Back To Afghanistan

Charles Krauthammer bashes Obama's call to arms, or to reflection, or whatever it was:

Obama's surge speech wasn't that of a commander in chief but of a politician, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right -- you get the troops; placate the left -- we are on our way out.

I'm sure the speech sounded better in the original French.

David Brooks explains that thoughtful isn't bad:

Barring a scientific breakthrough, we can’t merge Obama’s analysis with George Bush’s passion. But we should still be glad that he is governing the way he is. I loved covering the Obama campaign. But amid problems like Afghanistan and health care, it simply wouldn’t do to give gauzy speeches about the meaning of the word hope. It is in Obama’s nature to lead a government by symposium. Embrace the complexity. Learn to live with the dispassion.

So that government of the technocrats, by the technocrats, and for the technocrats shall not perish from this earth.  I'd want Obama next to me at a seminar, but I'd rather share a foxhole with George Bush.

Gallup finds us to be a 50/50 nation on Afghanistan:

48% say the U.S. is certain or likely to achieve its goals in the war, while 45% say the U.S. is unlikely to do so or is certain not to achieve its aims.

However!

Among Americans overall, 51% approve of the strategy while 40% disapprove.

Hillary is in Europe explaining to our NATO allies that Obama's July 2011 deadline was only intended as a reassuring signal of weakness and irresolution to the American Left; the rest of the world should disregard it:

Mrs. Clinton acknowledged on Thursday that some countries were confused by Mr. Obama’s timetable for withdrawal. But she said that, over all, “the response has been positive,” and she would work to clear up doubts over American intentions.

“I think there have been sort of misunderstandings about what that date meant,” Mrs. Clinton said Thursday to reporters during her flight to Brussels. “Now, that doesn’t mean we’re going to get to 2011 and jump off a cliff; it means that we’re going to be as careful and deliberative as necessary.”

No cliff jumping?  No kidding.  I guess the Gallup polling confirms that you really can fool some of the people some of the time:

When asked earlier about just sending troops, Democrats were much less likely than Republicans to be in favor. Now, in response to the new question asking specifically about Obama's multipart strategy, including references to increasing troops and to the timetable, Democrats and Republicans show similar levels of support.

BASED ON WHAT?   This from the Brooks column struck me as a faith-based proclamation:

The advantage of the Obama governing style is that his argument-based organization is a learning organization. Amid the torrent of memos and evidence and dispute, the Obama administration is able to adjust and respond more quickly than, say, the Bush administration ever did.

An example of Obama's brilliance and flexibility would really illuminate this point, but Brooks does not provide one.  On the specific topic of Afghanistan, Obama announced his "don't call it nation-building" counterinsurgency in March, appointed McChrystal in June to implement it, then dithered from September to December before mostly acceding to McChrystal's request for more troops to implement the agreed strategy.

As George Packer wrote in the New Yorker last September:

...the alternatives were already rejected by Obama’s strategy review [in March], and since then no one has made a persuasive case why they would work any better.

Brooks thinks Obama was learning.  I think he was kicking the decision past the November elections and hoping to kick it past the resolution of the health care debate.  I hope Brooks is right.

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

"A sufficient body of law recognizing the unborn as children will be the tipping point for a full fledged challenge in the Supreme Court."

"Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels, is a required course in law school." — Robert A Heinlein.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Rick-

Here's the new Friday night special, with insider trading allegations towards the SEC to boot. ZH is on it, LUN.

[boris]

another grudge to his list of things I've already forgotten?

Nah, just the one that starts out: "Boris, as I recall ... "

Followed by a lie.

[JM Hanes]

He who laughs last, Charlie.

[sbw]

The problem is not Roe v. Wade or the Supreme Court. The premise that life in the first trimester is sacred sidesteps that one cannot 'faith' others to accept the point who do not so believe.

Even if one could force the point that life is sacred from the moment of conception, the problem is not the sacredness, but treating life with reverence. Forcing an unwanted child on natural parents shows no reverence for that child's quality of life. And while one can force financial responsibility for one's deeds, one cannot force love.

Those who would force carrying pregnancy through to birth would better show the strength of their conviction of the sanctity of life with demonstrated willingness to adopt unwanted children.

[boris]

The sbw argument works all the way up to partial birth. So if partial birth is wrong then there is something wrong with the argument.

Most see the self interest in making life after birth sacred. That some can't see the self interest in "sacred from conception" just means they're shortsighted.

Now I happen to be in the Sagan camp ... brain activity as a threshold ... but I do see the self interest in "sacred from conception" and don't consider that POV an imposition. Of course, easy for me to say.

[clarice]

I think that's right sbw.And even if others would step up to adopt, one cannot force the parents to terminate custody--often they show the same lack of love when it comes to that.

[anduril]

Thanks, jimmyk. I'll try to remember that for future reference. Now that I think back, I think I've heard Medved explain it that way.

[jimmyk]

I really object to this idea that if you oppose abortion you have an obligation to adopt unwanted children. It would follow that if I oppose euthanasia I have to take care of other people's elderly parents. Or that if I oppose bailing out GM I have to agree to support all the laid off auto workers. (And, incidentally, I don't favor an outright ban on abortion, though I think it should be severely restricted.)

No doubt more restrictive abortion laws will result in some unwanted children. I'd rather see kids in orphanages (yes, funded by my tax dollars) than aborted. It might also result in a bunch more children who turn out to be loved.

[bgates]

Forcing an unwanted child on natural parents shows no reverence for that child's quality of life.

It shows reverence for that child's life, period.

Does allowing a child to be born to an addict, a woman with 5 children by 4 men, or any number of other not-uncommon horror stories show "reverence for that child's quality of life"? Perhaps we could convene a panel to decide such matters, and if it decides the quality of life will not meet government standards....

Those who would force carrying pregnancy through to birth would better show the strength of their conviction of the sanctity of life with demonstrated willingness to adopt unwanted children.

Otherwise, shut up, chickenhawkpro-lifers!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

He who laughs last,

Gets lots of weird looks on the train home.

[Jim Ryan]

Boris's reductio ad absurdum goes beyond partial birth abortion. It holds for any toddler who can't be adopted. If you get to kill your fetus when no one else will adopt him, then you get to kill your infant when no one else will adopt him.

The event of birth is morally irrelevant. The dependence of the child on the mother is morally irrelevant. If you're up in the mountains snowed in for the winter with your toddler, you can't hand him off and he's dependent on you. But you don't get to kill him.

Toddlers, infants and fetuses are all dependent on the mother, except in cases where she can pass the child to someone else. Toddlers and infants sometimes cannot be passed off to someone else but this doesn't permit her to kill them. Someday there may be a new surgical technique of transferring your fetus to a more willing mother. But the existence of this new technique and a willing mother wouldn't change the moral status of aborting the fetus from permissible to impermissible. If it were permissible to abort the fetus beforehand, it wouldn't become impermissible to abort it just because of the invention of fetal adoption. So, the abortion of the fetus isn't made permissible by the mother's lacking an option to pass him off to someone else.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Followed by a lie.

Boris, that's another one of those words you're using without really knowing what it means.

In the mean time, if I recalled incorrectly, a grownup would have corrected me at the time.

See if you can find one and ask them.

[clarice]

At the moment, the life of an unwanted child who is not oput up for adoption/or adopted can be so grim it breaks your heart to read of it. Social agencies do not remove these children from bad homes when they ought to and many will live ives of constant deprivation if not torture until they die. If they survive they will be often so emotionally and intellectually cripped they will spend their adult lives in one form of public institution of another--or on the streets.

[PD]

and a massive fraud in Denmark's CO2 quota register, the largest of such exchanges in the world. Denmark! How sweet is that?

Something rotten in Denmark?

[Dave (in MA)]

Evidence in Blagojevich case burglarized from attorney's offices

StØlen fØr any partiluar reasØn, I wØnder?

[JM Hanes]

LØL, Dave

[Terry Gain]

I apologize if I'm repeating someone else's idea but I don't have time to read the thread.

I hope the Taliban are not any smarter than Obama. If they are they'll sit out the next 18 months and only again try to take over Afghanistan after Obama has brought the troops home in apparent triumph.

[Terry Gain]

I apologize if I'm repeating someone else's idea but I don't have time to read the thread.

I hope the Taliban are not any smarter than Obama. If they are they'll sit out the next 18 months and only again try to take over Afghanistan after Obama has brought the troops home in apparent triumph.

[JM Hanes]

sbw:

"Those who would force carrying pregnancy through to birth would better show the strength of their conviction of the sanctity of life with demonstrated willingness to adopt unwanted children."

That strikes me as an unwarranted insinuation of hypocrisy in those who hold pro-life positions. I believe many pro-life groups pro-actively counsel young women about adoption and assistance for single mothers carrying to term, but that has little to do with the fundamental question of abortion itself. I also think framing such decisions in terms quality-of-life issues, may be one of the most dangerous slippery slopes of all!

I happen to be pro-choice, within limits, myself, but I wish people on both sides of this profoundly significant question would refrain from imputing bad faith and hypocrisy to the other. Accusations of moral depravity sadden me, but I also think it's disingenuous to characterize the dispute as a difference of opinions which ought to be susceptible to compromise. I see little possibility of any ideological resolution, and think the pendulum will always be in motion. As a legal matter, I just hope it doesn't swing too far, because I see major slippery slopes in both extremes.

[JM Hanes]

I believe you're only repeating your own idea, Terry. :-)

[Porchlight]

Thanks, JMH, for the information and for your posts on this difficult subject.

[glasater]

A woman I know who is married to an OB/GYN maintains that a woman should have to have a license to have a child.

[daddy]

Turned on the Tube tonight in the Hotel and saw Al Gore being interviewed by David Letterman. Man...that was ugly. Thankfully I had the sound off.

[glasater]

Chaco:

Here's a tweet perhaps you might find interesting:

Blogger familiar w IDL prog. language says he's found smoking gun in #climategate code: http://j.mp/cruCode Can anyone confirm/refute? #tech

[BR]

Blago's tapes stolen.

Posted by: peter | December 04, 2009 at 05:27 PM

*****

That's funny, Peter. Chicago-style low-tech hacking -
steal the whole computer!

[Captain Hate]

In the mean time, if I recalled incorrectly, a grownup would have corrected me at the time.

See if you can find one and ask them.

ChaCo, you'd be showing wisdom to drop this juvenile spat you're chosing to continue with boris. You acted like an asshole to him at the time which you do to just about everybody from time to time with maybe two exceptions; the difference being that most of us just ignore you.

[pagar]

Melinda, Another amazing fraud story at 10:57PM. Thanks

In fact there seems so much fraud being covered that no one has time to read the stories.

At Big Government one fraud story explains why you never want Democrat lawmakers involved with healthcare.

Link

Several more stories there about how the Obama Administration is helping unions defeat America. Another is How qualified Republicans are being blocked from government jobs.
One has to scroll down into the story section at the site to get everything. The hilites at the top of the site don't list every story.

But the worse is at Gateway Pundit where they explain how the Obama Administration is pushing "child porn" in American schools 24/7.

LUN
I urge everyone to spend some time reading about how the Obama Administration promotes fraud in every thing they touch. We need to spread these stories far and wide. We know the MSM has no intention of doing that.

[pagar]

Iceland tossed under the bus to save EU
(not the actual title, in case the title police are up and about)

LUN

The story explains why one government for all never works--because the ALLs are always going to be able to defeat You.

[Old Lurker]

WaPo begins a slow crawl back from the end of the limb? Story about ClimateGate on A1 above the fold.

LUN

[BR]

Wow, wow, wow to the above 3 posts.

(Pagar, I left overnight msgs for you and Clarice here.)

[Melinda Romanoff]

pagar-

Glad to linkie, like this LUN. Someone mentioned an ultra-short CO2 fund, too late, the market's already crashed.

Pretty chart.

[boris]

"if I recalled incorrectly ..."

I did correct the false assertion in the comment following yours ...

Boris, as I recall you suggested ...

But that was not an idle comment with an inaccurate recollection. False witness is always a serious lie and there is no excuse for it.

Charlie did not actually recall what I suggested. He stepped in to dispute the truth of my comment and repeated DrJ's accusation as fact to vindicate DrJ's uncivil response.

[boris]

No officer it wasn't me who broke the car window and stole the professor's 8 track ...

chucky: Don't believe him officer, I saw him do it!

Even if chucky believes the professor's accusation, his false witness is still a lie.

[pagar]

From the LUN by OL @8:28.

"Mainstream climate scientists say they have kept an open mind but have rejected papers that lack proper evidence."

Compare that statement to:

"Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to “hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.”
After claiming that the original climate data had been destroyed in the 1980s, Jones was caught urging his CRU colleagues to “delete as appropriate” data requested under Britain’s freedom of information laws."
LUN

IMO, any one promoting global warming today deserves what another scientist has suggested:

"The recent e-mail leak led another scientist to quip: “Dr. Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates.”"

[Old Lurker]

Pagar, WaPo also made the laughable statement that some views lacked sufficient support from publications and therefore were discounted by the AGW crowd. Is that not circular reasoning?

[BR]

WaPo's 12/5/09 article "In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate" by David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin really needs fisking!

Was it Clarice who mentioned complaining to them about Eilperin's conflict of interest? Now they've added a co-writer.

The first line: "It began with an anonymous Internet posting, and a link to a wonky set of e-mails and files. Stolen, apparently, from a research center in Britain..." made me yawn! Old news, old news. For crying out loud, it's been 16 days already!

One sentence paragraph - oh, this must be really important. It stands all on its own:

"The e-mails don't say that: They don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle."

WHAT!?! You mean, you two haven't read the emails yet? Or the experts' analyses of the code docs? What!!!

That's as far as I got, just had to blow off some steam, so I could keep reading :)

[clarice]

Some excellent points as usual, jmh. I do think that perhaps it would be better to suggest that people who morally objevct to abortion even at the earliest stages should (and they often do) what they can to ease adoption and support the families of those involved.

[pagar]

OL, I believe that would fit under the definition of circular reasoning. IMO, it also fits under the definition of fraud, since trillions of dollars are being misused as a result of the actions of the AGW crowd.

BR, I find I posted some answers to your questions, but if I missed some, please repost and I'll try to get them answered.
Your questions/posts are always good.

Melinda, That's another good link. It looks like the market has already fallen. Given what little I know of shorting a market, I believe it is difficult to short things that are at ZERO. Thanks.

[jimmyk]

the life of an unwanted child who is not oput up for adoption/or adopted can be so grim it breaks your heart to read of it.

A problem that legal abortion has obviously not solved. Would it be worse if abortion were restricted? It's not obvious to me. Even the famous Levitt abortion-crime reduction link has been disputed (LUN), and is in any case very indirect. Regardless, I don't think the end justifies the means.

I agree that parental neglect, abuse, and incompetence is a serious problem. Given that abortion is legal, many if not most instances of these problems involve children that were wanted. I'm sure there are better solutions to this problem than abortion.

[qrstuv]

Interesting WaPo article -- still manages to convey that there's no real controversy and that only "a few" see a problem.

Doesn't manage to mention "hide the decline."

I just calculated the TWI (Tiger Woods Index) for "hide the decline":

Hits on Google News for "hide the decline": 1274

Hits on the web for the same phrase: 4,580,000

TWI = 4580000/1274 = about 3600

It seems the press isn't nearly as willing to discuss this as the general public!

[BR]

Still reading the WaPoop article...

Thanks, Pagar. Did you see mine to you at the end of that thread, linked above?

[qrstuv]

PS: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-tiger-woods-index.html

[Jane]

"Those who would force carrying pregnancy through to birth would better show the strength of their conviction of the sanctity of life with demonstrated willingness to adopt unwanted children."

I don't think there is any problem with demand for adoption. The lines are long and lengthy.

[Janet]

The tenor of the WaPo article seems to be that the skeptics still haven't proven AGW is a hoax.
Do we have to disprove their theory?, or do they have to prove their theory?

[anduril]

Here's a good article at AT this morning: Social Democrats versus a GOP in search of an ideology.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/social_democrats_versus_a_gop_1.html

[BR]

WaPoop's article:

"But recent debate -- some scientists say the Earth hasn't warmed as predicted over the past 10 years -- show that climate science is still science..."

Recent debate! Ha! Recent exposure of frauds is what's saving real science.

"...with researchers drawing different lessons from the same data."

Uh uh uuuuuh. Not the same data, you idiots at Wapo. Don't you get it? The AGW cultists were withholding the data, altering the data, even destroying the raw data.

*****

(Excuse me, JOMers, but those sellouts at WaPo need some feedback. Their stupidity and willful ignorance has become part of the story. They actually were hiding important facts during Watergate, too, but that's another story :)

[anduril]

jimmyk, excellent points.

Captain Hate, in fairness to Charlie he's by no means the only malignant personality on this forum, although undoubtedly one of the more obvious examples.

IMO, this forum is harmed by a consistent effort by some to shut down open and informed discussion on matters that all conservatives should be debating in these times. With all the serious issues that are out there, yet we saw the spectacle of the Politico thread over the last few days.

[Jane]

The lines are long and lengthy.

I wonder if I thought there was a difference in those words when I posted that. Hmmm

[boris]

"by no means the only malignant personality ..."

Oh fer cryin out loud ...

Charlie nitpicks, that's Charlie. I didn't just let this one go because it was so flagrant.

[Rocco]

I hate the word chickenhawk. In the prison system, a chickenhawk is an older male who preys on younger inmates for sexual gratification, in other words a sexual predator.

So...in the spirit of fairness, I propose that the left be perpetually known as chicken little's.

[Ignatz]

--With all the serious issues that are out there, yet we saw the spectacle of the Politico thread over the last few days.--

Just because an issue is of a more personal nature rather than having national political implicatons doesn't mean it isn't serious. As the Politico thread demonstrated the issue is extremely serious and one that has touched many people's lives.
I dare say it's a good bit more serious than the great Linux v Windows debate.

--IMO, this forum is harmed by a consistent effort by some to shut down open and informed discussion on matters that all conservatives should be debating in these times.--

What shuts down discussion is almost always arrogant behavior and ad hom attacks of which you are a prime mover. Not satisfied with that, when people respond in kind you point the finger and cry foul.
Charlie, in his occasional rants, is far preferable to your incessant sly digs, self back patting and name calling. At least he tempers his with occasional self deprecation and bonhomie. You're always either bloviatingly professorial, patronising or just being a little snot.
Get a clue.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Charlie did not actually recall what I suggested.

I didn't?

Damn. I thought it was me.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

"The e-mails don't say that: They don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle."

No, they're correct. The emails don't prove anthropogenic GW is a lie or a swindle. They just prove that there's been a lie and/or swindle about the "consensus" that AGW is real and caused by CO2.

See the distinctions? The evidence is still the evidence; it just needs to be re-evaluated without data-fudging and with real peer-review.

[verner]

Woo Hoo! -14 on the Rass index today! Way to go JEM!!! (Jug eared Marxist!)

[boris]

"I didn't?"

No. Your recollection matched DrJ's accusation, not anything I wrote.

[pagar]

BR, I saw it. One thing you want to keep in mind, IMO, those companies that have lasted a long time over there have adapted to new regimes over the years.

[clarice]

charlie, boris clearly did not say what you thought he had. Why not apologize? We all make mistakes and boris is really too smart t have said what you mis-remembered him saying.

[boris]

Not to worry Clarice, but thanks.

Charlie is having the most fun he's had in probably a long time. He's just bing playful. I am not actually mad or anything, just having a little fun myself (not even at his expense).

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The tenor of the WaPo article seems to be that the skeptics still haven't proven AGW is a hoax.

And they're right.

Do we have to disprove their theory?, or do they have to prove their theory?

Janet, you're making a positive assertion of another theory — that AGW not only isn't real, but that all evidence for it was faked, "a hoax".

Where we really are is that there's lots of evidence for the climate changing to the warmer side; there's some evidence for it being human-caused in some part; there are a bunch of things humans do that contribute to the net change in both directions, one of those being CO2; and that the so-called consensus was at least partly manufactured, and alternate explanations were improperly excluded.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Charlie nitpicks, that's Charlie.

I prefer to think of it as "is pedantically precise", thankyouverymuch.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

No. Your recollection matched DrJ's accusation, not anything I wrote.

Do you find your telepathic powers are a help, or a hinderance, in ordinary life?

[clarice]

Okay--with the loss of PUK and two of my friends squabbling (or apparently so) I was feeling a bit down.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

charlie, boris clearly did not say what you thought he had. Why not apologize? We all make mistakes and boris is really too smart t have said what you mis-remembered him saying.

Oh, is that what he wants? I'll certainly apologize for having misremembered if that's the issue, if only because I still don't remember the context.

Hell, if it wasn't important enough to me to remember it the first time, it's clearly not something I much care about.

Now, can I expect an apology for being called a liar?

[boris]

"that AGW not only isn't real, but that all evidence for it was faked, "a hoax"."

Incomplete characterization bordering on straw dummy.

Leaves out the fraud (part 1) of asserting speculation as science. As Lindzen points out, a global temperature is only meaningful if they can account for natural variation. When their models diverged from readings their excuse ??? Unaccounted for natural variation.

Fraud (part 2) is scaring the public with ascending global temperature readings knowing that natural variation makes that number go up and down all the time.

Tried to explain that to you already.

[boris]

"Oh, is that what he wants?"

No.

"Now, can I expect an apology for being called a liar?"

Don't hold your breath.

[boris]

"your telepathic powers"

Wouldn't need such powers to know that chucky didn't see me break the car window and steal the 8 track would I.

[clarice]

Forget it...Hand me the pistolas..this time they are aimed at myself..one..two..thr.................

[boris]

Charlie, even if your "honest" recollection of the dust up was DrJ's accusation misremembered as my suggestion ... by stepping forward to "witness" the falsehood you took ownership of it.

From other peoples POV that's the way it has to be. Nobody is going to find that credible. I don't.

[anduril]

I dare say it's a good bit more serious than the great Linux v Windows debate.

1. I brought that issue up in response to narciso's cries for help, which were addressed to the forum at large; my recommendations were, in important respects, seconded or expanded upon by others in serious discussion. I offered rather full information on the topic because there are IMO a lot of misconceptions out there re the usability of Linux. Another reason for the full information was to offer others some point of reference in case they encounter problems similar to those that narciso has experienced.

2. In a larger sense, however, the issue of open source software should be a major conservative issue. Linux is certainly the best (albeit still a long) shot we have at breaking the monopoly of big business like MS over personal computing. A major reason that informed conservatives should care about this issue--as I've stated repeatedly--is that the profits from this monopoly are used in large amounts to fund ultra liberal and leftist causes. Conservatives should be repelled at having to pay this tax and, in the true conservative spirit of taking control over their own lives, should be actively exploring any viable alternative. Linux is an obvious place to start, although it's not the only place.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

From other peoples POV that's the way it has to be. Nobody is going to find that credible. I don't.

Okay, then I tell you what: since it's so important to you, dig out the index card on which you have listed this little grudge, link me to the original discussion so I can go look at it — because, frankly, it's not important enough to me to bother searching for it — and let me refresh myself.

Alternatively, I invite you to masturbatorily violate your excretory sphincter with the handle of a janitorial floor-cleaning tool, orienting it in a non-intuitive and physically improbable manner.

[boris]

Same to you.

I'm reducing the charge to unintentional false witness. No apology necessary. Don't let it happen quite so often.

[anduril]

As I said, one of the more obvious examples of a malignant personality, but Ignatz prefers this type of "bonhomie." If I may be permitted a "bloviatingly professorial moment: De gustibus non est disputandum.

[glasater]

Chaco--did you see my comment @ 3:10AM?

[anduril]

Here's a good example of the type of idiocy that too often passes for conservative commentary on this forum:

A woman I know who is married to an OB/GYN maintains that a woman should have to have a license to have a child.

That is certainly the direction in which Obamacare would move us. Government bureaucrats would administer this program, deciding on fitness to be a parent under standards decided upon by the same wise Congress that has given us the societal mess that we're experiencing.

[glasater]

Anduril--I've never tried to engage you--and you really are a snot.

[tea anyone]

'tis the season to be jolly.....falalalala,lala,la,la!!!!!

[boris]

and here I am with no gay apparel

[Charlie (Colorado)]

glasater, sorry, I did and didn't follow that up. That's Eric Raymond's thing from here, and I'm pretty sure I've linked it somewhere in one of my pieces. In any case, yeah, it's very suggestive: there is a chunk of IDL code that says "apply a very artificial correction" and makes a correction that just happens to add in dramatic warming in the 20th century.

Now, mind you, because of the complete chaos that is the code in the release, and because we don't have any way to replicate or reconstruct their process, we don't know its fraud or misconduct. But that'd be the way to bet.

[anduril]

but a conservative snot.

boris, is it all out at the cleaners?

[boris]

(rimshot)

[glasater]

Thanks Charlie. I should have figured out you might be following Revkin's Tweets:)

[clarice]

chaco--BBC has an expert on programming and said East Anglia's was horrid and full of error.

[anduril]

first good natured comment i've seen you make in ages.

[Rocco]

Could someone explain to me why CO2 levels matter now that we know a rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2? From Lindzen...

CO2 and temperature records over the past 650K years as inferred from ice cores in Antarctica are often cited as evidence for the role of CO2 in global climate, but the example is faulty on several grounds:

1. Correlation is not causality, and here we can see that cooling precedes the drop in CO2 . Higher resolution measurements show that warming also precedes CO2 increases.

2. Previous interglacials appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower levels of CO2 .

[Old Lurker]

Rocco, Rocco...because CO2 is so easy to regulate and to tax, silly.

[Manuel Transmission]

Idle speculation:

Given the various comments re our Kim disappearing just before this here Climategate broke, perhaps the clue was "Kim" as in Kim Philby, as in a spy deep within the system.

[Porchlight]

Ooh, MT, I sure hope you're right. It seems more than coincidental that our super secret AGW informant would disappear just as the big news exploded...

Or perhaps he/she is posting under a different name here and there, without the =====s?

[Rocco]

LOL OL

[PD]

I do think that perhaps it would be better to suggest that people who morally objevct to abortion even at the earliest stages should (and they often do) what they can to ease adoption and support the families of those involved.

This implies that they don't. But they do. The money behind a lot of pregnancy care centers (which support the initiatives you mention) comes largely if not entirely from lifers. This is a good thing. Lifers don't just say "don't have an abortion!," they also want to help the women who find themselves in a difficult circumstance. I know the media likes to find lines of lifers hovering threateningly on the sidewalks at abortion clinics. There is some of that, true, but that is not the whole story (and even to the extent that it occurs, it's certainly more benign than what's going on inside the clinics).

A small anecdote: A few years after my sweetie and I had gotten married and I ditched grad school for "meaningful employment" to support my family, she was out shopping and happened to meet another woman who was still a grad student in our former department. My sweetie picked up on something being odd, and asked her, "Are you pregnant?" She was, and this was a difficult thing for her. My sweetie told her that she would help care for the child when he was born, and she did, several days a week for two or three years until the woman finished grad school and found a job.

This was certainly no large-scale program to reduce abortion, but I can tell you it made a big difference to one woman and her son.

[clarice]

MT, I do not think it a coincidence that for several months before KIM disappeared he/she used a different monicker for each posting--that would make it a very hard task to reconstruct all those posts..And then *whoosh* disappeared.

Perhaps Kim was connected with the whistleblower or had some clue what was going to happen.

[Old Lurker]

"Or perhaps he/she is posting under a different name here and there, without the =====s?"

Don't think so, Porch. Kim's posts were always detailed and knowledgeable on that subject, and while some of our other posters are also detailed and knowledgable too, they were here before and after. I have not noticed a new enviro poster of quality since Kim left. In other words, the regulars are accounted for...

[Old Lurker]

Actually, just as I like to imagine PUK looking down and enjoying the show, I like to imagine Kim, having gotten tired of waiting for the awakening, is now hacking and leaking away, starting with a certain server in the UK.

[DrJ]

before KIM disappeared he/she used a different monicker for each posting

That started in the TCO era. She was being attacked by various people, and then started her name rotation. I took it as a response to the name-calling. It's speculation, of course, but her absence is odd.

[anduril]

PD, the pro-life movement is certainly the largest and most authentic grass roots movement in this country and has showed a staying power that is truly remarkable. Certainly staying power that "enlightened" opinion never imagined.

[anduril]

good god! "has shown"

[glasater]

I wrote the Maine Web Report fellow and asked him about the "live blogging" of the Libby trial and he said he was the only one from that site in Washington at the time.
He had no knowledge of "Kim" unless it was in comments at that blog.
That's as far as my sleuthing went.

Kim may be involved somehow in the climategate hoopla but my speculation would be she/he is preparing a counter to the warmist's discrediting of the affair.

I miss Kim also very much.....

[centralcal]

Does anyone know/remember/have a way to determine when Kim last commented here?

[clarice]

google justoneminute and Kim..I think.

I miss Kim, too.

[DrJ]

I'd use her trademark ========= in the search. She stopped using her name well before she vanished.