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
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted April 13, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
52 Comments
A remark on TV news yesterday said Los Angelos is entering a water shortage crises. And I believe someone mentioned on WE Blog that Denver and other front range Colorado cities are also water starved and divert Arkansas River water for their needs long before it reaches Kansas. I suspect many other U.S. cities are running short.
So, wouldn’t it make sense that the highest and best use of our relatively pure, ancient, underground Ogallala aquifer water would be as a saleable product at say $2.50 per gallon, about the same as a gallon of milk. With some minor treatment of course to be on the safe side.
The Ogallala water should be sold by Kansas citizens like oil — by the gallon — not given away to the burgeoning number of commercial ethanol producers and to the proposed new coal-fired or natural gas fired power plant operators (for the benefit of their Colorado customers).
Sorry Governor Sebelius and Senator Brownback and Congressman Tehart. Lets use our remaining Kansas underground water for its highest and best use, not for an expedient use that will drain our natural resources for no return to its rightful owners, the people of Kansas.
Sense I don’t want Cosmos question to be buried in an old “Open Thread” I’ll post it here. :)”Does Republican have a explanation for the oceans and land warming? NOPE, because he denies the science that supports AGW. “Posted by: cosmos | April 12, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Actually I do have an explanation Cosmos.
How about the Greenland melt that occurred in a ten year period of time during the last ice age? What caused that Cosmos? Are you familiar with the Conveyor Belt I talked about previously?
First some introduction into what happened during that warming up period.
“Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over one or two decades, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age happened much faster than the rate of change of the Earth’s orbit. ” (re: Milankovitch Cycles)
We can get into Milankovitch Cycles later. I’m sure Dr. Huie will have some input.
I will just say for now that thermohalines are probably affected more at the bulging equator of the earth because of the elliptical shape. It is also known that outgoing long wave radiation (infrared) is more intense at the equator. A combination of factors that drive the oceanic cycles, sea surface tempearture, wind and cloud cover affect the drive of conveyor belt. I reckoned that at the point prior to the interglacial cycle, the Milankovitch Cycle was at its optimum for this temperature increase to occur.
Now Cosmos, you are probably asking why this Milankovitch Cycle may have caused this Interglacial Warming Period.
The large-scale movement of water through the oceans, called the thermohaline circulation, plays a large role in the duration of ice ages. Dense, very salty (saline) water sinks in the North Atlantic, pulling the “conveyor belt” of currents behind it. The conveyor belt carries heat from the equator towards the poles, and raises Arctic temperatures, discouraging the growth of ice sheets.
More warm water from the equator flows north to replace the sinking water, setting up a global oceanic “conveyor belt. This pattern helps keep Northern Europe far warmer than other locations at the same latitude. The key to keeping the belt moving is the saltiness of the water, which increases the water’s density and causes it to sink. Many scientists believe that if too much fresh water enters the ocean, for example, from melting Arctic glaciers and sea ice, the water will be diluted.By the way Cosmos, this happened when man wasn’t around to squirt Greenhouse Gases into the Atmosphere.
There is no reason to doubt Cosmos, that this cyclic event isn’t recurring as we speak.
Also, note Cosmos that the melting of the Greenland Ice shelves occurred more rapidly with a lower CO2 measurement.
Now, explain to me why your higher CO2 count is causing the Greenland Ice shelf melt to occur at a more rapid rate. :)
errr that should be rephrased as “…explain to me why your higher CO2 count *isn’t* causing the Greenland Ice shelf melt to occur at a more rapid rate.”
Climate change is happening, but how much of it is caused by evil humans? Not much to make a difference.
And the warming of the earth is a good thing. Ice Ages and Global Cooling is what causes mass extinction.
But the religious global warming “the end is near” nuts have other motivations and reasons for carrying the earth’s doom banner for global warming.
Heh, I see that Republican is still working on his BS degree . . .
For those of you that missed it yesterday, here’s a re-post of the de-bunking of the Newsweek column on Global Warming:
Remember the other day when the reich-wingers got up on their hind legs and posted a Newsweek article from “Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen,” the guy who proudly announces that all his research is funded only by the US gov’t?
Well, his RESEARCH may be funded by the gov’t, but his pay-check is funded by big oil.
Of course.
Here’s a snip from Harper’s and a follow up article:
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics–Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others–who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.
His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself — his kids’ college tuition, his mortgage payments — have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek — he’s also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal — appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he’s writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
*******
The reich-wing . . . they lie so much, it makes you feel stupid that you even half-way believe them from time to time.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494
Capn,
At least I put down proven facts. There was a warming period in the last ice age and Greenland ice sheets did melt. This is not made up and it all happened without man’s intervention.
What do you put down Capn? Ad Hominem attacks on the GW Alarmist’s punching toy.
Yeah, that proves a lot Capn.
It’s a very complex issue. People with agendas can take bits and pieces and create doubts to those who haven’t studied it thoroughly.
The broad consensus that Global Warming is a serious threat to life as we know it on Earth is not driven by ideology.
Nobody wants Global Warming to be true, anymore than they want the US to lose in Iraq.
There’s no “conspiracy” to force a phony Global Warming plot down people’s throats.
What we see is many, many researchers coming to the same conclusion based on very divergant areas: seawater, CO2 levels, ice packs, growing seasons, animal populations etc. etc.
These concerns deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand because CONs want to keep driving their hummers . . .
To repeat from yesterday: I don’t know for sure about Global Warming. But what I do know for sure is that YOU don’t know.
That’s a more reasonable post Capn, which you should have posted earlier. Except for the last sentence. I’ll take a Science challenge test against you any day and I’m pretty sure I’ll win. :)
Also, it would help a lot for the nay-sayers’ credibility if they could find one serious researcher who refutes GW who isn’t bought and paid for by the oil industry.
Rep – do you have a link for the “10-year melt” of Greenland?
The thermohaline was shut down in the Younger-Dryas by the melt of the Laurantide. (sp?)
Joe – you are in disagreement with the vast majority of practicing scientists. The ’side effects’ of warming – shifting rainfall pattrens for example – cause much more extinction than cooling. Check out the technical literature.
Shutting down the conveyor belt:
“Since the Great Ocean Conveyor belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean’s salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters there no longer sink. The Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current will then shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering the climate.
The key question remains: how much fresh water is needed to shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt? No one knows the answer. Scientists are pretty sure that the last two abrupt coolings seen the the Greenland ice core, the “Younger Dryas” event and the “8200 years before present” event (Figure 1), both occurred when huge North American glacial melt-water lakes flooded down the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic when the ice dams restraining the lakes broke. The sudden addition of low-density fresh water presumably partially or totally stopped the sinking of ocean waters in the North Atlantic, slowing or completely stopping the Meridional overturning circulation. Once the fresh water got into the North Atlantic, it stayed, puddling on top of the ocean and freezing in winter. The Meridional overturning circulation stayed shut off for about 1100 years during the Younger Dryas event, then suddenly restarted, for reasons scientists don’t understand. Current computer models of the climate cannot reproduce the observed sudden shut-down or start-up of the Meridional overturning circulation at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas period.”
http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp
Yawn.
I tell you what, I think that the Global Warming issue is the new abortion issue. Seems to keep popping up and dominating :->
Change in topic: should Paul Wolfowitz resign as President of the World Bank as demanded by employees thereof for his actions concerning his girlfriend, culminating in her, as an employee of the Department of State, having a higher salary than Dr. Rice?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/news/international/bc.worldbank.wolfowitz.reut/index.htm?
Sol,
Does that mean we’re FINALLY done with gay marriage???
::grin::
GAY MARRIAGE IS AN AFFRONT TO GOD !!!! Anyone who supports gay marriage is going to burn in hell for the degradation of humanity..
Just kidding. HAHAHAH
VT, you’re damn right he should resign. And his girlfriend should be terminated as well. I only have bits and pieces of the story, but I think he owes quite a few dollars for the bogus salary his girlfriend received.
You know what’s wrong, very very wrong, with that story?
“Paul Wolfowitz has a girlfriend.”
Ouch. It’s painful just to think about.
Money makes some blind….
And money makes some blonde — hahaha
I thought “The Things We Do For Love” was a fitting description…
If he isn’t lucky, it might be the ‘Time we do for love’ :->
Any laws broken here VT?
Good one Tom!
Sol, not sure; if I have some time later today, may check into that issue.
Is it just me, or does he look like he could be GW’s cousin?
Republican,
“this happened when man wasn’t around to squirt Greenhouse Gases into the Atmosphere.”
Your key problem is you keep insisting that past events explain what has NEVER happened before on Earth.
Humans have pushed CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm — HIGHER than it’s ever been in the past 650,000 years. We’ve caused a 150% increase in methane, plus added potent manufactured CFC’s, SF6, etc.
Humans HAVE modified Earth’s atmosphere, and it’s greenhouse effect.
The graphs on page 11 of http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf explain the observed warming.
Your ramblings about ancient climate events, that happened under different conditions, do NOT.
Your hatred of the U.N. and the carbon tax seems to prevent you from seeing the truth of the science.
“explain to me why your higher CO2 count *isn’t* causing the Greenland Ice shelf melt to occur at a more rapid rate.”
The oceans cause a thermal delay, and aerosols from our fossil-fuel burning mask some of the added GHG effect.
Yawn.
Someone shoulda told Wolfowitz that old saying about dipping one’s pen in the company ink.
He blew it. He should resign.
“The oceans cause a thermal delay, and aerosols from our fossil-fuel burning mask some of the added GHG effect.”
Dear one-note:
Doesn’t it get sore with all that fapping? Maybe you should rest it.
Well, I see fleetwood is contributing his usual substance to the discussion…
And on another note, do you suppose THIS is why GS the shill HATES Edwards so much?
The title is Edwards Leads ALL Republican Candidates. Is she scared? heheheheheheheh!
According to Rasmussen Reports there is only ONE Democratic candidate who beats ALL Republican candidates at this point and his name is JOHN EDWARDS.
The voters out there already know what pundits don’t want to acknowledge in their pontificating – that John Edwards is the best candidate for the job and THE Democratic candidate that beats all Republicans.
Here’s the numbers and the Rasmussen Poll links that back them up follow:
Edwards vs. Thompson 50-36Edwards vs. McCain 47-38Edwards vs. Romney 55-29Edwards vs. Huckabee 50-33
No other Democrat beats ALL of the Republicans.
See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Pr...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Pr...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/El...
Sorry Cosmos and Dr. Huie, had other things to be done today.
I will post a better formated list on my blog site later on. This is a partial list from which I drew conclusions about temperatures in Greenland and the Cyclic adventures etc.
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/rapid.htm”Rapid Climate Change”Dansgaard’s group cut out 67,000 samples…The temperature record showed what they called “violent” changes — which correspondedclosely to the jumps at Camp Century. Moreover, the most prominent of the changes in their record corresponded to the Younger Dryas oscillation seen in pollen shifts all over Europe.
http://www.wbur.org/special/dispatches/greenland/icecores/lessonsoftheice.aspStudies of previous ice cores show that during the last such transition, there were instances where the gradually warming climate all of a sudden descended 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit back to ice-age conditions in a space of a decade or less. Then the temperature shot back up, in a warming of equal abruptness. Sigfus Johnsen, one of theleaders of the NGRIP project, says it is essential that scientists determine whether Earth does thesame thing when going from interglacial to glacial. He says it did in the past, and if itdoes so again when Earth next descends to glacial conditions, “we’re in big trouble.”
There’s a start. I have about 1500 hyperlinks associated with ice cores and oceanic cycles etc. I’ll try to sort them out logically on my blog site. Have some of them sorted already.
There are also some hardback references which I can put the bibliography, but can’t reprint to the Web.
Lot of the Graph Data I have comes from NOAA, NASA, NIS, etc.
Republican,
Before you sort out your 1500 links to ice cores and oceans, please do something else first.
Find a time in Earth’s distant past that was similar to about 200 years ago (1800) — temperatures, sea level, ice, CO2 around 280 ppm, etc.
AND that ALSO, 200 years later, had CO2 JUMP to 380 ppm, rises in CH4 and N2O, and the addition of non-”natural” CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6, etc.
Tell us WHAT happened to Earth’s climate LONG ago, after those GHG’s increased dramatically, and “new” GHG’s were added.
Added a new blog for Environmental things. You can add comments, just read or ignore. You’re choice. :)
http://republikan.typepad.com/environmental_thoughts/2007/04/welcome_to_envi.html
Cosmos,
Okay, I will find you links to read. I don’t agree or disagree with the links as I haven’t had time to review them. Asking me a loaded question without discussion is fruitless.
“Find a time in Earth’s distant past that was similar to about 200 years ago (1800) — temperatures, sea level, ice, CO2 around 280 ppm, etc.”http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_facts.htm
“AND that ALSO, 200 years later, had CO2 JUMP to 380 ppm, rises in CH4 and N2O, and the addition of non-”natural” CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6, etc.”
See above URL
“Tell us WHAT happened to Earth’s climate LONG ago, after those GHG’s increased dramatically, and “new” GHG’s were added.”
See first and only URL
Now, that wasn’t very satisfying now was it Cosmos.
I just picked a URL at random and put it in. No discussion, no debate and nothing to learn but one side of the equation.
I’ll be adding topics on both sides of the equation at my new Environmental blog. You are welcome to contribute or anyone is welcome.
I can even make guest authors if they want to add graphics. Sign in under assumed names, I don’t care,it’s open and free.
I like the science aspect of it Cosmos, not the ram it down your throat discussion. I love learning. Who knows after a time, you might even convince me.
Republican – you note that they also refer to the Younger-Dryas as I did. However there was no melting of Greenland.
“Studies of previous ice cores show that during the last such transition, there were instances where the gradually warming climate all of a sudden descended 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit back to ice-age conditions in a space of a decade or less. Then the temperature shot back up, in a warming of equal abruptness.”
It is unlikely that similar sudden flip-flops occur while going into a glacial – the mechanism simply isn’t there to cause it. One concern is that during the transition from interglacial to super-interglacial we might have similar gyrations. That is the thesis of the movie “The day after tomorrow”
http://www.wunderground.com/education/thedayafter.asp
Dr. Huie,
That’s probably correct, but I think what the Norwegian Group was saying that in the preceding interstadial deglaciation there were flickers of very short time periods indicated by ice core records that showed (so far) an unexplainable rise in temperature.
I agree with the prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.
What I’m trying to wiggle out of all this data are those flickers, 3-30 year periods that indicate some sort of flash warming periods.
Those darn Norwegians tend to write in …well Norwegian and it makes it hard to find data to interpret. :)
I briefly heard about a dispute that Greenland and Canada was having about ownership of a small, new found island inbetween them that just revealed itself, being that the ice cap of this small island melted enough to expose bare ground.
Supposely there might be some oil exploration potential.
I need to research to find out more.
There were quick warmups – notably coming out of Y-D, but still below where we are today. If the Greenland glacier had melted the record would be gone (melted with it)
I think the unanswered question is just how did the blob of fresh water dissapate? My guess is that a diminished Gulf Stream (surface only) eventually moved it out via the Canary current (I think – working without my maps). Basically the surface gyre finally dissapating it. That would allow the thermohaline to restart.
But how much fresh water melt will it take to slow or halt the North Atlantic Drift. And won’t it take something like 10,000 years for it to take effect?
If it’s less than that, say 100 years, Europe going to be in for a long cold spell. That can turn the UK and Northern Europe into trundra real quick.
No, the Y-D shutdown was decadal or less initiation. The longer period is how long to recover from it. It stayed shut down for 1100 years. The massive floods that churned down the St Lawrence also left scars on the land similar to the scablands out west along the Columbia. “occurred when huge North American glacial melt-water lakes flooded down the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic when the ice dams restraining the lakes broke.”
http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp
From your link:
One climate models suggests that global warming will not slow down the circulation at all, since a warmer world will increase evaporation from the Atlantic Ocean, making it saltier and thus more resistant to fresh water interruption of the deep water formation near Greenland.
Joe,
Not sure if this is the island near Greenland you are talking about, here’s video on a new island exposed.
http://republikan.typepad.com/environmental_thoughts/2007/04/warming_island_.html
Republican,
I did not ask you a “loaded question without discussion”.
Don’t YOU claim that the warming of Earth today is natural, and cyclical?
IF you’re correct, then you can find a time in Earth’s distant past that was similar to about 200 years ago (1800) — temperatures, sea level, ice, CO2 around 280 ppm, etc.
AND that ALSO, 200 years later, had CO2 JUMP to 380 ppm, rises in CH4 and N2O, and the addition of non-”natural” CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6, etc.
If you cannot find a time period like that, then you’re WRONG — and the warming observed today is caused at least partly by human-added GHG’s.
Cosmos,
Chill out with that If…then statement. By the way, no one would dare to answer a question like that.
It’s damned if you do answer and damned if you don’t answer.
Not only did you make the “If then” multi-conditional, you nested another “if then” statement with the “AND.”
I would suggest an elementary course in logic.
That is correct Joe – in fact the warming process itself could accellerate the circulation. The thing they are saying could temporarily disrupt it would be an infusion of low-density fresh water. That could disrupt it until it dissipates; just as happened during the Younger-Dryas.
Go green!
I do!
Republican,
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with my question, or my logic.
The obvious problem is that YOU are UNABLE to support your opinion.
You are UNABLE to find a time in Earth’s past when Earth’s climate system has been modified by the HUGE amount humans have caused recently.
But you continue to insist that the warming we are observing is JUST “natural” and “cyclical”.
And instead of admitting that you’re wrong, you falsely, and childishly attack me.
Okay Cosmos,
I’ll submit your question to 17 PhD’s and ask them if they can answer it.
Is that fair? :)
cosmos – I can think of two instances with such a rapid shift – the P-T and K-T boundaries. The P-T (Permian-Triassic) was caused by the assembly of the supercontinent Pangea coupled with extensive volcanis activity. It almose succeeded in cleansing the planet of the carbon-based contamination called life – 96% of species extinct.
The K-T (Cretacious-Tertiary) was probably caused by bolide impact. That finished off the dinisaurs and left us for a while with what one scientist called a “Strangelove Ocean” because of the acidity and other toxins.
The rate of species extinction over the past several decades is faster than during either the P-T or K-T.
Question Dr. Huie if you have time tonite…
I’ve been studying the IPCC reports and noticed they have data sets of CO2 from two sources.
One is from Mauna Loa, from the Scripps University, highly respected and all.
The other CO2 data often referenced is from ice core data from various regions such as the antarctic, where the gas is trapped.
When they display the data sets, the IPCC shows it as one chart.
The ice core data is displayed first and then on the same chart, the CO2 Flask Data from Mauna Loa is displayed.
From what I’ve read, there is Flask Data of CO2 from the 1790s.
Other than methods used, why did the IPCC use ice core data on the same graph chart as the flask data?
Why didn’t they use available flask data that covers the same time period?
Humans have been changing their environment ever since they first learned to use tools. Why is it hard for some to understand that with technology some of the changes they’ve made is impacting their environment on a global level?
Here’s the real “Story that won’t go away’Agency weighed prosecutors’ politics By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 23 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department weighed political activism and membership in a conservative law group in evaluating the nation’s federal prosecutors, documents released in the probe of fired U.S. attorneys show.
ADVERTISEMENTThe political credentials were listed on a chart of 124 U.S. attorneys nominated since 2001, a document that could bolster Democrats’ claims that the traditionally independent Justice Department has become more partisan during the Bush administration.
The chart was included in documents released Friday by the department to congressional panels investigating whether the firings last year of the U.S. attorneys were politically motivated — an inquiry that has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fighting for his own job.
“This is the chart that the AG requested,” Monica Goodling, Justice’s former liaison to the White House, wrote in a Feb. 12 e-mail to two other senior department officials. “I’ll show it to him on the plane tomorrow, if he’s interested.”
Goodling resigned last week, refusing to testify to Congress about her role in the firings and citing her constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
The 2,394 pages of e-mails, schedules and memos released Friday included a few hand-scribbled pages of notes of reasons why some of the eight were ousted — notes that Justice officials confirmed were written by Goodling.
Under Iglesias’ name, Goodling wrote: “Domenici says he doesn’t move cases” — a reference to Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), the six-term Republican from New Mexico accused of pressuring the prosecutor on a political corruption investigation. That allegation has been one of the factors driving Democrats’ claims that the firings were politically motivated.
The documents also included indications that senior department officials had replacements in mind for the outgoing prosecutors nearly a year before the ousters, seemingly contradicting testimony last month by Gonzales’ former top aide.
The new batch of documents — adding to more than 3,400 previously released — came amid questions about missing White House e-mails, including some from presidential counselor Karl Rove and other administration officials. The Democratic-controlled Congress is seeking those e-mails as evidence for its inquiry into the firings.
Private attorney Robert Luskin denied that Rove intentionally deleted his own e-mails from a Republican-sponsored computer system. He said President Bush’s political adviser believed the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law.
Democrats are questioning whether any White House officials purposely sent e-mails about official business on the RNC server — then deleted them, in violation of the law — to avoid scrutiny.
White House officials said the administration is making an aggressive effort to recover anything that was lost. “We have no indications that there was improper intent when using these RNC e-mails,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
The new documents also show Justice efforts to tamp down the controversy by meeting with congressional aides they considered potentially sympathetic to their viewpoint — including a staffer to Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who has been one of Gonzales’ most vocal critics. Additionally, the documents include correspondence from some prosecutors complaining about being ensnared in the political storm.
The chart underscores the weight that conservative credentials carried with the Justice Department.
The three-page spreadsheet notes the “political experience” of each prosecutor, which was defined as work at the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington, on Capitol Hill, for state or local officials, and on campaigns or for political parties.
Several of the 124 prosecutors on the list were also members of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The group was founded by conservative law students and now claims 35,000 members, including prominent members of the Bush administration, the federal judiciary and Congress.
How the information was used by the administration isn’t clear.
One of the eight attorneys fired in December — Kevin Ryan, the prosecutor in San Francisco — was a Federalist Society member.
Two others, David Iglesias in New Mexico and Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., held Republican Party posts or ran for office before being tapped as U.S. attorneys, the chart shows.
The documents reveal a new contradiction in officials’ accounting of the firings, indicating that replacements for those dismissed were chosen by Justice officials nearly a year beforehand.
Beginning with a January 2006 e-mail to White House Counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice chief of staff Kyle Sampson proposed replacing U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Michigan and Arkansas. The replacements were to include Rachel Brand, who heads the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, to oust Margaret Chiara in Michigan, and Tim Griffin, a Rove protege who now is acting U.S. attorney in Arkansas.
But Sampson, who resigned under fire last month, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29 that “I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign” last Dec. 7.
Gonzales is to explain his role in the firings to the same panel next Tuesday — an appearance that even Republicans say is crucial to restoring his shaky credibility amid growing calls for his resignation.
“The contradictions continue to pile up,” Schumer told reporters Friday. “The questions for the attorney general continue to mount.”
Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse maintained that, except for Griffin, no replacements were selected before the prosecutors were told to resign.
“The list, drafted ten months before the December resignations, reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts, not preselected candidates by the administration,” Roehrkasse said. “Sampson’s initial thoughts were just that.”
Sampson attorney Brad Berenson said his clients’ testimony was “entirely accurate.” He said that “some names had been tentatively suggested for discussion much earlier in the process, but by the time the decision to ask for the resignations was made, none had been chosen to serve as a replacement.”
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) said the new documents “were not a complete response to our subpoena request,”
“I expect that the attorney general, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, will be respectful of his obligations under the committee’s subpoena and respond in full by Monday,” said Conyers, D-Mich.
Some of the documents released could prove embarrassing.
An Oct. 2, 2006, e-mail to Brand, for example, derides Chiara as “Miss Margaret,” an insensitive manager who announced in an all-staff meeting which employees would be receiving bonuses and outstanding staff evaluations. The sender’s name on the e-mail was stripped from the document.
And in a Feb. 28, 2007, e-mail, Griffin complained to Justice headquarters that he was being maligned as a White House pawn in the media.
“Someone at DOJ left the press with the impression that Harriet Miers vouching for me was some sort of extraordinary event,” Griffin wrote to three senior Justice officials. “It wasn’t.”
Responded Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling: “Not sure your assertion is accurate. Someone at DOJ merely recounted the facts. … Your point is well taken, however, in that we need to emphasize the normalcy of the process in your case. I think we are ready to do that.”
___
Ben,
Thank you for the info re P-T and K-T. And that’s scary that the rate of species extinction recently is faster than during those 2 previous periods.
Republican,
“I’ll submit your question to 17 PhD’s and ask them if they can answer it.”
Do you expect those “17 PhD’s” to LIE, and say that CO2 was way above 300 ppm during the last 650,000 years?
Do you expect those “17 PhD’s” to make an even BIGGER lie, and say it was above 600 ppm?That’s where it could soon rise, if humans continue “business as usual”. You DO hate the U.N. and carbon taxes, don’t you?
Mauna Loa and flask data? I suggest you add these links to your “environmental”, not “climate change” blog.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm‘More Nonsense about CO2′http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
I’ll give you more links during the next few days.