Senator Jaegermeister . . . Why Do You Rise?

UPDATE BELOW: 12/30 -- Statement plus priceless photo link!

Who was the Roman god of wine, inspired madness and drunkenness?

Let's see . . . would it have been Bacchus?

Ahhh, yes . . . I think it was! In Greek mythology, it was the twice-born Dionysus (Dionysos), although, interestingly, the use of the name "Bacchus," for both the votary and god, was actually cited by Greek and Roman sources (fn # 2).

Well, it sure looks to me like somebody from Montana wants to become the Senate replacement for Ted Kennedy, no?

According to Politico, at the link:

An email seeking comment has been sent to Sen. Baucus's office and we will update this post when we hear back.

Will this make the evening news? Not very likely . . . unless Fox News decides to run with it.

p.s. Young ladies are hereby cautioned not to ride in any vehicle where "Mad" Max is behind the wheel . . .

UPDATE: A statement released by the Office of Senator Baucus to Patrick Gavin at Politico, posted in an update here, claims his "passionate defense" was turned into "an unfounded, untrue personal smear internet rumor," i.e., that he was intoxicated while giving the finger-pointing speech memorialized by the video, above.

"When his friend of 30 years Ted Kennedy, with whom he had fought so hard to provide health care to children, was being used as a cheap foil to oppose health care reform, Senator Baucus gave a passionate defense. Unfortunately, those who want to kill any meaningful reform, turned it into an unfounded, untrue personal smear internet rumor. This is beyond the pale and this type of gutter politics has no place in the public sphere. It is this type of slander that makes Montanans, and Americans, disgusted with the politics as usual in Washington. And what is even more sad is that such a personal attack would be given any validity at all, let alone being elevated to the status of 'news'."

Heh. A classic non-denial denial!

And, here's a link to a slightly more close-up photo of Senator Baucus -- not one taken that evening. Heh.

Any questions? (ht: comment by BKeyser on a HotAir thread, here.)

The Fudge Factor!

In my last post I asked what some others seem also to be asking in various ways . . . "Is Science Itself At Risk?"

People are asking these questions because of the myriad issues that keep arising regarding the work of the progenitors of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

It seemed to me that the question naturally arises because of what unexplained approximations, private doubts expressed by the scientists themselves, destruction of raw data, data manipulations, employment of "tricks" to "hide the decline," evasions, possible violations of FOI requirements, etc. -- all have been and continue to be exposed, and are all threaded throughout the underbelly of what is being presented in the name of settled science. Thus, so much of what had been recently offered to the world as "science" to be believed, now appears to be riven with quite unsettling and unanswered questions.

And, in addition to all the serious questions many have raised arising out of the revelations of the e-mail and data dump late last month from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK, it now appears there is yet another very serious problem associated with the work compiled over there at the CRU -- unprofessional computer source coding (ht for clip, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, here).

Brace yourself!

It seems that a writer of the source code underscoring their modeling work rather openly and candidly admits that he is somewhat incompetent, and not always up to the task!

On almost a daily basis, new revelations and very troubling information arises regarding global warming science. It does not mean that there is no basis to it. But this is beginning to look like the Leng T'che "slow slicing" -- or, "death by a thousand cuts."

So, many would argue that playing 52 pick-up with the entire world economy might not be such a hot idea, given those unanswered questions. In fact, it might not be such a hot idea, even if the anthropogenic basis of the prognosticators is eventually shown to have merit. That is because, as scientists like Richard S. Lindzen persuasively argue, the scare tactics of claimed climate change are an entirely different story.

He asked in that recent Wall Street Journal piece entitled, "The Climate Science Isn't Settled":

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

You would think this that this "climategate" scandal was becoming a bigger and bigger source of acute embarrassment, especially to those international architects and proponents of massive changes in our world's international economic order, the ones gathered as they all are in Copenhagen, negotiating agreements for underscoring the very energy future of our entire globe, a new and very limiting order attempting to bind developing and developed nations alike.

Now we come to the latest "cut" --- we find out that, on top of all the other issues cited above, that the lofty and grand future economic edifice being negotiated, is firmly rooted, at least in some small part, on the computer modeling work of some self-effacing code writer who readily concedes that, owing to his personal limitations, he has employed a "work-around" or two . . . thereby actually introducing a "fudge factor" right into the scientific mix!

His words!

What the . . . !! Go on. Take a look for yourself. Click on the arrow in the clip below.

Is Science Itself At Risk?

UPDATE, below: In the embedded Wall Street Journal sponsored "Journal Editorial Report" below, Paul Gigot talks about the overall context of this weeks Copenhagen climate conference, and the various implications thereof, in light of the unfolding scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Arising out of the recent massive release of e-mails, and other evidence, much of the documentation suggested subversion of the peer review process, detailing of deliberate efforts to refuse to comply with FOI requests, recommendations to "lose" data, and even actual data manipulation in the modeling process itself.

Gigot queries the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger, Kimberly Strassel, and Bret Stephens about their takes on meaning of the various aspects of the scandal.

Henninger begins by saying that in light of indications of public opinion shifting to a view that suggests scientists in general are manipulating data, the "rest of science" -- those outside the climate science community -- should speak out publicly and "defend the people who are trying to get more transparency into the [climate science] process."

Strassel makes the singularly important point that, from her perspective, it is not just the exposure of pettiness (as was indeed revealed in the e-mails) or even the implications of politicization therein that matters most. She says that the most disturbing evidence is what strongly suggests actual data manipulation being written right into the code of the computer models themselves. She notes that in conversations with statisticians and others, they "say it is an absolute mess, full of lots of fudges and little sleighs-of-hand, all designed to plump up the case for rising temperatures."

Stephens reiterates that these revelations show what amounts to "sausage factory methods" being used by some of these scientists, picking and choosing some data, while ignoring other data, in order to arrive at conclusions that, after all, attempt to show what are really relatively tiny differences in the temperature record over the decades. In other words, it hasn't taken much in the way of manipulation to create these supposed shifts.

Here is the Wall Street Journal clip:




***********

Andrew Bolt has posted an additional point of interest today, one coming from the "guru" himself, Al Gore, who, when questioned about the impact of the e-mail release, in an interview by John Dickerson posted on Slate, attempted to dismiss the entire controversy by suggesting that it is much ado over nothing but ten year old e-mails!

Really Al?

Here is a link to a searchable version of the entire set of the exposed CRU and East Anglia e-mails. As anyone can see, the considerable number of e-mails range over a more than ten-year period -- 1996 thru 2009 -- with many of the latest and most significant e-mails being a mere one or two months old -- ones from October and November of 2009!

Below is just one recent example, the full exchange of which is laid out here. It is the Phil Jones e-mail response to fellow scientist, Keith Briffa, reacting to a recent re-request for tree ring data supporting a Briffa study. The very specific data request had come from Dr. Don Keiller, who refers to a post of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit (CA) (new site) in his request.

The blatant recommendation by Phil Jones to stonewall Dr. Keiller, and refuse to appropriately respond to his request is quite manifest:

From: Phil Jones
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009

Keith,

There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil

Al Gore simply loses all credibility when making comments like the one he made above -- alleging that the controversy is all just about ten-year old e-mails! The released e-mail record throughout the years is replete with ones as damaging as this less than two month old one written by Phil Jones.

In his piece, Andrew Bolt pointedly noted that Gore falsely claimed three times during the interview that the controversy was only about ten year old e-mails. So, you also really have to wonder what it says about John Dickerson of Slate, who let Gore get away with those complete misrepresentations without calling him on it at any point! Maybe he never read the e-mails either?


***********

In other news, it looks like Laura Nichols, a student reporter for the school newspaper at Penn State University, the Daily Collegian Online, has broken details of the story about how Penn State has indeed also launched an investigation into Michael Mann's role in the explosive "ClimateGate" scandal, ht, Climate Audit, here. The University of East Anglia had previously announced an internal investigation regarding the scandal that has hit its Climate Research Unit (CRU) as a result of the e-mail dump.

**********
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey, at HotAir, posts about the effects that the

"homogenization" process at the NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network had on the temperature readings.

The possible implications are simply stunning, and yet consistent with concerns raised in the e-mails . . . the process literally "falsified climate declines into increases" as Ed noted in his headline. You should read the whole thing.

West Point Is "The Enemy Camp?"

UPDATE, below: MSNBS political opinionator, Chris Matthews, commenting just after the Obama speech regarding Afghanistan, which the President delivered December 1, 2009, at the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York.

Honestly, is there a bigger fool in public life today than this furrowing-feeler? He calls West Point the "enemy camp!"



This one, of course, was only the latest in that ample tapestry of gaffes that Matthews has woven over the years.

*****************

UPDATE: Apparently Chris Matthews took a lot of heat today for calling the United States Military Academy at West Point the "enemy camp" during his analytical reaction to the Presidents's speech on Afghanistan last night. And he took that he, not just from cadets, or former cadets (which, as you will see, are the only "critics" he acknowledges in the video below) but from a whole raft of Americans, including, you would have to believe, from his bosses at MSNBC.

Certainly, the phones there must have rung off the hook on this one!

So, Chris did an about face and issued the following on-air apology, attempting thereby, as you will hear, to set himself above the strawman politicians who he says would have tried to talk their way around it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Nope. I don't buy it.

I have never believed Chris Matthews was any more than a vile and disingenuous political hack, even back in the days when he first showed up on television and pretended to take a more broadly bipartisan approach to his commentary. To me, he is the most thoroughly dishonest and reprehensible commentator on the air today. And that specifically includes his air-time buddy at MSNBC, Keith Olberman, who at least doesn't try to hide his utter personal contempt for traditional American values, or for that matter, for virtually anything that this country has stood for over the years.

Climate Change Scandal
The Science and Public Policy Institute

Here is a new website, internet home of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which, as per its statement of purpose, is:

a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.

The new site is also a good source for both background and breaking information regarding the emerging scandal suggesting global warming and climate change data manipulation at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

The site hosts and experts include, among several other notable experts, President, Robert Ferguson, Chief Science advisor, Willie Soon PhD, and Chief Policy Advisor, Lord Monckton of the UK.

Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brechley, and Prof. Fred Singer, were among a number of distinguished individuals who were personally named and attacked in a series of e-mail exchanges and other data, including e-mails dating from back in early March of 1996, and running up through November 12, 2009, all of which were contained in the recent dump on the internet of exposed communications e-mails to and from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Monckton and Singer have now both formally requested that consideration be given by the UK Information Commissioner to criminal charges being filed against various individuals within that small cabal of scientists at the CRU, and others involved in possible violations of Britain's Freedom Of Information Laws. The UK Information Commissioner has enforcement jurisdiction over their FOI laws.

In an interview with James Corbett of Corbett Report.com, Lord Monckton discusses that request, as well as his views regarding the impact of the exposure of the data and e-mails from the CRU at East Anglia, here:

Meanwhile, a real bombshell article authored by Jonathan Leake, and just published in the (London) Sunday "TimesOnLine," entitled "Climate change data dumped," has proved to be the latest damning information released regarding the goings on within the CRU, especially since it came right on the heels of Robert Mendick’s story — "Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row" — that appeared the night before in the Telegraph, saying that climate scientists at East Anglia University would be fully complying with FOI requests that had been pressed by many over a period of years.

According to the lead of the Times story:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

And yet from that Telegraph article:

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

A human interest element in the Telegraph story highlighted the experience of one man, an English mechanical engineer named David Holland, who, claiming 40 years of experience, had apparently filed a few FOI requests regarding the climate change data over time. Holland apparently also discovered his name and requests mentioned in an unflattering context among those recently "released" internal e-mails of the CRU.

What clearly seemed like an odd juxtaposition of those two nearly simultaneous stories, of course, was that they created a sort of contradictory scenario with respect to the credibility of the CRU, almost as if to say, "Okay. We agree to release all the data . . . And, by the way, there isn’t any!"

Barack Obama's Teachable Moment
First, both sentence and verdict -- then the show trial!

11/18/2009 -- On NRO Andrew McCarthy notes the utterly amateurish comments of President Barack Obama during a Q&A with press journalists, while traveling in China. The statements seemed all the more surprising given the fact that the President was once a Professor of Constitutional Law, and would presumably be fully aware of the implications of such comments.

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention. I'm sure it wasn't — he's trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won't matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

Yet, Attorney General Eric Holder has now amplified the controversy by flatly stating that the failure to secure a conviction is simply not an option.

Andrew McCarthy illustrates well the unnecessary risks to the judicial system itself, and even to future defendants, arising out of the decision to try these war criminals in civilian court trials in New York City. Other critics coming from a defense perspective, such as Shannon Love, have raised alarms regarding the potential negative consequences on a judicial system that was never designed to deal with such problems.

Speaking of such risks, one wonders from where exactly will the court seek this ostensibly neutral jury pool, in and around New York City?

Practical Problems - Jury Pool:
I can immediately think of four major practical problems related to the potential jury pool that could easily come to plague prosecutors, and will, by the very nature of things, mock any notion of "fairness" in a jury trial process, which four items are listed below:

1) Given the nature and depth of Islamo-facist enmity toward all Western institutions, including all faiths other than their own, toward all our democratic institutions, including our judicial system, and finally toward most Americans; and given their willingness to act on that hatred -- who in their right mind would willingly consent to serve on such a jury?

2) Given the nature and depth of the infection of American society and it's institutions with a level of "political correctness," one which has demonstrably caused, as also pointedly noted by Andy McCarthy on NRO, occasional and unacceptable levels of denial of the obvious -- most recently manifested among the ranks of our first line of defense in the military at Fort Hood -- what assurance do we have that holding this unnecessary show trial will not trigger an Islamist terrorist reaction, one perhaps launched in some other venue, that will be tragic and unnecessarily result in death and destruction?

We know, for example, that the thorough and able prosecution of the plotters in the first WTC bombing by the team of prosecutors which Mr. McCarthy led, did not stop al-Qaeda from designing and carrying out a far more deadly attack. Who is to this day willing to say confidently that that first trial was not a significant or even a major contributing factor motivating the latter terrorists?

The trials arising out of those first attacks were certainly were not a deterrent!

3) How will the court find a jury of their "peers" other than by, for example, packing that pool with self-professed Muslims? Or, will they proceed by identifying an agglomeration of half-wits; people who have either never heard of these war criminals, or who have somehow never formed an opinion of them that would prejudice their ability to fairly judge the evidence adduced at trial? And, as a corollary, how do they keep out a flier -- some nutcase seeking historical infamy, who decides to "hang" the jury?

4) Given the huge historical stakes involved, including the heavy prior involvement of the Attorney General and other now-top officials in the Obama Justice Department in laying much of the defense groundwork pre-2008, and since the election in designing "the protocols" through which Mr. Holder claims this hitherto unprecedented decision was made -- to proceed with civilian trials in New York of these war criminals -- what basis do we have for believing that adequate consideration was given to ensure the safety and security of potential jurors, or others, both now (through the trial), and into the future?

Civil "Show" Trials As An Unnecessary Risk:
The singular factor underscoring all of the above, is that these trials are unnecessary from a constitutional perspective, and a calculated risk. And has been pointed out by, among others, Andy McCarthy, and James Joyner, there is little or justification for them, other than as "show trials."

Even Obama himself was at one point looking favorably on the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by military commission. Gee, what happened?

And the Defendant himself was willing to plead guilty to a military commission!

That fact came up as a point of contention when Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) confronted Attorney General Holder over it at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic of the civilian trials.

Tempers flared when Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., challenged Holder to say how a civilian trial could be better, since Mohammed has sought to plead guilty to a military commission.

"How could he be more likely to get a conviction than that?" pressed Kyl, to applause from some in the hearing room.

The point is that all of these were acts were acts of war, and that military commissions are a thoroughly constitutional process, one backed by historical precedent, as the President himself emphatically stated in a speech back in May.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

It is also a process by which we could have avoided the obvious, unnecessary and unacceptable risks that Barack Obama seems insistent on visiting on the American people with regard to several terrorists whose acts unquestionably constituted acts of war.

But apparently for Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the show must go on!

Please Support the 11/11 Program For Veterans

The goal of this worthy program is very simple . . . it is to encourage 11 million Americans to pledge $11.00 apiece for support programs for veterans.

Americans can simply text the word "VETS" to 85944 to automatically donate $10 to America’s veterans – and, your $10 donation will be matched with $1 from Beyond Tribute.

Or, you can simply click and go here to make your simple pledge.

Your contribution will be distributed directly to Beyond Tribute’s coalition partners. They, in turn, will provide direct services and advocacy for our country's veterans.

It is that simple. And veterans everywhere will appreciate your generosity.

Thank you!

A Veteran's Tale

11/11/09 -- Today is Veteran's Day. There is one story I always think of on this day. Not to be misunderstood, I think of other stories as well. But this one . . . always.

It is a story about a veteran who I knew many, many years ago, by the name of Dennis Johnson, a medic who hailed from, as he liked to put it, "Ala-by God-bama." And then he's smile.

Without a doubt, Dennis was the bravest person I ever met.

"D" or "Doc," as he was sometimes called -- a lot of medics get that nickname -- served in Viet Nam with the 62d Engineer Battalion, Land Clearing (LC) during much of 1970, and into '71. The 62d had three companies that utilized mostly D-7 bulldozers, with large "stinger" Rome Plow blades, and with semi-protective cages. They were used to clear back growth from the roadsides in order to reduce ambushes, and to cut swaths in the jungle to break up the V.C. or N.V.A supply routes.

Dennis Johnson was a fun loving guy, probably 19 or maybe 20 years old, always with that quick smile and a deep drawl. But when things got hot, Dennis was the guy you wanted nearby, along with his (medical) aide bag.

In mid-June of 1970, Dennis was one of three medics attached to the 984th Company, (LC), which was at the time camped out in a night defensive position (NDP) deep in the Fish Hook region of Cambodia, north of Thien Ngon, all part of the overall attempt to locate and rout COSVN HQ. The Company had located on a slight hill, in the midst of what had obviously been an N.V.A. encampment, as it was laced throughout with an underground tunnel system.

On the evening of the 19th, a Friday, the 984th was attacked with ash can rounds (modified 107 mm mortars), 82 mm mortars, and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) fire. The day before the 984th had dug up a whole bunker complex while out in the cut, exposing and capturing a whole raft of supplies, including medical supplies, N.V.A. supplies, including obviously officer-related materials (NVA flags, pictures of Ho Chi Minh), that indicated our troops were perhaps close to the sought-after COSVN Headquarters complex. Both the 984th and the security element had been sporadically attacked out in the cut during the day. The N.V.A. were obviously not happy at all with our troops' presence.

When they attacked the 984th on the evening of the 19th, Dennis Johnson did what he always did. He'd immediately grab his aide bag, and head right in the direction of the attack, looking for wounded troops. He acted so quickly that night that it may have saved his own life. I was later told that within seconds, a second mortar landed right next to the tent he had been in, injuring both of the other medics who were located in that tent. So Dennis had to patch up and participate in the dust off those two, along with about twenty other injured troops, during the ensuing attack. Three of the 984th Engineer Plow Operators were killed in that intense attack.

For his actions that night, Dennis was awarded a Bronze Star. But everyone I ever talked to about it, including several men who were right there that evening, felt that Dennis had fully earned a Silver Star for his singular gallantry and intrepidity under such intense hostile fire. Acting virtually alone on the ground, Dennis saved the lives of many, many men that night. The story that circulated thereafter -- of why he was only put in for a Bronze Star -- was that the officer who made the recommendation simply refused to put "D" in for an award higher than he himself was being put in to receive. I hate to say it, but having known that officer, I tended to believe it. The officer was later relieved of command over the 984th.

I don't know where Dennis Johnson is today. I wish I did. A few veteran friends and I have tried a few times to reach him, once back in the late 1980s when a few of us gathered in Washington to visit the Wall. But, I have kept in touch with one of the other two medics who Dennis patched up that night, a young kid from San Francisco, who at the time was about 18 and had dropped out of high school before being "persuaded" to go in the service. But by the time Mike eventually returned to the United States, he had earned a G.E.D., and then secured himself a college degree. Mike then went on to medical school, and has spent the past thirty some years as a medical doctor, and raising a wonderful family.

Imagine tracking back now, not just to Mike, but to all those whose lives were, and to this day are by extension being touched for the better because "D" Johnson stopped the bleeding, or started an IV, or secured or stabilized a broken limb . . . and not just that night, but the many times, and with uncommon courage, he stepped up and did his job under enemy fire.

Imagine. His story is truly one of the reasons we so honor our veterans.