More on Scientists Pursuing a Political Agenda on Climate
One of the fear mongering predictions in a Nobel Prize-winning 2007 UN report was a claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035; it had been lifted from a 2005 WWF article (largely based on a couple of 1999 interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain), which had not been reviewed by scientists (and contained a significant arithmetic mistake). Canadian Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert, recently challenged the assertion, which he believed misstated observed glacier melt rates by a factor of 25.
The IPCC (intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) states, among its key principles: "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy". What did Dr. Murari Lal say, about inclusion of the disputed claim in the report (NOTE: the Himalayan claim has now been withdrawn):
Obama: Will He Embrace a Mid-Course Correction?
After the 1994 election swept Republicans into power, President Clinton announced the era of Big Government was over and by 1996 signed a welfare reform measure he had previously opposed. Listening to Democratic and other pundits this past weekend, I heard what appears to be a plurality consensus that the Republicans may do very well this fall but that Obama would play off GOP missteps in asserting a stronger hand (e.g., the Gingrich-Clinton game of chicken on the budget) to put him into the driver's seat for an easy reelection. I disagree.
I do agree there is one thing we can expect: Obama will attempt to co-opt or pay lip service to the Republican talking points on the deficit and the economy, and certain bipartisan proposals with little chance of adoption. (Remember earmarks on the omnibus budget deal? Olympia Snowe's trigger plan on a public option? Or recently announced support for a bipartisan committee to tackle the deficit, allowing a single up-or-down vote (adopting a process similar to domestic military base closures).) However, the re-emergence of political advisor David Plouffe seems to signal a philosophy that the best defense is a good offense; he seems to believe that Obama can discredit the Republican message on deficits and limited government by pointing out their prior record in power. I've also seen an uptick in Obama's playing the populist card, just like he was a johnny-come-lately on the AIG bonus issue; he is using the bully pulpit to bash banks and other "special interests", even as banks are already restructuring compensation packages by increasing stock (which must be held for a period of time) and raising salary in lieu of lump-sum year-end bonuses. It doesn't look like they are backing off their progressive agenda; in fact, many of them seem convinced that the Dems will pay a stiff price for not passing something on health care.
I do think that the biggest issue for Republicans is combat the Democrats' attempt to define them as obstructionist, without a constructive agenda. They need to emphasize they are willing to negotiate in good faith without preconditions and acknowledge lessons learned from 1995 to 2006.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel shows Obama, dreaming of passing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, getting a rude awakening from the voters in reliable blue state Massachusetts.
One of the fear mongering predictions in a Nobel Prize-winning 2007 UN report was a claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035; it had been lifted from a 2005 WWF article (largely based on a couple of 1999 interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain), which had not been reviewed by scientists (and contained a significant arithmetic mistake). Canadian Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert, recently challenged the assertion, which he believed misstated observed glacier melt rates by a factor of 25.
The IPCC (intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) states, among its key principles: "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy". What did Dr. Murari Lal say, about inclusion of the disputed claim in the report (NOTE: the Himalayan claim has now been withdrawn):
[Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia] last night admitted [the bogus Himilayan glacier claim] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders [and] did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The [British Daily] Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action...It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’The fact that the IPCC explicitly violated its own principles of policy neutrality and failed to vet a clearly sensational and dubious prediction needs no further comment. Scientists need to make a better, more responsive effort policing fellow professionals and debunking unfounded scientific claims; recusals or disclosures of public policy positions must be made as a matter of professional ethics. Letting public policy be made on the basis of fraudulent claims undermines the credibility of both public policy and science; as we say in information technology, GIGO--garbage-in, garbage-out.
Obama: Will He Embrace a Mid-Course Correction?
After the 1994 election swept Republicans into power, President Clinton announced the era of Big Government was over and by 1996 signed a welfare reform measure he had previously opposed. Listening to Democratic and other pundits this past weekend, I heard what appears to be a plurality consensus that the Republicans may do very well this fall but that Obama would play off GOP missteps in asserting a stronger hand (e.g., the Gingrich-Clinton game of chicken on the budget) to put him into the driver's seat for an easy reelection. I disagree.
I do agree there is one thing we can expect: Obama will attempt to co-opt or pay lip service to the Republican talking points on the deficit and the economy, and certain bipartisan proposals with little chance of adoption. (Remember earmarks on the omnibus budget deal? Olympia Snowe's trigger plan on a public option? Or recently announced support for a bipartisan committee to tackle the deficit, allowing a single up-or-down vote (adopting a process similar to domestic military base closures).) However, the re-emergence of political advisor David Plouffe seems to signal a philosophy that the best defense is a good offense; he seems to believe that Obama can discredit the Republican message on deficits and limited government by pointing out their prior record in power. I've also seen an uptick in Obama's playing the populist card, just like he was a johnny-come-lately on the AIG bonus issue; he is using the bully pulpit to bash banks and other "special interests", even as banks are already restructuring compensation packages by increasing stock (which must be held for a period of time) and raising salary in lieu of lump-sum year-end bonuses. It doesn't look like they are backing off their progressive agenda; in fact, many of them seem convinced that the Dems will pay a stiff price for not passing something on health care.
I do think that the biggest issue for Republicans is combat the Democrats' attempt to define them as obstructionist, without a constructive agenda. They need to emphasize they are willing to negotiate in good faith without preconditions and acknowledge lessons learned from 1995 to 2006.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel shows Obama, dreaming of passing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, getting a rude awakening from the voters in reliable blue state Massachusetts.
Musical Interlude: Best Lennon/McCartney Song
Originally Performed by OthersPeter & Gordon, "World Without Love"
On April 4, 1964, the Beatles had the top 5 singles; by the next week, they had an additional 9 songs on the Hot 100 and held the top 2 album positions as well, an unprecedented feat and one likely that will never be broken; they had at least one #1 hit each year through their final album, including their last 3 released singles in 1970.
It is in this context that McCartney decided that one of his tunes, "World Without Love", wasn't good enough for the Beatles and gave it (along with other singles) to Peter & Gordon (McCartney at the time was dating Peter Asher's sister Jane); the song hit #1.
