Checking The Footnotes

Are the Himalayan glaciers in full retreat?  Will global warming cause them to disappear by 2035?  Or is the IPCC basing that alarming factoid on a typographical error?

Charles Martin at Pajamas Media points us to the "typo" theory offered at Dr. Pielke's blog by Dr. Khandekar:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues.

Well.  Surely we can double-check the relevant citations to find the foundation for this science, yes?  Uhh, maybe.  A warmist tried that exercise, as did I, with frustrating results.

 2007 IPCC report tells us (Chapter 10) that:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Hmm, the IPCC is citing the World Wildlife Fund?  I assume they are generous with their grant money but I would think of them as an advocacy group rather than a scientific publication.  Let's press on!

Here is the WWF link; they tell us that:

As discussed in the thematic introduction to this regional status review, there is particular concern at the alarming rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers. In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.

The prediction that “glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global
warming” and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will “eventually diminish, resulting in
widespread water shortages” (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003)

Let's note that the WWF cites both the ICSI and the New Scientist.  "ICSI" is an acronym that proves scientists have a sense of humor.  Or they did - the group is now known as the "International Association of Cryospheric Sciences", or IACS, which hardly summons a smile.

Regardless - the only paper they have at their website from 1999 is this one by a Dr. Hasnain, devoted to Himalayan glaciers but making no mention of 2035 (or 2350) as sell-by dates.

But something certainly happened in 1999 - the ICSI had a July conference on glaciers at the University of Birmingham, which attracted press coverage.  Here is an account from the June 5 1999 New Scientist, which presumably inspired the WWF:

MELTING Himalayan glaciers are threatening to unleash a torrent of floods into mountain valleys, and ultimately dry up rivers across South Asia. A new study, due to be presented in July to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI), predicts that most of the glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming.

"All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating," says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year. Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline.

So why is that not at the IACS website?  Different coverage suggests an answer (my emphasis):

A research study to be disclosed at an international meeting that opened at Birmingham University, will trigger fears of sea levels rising at a faster rate across the globe, swamping small island states like the Maldives and the Marshall Islands. The meltwaters of the Himalayas and the nearby Tibetan plateau make up two thirds of the flow of the Ganges and other rivers, such as the Indus and Brahmaputra, which are crucial for drinking water, livestock and irrigation. The melting glaciers will also increase the risk of dangerous floods, experts fear. One of the researchers involved, Syed Hasnain, of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said studies indicate that the glaciers in the region could be gone by 2035. The Gangotri glacier, at the head of the Ganges, is receding at a rate of about 90ft a year.

Well.  Why does the IPCC cite the WWF and not the underlying study for the 2035 date?  Why does the IACS not have the underlying study on its website?  A possible answer to both questions is that Hasnain did not formally address that date question in the study he presented. 

Instead, in the course of Q&A with reporters or whomever he mentioned other studies, presumably the Kotlyakov study described by Dr. Khandekar, and muddled the dates.  The WWF relied on news reports, the IPCC chose to rely on the WWF (Willfully or not?  Make the call!) and here we are.  By way of support, the New Scientist piece dated as of June precedes the July presentation of the papers; the reporter may have seen a rough draft or simply chatted with Dr. Hasnain.

As to what Kotlyakov wrote, here we go, from a 1996 UNESCO report:

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.

From Nov 5 1999 we have the Christian Science Monitor; the Interpress Service had a story from May 13 which seemed to be a sneak preview of the upcoming Birmingham conference.  Both pick up on the 2035 date but give us no source.  Both also include this quote:

"Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world," according to a study by the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI). "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high."

I can't run that quote down to an original source.

If someone could find the paper cited by the WWF that would fortify the IPCC report from 2007.  Surely this is should be easy enough to verify, but I am out of ammunition.  Right now, all trails seem to lead to press reports, and the IPCC citation of a WWF paper ought to be a huge red flag.

Comments

[Extraneus]

; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
; it at a constant level back to...

May?

[daddy]

Today's BBC chuckle.

The BBC's Science & Environment webpage, chock full today of the usual melting glacier stories, announces a new column is up by their Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin.

The title of the Harrabin link they want you to click on to get to the story says:

" Harrabin's Notes
What questions should climate e-mail inquiry ask?"

Fair enough. Decent question from a BBC Environment Blogger. So guess what. You click on his link in order to post your questions that a climate e-mail inquiry should ask...and you're not allowed to comment.

[sbw]

Extraneous, I ran the Rasmussen Presidential Job Approval data through the East Anglia software and came up with a hockey stick that says Obama's approval rating is warming.

[clarice]

Here's how solid is the academic tranzi wall--

I had a funny thing happen today. Over the years I've been friendly with a woman who was a college English professor. Not terribly tight friends but close enough that we worked on writing together and I used to meet up with her when I went to France--she has a house there about an hour from where I used to stay and where she used to spend the summers. My husband had run into hers a few months ago and he said they are now spending 6 months a year there and 6 months here. After that conversation another friend whose husband is a professor at Johns Hopkins told me she was planning on renting house in the village where my other friend lives. I thought it would be nice to take the two of them out to lunch beforehand and left a telephone message asking her to call me,explaining I had tried to reach her the previous summer but the old email wasn't working.

This morning I got a call and the first thing out of her mouth was that she didn't think it would work because of my politics. (I don't know how she knew I'd jumped the ship.) I figured that she apparently misheard my message andthought I was planning on coming to her village and feared she would be embarrassed in front of her French friends to introduce them to someone out of the transnationalist (Tranzi) bubble.

I explained I wasn't coming and why I had called and added that my other friend had since told me she'd changed her mind and wasn't coming after all. We exchanged pleasantries and hung up.

I bet she feels a fool.
Maybe she doesn't.
Almost everyone I know is on the other side of these issues and they are unbelievably narrow minded.

[anduril]

Samuelson, link at RCP, has a good article "Job Creation Made Hard." It suggests to me that all these factors will have a snowball effect at some point: the decision to pursue socio-transformative legislation, the Afghan punt, Climategate, and the neglect of the employment situation. At some point the sum will be greater than the parts. Can't be good for the One, nor for his party.

[Jane]

Daddy,

WHo would of thought a woman could have too many Dicks in her life.

[MayBee]

I hope she feels a fool, clarice.
It's so silly. She is probably just appalled by bigots, too.

[sbw]

Ah! Speaking of that subject, Jane...

Sophie Tucker joke: Twenty goes into 80 a helluva lot more than 80 goes into 20.

[Sue]

WHo would of thought a woman could have too many Dicks in her life.

::eyes wide open in shocked surprise:: Bad? Is that you?

LOL. That was funny, Jane.

[Sue]

This morning I got a call and the first thing out of her mouth was that she didn't think it would work because of my politics.

I like your politics. You can take me to lunch instead.

[Jane]

I love it when I actually get the joke SBW.

[Dave (in MA)]

Boston Globe:

Record temps today,first snow Saturday?
The mercury has hit 67 degrees at Logan and 66 in Woburn (left), shattering a 77-year-old record... but snow is in the forecast. (Globe)

OH NO, climate change!!

"The first snow flakes of the year in Boston are expected on Saturday night," said Bill Simpson, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Taunton. "Minor accumulation on grassy surfaces is expected."

I guess this guy slept through the whole day on October 19th.

[Janet]

Clarice, I think many on the left are embarrassed by the bankruptcy of their party. It was fun and easy to hate Bush - Join the Hate Bush club!- but now they are in charge. I told Jane about one of our neighbors going into a raving rant about how great Obama is. Nobody was even talking politics. He had just won the Nobel prize, and I think she was embarrassed. They know he is an empty suit, and they know the media is biased for him. It just has to be embarrassing.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Could it be?

Nah. Gavin Schmidt comes out looking real bad too, and Gavin's at GISS.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Melinda, thanks; I did get that and had forgotten it.

Did you build that? It's a nice mashup.

[BR]

Well, Clarice, tant pis pour elle! Amazing.

[clarice]

Sue, her lunch is your lunch.

[caro]

Sue,I don't know how Jane has fooled you so long.;)

[Porchlight]

clarice,

I have an academic friend I used to have lunch or coffee with occasionally whom I haven't heard from since the 2008 election. I feel it's my duty to reach out to her, but we did have one political argument in the past, so perhaps she is trying to send me a message?

Sadly, my very best and oldest friendship has also been affected. The damage is not serious, but the slight distance I think we are both feeling may be permanent. One gets the feeling that 2012 might be the final straw for a lot of friendships. I hope not.

[anduril]

This is OT and long, but I can't find a good place to post it. However, since it has been dealt with at length previously...

AT has a fairly lengthy article today analyzing emails by Trita Parsi to persons connected to the Iranian regime (UN Ambassador, others not totally identified). The point of the analysis is to support the claim that Parsi acts as an agent for the Iranian regime. Since Parsi is to the best of my knowledge not a US citizen, I'm not sure without further research whether FARA is involved here. However, here are my impressions FWTW, based on FARA standards.

It appears to me from the emails that Parsi attempts to tread a careful line--he largely brokers meetings between the Iranian regime (IR) and influential Americans--to include Congressmen. I'm not crazy about Congressmen being that involved in foreign policy, however this activity by Parsi is not sufficient to be covered by FARA...unless, at the direction and control of the IR he is more than an honest broker--he attempts to influence the US persons, not merely in accordance with his own views, but in line with the expressed desires of the IR. Obviously, there is material here for investigators, but hard evidence is lacking.

The emails with regard to NIAC (Parsi's group that also includes some very prominent Americans) is more problematic, in this sense, because there is a suspicion that he may not be totally on the up and up with his fellow NIAC members. The phrase, re a Parsi assessment of AIPAC that was requested by an Iranian who appears to have ties to the IR:

Was it in line with what you wanted?

suggests that Parsi is responding to what is known in intelligence circles as "taskings," requests to perform some activity. An honest assessment is one thing, of course, and wouldn't violate FARA. However, if the assessments are tailored to the needs of the IR, that sounds more like an agent type relationship. (I don't see a link to his AIPAC report, but I'd love to read it.)

"Namazi's" suggestion: "We need to meet up and coordinate," is somewhat ambiguous, since it responds to a Parsi statement that appears to be prompted by Undersecretary of State Burns, not by Namazi: "Btw, for the Burns meeting, I need your date of birth, city, country and ssn." Note the ref to Namazi's SSN--Namazi is a USPerson of some sort (RA, citizen?), but residing now and doing business in Iran, which complicates matters--is he actually acting on behalf of the IR, or is he an honest broker, or a dreamer playing at diplomat? We don't know from this.

This passage is, to me, the most suggestive that Parsi is acting in some agent capacity:

It's not a bad plan for us to sit and try to come up with some policy recs. Actually, if you like, let's have our Burns meeting (the private one) and come up with some policy ideas, then pitch them without mention of why to the group to see what sort of critiques we need to consider. I understand that we will have to focus the meeting with Burns on expat issues, but (1) most of our group is comprised of Iranian-Americans and (2) Burns is likely to ask us about generally what up in Iran too. Good to be prepared.

Again, the problem here is that we don't know Namazi's relation to the IR, but we do know that he's at least some sort of USPerson. We also know that Namazi and Parsi are coordinating with each other--whether also with the IR is not clear. Are they playing at diplomats? There's no suggestion here that they are tailoring their policy ideas at the direction of the IR, but if I were a NIAC member I certainly wouldn't be happy with the bit about "not mentioning why"! Clearly Parsi and Namazi intend to act in concert to influence NIAC to accept their views on US-Iran relations/policy--whether their views have been coordinated with the IR, however, is the crucial question.

Again, the bottom line is that there seems to be good grounds to investigate Namazi and Parsi to see whether they are acting as agents of the IR. Is Namazi, the USPerson, a conduit for Parsi to the IR? Quite possibly. Is the FBI and/or CIA looking into all this? I would be surprised (and disappointed) if they were not.

OK, why would I be very interested to read Parsi's assessment of AIPAC? Because I'd like to see whether Parsi is trying to model NIAC along the lines of what he believes AIPAC is doing. Note what the author writes in his closing paragraph:

To report the goings-on of Washington's politically influential circles back to the Iranian regime is quite disturbing in and of itself, but more so when one considers that the reporting individual often frequents the halls of Congress, as well as the CIA and the State Department.

If such reporting is done at the direction or request of the IR, these activities would definitely qualify Parsi/Namazi as agents who should register under FARA (allowing for the fact that I'm not sure how FARA applies to non-citizens).

But here's the problem. Does anyone seriously consider that at least some officers of AIPAC do not report the "goings-on of Washington's politically influential circles back to the [Israeli] regime [and] that the reporting individual[s] often frequents the halls of Congress, as well as the CIA and the State Department"? We know from the AIPAC case that AIPAC officers communicated with Israeli officials after obtaining materials from Larry Franklin--that would appear to be at least as nefarious as anything Parsi has done, since Parsi doesn't appear to have been obtaining classified documents from USG officials!

Well, but, Israel is an ally! some might say. Here's the problem: both FARA and the Espionage Act are entirely agnostic about ally relationships. In the one case, those in an agency relationship with a foreign power--whether Canada, Britain, Iran or Israel--must register, just as Sandy Berger did in re China. In the other case, transmission to a foreign power of classified material (unless properly cleared) is forbidden--whether or not the person intends to harm the US.

So my previously expressed point remains: FARA is a sensible and responsible law and it should be applied rigorously. Making an exception of Israel makes enforcement of FARA more difficult with regard to agents for every nation on the face of the earth, not just allies, since the persons covered are US citizens, not foreign governments. The laws of the US must be applied equally to US citizens--this is not foreign policy.

I also continue to recommend Trita Parsi's book. I think anyone interested/concerned about US-Iranian-Israeli relations will benefit from reading it. A wide range of information is a good thing.

Oh, and if anyone can find a copy of Parsi's AIPAC report...

[cathyf]

As I can attest, lunch with clarice is fantastic!

[BR]

They'll never find the whistleblower!

They seek him here, they seek him there,
Those One Worlders seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven? — Is he in hell?
That damned, elusive Pimpernel!

"The Scarlet Pimpernel, Mademoiselle," he said at last "is the name of a humble English wayside flower; but it is also the name chosen to hide the identity of the best and bravest man in all the world, so that he may better succeed in accomplishing the noble task he has set himself to do."

[Baroness Emmuska Orczy]

[Jane]

As I can attest, lunch with clarice is fantastic!

As is dinner. (Unless I got fooled - hmmmm)

[clarice]

Thanks, cathy.
Pimpernelkim ?

[narciso]

I concur Cathy, on the latter point, I don't know why people would really let politics get in the way of friendships, it seems awfully petty.

As to Parsi, seems to be an agent of influence of a certain faction of the Iranian govt. From the post election coverage, there seems to a variance with the hardliner, but there is still commonality with the regime. They have their man at Foggy Bottom in Limbert, and it doesn't seem to really put any breaks
on Ahmadinejad.

[pagar]

"Did you get my map tool? LUN. It follows ships. Big ones. Like tankers and freighters, full AND empty.

Melinda, We spoke a little about the Panama Canal and why no traffic is shown thru that area.

1.The Panama Canal is open and running as full as the current downturn in shipping will allow.

2. If anyone wants to see one of the greatest man made wonders of the world, you might want to do it soon. According to the LUN the politicians are about to mess it up big time.

"With the current plan’s water availability already “iffy”, the unpublicized plan — to build yet another lane like it — will require annexing and flooding neighboring areas, displacing a lot more people and wildlife.

That’s totally unnecessary."

"That incentive must be created with political pressure — soon — else suffer unnecessary permanent environmental damage, reducing the Panama Canal’s potential forever'

I recommend reading the whole article.

[DrJ]

Unless I got fooled - hmmmm

You didn't Jane.

[Porchlight]

I don't know why people would really let politics get in the way of friendships, it seems awfully petty.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience some of my friends appear to not only hate certain political ideals, but also hate those who hold them. If the subject of Palin or the tea parties comes up, the hatred spews forth. If my friend thinks Palin is "fringey" and "extreme" and I happen to agree with Palin on most issues, am I "fringey" and "extreme"? If my friend despises "moronic teabaggers" and I consider myself a tea partier/tea party supporter, what does that mean? At a certain point, it gets personal.

I wish it weren't that way - I'd rather just not talk about it at all, but some people keep bringing it up.

[clarice]

I believe my friend was worried that I was renting in her village and she'd be stuck with offending her French friends or me.I have been helpful to her--for example, I made her wedding cake and helped her when she was a young divorcee with a troubled child and little funds, but she made a point of saying she had no American friends at all in that village (though there are Americans there and, in fact, the two biggest, nicest rentals are owned by Americans). Her French friends have been very helpful to her, too.Probably more so as they looked after the renovations of the house when she was away and keep a watch on it for her.

So I am going to let this pass without a lot of fuss especially as I am certain she now feels small and silly, that I was only trying to bring together two friends who seemed to have a common interest--that particular village and life there.

[BR]

Pagar, velly intelesting re Panama Canal. Is PRC's Hutchinson Whampoa involved? Does our US Navy rely on it? And oil tankers?

[Porchlight]

It does sound like the high road is the best road, clarice. I'm sure your friend will appreciate it.

[MikeS]

Mike, I don't think any "climate scientist" — I noticed that Pielke Sr carefully corrected that to "atmospheric scientist" in his bio for that interview — knows how to explain that.

Yes Chaco. We certainly have to respect Pielke's seeming rejection of the term "climate science." If climate study can't explain what has happened in the past or what is happening now, 'science' would seem to be an incorrect characterization.

I'd like to point out that when one of these climate experts is claiming to know how CO2 will affect future climate, they ought to be asked to explain how the effects of CO2 are currently being overpowered by another factor.

[boris]

Lindzen had a good answer to that in his WSJ editorial.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

[Extraneus]

kimpernel!

[clarice]

Yes, he did, Boris.

Ext:"KIMPERNEL" is even better.

[MikeS]

Lindzen gave a great explanation. I loved it!
It would be more entertaining to hear it from Michael Mann or Phil Jones.

[Jane]

I have several close friends who I no longer spend much time with because of the political thing.

When Caro visited we were both so amazed at how different and easier it is to hang around with like-minded people.

Let's be honest, for most of us here this is a really big part of our lives, and to ignore a really big part of your life gets harder, the longer it goes on. The friendships are not over, but they are a bit on hold.

[clarice]

Could be, but I find that my conservative friends were never like that, indulging the rest of us when we were buying the CW, and my "liberal" friends are astonishingly close minded.

There are lots of things besides politics i like to talk about and can--but if others raise political issues I feel free to disagree.

[Jane]

Yeah but clarice I'm talking about the "astonishingly close minded".

Actually that's not true either. Everyone around here is liberal - that is the CW in MA. I have to squash the desire to correct the facts and I'm not that good at that.

[anduril]

narciso, re Trita Parsi, what I wrote was from a legal standpoint. From a rather different standpoint the questions you should be asking are twofold: 1) what would be Iranian Intelligence's (II) interest in Parsi, and 2) what would be US Intelligence's (USI) interest in Parsi.

Either II or USI would be strongly tempted to try to recruit Parsi, but I would suggest that the stronger temptation might be on the USI side. Look at it this way--from the II perspective, why mess with a good thing? Perhaps they spoke to him before launching him, but the really smart thing to do would be to have a hands off policy toward him. And from that standpoint, Parsi has done a foolish thing in his relations with Nemazi. While Nemazi is an USPerson, he resides in Iran and therefore is presumably susceptible to pressure from II. To have a semi-conspiratorial relationship with Nemazi, even if only in the context of NIAC, was a bad idea. If II is as smart as some people think they are, they must be chagrined over that. Then again, maybe they're not that smart.

But for USI, Parsi must be a very, very tempting target. Yes, they could be cautious, just sit back and study what he says, try to glean some intel from that. But, to be able to ask him questions about the Iranian regime? Wow. Much better. And, for the USI, what a coup that would be--restore their standing in government halls! Plus, what could they lose by trying? Probably not much. Maybe USI already has great sources on the thinking of the Iranian regime, but you can color me skeptical.

Re NIAC, what do you think the possibility is that USI has been in touch with some members? Yeah, I thought so too. I suspect that, from a number of perspectives, USI is not thrilled about this lawsut.

In the meantime, here's an article you'll enjoy: The Israel Lobby Celebrates Espionage in New York. Hey, who's Grant Smith? I've gotta get back to work, don't have time to research him.

[anduril]

Oh boy. I misspelled Namazi as Nemazi throughout. Sorry.

[Porchlight]

Jane,

Everyone I know here, plus everyone in my home state and most of my family, is liberal too. I am only close to two other conservatives - my dad and one girlfriend here in town. Seriously. I guess I have a few conservative acquaintances I only see every couple of years or so, and some folks at church, but I don't know them well enough to talk politics.

It can get a bit discouraging when 99% of the people you meet in any given year either don't understand or are outright hostile to your worldview. That's one reason why the righty blogosphere is such an oasis for so many.

[anduril]

Smith raises an interesting point in his article, one that's been discussed here:

Sher claims to be "shocked by how little the [FBI] agents knew or understood about lobbying and the search for information" and urges that before Nozette is prosecuted "leaders of the Jewish community raise some hell, and not show the timidity which, unfortunately, characterized many responses to the AIPAC case involving Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman."

But is Sher right about FBI investigatory deficiencies and the law enforcement effort against the former AIPAC employees? In the Nozette sting law enforcement officials seemed to purposely avoid going after IAI or any Israeli.

Nozette, of course, was arrested for attempting to sell classified information to Israel. Through a misunderstanding on Nozette's part he ended up selling the information to the FBI, who reneged on payment promises and took him into custody.

[sbw]

Mel: Did you get my map tool? LUN. It follows ships. Big ones. Like tankers and freighters, full AND empty.

Serendipity! Thanks, Mel, but not for what you think. Our son just started crewing on a yacht docked in Ft. Lauderdale and scheduled to embark next week. I put two and two and your link together and, la voila, there she be! It means that as long as she is in range of AIS transponders we can stalk her.

What a bonus for parents happy for our son's opportunity, yet still wanting to follow along.

Thanks for your link!

[Jane]

SBW,

That sounds like a blast. Where are they headed to?

[clarice]

Nozette also did consulting for India and indicated that if in criminal jeopardy he'd defect to India or Israel. The thumb drives he took and didn't return to the country with were on a trip to India and I suspect the only reason the FBI didn't pose as an Indian agent was because it would have been too hard to pull off. I have checked this theory with a real CI guy who confirms that is the case--much too hard to pretend to be an Indian intel officer.

[sbw]

Jane, Via Bahamas past the Virgin Islands to other islands along the chain. A tough Winter life for a while.

If he does well, future voyages on that vessel or others depend on solid recommendations.

[anduril]

Well, that answers the "tree in the forest" conundrum. If you're on clarice's pass over list, she still reads your posts. Let me get this straight--your "real CIA guy" is saying that the FBI doesn't have any agents of Indian extraction working in the intel field? Color me skeptical--in the extreme. Nice try, though.

Hey, while you're hanging around maybe you could explain for me why it violates your etiquette rules for DrJ to explain on the forum what a shell window is, but it's just fine to have Charlie continually complaining that the only way he gets any is in front of the computer? If "don't ask don't tell" is good etiquette in one case, why not the other?

[anduril]

Heh, computer-OS talk is verboten (that's Nazi lingo), but computer-sex talk isn't. Go figure.

[clarice]

You know him--ask him I'm sure he'll confirm it --I have the email to prove it.

I never saw the shell window post --don't know what that's about and don't care.

.

[anduril]

I know him? What's his name? I'm not aware of knowing any "real CIA guys. And what was he doing discussing a pending prosecution with you, anyway--not to mention FBI undercover capabilities? Do you have some kind of need to know these things?

[anduril]

close quotes: "real CIA guys"

[clarice]

I said a real CI guy...Anyway, it's back to pass over. Curtain's drawn again.

[anduril]

Just more made up stuff.

[pagar]

BR, you can see more on Hutchinson at the LUN.

"Panama

Panama Ports Company (PPC) - Port of Balboa
PPC operates in the Port of Balboa located at the Pacific side of the Panama Canal. PPC has started construction work on the Phase IV development of Balboa Mega Port.

Panama Ports Company (PPC) - Port of Cristobal
PPC operates in the Port of Cristobal located at Atlantic entrance of the Panama Canal. PPC has commenced the US$200 million Phase I development plan at the Cristobal Container Terminal.'

[pagar]

BR, the 1st part of your answer posted before I got to the 2nd part.
The US navy comes thru, but I don't know how often or what size of ships, I'm sure there was one of their ships anchored at Rodman a few days ago. Rodman is across from the Balboa port. Oil tankers go through all the time, but again I'm not sure which sizes can go thru. Hope this helps.

[JM Hanes]

clarice:

It looks like bee up the ass day.

[clarice]

Yes, it does. And the season of goodwill toward men and peace on earth has hardly begun. LOL

[anduril]

Even I slip up sometimes. I should've remembered this. From the article, as detailed in the affidavit:

Nozette began delivering requested classified national defense information believing it to be destined for Israel while confidentially assuring the FBI agent that he thought he was already spying for Israel. This allegedly occurred under Nozette’s prior "consulting" contract with Israel Aerospace Industries, a major military contractor.

He'd been consulting with IAI for some years, including long before he took the Indian trip. Think the FBI new about the unreported consulting for IAI by the time they did the sting? Yep. Think that influenced their decision to pose as Mossad? Me too.

[clarice]

Affidavit continued:

26. On or about January 6, 2009, NOZETTE traveled to a different foreign country(foreign country A), via Dulles International Airport. Upon his departure from Dulles, aTransportation Security Agency Security Officer inspected NOZETTE's personal belongings andnoted that NOZETTE had two computer "thumb" drives in his possession.27. On or about January 28, 2009, upon his return to the United States from foreigncountry A, an officer for the United States Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) conducted a thoroughsearch of NOZETTE's baggage and carry-on luggage. The CBP officer could not locate the thumbdrives that had been in NOZETTE's possession when he had left the United States.28. Prior to Nozette's January 2009 travel to foreign country A, NOZETTE informed acolleague that if the United States government tried to "put him in jail" [based on an unrelatedcriminal offense]. NOZETTE would move from the United States to Israel or foreign country A,and "tell them everything" he knows.

[snip]
NOZETTE: I don't get recruited by Mossad every day. I knew this day wouldcome by the way.UCE: How's that?NOZETTE: (Laughs) I just had a feeling one of these days.UCE: Really?NOZETTE: I knew you guys would show up.UCE: How you, urn ...NOZETTE: (Laughs) And I was amazed it didn't happen longer ...UCE: Hm. I'm s-, I'm sure my, back at home, one of the few people hadactually said it, but I, people did say, 'I'm surprised you guys didn't comesooner than this but, urn, urn, but you ...'NOZETTE: I thought I was working for you already. I mean that's what Ialways thought, [the foreign company] was just a front.
__

Country A has since been identified in Court as India, the first country to have a state dinner in the WH under this Administration.

Now, it's possible he took the thumb drives to India and fed exed them to Israel but I find that unlikely.

[anduril]

A bit more detail:

1. Nozette's SCI access was yanked in 2006, when it was discovered that he had been a paid consulted for Israel Aerospace Industries since 1998--without informing the USG and without obtaining permission to do so. The fact that Israel is an "ally" was not considered justification for his actions.

2. When Nozette traveled to India an airport security officer noted 2 thumb drives in his carry on luggage, which a Customs search upon his return was unable to discover. The affidavit does not indicate that the USG had any knowledge of what was contained on those thumb drives--it could have been innocent, although Nozette made clear in conversation that he knew the extreme value of his knowledge. The FBI was obviously not prepared to arrest Nozette or confiscate the thumb drives at that point, but the fact that the security officer noted the thumb drives and this information found it's way to the FBI is an indication to me that there was already an ongoing investigation. I mean, how many of you think that when anyone travels overseas with a thumb drive that gets reported to the FBI? No, the FBI had obviously told the security officer to make a careful search of Nozette's carry-on luggage.

3. The affidavit doesn't indicate when the FBI began investigating Nozette--for all we know the investigation began in 2006 when Nozette's undisclosed employment with IAI became known and his SCI access was suspended. But the apparent fact that there was already an investigation ongoing when Nozette traveled to India is an indication that the focus of the investigation was Nozette's relationship with Israeli intelligence based on his employment at IAI. Nothing in the affidavit mentions India except for the one trip.

4. Here's part of the conversation between Nozette and the Undercover FBI agent:

NOZETTE: But you want me to be a regular, continuing asset? UCE: Right. NOZETTE: Which I'm willing to do.

...

NOZETTE: i don't get recruited by Mossad every day. I knew this day would come by the way.
UCE: How's that?
NOZETTE: (Laughs) I just had a feeling one of these days.
UCE: Realy"
NOZETTE: I knew you guys would show up.
UCE: How you, um...
NOZETTE: (Laughs) And I was amazed it didn't happen longer...
UCE: Hm. I'm s-, I'm sure my, back at home, one of the few people had actually said it, but I, people did say, 'I'm surprised you guys didn't come sooner than this but, um, um, but you...'
NOZETTE: I thought I was working for you already. I mean that's what I always thought, Israel Aerospace Industries was just a front.

So, just luck that the famously incompetent FBI decided to pose as Mossad? Not! My advice to all of you is, do not rely on clarice's assurances of FBI incompetence in your own lives.

[anduril]

Hey clarice, being on your pass over list gives me the sensation of hearing footsteps behind me.

BTW, part of internet etiquette is to format your posts so that your readers don't go crazy trying to read them. I was too busy typing my own post to see yours, but it turns out I anticipated your lames attempts at obfuscating what the Nozette case was all about.

[boris]

part of internet etiquette is to format your posts so that your readers don't go crazy trying to read them

Funny. Formatted or not your posts always have that effect on me.

[anduril]

Well, well. There's more information out there.

In this NYT piece, The Scientist Who Mistook Himself for a Spy, we learn that my surmise was correct, and that clarice and her "real CIA guy" didn't know what they were talking about:

The A.P. reported that a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said that Mr. Nozette came under scrutiny after NASA’s inspector general started looking at whether he had submitted false claims for expenses. While looking into Mr. Nozette’s finances, the official told The A.P., investigators found indications that he might be working for a foreign government, which led them to start the national security investigation that eventually led to the F.B.I. sting.

So, as I suspected, the focus was on Nozette's relationship to Israeli Intelligence from the get go.

We also learn that Nozette's trip to India was in connection with work Nozette had been doing for NASA, in "collaboration with India’s space agency to search for water on the moon." Again, there are no allegations relating to the thumb drives, so why the information in the affidavit is included isn't clear. If there's a trial, we may find out the reason.

[anduril]

Hey boris, you've been hanging out on Charlie's favorite sites too long. You're going blind.

[clarice]

The crack FBI got onto Nozette because he told someone if the agency prosecuted him for his misdeeds he'd fly off to india or israel and that guy turned him in. On its own they knew nothing.

To pull the false flag op the FBI had to pose as an Israeli or indian op and Israeli was easier.

Of course, this all could be a terrible error on my part. Nozette could have taken two thumb drives full of video games to India (well before the FBI tried to engage Nozette as a "Mossad spy").

Nozette didn't seem to me to be the sort of person--like the Myerses who did this for ideology--he was strictly in it for money and a refuge from prison.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I've begun to suspect Anduril is T-you know who and he's off the wagon again.

[anduril]

I can easily accept that the case came to the FBI as a result of Nozette's blabbing to a colleague--it probably should have been referred to the FBI by DoD when they yanked his SCI access in 2006. But the focus on Israel was not some flip of the coin. From WaPo:

Last year or early this year, Nozette told a colleague that he would flee to India or Israel if the U.S. government "tried to put him in jail," according to law enforcement officials and court records. He told the colleague he would share "everything" he knew with those governments, an FBI agent wrote in court papers.

Meetings with FBI agent

The colleague tipped off federal investigators who were concerned because Nozette had spent years consulting for an aerospace company owned by the Israeli government, law enforcement officials said, and was working on a lunar mission run by India's space agency.

Authorities were also worried that Nozette had extensive access to classified information. From 2000 to 2006, the FBI said in court papers, Nozette helped develop "highly advanced technology" as a contractor for the Defense Department and NASA.

The Israeli company, IAI, that Nozette had consulted with for 10 years, is heavily involved in defense tech, and as Nozette himself said was considered to front for Mossad. That was 10 years of unmonitored contact with Israelis with the opportunity to gauge their interest in his extensive knowledge of defense related tech, as this WaPo account suggests:

A Chevy Chase scientist accused of attempted espionage told an undercover FBI agent that he gave classified information to an aerospace company owned by the Israeli government, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

Stewart D. Nozette, 52, was arrested Oct. 19 on charges of selling government secrets to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence operative. But prosecutors said Nozette claimed that in the past he had "communicated classified information" to the foreign company while working as a consultant.

"In his mind, he committed actual espionage," Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Asuncion said during a hearing in the District's federal court.

The U.S. attorney's office did not provide further details in court or say whether it had investigated Nozette's claim.

Nozette's contact with the Indians, on the other hand was of far shorter duration, was non-mo;itary and was in the context of a joint project in which he was working for NASA--nothing like the time and opportunity to build up relationships that could be worked for later employment.

Sorry, the FBI didn't just flip a coin and they certainly could have mounted an Indian based sting. No, they picked the Israeli false flag because it was far the more likely to succeed--and succeed quickly.

[anduril]

A further brief elaboration:

Nozette's statement to his colleague was predicated on a contingency--IF he got jail time for his financial fraud against DoD, THEN he'd consider telling one or the other country all he knew.

Up to the point of the investigation, that contingency hadn't occurred, and hadn't occurred when he traveled to India in his NASA role. The FBI had no reason to even suspect an intelligence relationship with between Nozette and India, whereas they had concrete reasons to be suspicious of his past relations with IAI. Nozette had hidden his employment at IAI from US authorities and the employment violated his security commitments to the USF. Moreover, IAI was an ideal entity to probe Nozette's extensive knowledge of defense technology.

Nozette's later statements, whether technically correct or not, confirm that there was a basis for such suspicions. All these considerations made an Israeli false flag the overwhelmingly logical choice.

[BR]

Pagar, tks for the great link to Hutchinson-Whampoa in re Panama Canal expansion and potential disruption of US Navy and oil interests. (Damn Carter.)

Wow, looks like a great company, since the 1800s. Talk about hegemony!

I remember Chairman Li Ka-Shing's name from Clinton days and Bill Gertz's "The China Threat" and Timperlake & Triplett's "Red Dragon Rising."

I'm all for China embracing capitalism as long as they do it with goodwill to all :)

[BR]

Hee, Clarice, at first I read your "Pimpernelkim" as "Pumpernickel" :} And we all know what that means
in German, the little .... devil.

For Kimpernel:

Your Three C's: Capital, Climate and China - the downfall
of Obama's cronies and the MSM - is coming together, hey? Maybe China will even kick out all those pro-communist Western traitors in their midst.

I'll add something to the recipe: C B C B C

China Buddhism Capital Beauty Climate

[clarice]

BR thanks for the message though I think I'll need someone to explain it to me.