Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Well, that’s not very nice.
  2. The upcoming genocide/murders in Libya may have a mass effect.
  3. Collective malaise.
  4. Twitter and an epicenter.
  5. I’m unconvinced in policy argument, but geesh what people will do to themselves is incredible.
  6. 2011, not a good crop year for jokes, eh?
  7. Religion and education.
  8. Standing faithful.
  9. Some science questions for Rick Perry. Heh.
  10. OOOkkay, if you make the claim that’s a hate issue then what about things like “Piss Christ?” Hmm?
  11. A primary opponent for Mr Obama.
  12. So, US sports have nominal drug testing, when will that move to the other highly paid entertainers? Question, what percentage of actors do you think would pass the drug test a pro cyclist has to pass to race? Do you think it’s more than 10%?
  13. An obit. Raise your girls to be like that, eh?
  14. Race and perception.

40 responses to “Friday Highlights

  1. Well, that’s not very nice.

    Do you ever read RealClimate? They have a post about this. Nice ad hominem on Al Gore, though.

    Religion and education.

    Not that this is about attendance at services, not about beliefs. It is an interesting finding, but does not contradict the many studies which show a negative correlation between education and religious belief, especially non-liberal religious beliefs.

    Some science questions for Rick Perry. Heh.

    Kind of a silly point. Candidates should be asked questions which are relevant. Someone who denies global warming will make bad decisions on policy. (Evolution isn’t directly relevant, but it serves as a useful filter out the ignorant and the credulous.)

    OOOkkay, if you make the claim that’s a hate issue then what about things like “Piss Christ?” Hmm?

    They seem roughly equivalent to me. Both should be protected free speech.

    A primary opponent for Mr Obama.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure most of us Democrats would pick campaign-Obama over President Obama.

    Race and perception.

    Funny how you seem to believe more in perception errors in people who think they are victims of racism than you do in the perception errors that cause racism.

  2. That should read “Note that this…”

  3. Fatal error: Call to undefined function get_option…

    You might be missing a file that should have been included or it may be in the wrong directory.

  4. Science questions to Rick Perry? It may be funny to you, but your kids don’t have to attend school in his state, and then you try to undo the damage before they take the SAT.

    Do you really think your daughter’s inoculation requirements should be determined by which drug company gave the most money to Perry’s campaign?

    I noted on the site you linked to:

    The science question Perry flunks that should really concern you is his inability to distinguish between a burro and a burrow. Unemployment is up in Texas to a 40-year high, and Perry’s bragging about it. You might want to ask him simple math and calendar questions. Texas is second in the nation with hungry children, with more than a million kids going to bed hungry each night — more than several African nations, more than Cuba. You might want to ask him if he knows what Jesus said about children.

    For that matter, you may want to ask him if he can find his own burro with both hands. I’ll wager he’ll look at you perplexed.

    Virtue is its own reward, but stupid punishes everyone within grenade distance.

  5. Ed,
    Don’t talk to me about schools and Texas. I live in Illinois, you know the state where instead of (like Texas) governors have aspirations to high office ours just all go to the federal penitentiary.

    Unemployment is up in Texas to a 40-year high, and Perry’s bragging about it. You might want to ask him simple math and calendar questions.

    Hmm. Seems to me more than one state can make that claim. Maybe somethings going on nationwide. Ya think?

    Virtue is its own reward, but stupid punishes everyone within grenade distance.

    You shouldn’t offer platitudes like that in context of the sort of statements you’re making.

  6. JA,
    On the climate thing, a lot of straw man bashing going on there. The only claim made by the two sites I’d seen quoting it was that (a) findings that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation and (b) models didn’t use that therefore the models might need to be re-examined. The “RealClimate” site argues that this doesn’t justify conclusions rejecting warming … which was a claim that hadn’t been made.

    Both should be protected free speech.

    Take that up with Mr Schraub. It didn’t seem to me that was where he was going with that.

    Funny how you seem to believe more in perception errors in people who think they are victims of racism than you do in the perception errors that cause racism.

    How do you get to that conclusion?

  7. I think we should pause to consider what a model really is. It’s a tool to capture the relationship between dependent and independent variables. For example, let’s consider the most simple of simple:

    If the price of a dress goes down, quantity sold will go up. Ergo a simple model of product demand. But there’s a lot not captured. Maybe if Lady Gaga is seen in the dress sales will go up even if price doesn’t go down. Maybe if Casey Anthony is seen in it, sales will go down even if price isn’t increased. Certainly price does not capture everything there is to capture about what causes sales. But the model does capture an essential relationship.

    In statistics, you can actually run into trouble by adding too many variables to a regression analysis. The problem is called ‘overfitting’ or ‘multicollinearity’ where your independent variables ‘overlap’ with each other.

    For example, let’s say you’re building a model that predicts the grades a student will get. One variable you opt to use is how many hours a week they spend studying. Perfectly sensible. Another variable you pick is how many hours per night they watch TV. Again perfectly sensible, for a single variable model! When you try to use both, though, you’re almost certainly going to run into a collinearity problem. There’s only 24 hours in a day. A student who watches a lot of TV will likely have fewer hours devoted to studying. Of course some students will watch a lot of TV and get a lot of study time by cutting out other things like sleep, play, exercise, chores, etc. But the two independent variables are related at least for some students.

    What’s going to happen is that to the degree these two variables relate to each other, by incorporating them into you rmodel you’re going to ‘double up’ their weight. The high study hour students will count twice….once for studying lots of hours and again for watching less TV and vice versa for low study students. The result is that the relationship between ‘time management’ and grades will seem stronger than it really is.

    In the above, I’d ask:

    1. Are cosmic rays really a variable? Do we have actual patterns of cosmic rays or is it more a random variable whereas over time its essentially a constant stream of cosmic rays hitting the earth?

    2. Is the impact of cosmic rays not being captured, at least partially, by some other input into the model? If so adding cosmic rays may be counterproductive to the model.

    3. Does whatever unmeasured impact of cosmic rays invert any of the essential relationships to the model, in particular AGW? That Lady Gaga my be able to reverse the decline in sales caused by a price increase doesn’t change the essential relationship that price increases will cut into sales. Likewise if cosmic rays do not actually reverse the impact of greenhouse gases making warming into cooling, for example, I’m not sure its very important.

  8. Boonton,
    1 -> yes. Cosmic ray impact on earth depends on in part on solar wind and it’s interaction with the magentosphere. Sun spots and solar climate then have an effect on our weather by affecting cloud formation.
    2. -> if yes, then the model is flawed. If it is … then why do you trust the model? Remember you’re talking about making trillion dollar bets based on those models.
    3. One of the assumptions of the model is that increased temperatures lead to increased cloud coverage, which prevent the captured heat from escaping. If could formation is dependent on external things like solar climate then that is a problem for the model. Furthermore, depending on how much climate depends then on external (solar) climate … then perhaps the A component of AGW is less than we suspect.

  9. On the climate thing, a lot of straw man bashing going on there. The only claim made by the two sites I’d seen quoting it was that (a) findings that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation and (b) models didn’t use that therefore the models might need to be re-examined.

    Is it a or b that would cause Al Gore’s head to explode?

  10. JA,
    Hmm, I was ignoring your referring the “AGHE” (Al Gore Head Explode) remark which you call an argument ad hominem, which you are surely aware … wasn’t. An ad hominem (as if you need the primer) is when the basis of the argument (in this case against AGW) follows as (Mr Gore is a moron -> therefore AGW is wrong). That is a logical fallacy. AGW may or may not be correct. Mr Gore remains a profiteer and a charlatan.

  11. Gore a profiteer? Hardly. Shrewd business guy. He’s rolled in the dough sitting on the boards of Google and Apple — after all, he is the guy who saved AARPANET, which made it possible for the modern internet. Such acumen is exactly what Google and Apple wanted.

    Surely you do not mean to diss the records of Google and Apple.

    Charlatan? No, which is why Google and Apple hired him. Gore has the best record of any 20th & 21st century Member of Congress on technology and science issues, I think. Author of the Superfund, creator of the national organ transplant registry, author of the laws that made pharmaceuticals possible to enable organ transplants, savior of the internet, choreographer of orphan drug laws, etc., etc.

    That you’d call him a charlatan suggests either your sarcasm indicators need to be improved, or you’re not paying attention to science, or politics, or both or either.

  12. Hmm. Seems to me more than one state can make that claim. Maybe somethings going on nationwide. Ya think?

    Oh, definitely. But Perry started with about the lowest unemployment in the nation, and under his watched it’s ballooned to among the highest. In sheer numbers of unemployed, Texas is #1 or #2. In numbers of lousy, minimum wage jobs offered to formerly well-earning people, Texas leads the nation and the world.

    And, as you note, Perry has little to do with the unemployment rate. So his chest-pounding that he’s doing something right is silly, if not so hypocritical.

  13. 2. -> if yes, then the model is flawed. If it is … then why do you trust the model? Remember you’re talking about making trillion dollar bets based on those models.

    Err actually no. If the impact of cosmic rays are being captured elsewhere, then adding them to the model makes the model flawed by essentially double counting them. Note my example with counting TV time and study time in a model of student grades. Since both variables overlap to some degree, including one is fine but including both actually makes the model less accurate.

    Since your haven’t ever studied statistics, I think you’re missing the point about what a model is. It is not an atom by atom Matrix like simulation of the entire universe. To demand that is to demand the impossible, more importantly it’s counter productive.

    . If could formation is dependent on external things like solar climate then that is a problem for the model. Furthermore, depending on how much climate depends then on external (solar) climate … then perhaps the A component of AGW is less than we suspect.

    Perhaps but then that would be like saying “we raised the price of this dress, but sales went up therefore let’s doubt our model that increased prices means lower quantity demanded”. Your counter may be “but Lady Gaga wore the dress thereby shifting out the demand curve for it”. Technically, then the price increase did, in fact, lower the quantity sold, but Gaga’s intervention offset that by shifting the demand curve outwards.

    You’re saying that the primary independent variable in our model (the ‘A’ part of AGW) is really being driven more by another variable (let’s call it the ‘Gaga’) But have we had a Gaga? I’m not sure, at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation seems to indicate no particular pattern of increasing or decreasing cosmic rays over the last 50 years but a cyclical pattern.

  14. Hmm, I was ignoring your referring the “AGHE” (Al Gore Head Explode) remark which you call an argument ad hominem, which you are surely aware … wasn’t. An ad hominem (as if you need the primer) is when the basis of the argument (in this case against AGW) follows as (Mr Gore is a moron -> therefore AGW is wrong). That is a logical fallacy.

    And why do you think the deniers continually refer to Al Gore rather than to the scientists?? It’s obviously an ad hominem.

    AGW may or may not be correct. Mr Gore remains a profiteer and a charlatan.

    Give me a break. I think Ed Darrell covered this well.

  15. Well, that’s not very nice.

    Not very accurate, either.

    1. Cosmic ray influence on cloud formation is not enough, cannot be enough, to nullify the various hypotheses, that warming occurs, and that human-caused pollution is a key influence. It cannot be a great enough influence to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, whose effects are well-established (but for some greenhouse effect, life on Earth would be impossible as we know it; denying that effect occurs is an indication of lack of thought or supreme stupidity, not skepticism).

    2. The bizarre claim that anyone does research to make huge profits should be an insult to your intelligence. Those who don’t find it an insult should be offended that they are considered manipulable sheep.

  16. JA & Ed,
    Let’s see, if a right wing/conservative profiteer made close to a billion dollars pitching and getting from the government 10s to 100s of billions in direct aid for an industry which cannot make a profit without government aid, you’d call foul and the individual a profiteer. This, alas, is a mighty fine description of Mr Gore except for the one thing. He’s not a conservative. Recall the left wing reaction to the not-hundreds of millions allegedly made by Dick Cheney. So it’s not like government teat sucking is a sacred cow for the left.

    Why do I think “deniers” continually refer to Mr Gore rather than the scientists? Because Mr Gore is a charlatan who pretends to be speaking to the scientists who in fact is speaking regularly to the politicians. It’s not like he’s not in the loop. Just loopy. Why don’t the scientists repudiate Mr Gore. That is a curious question. Perhaps grant money is a clue.

  17. Boonton,

    Err actually no. If the impact of cosmic rays are being captured elsewhere, then adding them to the model makes the model flawed by essentially double counting them. Note my example with counting TV time and study time in a model of student grades.

    To quoth, err actually no. If the feedback mechanisms of the modeled parameters are internal, i.e., change based on other modeled parameters … then that effect isn’t being modeled correctly. The cosmic rays, until solar climate is understood, is an important random input not dependent on internal variables.

    I thought you did study statistics. Why don’t you know that feedback (positive or negative) is different than a semi-random external variable.

  18. The example I gave isn’t a feedback mechanism but one of multicolinarity. A slightly less obvious example might be including a socio-economic variable as well as TV watching time as a variable. There again if one type of socio-economic group watches more TV and another less by including both variables you actually end up counting TV time too much, which reveals why regression analysis often starts to break if you just start adding more and more variables to your model. A solution might be to see if you can break the ‘commonality’ part out of your two variables but if that’s not possible the model might be better off by dropping one of the variables.

    I’m not sure you’re talking about a true feedback mechanism here. Cosmic rays make clouds which could add to warming. Hence more cosmic rays more warming. That’s a pretty simple relationship. If, for some reason, warmer climate causes a given amount of cosmic rays to make even *more* clouds (which may be plausible given warmer air would be able to hold more water vapor) then you have a feedback mechanism.

    That doesn’t address AGW IMO, though. If cosmic rays hold the potential to make a runaway feedback system, then the ‘A’ has the potential to be the straw that breaks the camels back. If you add CO2 at just the time that cosmic rays happen to be starting a 30 year spike, say, that may tip the scale just enough to set off a runaway feedback towards warming. Then arguing about how much ‘blame’ should be going to the ‘A’ part versus the sun becomes pointless. A kid who sets off fireworks in the seawall during a calm period versus a kid who sets them off during a hurricane’s storm serge….the first kid does nothing while the second kid causes the town to flood.

  19. 2. -> if yes, then the model is flawed. If it is … then why do you trust the model? Remember you’re talking about making trillion dollar bets based on those models.

    It’s a model, not a soothsayer. We trust it because it’s pretty accurate. Can we increase accuracy? Sure.

    Do cosmic rays affect accuracy at all? Not demonstrated. Could cosmic rays affect cloud formation more than ambient temperature over water? Highly unlikely — virtually impossible.

    You know, Mark, you breathe out highly humidified air. But you’d be regarded as a nut if you argued that humans breathing out causes clouds, and therefore no global warming.

    We know the climate is warming. Models help predict what will happen in the future (though, contrary to Watts’s excited hopes, they have woefully underpredicted warming). The questions we research now revolve around how warming works, and how to slow and stop it.

    Watts is excited because cosmic rays help cloud formation? He’s not paying attention much to the rest of the model, is he.

  20. Let’s see, if a right wing/conservative profiteer made close to a billion dollars pitching and getting from the government 10s to 100s of billions in direct aid for an industry which cannot make a profit without government aid, you’d call foul and the individual a profiteer. This, alas, is a mighty fine description of Mr Gore except for the one thing. He’s not a conservative.

    Nor is he making any money from the government other than his Congressional pension, which he may have delayed. You assume Gore makes some money from the government — false. His money comes from his corporate work with Apple and until recently, Google.

    More, every dime he makes from climate talks goes to charity. That was his pledge, that’s what the IRS 990s show.

    Recall the left wing reaction to the not-hundreds of millions allegedly made by Dick Cheney. So it’s not like government teat sucking is a sacred cow for the left.

    Cheney stepped in to award contracts on a no-bid basis to the company he headed until he took the Vice Presidency, and from whom he had stock options still unexercised whose value was affected by the government contracts they got. Clear case of conflict of interest — criminal, too, especially since he failed to report it (another criminal violation).

    You would do well to study what graft and corruption are. One is not corrupt merely for advocating something Mark does not agree with.

    Why do I think “deniers” continually refer to Mr Gore rather than the scientists? Because Mr Gore is a charlatan who pretends to be speaking to the scientists who in fact is speaking regularly to the politicians. It’s not like he’s not in the loop. Just loopy. Why don’t the scientists repudiate Mr Gore. That is a curious question. Perhaps grant money is a clue.

    Sure. Show us any statement of Gore’s which is not attributed, accurately, to the scientists. Show us any significant errors in his science statements.

    Grant money to Gore? You should look at federal grants. First, they are dropping. Second, Gore doesn’t get them. Third, Gore doesn’t have any say in who does get them. Fourth, much of the work on which climate science relies was done for other contractors, often in search of other information — warming was evidenced across the globe in biology, both botanical and zoological, water quality, soil erosion, and violent weather. Very little of that gets grants from climatological study.

    Scientists don’t repudiate Gore because he’s right. Why don’t you repudiate those who deny warming? Why don’t you repudiate those who deny humans cause pollution? Why don’t you repudiate those fools who claim CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas?

    You’re not even getting paid to say false stuff. So why do you accuse those who say true stuff?

  21. Ed,
    That’s BS. He’s cleared almost a billion dollars on ownership/investments in green companies. Get your facts right.

    How many green company contracts were no bid? Hmmm.

    You should look at federal grants.

    First, they are dropping. Yippee

    Second, Gore doesn’t get them. That’s right, the companies he has heavily invested in get them.

    Third, Gore doesn’t have any say in who does get them. Right. And all lobbies are irrelevant, ineffectual and useless. Which is why so much of it gets done. People are just stupid (or you are either lying or being intentionally stupid).

    Fourth, much of the work on which climate science relies was done for other contractors, often in search of other information — warming was evidenced across the globe in biology, both botanical and zoological, water quality, soil erosion, and violent weather. What that has to do with Mr Gore’s investments in green/carbon offset companies … is not clear.

    Scientists don’t repudiate Gore because he’s right.

    Bull. Gore frequently makes references to local weather conditions as evidence of global warming. Actual climate people warn frequently that weather is not climate. Apparently Mr Gore didn’t get the memo.

    That’s right, I don’t get paid to say false stuff … and I don’t. Who pays you?

  22. Ed,

    We trust it because it’s pretty accurate. Can we increase accuracy? Sure

    What does “pretty accurate mean?” For a decade the global temperature has not increased at all. No model predicted that. That’s called, in the trade, not accurate. “Pretty” fail.

  23. Each of the past 15 years has been well above the 20th century average. The past decade was the warmest in history. Global warming predicted less than that.

    You have an odd definition of accuracy. Of course, your source, Watts, last year predicted we would be in the grips of dramatic global cooling starting in mid-2010.

    Accuracy? Stick with the scientists, not the shamans.

  24. Ed,
    You (apparently) didn’t read what I wrote. I wrote there has been no increase. An increase was predicted. Apparently that’s not a problem.

    I’m not defending Watts, although his prediction being wrong would support my hypothesis that the models are just computer aided story telling.

  25. Bull. Gore frequently makes references to local weather conditions as evidence of global warming. Actual climate people warn frequently that weather is not climate. Apparently Mr Gore didn’t get the memo.

    A few examples would be instructive. Got some examples of Gore referring to local weather conditions inappropriately?

    According to global warming hypotheses, we should be seeing an increase in natural disasters caused by weather — more frequent or more intense hurricanes than the 20th century average, for example. Droughts of greater intensity or greater duration than usual drought cycles. More record highs, more record lows, more record rains, more record snowfalls. Global “warming” means there is more energy in the atmosphere, and that means there will be more “violent” attempts to get rid of it, by the atmosphere. That translates to more serious weather phenomena.

    Is that not what we see?

    Surely you can point out that we have fewer record highs, fewer record lows, fewer hurricanes of less intensity, fewer record snows, fewer record rains, and no droughts — were that the case.

    It appears it’s not Gore referring to local weather inaccurately, to me.

  26. 15 years above the 20th century average creates a strong push to an increase in trend — climate is measured in decades at a minimum, not days.

    I read exactly what you wrote. You claimed a prediction that was not made — a faux straw man.

    Deal with the facts. If there is not global warming, why is the trend of the average, global temperature, rising? Don’t claim a temporary decrease in the rate of increase as a decline — tell us why the temperature is rising, and how that does not equal rising average temperature?

  27. 2.The upcoming genocide/murders in Libya may have a mass effect.

    We seem to be covering lots of ground here, but I note your evaluation of Obama on Libya seems to have a very consquentialist smack to it. If Libya’s revolution results in a happy, peaceful country, that’s great. If it results in a nasty bloodthirsty country then it was bad.

    I would note, though, that the consquentialist POV would appear to be rather un-American. Note the Jefferson in the Declaration of Independance

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

    Question: Is there any debate that the ‘Form of Government’ in Libya was destructive to the above ends for its people? I think the answer is clearly no. Therefore the Libyans have an absolute right to seek to abolish the previous form of gov’t…namely rule by an insane dictator.

    This doesn’t obligate the US to fight on behalf of the Libyan people. But it does close the question of who the US can support while keeping to its principles. The argument that Qadaffi might have been friendly to various US interests…that he ‘came clean’ on his nuclear program, paid reparations for bombing Americans and was a good player in opposing Al Qaeda is all very well and good but in principle does not allow us to support denying the Libians the freedom we assume is everyone’s birthright.

    On top of that, the consquences argument falls far short of our principles. A person with freedom may botch it. Its possible that ‘the people’ may abolish one bad form of gov’t to only end up with one that is worse. That, though, is again part of the risk of freedom. In principle we cannot deny a people their right to freedom on the grounds that they may make horrible errors with it anymore than we would allow someone else to take our freedom for the same reason.

  28. Boonton,

    We seem to be covering lots of ground here, but I note your evaluation of Obama on Libya seems to have a very consquentialist smack to it. If Libya’s revolution results in a happy, peaceful country, that’s great. If it results in a nasty bloodthirsty country then it was bad.

    The public justification given by the admin (and the NATO powers) for intervention was on humanitarian grounds. Saving lives. If more or just as many lives are lost as a result of our intervention then the justification given is shown (as was predicted at the outset) to be wrong. The argument you give, was oddly enough, not offered when I objected prior to our intervention that the humanitarian goals were not valid justifications. Sorry.

  29. If you see a woman drowning in a pool, you jump in and save her. You have saved a life.

    What if tomorrow you read that very same women returned home, killed her two kids and then hanged herself.

    Was your decision to jump in the pool, on humanitarian grounds, unjustified?

  30. Boonton,
    Are you saying you never expected retribution and killing in Libya by the rebels if they won? Are you that naive?

  31. Here’s an interview with the guy who did the cosmic ray study — he says it doesn’t negate global warming and he wishes denialists would stop saying that:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXx62NhSkt8&feature=uploademail]

  32. Here are the real predictions, and results, from the Texas State Climatologist:
    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/

  33. Sorry about that YouTube link. Try this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXx62NhSkt8

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXx62NhSkt8]

  34. Mark,

    Are you saying the human rights violations of the group replacing Qaddafi’s government will be equal to or worse than Qaddafi’s government? Very few, if any signs of that.

    How about Tunisia?

    Obama looks like a genius on Libya so far. No troops committed, Qaddafi’s out, NATO is convinced it must shoulder more weapons development burden, NATO allies carried larger burdens than U.S. Win-win-win-win-win.

    Plus, as of yet, it doesn’t look like the new regime is using mass execution or summary execution, or anything at all like that.

  35. Ed,

    Plus, as of yet, it doesn’t look like the new regime is using mass execution or summary execution, or anything at all like that.

    And … that normally only happens after the new regime gets itself established. Too early to call.

  36. Okay, let me rephrase that: There are no mass murders. In stark contrast to the Qaddafi regime, there is no torture, no murder. Qaddafi’s defenders have been asked to go home. They haven’t been put in prison, jailed, or anything.

    I’m calling it now. No human rights abuses after months of fighting. Looking better all the time.

    Still a win-win-win-win. Obama was right. No troops committed. NATO stepped up. European nations stepped up. Libyans fought for their own freedom. Qaddafi’s gone, something we’ve been hoping for since Qaddafi came to power. Obama got bin Laden, the guy who attacked the World Trade Center, and Obama made sure Qaddafi fell, the guy who financed the Lockerby bombing.

    Obama looks more and more like a foreign affairs, anti-terrorism genius, especially in contrast to those who complain about his good works as “only small miracles, no resurrections yet.”

  37. Ed,
    Well then “mission accomplished.”

    I hope you are right, seems you are convinced now that the cynical methods are best, ie going to war for oil is the right thing to do. After all, you are surely aware this affair was to protect western European oil interests.

  38. Not from our side. We don’t get a significant part of Libyan oil.

    Are you arguing that Europe shouldn’t defend its supply lines? You must realize that there was significant risk, especially for Italy, to defend the rebels against the regime who delivered the oil.

    No, it wasn’t about the oil, or Qaddafi would still be there. It was about letting the Arab Spring make its run to freedom, with a little help.

  39. In a fit of ethical behavior, the editor of a journal, Remote Sensing, resigned because his journal had published a paper denying climate change, the Spencer and Braswell paper. Confronted with the facts, he determined he paper was inadequate for publication, and resigned.

    One more major plank of the denialist program found to be in gross error, and/or overhyped.

    When will these frauds against global warming cease?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>