Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted March 18, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
80 Comments
It appears Valerie Plame was really outed in 1994 by the traitor, Aldrich Ames, and he last oversea jaunt was in 1997.
According to the law, as Toensig points out….that means she was NOT covert at the time Armitage leaked her name.
That’s probably why no one was ever charged with any crime in that leaking. Because there WAS no crime.
Of course, Valerie can sue anyone she chooses for any reason she chooses…..
And she can say she was covert until she’s blue in the face.
But her statement does NOT change the law…..
Does it?
A totalitarian government by guilt.
That’s Great Britain in a nutshell. Even though there is no IRREFUTABLE proof that CO2 emissions are causing global warming – they are trying to MANDATE that homes go ‘green.’
Perhaps some here don’t understand that economic significance.
And isn’t it ironic that CO2 has actually INCREASED since the signing of Kyoto?
If you hear a great sucking sound, it’s the brits economy going down the commode.
“And she can say she was covert until she’s blue in the face.
But her statement does NOT change the law…..
Does it?”
But you think your statement changes the facts….With all the BS that both sides continue to spew, I would assume that the facts lie somewhere out there in the middle. But I still think it’s a lousy idea to out a CIA agent even for political purposes. This administration has always played fast and loose with the truth and so do their supporters.
“But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge’s opinion.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
“The right-wing, aided by the mainstream media, have engaged in an unhalting effort to spread false claims that Plame was not covert, despite the fact that the CIA, Plame’s former colleagues, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald have all previously reported that she was covert. The conviction of Scooter Libby only intensified conservatives’ efforts to further propagate their lie”http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/
“Of course, I expect this will have to be continually flashed in the faces of wingnuts as they come to defend their wingnut idols. Also to be expected is that they will *still* attempt to argue that she was not covert. I guess what I’m saying is I don’t expect this to amount to a hill o’ beans in the minds of the defenders of treason.”
I know, lies, all lies because it didn’t come from Fox News.
“FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and documents.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701451.htmlAt least one senior FBI headquarters official — whom the bureau declined to name — signed these “national security letters” without including the required proof that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations, an FBI official said.
“Several leading Republicans said they expected Gonzales to resign in the next few weeks.”http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-assess18mar18,1,6164185.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromoAnother one bites the dust.
Okay, so the PROSECUTOR says she was covert….so? 1997 and 2003 are MORE than 5 years apart and where is the documentation showing she was on covert oversea missions AFTER 97?
This may come as news to some – but a PROSECUTOR’s opinion ISN’T the LAW.
It’s only his opinion.
Consider the recent case where the Duke University boys were accused of rape. The PROSECUTOR SAID they did it. Now the prosecutor may be disbarred and may even spend some time in jail.
And in this specific case, Fitzegerald did NOT file any charges against ANYONE for leaking a covert agent’s status, so it seems that for one reason, or another – a crime was NOT committed.
Besides, if Ames ‘outed’ Plame before – can she legitimately be outed again?
Here are some interesting tidbits:
[NOvak quote]“It is beyond comprehension that a covert officer was going to work at the CIA every day. If her identity in connection with the CIA was going to be kept secret from our enemies, the idea that she was going to work in the building every day is just absurd.” [end Novak quote]
[2nd Novak quote]“Also, in 1999, she gave a $1,000 contribution to Al Gore’s presidential campaign and listed the fictitious — supposedly — cover organization that she was using for the CIA as her place of employment as an analyst.”[end 2nd Novak quote]
Concerning Plame’s claim to be covert:
[Hill quote]“it sounded like completely skirting the issue of whether she still fell under those rules of being considered covert.”[end Hill quote]
And this is really interesting. I wonder if these folks will be called to testify….:
[Kirtz quote]“I do know people that knew her socially in Washington, D.C. I mean, her kids went to the same preschool that my kids went to, E.D. And, of course, all the parents never knew she worked for the CIA.”[end Kirtz quote]
Let’s face it – this Civil case is ALL ABOUT politics.
There was NO crime.Plame was NOT covert.
Prediction – Plame will LOSE the case, but the damage she wants to wreak will be done – solely by publicity.
Plame civil suit?
Seriously, I doubt that it will make it past the May hearing.
This whole thing is political. Wilson made it political when he wrote his op-ed piece for the NYT. An op-ed piece that we now know was full of half truths and out and out lies.
In a civil case the defendants have the right to depose the plaintiffs. Cheney and Rove’s attorneys will have the opportunity to ask Ms Valerie questions that Fitzgerald evidently didn’t want to know the answers to during his witch hunt.
If this politically inspired civil suit makes it past the May hearing it could get very interesting!
Hank
GS,The judge said she was covert also. But of course, that’s just the judge’s opinion (along with the CIA).”Consider the recent case where the Duke University boys were accused of rape.”Oh, there’s the subject for a whole another discussion. Didn’t that turn into a circus? But it hardly rises to the level, does it?”There was NO crime.”Well, there obviously was unless you consider lying to a grand jury and obstruction not crimes.”Prediction – Plame will LOSE the case”You have a lot more guts than I do on that one. Juries are crazy nowadays. I wouldn’t venture to guess how that’ll come down.
Hank, I totally agree.
And it gets MORE interesting. Ames wasn’t the only time Plame was outed before;
[quote]“In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said. “[end quote]
Read the rest here:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm
Hank, of course it’s political. It’s Washington DC. Anymore everything is political. Kind of makes you wish for the old days, huh? Back when the overriding principal was what was good for the country.
Two questions INfernal. First, where is the text of this judge’s opinion?
Secondly, if judge’s didn’t make mistake we would not have appellate courts.
The bottom line is that the prosecutor did not see fit to charge anyone with a crime after the taxpayers footed a $30,000,000 dollar investigation into the affair.
Why?
GS, the taxpayers footed the bill for $60,000,000 to investigate a blowjob, so I’m not that worried about the money.”First, where is the text of this judge’s opinion?”Is this a trick question? Let me check in the safe where I keep my important papers and I’ll get back with you.”Secondly, if judge’s didn’t make mistake we would not have appellate courts.”I agree. I also clearly stated that it was the judge’s opinion. But that opinion stands until it’s overturned.The whole Plame affair has been more interesting for it’s entertainment value than anything else. It sure has made this administration look like crap except to the 30-odd percent of the country that still supports it.
INfernal – the reason I asked where the text was – is to determine what the judge actually said, instead of a third or fourth accounting. It’s sometimes better if the original words are evident. Without those, we really don’t know what the judge said.
But, at any rate, if ihe DID say he believed she was covert, it won’t ’stand’ anywhere, since that factor was not on trial, only Libby’s credibility and memory of his former testimony.
I DO agree that the Plame affair has hurt the Administration – but I suppose that was the plan.
Yes, Clinton was raked over the coals – I didn’t support that, either.
I support the real issues and what our leaders are doing to facilitate them. The last two Presidential terms have made it very clear that the American people care more about he said/she said, than they do what is actually happening.
I pity the next President, no matter who it is. They will be little more than shark bait.
$60,000,000.00 for a blowjob? Interesting. The fact that the dumbest amongst us still believe that White Water was about a ‘blow job’ is testimony to the effectiveness of the Clinton war room.
The Clintons spent millions to spin over 30 convictions tied to the White Water investigation down to “it was a lie about sex”.
Anyone that claims it was about a blow job at this late date is too stupid to have a rational discussion with.
Fitzgerald spent over $30,000,000.00 on a political witch hunt and is still fighting to make sure his one process crime conviction will stick.
Starr spent $60,000,000.00 and got over 30 convictions. Prety good return on your prosecutorial dollar. And Starr did it against one of the most vicious continual slime jobs against is character that has ever been mounted by a sitting president.
Compare this to the way the administration handled Fitzgerald’s investigation. They cooperated at aevery turn. At no time did they question Fitzgerald’s character.
Hank
That is the niavity of the Democrats. They have no idea that Ken Starr convicted a lot of people and sent them to prison over Whitewater.
“$60,000,000.00 for a blowjob?” Yeah Hank, you’re right. Who but the dumbest amongst us would believe such a thing? Kind of like WMD, huh?We all know it was all about the meaning of “is”.30 convictions for 60 mil. I honestly didn’t know that. But the current issue isn’t over yet. You just never know what’ll turn up as investigations run their course.”At no time did they question Fitzgerald’s character.”Isn’t Fitzgerald a Republican? Just wondering.
Oh come now Williams, isn’t that a little harsh? Judging Democrats because I didn’t know about/remember the 30 convictions? Hell, that’s been long enough ago that I may have forgotten. Who knows?
GSheridan = Frequently wrong but never in doubt!
Hey, “reader”. Rather than make generalized and almost insulting comments, why not back up your remark? What specifically is GS wrong about? What particular event are you referring to?
–so, Capn, yer back, but using a different name now?
You remember Clinton getting some head though. ;)
Not to worry! Many Republicans didn’t know about the Starr convictions either.
I don’t delve much into the detail of this Plame thing. I don’t need to.
A thing is either right or it is wrong. A CIA one time covert operative was outed for no more reason than to take political revenge against her husband for having a view that stood at odds with the administration. THAT is wrong.But of course for some, bush can NEVER be or do wrong. He got them a fat tax cut. And that makes everything ok. Sad.
No, I’m not captain. Just a reader.
I see that since the good posters left, you are worried about who is behind every new nickname. You think any new name is the captain or WS Clark.
I thought that is one reason why the good posters left. They did not like people posting under different names.
Now you dull posters are paranoid too.
lmao!
uh huh uh huh reader…
Don’t flatter yourself, “reader”. No paranoia at all. Your earlier post of blasting GS without any specifics, proof, or any rational is typical of the “good posters” who left.
If you have valid disagreements with GS, please post them. Just claiming everything that someone says is wrong without any validation is a tad cynical and had to believe.
“hard to believe”..there is an R in the word hard…
damn typos…sorry.
Interesting J R,
“But of course for some, bush can NEVER be or do wrong. He got them a fat tax cut. And that makes everything ok. Sad.”
As a conservative republican I’ve had several problems with Bush over the years. Furthermore I’ve discussed many of them on this BLOG.
However, the irrational hate that you and other left-wing dupes of the democrat spin machine have never found anything good about the present administration. You just bad-mouth any thing the adminstration does and defame anyone that disaggrees with you.
But of course for some, bush can NEVER be or do right. He is a republican and makes everything he does wrong. Sad.
Hank
This:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507260005
Copmpletely dismantles all of the bogus arguments on Plame’s covert status fronted by that Moonie paper, the Washington Times.
Ah,
Mediamatters.org! A website completely dedicated to the left-wing propaganda machine!
Hank
Interesting article on mediamatters.
With that said, it is just an article not proof of anything.
Now that there is a Democratic Congress, they won’t be satisfied until they extract a ‘pound of flesh’ out of someone.
Yay Democrats! That’s the way to show the country how to lead, by your vicious vindictiveness!
Go ahead, lose more voters in the 08 election by exposing your ugly backsides on the nightly news.
We don’t have to do anything to, against or for the Democrats, they do it to themselves.
uh huh uh huh, That’s the way I like it…KC, sing it!
:)
My comment was general and named no one in particular. It is not my fault if some see themselves in my words.
Right Hank?
I can say nothing positive about this administration because for me and most Americans there IS nothing positive to say.
Here though, let me try.
Um…..people with lots of money are making lots more money because of bush.
Nah that doesn’t feel positive. Too many other people getting hurt. Oh well, I tried.
Dear J R,
I rest my case! You’re irrational and deserve no credibility here or anywhere.
Hank
GSheridan,
Ames and Cuba did NOT succeed at outing Plame, she continued her Secret status. But the White House did out her.
And there’s something “odd” about this list: Ames, Cuba, and the White House.
GSheridan: ” they are trying to MANDATE that homes go ‘green.’
Perhaps some here don’t understand that economic significance.”
* Consumers will have lower utility bills.* Expensive and undesireable coal-fired plants (dinosaurs) wont be built.* More jobs will be created in the efficiency and renewables fields than by building new fossil-fuel plants.* The economic costs of preventing climate change are much LOWER than the HUGE costs if climate does change.
GSheridan: “And isn’t it ironic that CO2 has actually INCREASED since the signing of Kyoto?”
* The world’s population has increased.* People like you, and the WH, have blocked Kyoto.* Kyoto is/was only the first step. The EU is taking the next step.
I thought Clinton blocked Kyoto.
Hmmm,
So it was the White House that outed Plame? Any proof?
You’ld think that after 30 million dollars, Fitzgerald might have come up with a little proof.
He might have found the time to interview Plame or Wilson. He might have found the resources to examine Plame’s personnel record.
No, I’m sorry cosmos, Fitzgerald’s investigation is over and he’s gone to the house.
Hank
Actually it was during the Clinton Admin that Kyoto was blocked and voted down.
I think even the Senate voted 95 to 0 during the Clinton Admin to not sign up with Kyoto.
For the Religious Enviromential people.
Looks like Bush and the United States has agreed to a measure for combating Climate Change that is more progressive and way ahead of Kyoto.
On February 16, 2007, at meeting of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in Washington, D.C., a non-binding agreement was reached to cooperate on tackling global warming. The group accepted that the existence of man-made climate change was “beyond doubt”, and that there should be a global system of emission caps and carbon emissions trading applying to both industrialized nations and developing countries. The group hopes that this will be in place by 2009, to supersede the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8%2B5
Can the religious enviromentalist say oops?
Kyoto was blocked in the U.S. by myths spread by the fossil-fuel industries, Detroit, politicians that wanted campaign funds from them, and right-wing media.
Some groups and funding listed here,http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Higher efficiency and renewables saves money, and improves the economy.
Some state and city governments are becoming aware of that fact, and are implementing Kyoto-like plans, despite the federal govt’s inaction.
Here’s a response to Cosmos assertions on the right wing media and it supposable works so well in the Europe Union.
Hans-Olaf Henkel, influential president of the Federal Association of German Industry, even common European carbon taxes would force industry out of the country.
“The oil and gas industry pays about 3 billion NOK a year in CO2 taxes,” said Maiken Ims, director of public affairs of the Norwegian Oil Industry Association. “This CO2 tax doesn’t help the environment because it goes anonymously into state finances. Companies should instead negotiate agreements with the state. We would rather spend money directly to improve the environment instead of paying a CO2 tax,” she said.
Finland was the first country in the world to introduce a CO2 tax. In Finland, CO2 taxes (used since 1990) are part of the government’s strategy to reach the Kyoto goal. The tariffs have not yet prevented rising emissions as a result of strong economic growth.
Switzerland: Most importantly, the law counts on voluntary emission reductions by industry and public sectors to avoid draconian CO2 taxes.
United Kingdom: In two years, this will cause the United Kingdom to have the highest petrol prices in the world. British airways: Taxation applied to emissions, fuel usage or directly to air travel would not only be bad for the economics of our industry, it would also be bad environmental policy.
Even government and Industry leaders in EU don’t like the Carbon Tax. They say it is economically unsound, counter productive. The Carbon Tax is a tax that punishes and does not encourage environmental improvements.
Joe Williams,
Why should anyone say “oops”?
Kyoto WAS only the first step, and it expires in 2012. Climate science is much stronger today than in 1998, and energy technology has improved.
Hank Price,
“Mediamatters.org! A website completely dedicated to the left-wing propaganda machine!”
And the Moonie Times, who Media Matters proved spread falsehoods re Plame’s neighbors?
How many U.S. newspapers have $3 BILLION in losses?
‘The GOP’s $3 Billion Propaganda Organ’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122706.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times“As of March 31, 2005, the Times had an average daily circulation of 103,017; about one-seventh that of its chief competitor, The Washington Post.”
Republican,
You can’t find anything more recent than 1998? There have been many changes in the last 9 years.
Republican’s source,http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/98/dec/hanish.html
Nope, that was one of the sources. Bad googling Cosmos. :)
Repbulican,
No, bad posting on your part. YOU should supply YOUR sources. Date and context are relevant, and important.
‘Memorandum by British Airways’http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/107/5102408.htm
I don’t like posting hyperlinks, that checker thing is annoying.
I’ve just browsed through another twenty articles from economists that say the Carbon Tax is very bad idea.
Too bad you’ve swallowed GW prophesy hook,line and sinker and refuse to even acknowledge any other sources but yours.
All bow down to Cosmos, he knows more than the rest of the world…
Yes, keep on discrediting people Cosmos. That’s they way to do it. Discredit discredit discredit…
You’ll have a room full of one friend in no time.
Gentle people,
Just in case Clark is sneaking a peak now and then…..
Friday I got about 4lbs of country ribs in the White’s IGA bargain bin. $.98 a pound.
Momma has them in the crock pot with some garlic, onions, a few spices and a generous amount of Head Country BBQ sauce. Some of the finest BBQ sauce in the country and the best thing that ever came out of Ponca City, Oklahoma.
She has made some pea salad and her special sweet and sour cole slaw. You can eat it the slaw plain or use it on cold pork sandwiches. Yum, yum.
Hank
Republican,
“Too bad you’ve swallowed GW prophesy hook,line and sinker and refuse to even acknowledge any other sources but yours.”
You consider science = predicting by divine guidance?
The scientists in this long list of groups are my “sources”.http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html
SHOW us the list of people/groups on YOUR side. What are their credentials? Who funds them?
E. G. Beck, who claimed that CO2 measurements in smoggy London should be included in the global CO2 average?
The clowns in the ‘Swindle’ film, who idiotically claim that more CO2 cannot cause warming, because it didn’t TRIGGER warming in the past?
Cosmic rays, altho there’s no trend since 1953?
Solar, altho the change is way too small to explain the recent warming trend?
Too bad you’re stuck in the ‘Church of Denying AGW’.
What then explains the concurrent warming trend on Mars?
Give it up GS,
cosmos avoids that question like the plague!
Hank
Dear Hank,
Earth and Mars have very different orbits, and very different climate systems.
Mar’s warming appears to be only regional.
Its eccentric orbit causes more solar variations than on Earth, and large-scale dust storms impact climate.
No oceans and thin atmosphere = low thermal inertia.
Lots of details at,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
I know, Hank, it just doesn’t jive with his pre-formed agenda.
Other scientists, however, ARE asking that question.
I wonder what Al Gore has in his little bag of tricks for them?
Look at every one of Cosmos posts.
If you don’t bow down to the altar of Al Gore and GW, you are a denier on the scale of a Holocaust Denier.
It’s not enough that you could be the greenest Environmentalist on the Planet, if you don’t buy into GW as described by Cosmos, you are a heretic of the great GW religion.
Seems to me that if the Crisis you are predicting to happen is 30 years away, it’s a no-lose deal.When it doesn’t happen, everybody wins, but you don’t have to pay (for your panic mode). If it does happen,… well, never mind, it won’t. Anti-capitalist bastards.
GSheridan,
I answered you.Why do you think Mars and Earth’s climates have to track together? Mars has a different, eccentric orbit, dust storms, etc.
Are you too deep in denial to admit Mars’ climate system is different than Earth’s?
Republican,
You don’t have a list of your “sources”?
And what’s with your weird fixation on Al Gore? He’s only repeating what the sciencists say.
IPCC’s “likely” (> 66%) in 2001’s TAR went to “very likely” (> 90%) this year.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html“In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademié des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)Australian Academy of SciencesRoyal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the ArtsCaribbean Academy of SciencesIndonesian Academy of SciencesRoyal Irish AcademyAcademy of Sciences MalaysiaAcademy Council of the Royal Society of New ZealandRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)National Academy of Sciences (NAS)State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)American Geophysical Union (AGU)National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)American Meteorological Society (AMS)Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)”
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
fleettwood,
So you believe that WalMart’s management are “anti-capitalist bastards”?
They re-designed their new buildings to use 30 to 50% LESS energy, cutting GHG emissions. And saving money on utility bills = higher profits.
“So you believe that WalMart’s management are “anti-capitalist bastards”? They re-designed their new buildings to use 30 to 50% LESS energy, cutting GHG emissions. And saving money on utility bills = higher profits. Posted by: cosmos | March 18, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Cosmos,
Not one red cent was contributed to a Carbon Tax either.
As I said before, you can be the Greenest Environmentalist on the planet and if you don’t bow down to the UN sponsored Carbon Tax, you are some sort of heretic.
No thank you.
Talk about a “Swindle”.Debunking the debunkers.
“It doesn’t give a damn about whether the facts stack up – as long as it creates a controversy.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the Dark Ages. All the great heroes of the discipline – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein – took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have “any measurable effect” on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo(1).
The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots(2).
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has in fact declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on http://www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work”, Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we’ve seen.”(12) None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine(13,14,15).
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”(16)
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek “censorship!” This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Professor Wunsch says that he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it(17).
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”(18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
But for the people who commissioned this film, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited – like Martin Durkin and a certain nutritionist of our acquaintance. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.”
All bow to the great Carbon Tax, it will solve all.
I guess it is a very good thing for me that I place a very low value on Hank Price’s assessment of me. Otherwise I should be quite hurt!
But since his words, beliefs, “values”, and what drives him are actually physically repellent to me, I will lose no sleep over his opinion. One is not hurt by the words of a fool.
The Mars/ Earth comparison? That’s like comparing an apple and a coconut. Mars as has been noted has a drastically different relationship with the Sun than does the Earth. For one thing NOT noted? The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about a half a percent of that on Earth. Ice/.water are far less subject to atmospheric pressure on Mars. So if the Sun IS having any influence (arguable) it would be far more profound on Mars.
Further? If you blame the activity of the Sun for global warmning, it would seem a no-brainer not to add to that influence by ever increasing green house gases.
Let’s turn the sun off and see if there is any global warming after. :D
Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore’s scheduled appearances on The Hill!
Gore is set to solo before Rep. John Dingell’s [D-MI] all powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the morning and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s [D-CA] Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon.
Both are expected to have overflow seating, and protesters, both for and against Gore.
Gore will get a 30 minute opening and then Boxer and her republican counterpart, Sen. Inhofe, each get 15 minutes each of questioning in addition to their opening statements. Other senators will only get 5 min of Q & A.
“Democrat Dingell is a big global warming skeptic, so do not expect him to go too lightly on Gore,” predicts a congressional source.
Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT — question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!
Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.
Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?
Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)
???????????????????????????????????
In Gore’s earlier book, “Earth in the Balance”, he came up with almost a whole paragraph on nuclear power.
It will be interesting to see if he has learned anything since then about nuclear power. I seriously doubt it.
Hank
An adorably cute post by Hank Price. Nothing new here. Good nite, sweety…
Republican,
“Let’s turn the sun off and see if there is any global warming after. :D”
Are you claiming that human-added greenhouse gases on Earth are altering the sun’s output?
More relevant… let’s remove Earth’s greenhouse gases, and see how humans cope when temperatures DROP about 86 degrees F.. Summer-time in Kansas = ??
As I posted upthread, a drop in CO2 may have caused an “icehouse-effect”, and an ice age 450 million years ago.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/open_thread_17.html#comment-63624316
Cosmos please…
Here’s a quarter, go buy yourself a sense of humor.
Gen. Petraeus and a High-Profile Suicide in Iraq
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003558239
Col. Ted Westhusing, a West Point scholar, put a bullet in his head in Iraq after reporting widespread corruption. His suicide note — complaining about human rights abuses and other crimes — was addressed to his two commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, now leader of the U.S. “surge” effort in Iraq. It urged them to “Reevaluate yourselves….You are not what you think you are and I know it.”
By Greg Mitchell
(March 14, 2007) — The scourge of suicides among American troops in Iraq is a serious, and seriously underreported, problem, as this column has observed numerous times in the past three years. One of the few high-profile cases involved a much-admired Army colonel named Ted Westhusing.
A portrait of Westhusing written by T. Christian Miller for the Los Angeles Times in November 2005 (which I covered at the time) revealed that Westhusing, before putting a bullet through his head, had been deeply disturbed by abuses carried out by American contractors in Iraq, including allegations that they had witnessed or even participated in the murder of Iraqis.
His widow, asked by a friend what killed this West Point scholar, had replied simply: “Iraq.”
Now, a new article reveals — based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act — that Westhusing’s apparent suicide note included claims that his two commanders tolerated a mission based on “corruption, human right abuses and liars.” One of those commanders: the new leader of the “surge” campaign in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
Westhusing, 44, had been found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport in June 2005, a single gunshot wound to the head. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq. The Army concluded that he committed suicide with his service pistol. Westhusing was an unusual case: “one of the Army’s leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor,” Miller explained in his L.A. Times piece.
”So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq. A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S. government and committed human rights violations. Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to superiors, who launched an investigation.
”In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.”
His death followed quickly. “He was sick of money-grubbing contractors,” one official recounted. Westhusing said that “he had not come over to Iraq for this.” After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing’s death a suicide.
Now, nearly 18 months after Miller’s article, The Texas Observer this month has published a cover story by contributor Robert Bryce titled “I Am Sullied No More.” Bryce covers much of the same ground paved by Miller but adds details on the Petraeus angle.
“When he was in Iraq, Westhusing worked for one of the most famous generals in the U.S. military, David Petraeus,” Bryce observes. “As the head of counterterrorism and special operations under Petraeus, Westhusing oversaw the single most important task facing the U.S. military in Iraq then and now: training the Iraqi security forces.”
Bryce refers to a “two-inch stack of documents, obtained over the past 15 months under the Freedom of Information Act, that provides many details of Westhusing’s suicide. The pile includes interviews with Westhusing’s co-workers, diagrams of his sleeping quarters, interviews with his family members, and partially redacted reports from the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command and Inspector General.
“The documents echo the story told by Westhusing’s friends. ‘Something he saw [in Iraq] drove him to this,’ one Army officer who was close to Westhusing said in an interview. ‘The sum of what he saw going on drove him’ to take his own life. ‘It’s because he believed in duty, honor, country that he’s dead.’”
In Iraq, Westhusing worked under two generals: Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, and Petraeus, then a lieutenant general. In a March 2005 e-mail, Petraeus told Westhusing that he had “already exceeded the very lofty expectations that all had for you.”
But Bryce continues: “By late May, Westhusing was becoming despondent over what he was seeing. Steeped in—and totally believing in—the West Point credo that a cadet will ‘not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do,’ Westhusing found himself surrounded by contractors who had no interest in his ideals. He asked family members to pray for him. In a phone call with his wife, Michelle, who was back at West Point, Westhusing told her he planned to tell Petraeus that he was going to quit. She pleaded with him to just finish his tour and return home.”
When his body was found on June, a note was found nearby addressed to Petraeus and Fil. According to Bryce it read:
“Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more.
“Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it.”
Twelve days after Westhusing’s body was found, Army investigators talked with his widow, Michelle, who told them: “The one thing I really wish is you guys to go to everyone listed in that letter and speak with them. I think Ted gave his life to let everyone know what was going on. They need to get to the bottom of it, and hope all these bad things get cleaned up.”
Bryce concludes:
“In September 2005, the Army’s inspector general concluded an investigation into allegations raised in the anonymous letter to Westhusing shortly before his death. It found no basis for any of the issues raised. Although the report is redacted in places, it is clear that the investigation was aimed at determining whether Fil or Petraeus had ignored the corruption and human rights abuses allegedly occurring within the training program for Iraqi security personnel. The report, approved by the Army’s vice chief of staff, four-star Gen. Richard Cody, concluded that ‘commands and commanders operated in an Iraqi cultural and ethical environment often at odds with Western practices.’ It said none of the unit members ‘accepted institutional corruption or human rights abuses. Unit members, and specifically [redacted name] and [redacted name] took appropriate action where corruption or abuse was reported.’
“The context, placement and relative size of the redacted names strongly suggest that they refer to Petraeus and Fil.
“Last November, Fil returned to Iraq. He is now the commanding general of the Multinational Division in Baghdad and of the 1st Cavalry Division. On February 12, Petraeus took command of all U.S. forces in Iraq. He now wears four stars.”
Hank Price,
“In Gore’s earlier book, “Earth in the Balance”, he came up with almost a whole paragraph on nuclear power.”
It’s a shame this blog doesn’t have a way to rate Hank Price’s LACK of credibility.
Gore’s 1992 book, pages 327-28, had 4 paragraphs about the topic. He discussed nuclear’s cost overruns, and how conservation and efficiency were better solutions.
That’s the SAME opinion of energy experts such as Amory Lovins, ‘What about nuclear power?’ PDF page 282 of 332, at http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
What’s your point steve? You like bearing bad news?
There were several suicides when I was active duty. All of them in peace time. One was a physician, one was Colonel, a Captain, a Lieutenant and several enlisted.
Should any of these be attributed to a condition in their life, mental problems, an inability to deal with stress or combination of all of the above?
Shouldn’t Colonel Westhusing have completed his tour as his wife pleaded, then come home and quit?
There appears to be more to Colonel Westhusing’s story than what you offered.
Republican,
Here are two quarters. Go buy yourself a sense of logic, and an understanding of the scientific method.
Republican,
“There were several suicides when I was active duty.”
When and where did you serve, Republican?
I was at Medina, Lackland, Wright-Patterson, Incirlik, Tinker (AB’s and AFB’s) 81-92
Not all that stressful assignments, wouldn’t you agree, unless you can’t tolerate boredom.I think the article speaks for itself.
More food for thought:LatAm migrants’ money exceeds aidBy Duncan KennedyBBC News, Mexico City
The amount of money sent home by Latin American migrant workers to their families has reached more than $62bn.
This figure now exceeds the combined total of all direct foreign investment and foreign aid to Latin America.
According to the Inter-American Investment Bank, the figure could reach $100bn in four years’ time.
The biggest share of money, $23bn, was sent back to Mexico, mostly from workers living in the United States remitting small sums each month.
Foreign remittances now rank along with oil and tourism as Mexico’s biggest foreign currency earner.
The Inter-American Development Bank, which supports the region with aid and other help, says the remittances will increase by about 15% a year during the next four years.
The bank describes the money as a very effective poverty reduction programme because it keeps between 8m and 10m families above the poverty line.
But it says it also means the economies of the region are not generating enough jobs to keep workers from leaving in the first place.
Another problem is that much of the money is sent back in small amounts and so it is difficult to track.
The average is between $100 and $150 a month.
That in turn makes it an unpredictable source of revenue for governments to tap into.
The bank says it wants people to get away from what it calls cash to cash flows and into account to account transfers but the bank says the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants by the US authorities could hinder efforts to get migrants to use banks.
Not all that stressful assignments, wouldn’t you agree, unless you can’t tolerate boredom.I think the article speaks for itself.
Posted by: steve | March 18, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Perhaps. Just because someone has a home base in the Air Force, doesn’t mean their feet are attached to the ground. ;)
Strange. I remember a post fron JMRepulicanKhan in which he spoke of being a child in the 70’s. He was telling us how he as a child in the 70’s had been shaken in his boots about global cooling. I’ll have to go look for that post tomorrow. I’ll look also for his post about how he fixed up a “26 year old 1950 Chevy” while he was apparently a child in the 1970’s. Hey he can’t keep track of his lies. Forgive me if I have difficulty as well! And Hank is outed as dishonest or misinformed. I’d have thought he would have learned his lessons by now. Seeing as how he once called me a drug user.
This week is a special week for people like me. However, you can not find this information on any news site, so I figured I’d post it here to see what happens.
You see, I have a disease called Klinefelter’s Syndrome. Basically what Klinefelter’s is, it deals with the amount of chromozones that were created back when you were born. I have the most common occurance called 47XXY. Basically what that means is that I have 47 chromozones in my body (unlike the normal 46) in the pattern of XXY.However, the people who I speak with often online have put out a notice stating that for this next week it’s going to be “International Klinefelter’s Awareness Week”.Therefore, could someone please post out for others to know about this interesting and little known issue.The official web site is: http://www.KlinefelterSyndromeAware.Com.
Hmmmm,
Four paragraphs! Excuse me! Gores knowledge of nuclear power is four times what I claimed.
Lets see, four times nothing is . . . well . . . still nothing!
Its been about 15 years since I read the book, I think I did pretty good! The point I was making was that Gore knew nothing about nuclear power.
Thanks for re-enforcing my poit cosmos.
Hank
Dear J R,
I accuse you of having an irrational hate of the adminisration and you come back with childish name calling that further deminishes your credibility.
Do you keep paper towels near your keyboard to wipe up the spittal when you type your hate filled little posts?
Hank
Hank Price,
“Its been about 15 years since I read the book, I think I did pretty good! The point I was making was that Gore knew nothing about nuclear power.”
Instead of relying on your faulty, 15 year old memory, go read it again.
Gore basically wrote the same opinions as energy experts such as Amory Lovins, ‘What about nuclear power?’ PDF page 282 of 332, at http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Nuclear plants DID have cost overruns. Over-estimating future demand DID cause problems.
Building new nuclear plants IS financially risky, and IS slower than higher efficiency and other sources.
What Gore wrote about nuclear in 1992 is even MORE true today. New efficiency materials and techniques have been developed. Wind costs have dropped. New photovoltaic designs are much cheaper, and more versatile. Hydrogen is in practical use. Distributed Generation allows flexible networks. Net metering allows faster payback of investment.
The energy world is rapidly changing. If nuclear doesn’t become cheaper and faster to build, it wont be able to compete.
And why isn’t nuclear power cheaper and faster to build? Hmmm?
Why is it such a problem in the US, but France, India, Japan and many other countries seem to be able to build nuclear plants?
Could it be wacko environmentalists? Could it be overbearing government regulations?
Most of the nuclear power plants built world wide were built or are being built by US ccompanies. Teh fact that we haven’t built one in the last ten years is pathetic.
Hank