obstacles not as boundaries to be observed but as impediments to be overcome by “tactics,” a word that frequently appears in the transcript.

There is a German word for what we are witnessing at the NEA and elsewhere in the Obama administration’s effort to push its agenda. It is Gleichschaltung. It means two things: first, bringing all aspects of life into conformity with a given political line. And second, as a prerequisite for realizing that goal, the obliteration or at least marginalization of all opposition.

This has it exactly right. The "bringing into line" could certainly be witnessed in the media reaction or, more accurately, the media's non-reaction to the NEA story itself. It was studiously ignored by all of the media which wanted to prove their bona fides to the ruling establishment. The one outlet that did not, of course, was Fox, and just as quickly they became the focus of fire. Unsurprisingly, NPR has been falling all over themselves to order to embrace the Gleichschaltung. Of course they did not do this as a result of direct marching orders from the White House, but that is the point of this process. Once it gets established the Gleichschaltung moves forward under its own weight.

With Apologies...

...to any reformed LGF reader who reads The Iconic Midwest and wishes to stay clear of any Chuckles' lunacy, but this is freaking funny. (Don't worry it is not a LGF link.)

Another Climate Change Unprecedented Moment?

Maybe this too is "consistent" with Global Warming? Snow dusts the South from Louisiana to Georgia

Louisiana got its earliest snowflakes ever as people across the South awakened to a dusting of powder.

Snow started falling in the region late Friday and continued into Saturday morning. [emphasis added]

I know, I know, it's weather not climate. But you tell me; if we are supposedly warmer then we have ever been in human history, AND there was plenty of human habitation in Louisiana during the Little Ice Age, how is this weather happening for the first time ever?

The Magic Hockey Stick Maker!

Well, if you read real sources of news (i.e. not the BBC, sadly) you might have heard about a particularly suspect piece of code found in the CRU data leak. Here is that code (click to enlarge):



And here is the chart this produces when you plot a baseline value of "1.0" (click to enlarge):



Well, that sure kind of looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Now, I'm not sure we will ever be able to link this code with specific graphs CRU has had a hand in, but the fact the code exists in the first place is suspicious enough. To date I have not heard a single plausible defense of the existence of such a "trick." The only thing I've heard the alarmists claim is "You can prove anything!" which is, of course, just what criminals always say when they are first caught. Time will tell what we can or cannot prove.

In any event, I thought it would be fun to see what this "fudge factor" would do if you used it to plot real data....of any sort.

Well here is what this "trick" makes Wisconsin drunk driving fatalities look like:



Here is Stan "The Man" Musial's batting average from 1942-1962:



And, since it is so good at producing hockey sticks, I thought it only made sense to see what the St. Louis Blues winning percentage would look like (1967-68 to 1987-88):



If anyone can show this code was used to massage this data, there is one word for it...and that word is not "science."

"Fraud" would be more like it.

Really, can anyone think of a non-fraudulent use of the Magic Hockey Stick Maker?

ADDING:

Anyone new to the climate wars who wants to know exactly what is being talked about when you hear "hide the decline" should read this wonderful primer over at American Thinker.

The BBC Is Not A News Organization

It is sad to say, but the old British Broadcasting Corporation has proven itself to be nothing other than a propaganda arm for the wannabe totalitarians behind the whole "global warming is going to kill us all if we don't cede political power to an unelected elite who will save us from ourselves" garbage.

Not that this is new news. Here is the Mail Online back in 2006:

Some of us complained during the long years when the BBC acted as the propaganda wing of New Labour.

Its new cause is climate change, which is represented as the greatest ever threat to civilisation. These exercises, however, are relatively transparent. We can see we are being worked on.

It's true. They are pretty transparent, but I'm afraid it goes beyond that. The BBC no longer even makes an attempt to even-handedness. Hell, they don't even try to fake it anymore. As such they reveal themselves to be not "useful idiots" but outright "fellow travellers" with the new totalitarian class.

How do I know this? Well, I've been reading the relentless propaganda this last week where the BBC write article after article slamming "flat earth deniers" while never once actually interviewing a skeptical voice. Not only that, but co-workers and clients of the disgraced "scientists" in the middle of the CRU controversy are presented as if they were impartial outsiders to these events. Not a single attempt has been made to ask tough questions, or any questions, of the powers that be.

Since when is it the job of an "independent" press to merely parrot the line of the ruling powers in a democratic society? I mean, I understand how media in 1930's Germany would act in such a cowardly fashion, but what is the BBC's excuse?

Another Piece Of My Childhood Gone

Got this from my Facebook page:

We are very sad to have to tell you that Eric Woolfson passed away in the early hours of this morning after a long and brave battle with cancer. He very much enjoyed seeing all your kind comments and posts on this Facebook page and his family wanted to thank you for your appreciation of his work.

Online I found this:

Glasgow-born songwriter and musician Eric Woolfson, one of the key figures in The Alan Parsons Project, has died.

He recorded a string of albums with record producer Alan Parsons, as well as writing his own musicals and writing and producing songs for other artists.

Woolfson, 64, had been battling cancer and died in London on Tuesday night, his friend Deborah Owen said.

This saddens me greatly. I always loved the music of the Alan Parsons Project, music written largely by Eric Woolfson. In a sense I always felt they "belonged" to me in a way one couldn't say about the Beatles, for instance, who belonged to damn near everybody.

Damn.

I'll write more about this later. Enjoy Eric's writing and singing below.



Eric Woolfson (1945-2009) Rest in Peace.

Another Example Of "Settled" Science?

Another jaw dropper: Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Debate: A Tempest In A Teapot?”

Vijay Kumar Raina, a senior glaciologist and an avid mountaineer himself, has carefully analyzed some 20 glaciers to document retreat as well as advance of some of the glaciers and has cautiously concluded that it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming. The Indian Minister of Environment Mr Jairam Ramesh hailed the report as an excellent latest study on glaciers and tacitly agreed with the conclusion.

Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. Several other Indian scientists and glaciologists have got into the debate now with some of them criticizing the Indian Government with an ostrich-like attitude in the face of impending disaster.

What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

Wow. The IPCC must have a fact checking squad to rival the New York Times.

Of course, it was mere happenstance that the error was made in such a way that the alarmist position was accentuated.

Right?

Paul "String Up The Skeptics" Krugman In Action...

...And he's just as dumb as he always is.

Granted, he's not the only dumb as a box of rocks idiot out there these days. You can always look at Charles Johnson who is so out of his depth it's really sort of sad.

In Charles' world when police bust someone for drugs and the suspect says "But I'm only holding it for a friend" we are to take the suspect at their word and just move on. (Really, he's stupid enough to be making this argument.) So, when all of the raw data for the climate models is "lost" after FOI requests are made of it, AND newly released emails reveal they planned to delete data if it was ever requested in the first place, Charles wants us to think we can simply take the word of these people when they say they didn't alter more than 5% of the data in the first place AND we are to take their word as gospel when they claim to have altered (in their words "improved") the data in a scientifically correct manner. Of course, the whole point of having the raw data is to have independent researchers check to see if the "improvements" are scientifically valid. Without the raw data the work of CRU is unverifiable, untestable, and not reproducible. In other words, it isn't science. If you have a problem with that, Chuck, you might want to check out astrology. It may be more your speed.

Environmental Determinism Makes A Comeback

Really, what passes for "science" these days is hysterical. From the BBC:
Climate 'is a major cause' of conflict in Africa

Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows - and future warming is likely to increase the number of deaths from war.

US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they suggest strife arises when the food supply is scarce in warm conditions.

Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts.

Problem is this paper does nothing of the sort. The "Supporting Information" material of the report makes this abundantly clear:

We denote civil war in country i in year t as warit. All
country-year observations with a civil war in progress are coded
as 1s, and other observations are coded as 0s. The PRIO data
extend from 1946 to 2006, but because of the limited temporal
availability of some climate data products (discussed below), and
because the political processes underlying conflict were likely
changing rapidly before 1980 as increasing numbers of African
countries gained independence, we focus our analysis on the
1981–2002 period.

Got that? Only 20 years are looked at in this study. Total. Given that no link between (warning: nonsense term) "climate change" could possibly be established over a mere 20 years worth of data, why was this "study" even written? How could it possibly be published? It would be as if I wrote a paper claiming to be based upon Boyle's Law without ever discussing gas under pressure. It's nonsense pure and simple.

This objection doesn't even take into account the confounding variables rife in any such attempt to subject human behavior to environmental determinism, an idea real scientists tossed in the trash generations ago. Think of all the racist nonsense about the industriousness of cool climate "Nordic races" used to perpetuate the myth of white superiority in previous centuries. Now, compare those beliefs with this study focusing on the propensity of Africans to violence based upon their warm climate.

Really, we are comfortable going there nowadays?

But, hey, I've got a competeing theory. My theory says a warming climate will lessen the potential for conflict. Using North America as my test subject, and a more climatically friendly time period of 200 years, I will divide history into two segments; 1801-1900 & 1901-2000.

Using the "Wars of the World" timeline here are the North American conflicts:

1801-1900 (Cool Period)

1. Mexian War of Independence 1810-23
2. US Occupation of West Florida 1810
3. Tecumseh's War 1811
4. War of 1812
5. Creek War 1813-14
6. Fort Mims Massacre 1813
7. Seven Oaks Massacre 1816
8. First Seminole War 1817-18
9. Vesy's Rebellion 1822
10. Yaqui Uprising: Mexico 1825-27
11. UPCA Civil War 1826-29
12. Mexican Conservative Revolt 1827
13. Mexican-Spanish War 1829
14. Turner's Rebellion 1831
15. Black Hawk's War 1832
16. Indian Stream "War" 1835
17. Murrel's Rebellion 1835
18. Second Seminole War 1835-43
19. Texan Independence War 1835-36
20. Papineau's Rebellion 1837
21. Mackenzie's Rebellion 1837
22. Aroostook War 1838-39
23. Buckshot War 1838
24. Pastry War 1838
25. Comanche-Texan Border War 1840
26. Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island 1842
27. Texan "Archive War" 1842
28. Bear Flag Revolt in California 1846
29. Mexican-American War 1846-48
30. Yucatan Caste War 1847-55
31. Whitman Massacre 1847
32. Cayuse War 1848-55
33. Walker's Invasion: Mexico 1853-54
34. Third Seminole War 1855-58
35. Rogue River Wars 1855-6
36. Wakarusa War 1855
37. Yakima War 1855-8
38. Pottawatomie Massacre 1856
39. Spirit Lake Massacre 1857
40. Mountain Meadows Massacre 1857
41. Utah War 1857-8
42. Mexican Reformation War 1858-67
43. Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry 1859
44. Apache and Navaho War 1860-5
45. American Civil War 1861-65
46. Franco-Mexican War 1862-67
47. Sioux War 1862-64
48. Sand Creek Massacre 1864
49. Saint Albans Raid 1864
50. Sioux War 1865-68
51. Fetterman Massacre 1866
52. Fenian Raiders 1866-70
53. Wagon Box Fight 1867
54. Red River Rebellion 1869-70
55. Blood River Massacre in Montana 1870
56. Camp Grant Massacre 1871
57. Apache War 1871-73
58. Red River Indian War 1874-75
59. Kiowa War 1874
60. Yaqui & Mayan Uprising in Mexico 1875-98
61. Apache War 1876-83
62. Mexican Coup 1876
63. Sioux War 1876-77
64. Cheyenne War 1878
65. Victorio's Apache Raiding 1879
66. Apache War 1885-6
67. Northwest Rebellion in Canada 1885
68. Sioux War 1890-91

1901-2000 (Warm Period)

1. Assassination of McKinley 1901
2. Black Patch War 1904-9
3. Mexican Civil War 1911-1914
4. Mexican Revolt 1914-15
5. Poncho Villa's Raids 1916-17
6. Preparedness Day Bombing in America 1916
7. Mexican Civil War 1920
8. Mexican Catholic Revolt 1927-29
9. "Bonus Marchers" Intervention 1932
10. Mexican Conservative Revolt 1936
11. Internment of Japanese-Americans 1942-45
12. Attack on Blair House 1950
13. Black Panthers in America 1966-73
14. Chiapas Rebellion: Mexico 1994
15. EPR Revolt Mexico 1996

Thus, I'll argue that a warming climate has resulted in a 78% reduction in armed conflicts compared to cooler eras.

See how idiotic it is?

A Free And Independent Press?

Not when it comes to "saving the planet" it seems. Notice this from New York Times science "reporter" Andy Revkin: Private Climate Conversations on Display

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....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.

Oh, the poor dears! Heaven forbid if their little egos get bruised.

Of course, we should expect nothing more from Revkin whom seems to be so chummy with the AGW crowd that he should really be considered a lackey and not a "journalist" at all. For example there is this email from Revkin:

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broccoli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Andrew Revkin
Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this
singer/christy/etc effort

hi,
for moment please do not distribute or discuss.
trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction
with this at all.

ANDREW C. REVKIN
_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot
Earth Blog

So Revkin needs a "scrub" of a skeptical paper, eh? And whatever this "scrub" is, it can only be provided by the folks at CRU and their good friends.

What is the difference between this and Revkin simply taking marching orders from these people? Probably just semantics.

After all, if this wasn't the case, why should Revkin be concerned if Singer and Christy could "get any traction with this at all"? One would think he was concerned about keeping up plausible deniability or something.

"Forgive Me Father For I Have Sinned"

Really, some of these exchanges are surreal, like this one from High Priest, uh, I mean "scientist" Michael Mann:

Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib [sic] earth are you thinking? ...You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!

The "Curt" who got so ingloriously bitch-slapped here is Dr. Curt Covey of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Heaven forbid he express a thought before clearing it with the keepers of the sacred word.

Actually it is worse then that. This isn't merely an exchange between two people, but Mann took it upon himself to send a copy of his response to Covey to a host of other people including Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. I guess they also enjoy a good bitch-slap.

And, of course, it helps them all to add another name to the "suspect" list.

ADDING:

In a weird way I'm enjoying going through these things piecemeal, but for those who might want a quick overview of the juicy bits there is a good run down at Bishop Hill. Included are:

Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Classy as always.

My God.

Literally, My God. Here is what I have come across in the CRU email dump. In a "conversation" between Mike Mann and Phil Jones we get the following series of emails:

First up Mann:

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.

I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and planto head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you updated...

Jones responds:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. [emphasis added]

Mann responds:

Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.

And these people are supposed to be scientists. They are disgraces.

There is also evidence they have been "gaming" peer review, attempting to ensure papers they do not like are not published, by poisoning the well, or simply making sure papers were sent to "reviewers" who would reject them out of hand. There are suggestions that some of these papers were in fact never even read before they were rejected, though I cannot say for certain.

But, hey, at least Mann cashed in on new career opportunities. Probably got a big pay raise as well. Isn't that swell?

ADDING:

The incestuous nature of these "scientists" using so-called "journalists" as their personal Public Relations officers also comes through here. Note this comment by Mann:

The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a Science "news" piece [i.e. doesn't say exactly what Mann wants it to say] ,it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this.

Nice to know who is pliable I guess.

The Crux

Roger Pielke Sr has put his finger on the most damning aspect of the information resulting from the CRU hack, and it came from a comment today made in "defense" of the authors involved.

A comment at "Real Climate" asked:

It would be nice to get comments from the authors for lines like this. This can of course be understood in many ways…

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Xxx and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”

[Response: Bad papers clutter up assessment reports and if they don't stand up as science, they shouldn't be included....-gavin]

And what counts as a "bad" paper? Why, one that doesn't support the pre-ordained vision of course. The fact that such moral language is used in the first place, and so glibly, should raise red flags everywhere. Are we talking about science here, or some sort of catechism? Notice, what they are talking about doing is redlining peer-reviewed work not as a result of it having been shown deficient by other peer-reviewed work, but through an act of fiat by a self-appointed cabal who prefer reality to be defined by their principles rather than by observation and experimentation.

They are in fact ideologues of the worst variety. They are messianic "true believers" who live in what they view as a dirty corrupted world, filled with enemies they call "skeptics" or, in a more religiously suggestive manner, "deniers." Never fear! Somehow our heroes have managed to gain access to the "answer;" a secret knowledge which will allow them to redeem the world, and to make it the best of all possible worlds. It is this "knowledge" that allows them to take methodologically rigorous scientific work and arbitrarily deem it "bad." But, they only do so because they want to "save the world." It is thier "purity of heart" which automatically makes all of their actions laudable, even if they fly in the face of the demands of rationality, logic and the scientific method.

I Don't Believe It

I mean that literally. I think this will turn out to be bullshit: Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked

Supposedly, someone broke into CRU and swiped a huge amount of files (emails and the like) and dumped them out on the web. Included (so they say) is an email which seems to show open falsifying of data to produce warming that didn't happen.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anybody would be this stupid.

UPDATE:

Turns out CRU is confirming the hack, and Phil Jones is starting to offer "What I meant to say...."

Jeeeeeezus.

UPDATE X2:

It looks like Climate Audit is suffering a denial of service attack. I guess the AGW crowd is playing by "The Chicago Way." Of course this is stupid as we have no idea who did the original hack on CRU, and there is no way Steve McIntyre had anything to do with it. Grow up people, or at least stop acting guilty. Adding: CA is available again, but damn slow. No word that a DOS attack actually happened.

UPDATE X3:

Still almost nothing about this in the MSM. The BBC did a quick story that mentioned only the hack itself and none of the information disclosed. Roy Spencer asks a pertinent question:

If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

Not me.

UPDATE X4:

Hot Air has a good run down of some of the most salacious bits of this.

Funny how the American MSM have suddenly decided that Global Warming news isn't anything people are interested in. (The lie in that is shown by the fact the IMW is having more visits then any other day this year...and it's only 1PM.)

Stupid Headline Of The Year

Courtesy of Reuters: Northern, western U.S. bracing for warm December

Oh my God! Watch out!! Here comes mild weather!

AUGHHHHHH!

Oh, the humanity.

A Cause For Second Thoughts?

Here is the story from the Des Moines Register: Folks in Clinton see jobs, not fear

Mention the massive prison across the Mississippi River and you see a lot of smiles in this city.

People here know all about the federal government's tentative plans to transfer alleged terrorists from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a maximum-security facility a 15-minute drive away in Thomson, Ill.

And they are a bit amused by some media reports that area residents are worried that terrorists will be running loose in the streets.

"I've talked to probably 15 or 20 people about this," said Dick McLane, a retired Clinton business owner. "I haven't heard a single person say they're worried about a terrorist breaking out or about this area becoming a terrorist target."

This is most likely true, and I wouldn't normally have any qualms if I lived in the area, except for one thing.

Here is an aerial picture of the facility.



So, we are proposing to send a bunch of fanatical Islamists, who have just as fanatical Islamist buddies, to a prison which is vaguely Star of David shaped.

What could go wrong?

Health Rationing, Part I

So it begins: Mammogram Recommendations Could Reverse Years of Progress

I'm upset about the controversial decision by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—an agency appointed by HHS, the federal department at the center of healthcare reform—to recommend that women not begin regular mammograms until age 50, and even then, only every two years.

The breast cancer awareness lobby in the United States has spent years convincing women that we must get checked early and often for breast cancer. It's just what you do: Every year I get my teeth cleaned (twice), I get a Pap smear and a mammogram, and get my cholesterol checked. It's part of being a grownup. It's as if they came out and said that seat belts in cars really aren't necessary anymore, or that it's okay for pregnant women to drink tequila again.

According to the New York Times: "The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 59, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69."

No one wants to be the one woman—the one mom, sister, daughter, or friend—whose death was preventable. Who wants to take that chance?

Well, the Obama administration wants women to take that chance, particularly poor women. After all, Obama and Co. will need all the money they can get to prop up GM (and other losers) for the indefinite future. What are a few thousand poor women worth in the grand scheme of things?

This hits, in a way, pretty close to home. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 43 years old, seven years earlier then the Obama administration wants women screened for the disease. Now, to be fair, my mother discovered her tumor through her self breast exam. However, my mother is also a registered nurse, who can be expected to be much more proficient than the average woman in giving self examinations. For many women, having a mammogram is the best, and maybe only, chance they will have to catch the disease early. When you consider that younger women have less chance of surviving breast cancer since the forms they tend to get are more aggressive to begin with, this policy is fraught with negative consequences.

And it is exactly the sort of policy we can expect when government bean counters come between us and our doctors.

Attack Of The Weathermen

The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society conducted a survey of broadcast meteorologists on arious aspects of climate change (still a stupid term). The results were interesting to say the least.

Statement: "Respond to this IPCC conclusion: 'Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.'"

Strongly Agree: 8%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 24%
Strongly Disagree: 26%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet."

Strongly Agree: 3%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 20%
Disagree: 37%
Strongly Disagree: 25%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought."

Strongly Agree: 1%
Agree: 18%
Neutral: 29%
Disagree: 36%
Strongly Disagree: 16%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for local weather patterns."

Strongly Agree: 0%
Agree: 14%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 38%
Strongly Disagree: 24%

Question: "Respond to one TV weathercaster’s quote saying: 'Global warming is a scam.'"

Strongly Agree: 10%
Agree: 19%
Neutral: 26%
Disagree: 23%
Strongly Disagree: 22%

In many ways the last response is the most startling as only 45% of surveyed broadcast meteorologists felt comfortable saying Global Warming isn't an outright scam.

I have to say I see my own opinions mirrored by the majority view of these meteorologists.

Roger Pielke Sr. notes the response of the American Meterological Society has been to commision a "directed" interview survey which, I can already tell you before it has even taken place, will "contradict" the BAMS survey. How do I know that? Well, just look at the invitation:

I write to invite you to participate in a research study. This research is being conducted to understand how TV meteorologists educate their audiences about climate change. If you agree to participate, we will schedule an in-person or telephone interview with you. The interview will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. After the interview, we will ask you to help us access examples of educational materials (or broadcasts) that you have used to educate audiences about climate change.

How is this directed in any way at the 50% of meteorologists who wouldn't have been focusing on AGW as they don't think it is happening? The answer is, it isn't. They will get predominately those who have "examples of educational materials (or broadcasts)" to give the researchers. Why is that? Well, because if you give them such material you also agree to the following:

Because we would like to collect and share examples (on a website we will create) of your efforts to educate audiences about climate change, we are requesting that you participate as an identified participant. We will ask your permission before posting anything you have said, or any educational material materials you have given us, on our website. If you agree to the posting, we will credit you as the source by listing your full name and your current place of employment.

You can just imagine how skeptics will be treated once they can be identified by name and place of employment. This is the reason why we have anonymous polling in the first place, so that people can give their honest opinions without fear of negative consequences.

Oh, you can choose to remain anonymous, only then "...we will not post any materials you give us on our website."

Well, that is one way to get the results you are looking for.

Basic Math Skills

I read this story on California droughts, and came upon the following claim about Arctic sea ice:

"If there is a connection to Arctic sea ice then there are big implications for us in California," Montañez said. Arctic sea ice has declined by about 3 percent a year over the past three decades, and some forecasts predict an ice-free Arctic ocean as soon as 2020.[emphasis added]

I went and looked up the data and this is what I found.



In 1978 there was around 8.2 million square miles of sea ice. Declining at a rate of 3% a year it should have been in the range of 3.3 million square miles in 2008. There was in fact 6 million square miles of sea ice that year, using August minimums. The real yearly decline is then slightly less than 1% a year. At the yearly rate we have seen to this point we should expect around 5.4 million square miles of ice by 2020, and not zero.

Unless, that is, their version of "math" is different from real math.

I'm Glad It's Warm Now...

...because I was already getting tired of the Winter weather in October. NOAA has finally released the October report which confirms this past October as the third coldest on record for the United States. It was colder than average almost everywhere:



Additionally, it is interesting to note this was also the wettest October on record.

The AGW Crowd Is Nuts

Literally loony, as in separated from reality by a large measure. Take the scapegoating of the U.S. in this article:

With the U.S. Congress still unable to agree on climate legislation that would make major reductions in greenhouse gases, European officials said Thursday they have given up on reaching an agreement on a climate treaty in time for the 192-nation conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month....

"We are completely dismayed by the shuffling of feet and sliding backward of the developed countries," said Raman Mehta, program manager in India for global anti-poverty agency ActionAid.

Developing countries insist an amended Kyoto Protocol be the central document of a new treaty. The United States wants nothing to do with the protocol.

Hmm...an "anti-poverty agency"? What are they doing there one wonders? I thought this was all about the science? Of course it isn't. ActionAid is out there with palms outstretched. It's not science, it's a shakedown. I digress.

There was no sign that developing nations were backing away from their demands for next month's meeting — including that industrial nations pledge to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent of their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists say at least a 25-40 percent reduction from those levels is required to avert climate catastrophe.

Got it? There will be a catastrophe unless the U.S. also follows along with Kyoto, an agreement that even the countries that signed it have not lived up to for almost twenty years. Here is the data on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. See if you can find the Kyoto effect on CO2.



(I'm amazed to see even CFC levels are still higher now then they were in the late 80's when the ozone "crisis" was "raging out of control.")

Here are the CO2 emissions by country/region:

Do you see the EU or Japan being "on target" for a 40% reduction of 1990 levels in these charts?

If you do, you are nuts.

A New Lost Generation (Or Drunk And Stupid Is No Way To Go Through Life)

Thought to follow: "Give pees a chance" student may face jail

A university student who was photographed urinating over a war memorial was warned on Wednesday that he could be jailed for the "disgusting act."

Philip Laing, 19, was charged by police after the picture, which showed him urinating on a poppy wreath following a drinking session in the center of Sheffield, appeared on a national newspaper's website.

"The image of your urinating over the poppy wreath on the war memorial in this city will make most turn away in disgust, shock and sadness," said District Judge Anthony Browne.

"It has undoubtedly distressed and upset many. The war memorial is a sacred and a special place."

Laing, who appeared in the dock wearing a poppy, pleaded guilty to outraging public decency when he appeared at Sheffield Magistrates' Court.

Browne adjourned sentencing for reports, saying all options including custody, were open, the Press Association reported.

The court heard that Laing, a sports technology student at Sheffield Hallam University, had drunk a bottle of whisky before attending an organized student drinking session organized by a private company, Carnage UK.

"Carnage is the name of the organization who promote this type of activity and some might say that somebody should be standing alongside you this morning," the judge said.

The court was told Laing had no recollection of the events of the night of October 11 until he was contacted by the university press office and shown the photograph which was later published on the Daily Mail website.

Prosecutor Ian Conway said Laing had immediately admitted the offence when arrested and told police he was "very, very drunk, the drunkest I've ever been since I've been at university."

I love the modifier there. ("Your honor, this is the most drunk I've ever been, since that time I burned down Parliament when I was 12.")

In a sense it would be easy to dismiss this as just another moron in a sea of morons, but really it seems as if the moron sea is growing ever larger. It is growing so large it is becoming more difficult to ignore it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I will never move in the direction of the neo-prohibitionists who are wrong legally, philosophically, historically and ethically in their opposition to both alcohol and free human moral agency. That being said, there is no reason I have to pass by of the utter stupidity and vacuity represented by things like Carnage UK.

What bothers me most is the sheer lack of class and originality shown by young people, particularly in the UK but also here in the States as well. Pub crawls can be good things, but a corporate sponsored crawl? It gives me the screaming heebie jeebies just thinking about it. This is, of course, the same thing that has taken over Spring Break in the US and its lameness is just as complete. It's disheartening when young people need to have organized chaos. It represents the Disneyification of something that has no business in being Disneyfied in the first place. As proof, I offer this from Carnage UK's defense of its activities:

Carnage said it wanted "students to be safe and for Exeter to have the benefit of a boost to its late night economy, at a time of recession..."

Sheesh. Young people with any spark of dignity and self-motivation would reject this kind of boring crap outright with utter disdain and contempt. These young people don't have that kind of spirit.

What has been done to them?

I'm not sure, but it is hard to think anyone will amount to much who was attracted to this sort of thing in the first place. Its herd mentality at its most brutish. It promises little else but a leaving of ones senses, until the hangover hits, and maybe a random coupling or two. How exciting. How original. How compelling...if you are a cow that is.

Welcome to the contentless generation.

There will be more to say about this I'm afraid.

I'm An Idiot

I can hear the response ("Tell us something we didn't know!"), but I'll relate my own stupidity for your amusement. Last week I injured myself by playing a little too hard with our recently purchased Wii. Actually, I blame the cat. I was playing the baseball game in Wii Sports and I stepped forward while pitching and stepped right on the paw of our cat Sophie as she was wandering by. She let out a loud noise (poor thing) and I hurriedly stepped back rolling over on my right ankle. It hurt like an SOB, and I kept off of it over the weekend.

Well, yesterday after work my ankle felt kinda OK, so I thought "Maybe I'll just bowl a little bit." Bad idea. I played two games when I knew I should have stopped after two frames.

So, now I'm sitting here in my office having just walked back across campus from my last class, and my ankle is throbbing with pain.

Great.

This Is Obscene

Where is the Obama "pay czar" when you need him?

College presidents' pay hits new record

The fast-growing group of millionaire private college and university presidents hit a new record in recent years, and it’s likely more college leaders will make seven-figure salaries once the slumping economy rebounds.

A record 23 presidents received more than $1 million in total compensation in fiscal 2008, according to an analysis of the most recently available data published Monday by the Chronicle of Higher Education. A record one in four in the study of 419 colleges’ mandatory IRS filings made at least $500,000.

Topping the list is Shirley Ann Jackson at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., whose total compensation the Chronicle pegged at nearly $1.6 million. She was followed by David Sargent at Suffolk University in Boston, who made $1.5 million.

Now, these are private institutions which can do what they want, but it does seem to be difficult to square such extravagance with any supposed educational priorities. The rationales given in the article for these salaries are so weak they would make any any Wall Street fat cat blush if they attempted to offer them in defense.

It may frustrate parents who are paying higher tuition, but experts insist the salaries reflect supply and demand.

“The baby boomers are retiring,” said Ray Cotton, a Washington D.C.-based lawyer and expert on presidential contracts and compensation. “Boards are in a scramble competing against each other for the remaining available talent.”

But the 24-7 nature of the job and the stresses stemming from the recession have made it unappealing to prospective candidates.

“Some people just don’t want anything to do with the job because it keeps them up at night,” said Chronicle editor Jeffrey Selingo. “In order to attract and retain good talent they’re going to have to pay for it. They may take a little break now because of the economy, but these pieces are still in place.”

What a crock. In most cases the "qualifications" involved have nothing to do with achievement or talent based qualities. This is a classic example of "It's not what you know, it's who you know." To attempt to pass these salaries off as resulting from a simple case of "supply and demand" is asinine. They result not from "supply and demand" but from an incestuous amalgam of class privilege and collusion.

It's also called the status quo.

More On A Honduran Win

The WSJ seems to be looking at matters in a similar fashion to the IMW. (They could do worse, right?) Honduras 1, Hillary 0

The big news in Honduras is that the good guys seem to have won a four-month political standoff over the exile of former President Manuel Zelaya. Current President Roberto Micheletti agreed yesterday to submit Mr. Zelaya's request for reinstatement as president to the Supreme Court and Congress, and in return the U.S. will withdraw its sanctions and recognize next month's presidential elections...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trumpeted the result as a diplomatic triumph, but it's more accurate to say that it extricated her and the Obama Administration from the box canyon they entered by throwing in with Mr. Zelaya. Hondurans had deposed Mr. Zelaya on entirely legal grounds for threatening violence and violating the country's constitution in an attempt to run for a second term. The U.S. nonetheless meddled and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated.

But Hondurans refused to bend, and the State Department apparently decided at last that Honduras was going to go ahead with its election whether the U.S. agreed or not. The Honduran compromise provided Mrs. Clinton with an elegant diplomatic exit.

Washington and the Organization of American States have now promised to send observers and recognize the elections; there will be no amnesty for Mr. Zelaya if he is charged with a crime; and the zelayistas will renounce their plans to call for a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. If Mrs. Clinton wants to call this a victory, it is—for Honduras.

The Family Ghost Story

I originally posted this in 2008, but I'll present this as something of a Halloween tradition as long as I keep the IMW going.




Happy Halloween everybody!

To help get you into the spirit of things, I offer our family's ghost story. If it sounds sort of familiar, I apologize, but I've never claimed we were a unique bunch.

The following is purported to have actually happened.

The year was 1990. My aunt and one of her sons were driving from the Detroit area to my grandmother's house, which was located in Missouri about an hour or so outside of St. Louis. After a long day's driving they were nearing Missouri as the sun was beginning to set.

They crossed the Mississippi river via the Jefferson Barracks bridge south of St. Louis proper. Jefferson Barracks was the name of the first permanent U.S. military post in the Louisiana Territory, and it is also the site of a national military cemetery. This is where my grandfather was buried after his death in 1980.

As my aunt was crossing the bridge she was thinking about her father. She had actually lived with her elderly parents for a time in the 1970's and her dad had acted as a surrogate father for her own young sons. She felt the need to stop and visit the graveside, but it had been a long day and she was expected.

"Sorry Dad," she said to herself, "I know I haven't visited lately, but I will come soon."

At this point they had crossed the bridge and were nearing the first exit at Koch Road. My aunt noticed there was a man standing on the side of the road near the EXIT sign. The man was looking down at first, but he lifted his head and with a sorrowful gaze looked directly at my aunt.

"Oh my God. Is that dad?" my Aunt said, again to herself. The man had looked exactly like her late father.

As she blew past the exit at 55 MPH, she looked back via her rear view mirror, but she saw nothing. The man was no longer there.

At that point she began to talk to herself again, "You know, I was just thinking about dad, so this must be a case of my mind playing tricks on me. I was feeling a little guilty about not visiting, so my brain invented a vision of him that I could 'see'. That's all it was."

At least that was what my aunt was beginning to say to herself... except right after she began her inner dialogue, her son, who she thought was asleep in the passenger seat, spoke in an excited voice.

"Mom, did you see that guy on the side of the road? He looked exactly like grandpa!"

Reason #549 Why It's Good Not To Be A Big Party Guy

I'm sorry, but it is next to impossible for me to get excited about some congressional district race in New York between two people I've never heard of. We will likely hear precious little about even the winner after Wednesday.

This is the kind of political minutia I gave up long ago. I don't miss it.

Honduras Wins, Zelaya (And Obama) Loses

There was never going to be a scenario in which the big bully (i.e. the Obama administration) wasn't going to be allowed to save face, but in the end of the day Honduras wins big here: Honduran rivals agree a deal to end crisis

Honduras' de facto government has accepted a U.S.-driven deal that opens the door for the return to power of President Manuel Zelaya, toppled in a military coup four months ago...

Roberto Micheletti, who took over the country within hours of Zelaya's ouster, had repeatedly refused to step aside to let the leftist return, but he softened his position on Thursday.

"I have authorized my negotiating team to sign a deal that marks the beginning of the end of the country's political situation," Micheletti told reporters on Thursday night.

He said Zelaya could return to office after a vote in Congress that would be authorized by the country's Supreme Court. The deal would also require both sides to recognize the result of a November 29 presidential election and would transfer control of the army to the top electoral court.

So, yes, Zelaya can come back, but only if the Honduran Congress says he can and only if he is reduced to a neutered whelp.

What a pathetic "victory" for the Obama administration.

Double Secret Tax Penalties

I was perusing the Pelosi monstrosity of a "health care" plan, just trying to find out how the new tax on "unacceptable" health insurance would work, including just how "unacceptable insurance" was defined by the act. On page 501 we are given the following helpful information:

‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means any of the following:

‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the ).

Section 100(c) of WHAT? Obviously they forgot to say of this act.

O.K., so I go to 100(c) of this act and is acceptable coverage defined there? Nope, gotta go to 302(d)(2).

(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes of
4 this division, the term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ means
5 any of the following:
6 (A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
7 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
8 benefits plan.

That's it? How do we define a "qualified health benefits plan"? Turns out we don't. Instead, the "Commissioner" along with the Treasury gets to decide who gets taxed.

12 The Commissioner shall make determinations under
13 this paragraph in coordination with the Secretary of
14 the Treasury.

There are no statutory guidelines given in this. It seems to be entirely at the discretion of the Executive Branch. How is this allowable under the Constitution? How is this not Congress ceding the power to tax to the President?

All I can say is, ugh.

Ugh.

Newspapers Redux

Continuing a theme about newspapers from the other day, I read the following from Marc Danziger about the fate of print journalism:

"Until the institutions crash and burn and can be rebuilt, there will be a vicious circle of declining revenues, cuts, declining quality, declining audiences in response which will lead to further declines in revenue, and so on."

That isn't exactly how I remember the "circle" beginning. I'm pretty sure the quality declined before the revenue. Not all of this can be attributed to a bad business environment, much of the damage was of the self-inflicted variety. But, hey, the balance sheets sure looked good for a little while. (Offered as proof, take a look at this article from the halcyon days of 1994 Why are newspaper profits so high?)

In effect, it looks like the papers (via their parent companies) plundered themselves in a fit of suicidal profit taking.

From that fact I do not learn the lesson that newspapers can no longer provide a quality product along the lines of their former selves.

Sadly I seem to be in a distinct minority here.