Everything I Know Is Wrong

Confluence

Every once in a while there are two pieces of news that fit together so well that it seems intentional. Often it's just the Mainstream media trying to coordinate an attack on Republicans. This time I don't think they are really working together despite the interesting results at the confluence of these two stories.

My friend Tim sent me news of this horrendous judgment in San Francisco:

A federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming.

The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue.

"This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to give a plaintiff standing, to open the courthouse door," said Ronald Shems, a Vermont attorney representing Friends of the Earth.

That group, in addition to Greenpeace and the cities of Boulder, Colo., Santa Monica, Oakland and Arcata, Calif., sued Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Those government agencies provide loans and insure billions of dollars of U.S. investors' money for development projects overseas. Many of the projects are power plants that emit greenhouses gases that the groups allege cause global warming.

This piece comes to us from NewScientist.com:

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.                                      

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. ...

Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is "hot", with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.

What do we see when we look at both of these stories at the same time? A San Francisco judge allowing people to sue because they allege that greenhouse gasses cause global warming; a "hot field" like global warming which has produced widely questioned "results"; a study which indicates that scientific research papers have less than a 50% chance of being true, especially in a hot field.

What do we see?

A judge using bad science, pushed by activists with an ax to grind, to make bad decisions about issues no one has a firm grip on.

Update: Over at The Corner Iain Murray noticed the article about scientific accuracy, and makes a connection to the environmental movement, too.

 

Democrat or Republican?

Read the following speech and then ask yourself if it was given by a Democrat or a Republican; a liberal or a conservative. The answer is in the extended post.

Vice President BLANK, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President BLANK, Vice President BLANK, President BLANK, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Sombody pinch me.

This is from the AP:

Crawford embraces Bush, not protesters.
"I'm a Democrat and proud of it," Keith Lynch, 67, said while taking a break from trimming the brush around the flag pole in front of his 600-acre ranch "about a mile and a half as the crow flies" from the Bush spread.

"But you're got to respect your country, you've got to respect your flag, and you've got to respect your president."

Lynch and others around the town of 745 people believe that respect hasn't been around the past couple of weeks as Crawford, about 95 miles south of Dallas in Central Texas, has been invaded by more than a hundred people protesting Bush and the Iraq war.

"Like the circus, it needs to pack up and go," said Kim Williams, a 41-year-old mother of two.

Not a single bad word about the President in the whole thing.

Huh.

The Biteback Effect

Victor Davis Hanson coins a new term in a characteristically perceptive piece for NRO.

Estrich: Roberts Confirmation Foregone Conclusion

Susan Estrich, normally just a shrill shill for the Democratic Party, shows why she's worth paying attention to. Even if it's just to keep your eye on your opponent.

Her analysis of the Roberts SCOTUS nomination is insightful, and surprisingly balanced.

Let's face it: You couldn't get a justice from central casting who is more spic-n-span than John Roberts. He looks like the Boy Justice. He talks like the very smart Boy Justice. And he has acted like a Boy Scout, by all reports.

No one has found anything. We can say that out loud.

Estrich sees Roberts' confirmation as a foregone conclusion but warns her cohorts to beware. She sees the real battle as the fight over who will replace the ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist.

You get the good cop first; this is the nice guy. However you treat the nice guy, whatever standards you apply to the nice guy, whatever breaks you give him are going to be demanded by the you-know-what who is coming next as chief justice.

George W. Bush is not going to pick a wimp for chief justice. There won't be any questions at that point about ideology.

He won't be as nice. He won't be easy. He won't alarm conservatives by helping out liberals with moot court arguments. A lot of people who will vote for John Roberts won't want to vote for him. But it's tricky, since on paper, they'll look a lot alike -- and it's particularly tricky because you have to figure it out well enough to explain why you're voting yes now, and may not later.

Though she doesn't intend to, she paints a picture that, to me, is pretty darn rosy. As a matter of fact it looks like a picture of Clarence Thomas.

Isn't it odd?

Isn't it odd how people lose sight of reality?

McHillary Pushes Global Warming

John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who make as pretty a couple as you could ever imagine, are on a joint "fact finding" mission to the Northland. Their goal? To convince you that no doubt whatsoever exists about the true nature of global warming.

The Independent
On a high-profile and bi-partisan fact-finding tour in Alaska and Canada's Yukon territory, Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic senator for New York, were confronted by melting permafrost and shrinking glaciers and heard from native Inuit that rising sea levels were altering their lives.

"The question is how much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action," Mr McCain said at a press conference in Anchorage. "Go up to places like we just came from. It's a little scary." Mrs Clinton added: "I don't think there's any doubt left for anybody who actually looks at the science. There are still some holdouts, but they're fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming."

The science is in fact quite underwhelming, as I wrote in a previous post about a previous McCain visit to the Arctic:

Instead of using solid science, McCain has decided to substitute a boat trip to a glacier, and some birds, for actual data.

But Mr. McCain said yesterday that the evidence, which he called alarming, was clearer than ever.

With several other senators, he visited the Arctic fringe in Norway and Iceland in late summer.

"It was remarkable,'' he said, "going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it's receded.''

Particularly disturbing, he went on, is the rapid pace of warming.

"The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin," he said, "and now there are robins all over their villages."

Robins indeed. Twenty-five years ago there were no zebra mussels in Lake Superior, now they're everywhere, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Eurasian milfoil "was not reported in Minnesota until 1987, when it was found in Lake Minnetonka" (near my home), now lakes are choking to death on it, and this too has nothing to do with global warming.

Junk science like McCain's is typical of groups that have a vested interest in creating acceptance for the concept of global warming. The Bush administration's reluctance to rely on data which is everything but conclusive, is a reasonable approach.

The law of unintended consequences is slavering just off stage, waiting to pounce on McCain’s ill-conceived Climate Stewardship Act. As the co-author of the disastrous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that brought us the wonderful, and unintended, influence of the infamous 527 groups during this last election cycle, McCain should be gun shy, not rearing to go.

The Independent reports that instead of robins, Hillary is using beetles--and an old woman--to prove her case.

She said that, flying over the Yukon, she saw forests devastated by spruce bark beetles, believed to be increasing at an unprecedented rate because of warmer weather. She also talked of what a 93-year-old woman at a fish camp at Whitehorse told her. The woman said she had been fishing there all her life but now fish have strange bumps on them.

Everyone knows that strange bumps are directly connected to global warming--well at least every liberal knows it. The desperation of the left, where both McCain and Clinton belong when objectively placed, to foist global warming on an unsuspecting world has definitely crossed the line into the absurd (I am reminded of the witch burning scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?). McCain's last effort (timed to coincide with the release of the AICA) brought reaction from climactic experts who urged a true scientific approach to the subject and a careful treatment of apocryphal science. They offered data and historical perspective in order to squelch alarmism in this letter to the senator.

November 16, 2004

The Honorable John McCain United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

As you know, climate varies in the Arctic more than globally-averaged measures reveal, prompting not inconsiderable ecosystem responses.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report by the Arctic Council documents significant ecosystem response to surface temperature warming trends that occurred in some areas since the mid-19th century and in the last thirty years.

Estimates of the amount of surface warming trends over those periods and their causes relies on scientific knowledge of natural and anthropogenic effects, the latter including landscape modification, urbanization, plus the air's concentration of aerosols and greenhouse gases. Moreover, Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to another, and over time in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic.
[The whole letter is definitely worth a read--lots of good info.]

In a effort to help those who just can't understand that global warming is a really-real scientifical truth, Senator Lindsey Graham, who seems to be joined to McCain's hip, explains that "climate change is different when you come here, because you see the faces of people experiencing it."

So... it's different because of people's faces.

Now that's good science.

'White Boy' Comment Draws Ire

Dick Gregory shows the world that he knows exactly what racism is. He seems to have been affected by it, er, practicing it, for his whole life.

CNS
The activist readily acknowledged that he had referred to Republicans as "white racist thugs" and called the United States "the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet."

But, when Gregory hesitated in his responses, Hannity turned to Morano for confirmation.

"You don't have to confirm what I said," Gregory charged. "I've already said it. So I don't need no white boy to come on and say yes, he said it."

Surprised by Gregory's reply, Hannity repeated, "No white boy? No white boy?" and asked Gregory if he wanted to apologize to Morano for calling him a racially charged term.

"Yes, I apologize for it," Gregory replied.

"Well, I was already called a black tyrant by [Harry] Belafonte yesterday, so I welcome whatever Mr. Gregory wants to call me," Morano said in response.

Liberals like Gregory and Belafonte are sunk so deep in their hatred of whites, and perhaps others, that they can't even see their own bigotry. It's a shame and it's shameful. Neither of these racists is helping American blacks to see the opportunities that are waiting for them if only they would open their eyes and look. They are doing their best to make sure that their eyes never open even a crack.

Anyone, if they are a decent person, wants to look past the color of a person's skin. They want to ignore it entirely. It is, after all, irrelevant. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals are perfect, but Liberalism is the philosophy that divides us from each other. It accentuates our differences rather than our similarities. It insists that there is no possibility of cooperation between the races (more specifically, cooperation with whites) even when that cooperation is fully evident.

Take as an example the skepticism with which the service of such notable Americans as Condoleezza Rice and Collin Powell is viewed by the left. The main issue that the left has with them is the color of their skin. It is, they say, impossible that a white Republican would appoint a person of color except as a "token." Such appointments are simply a way to trick other people of color into thinking that Republicans might be okay to vote for. Never mind that nearly half of President Bush's cabinet consists of racial minorities and women. Never mind that the cabinet under President Clinton, who was hailed as "America's first black president", didn't even come close.

The left really must re-examine its approach to racism. Being a black racist doesn't make it okay. If Liberals really want to participate in the elimination of racism the way they say they do, they are going to have to quit participating in racism itself.

Oooh, that deficit is out of control.

The deficit is out of control. By which I mean it's falling far faster than anticipated. The federal deficit is $110 billion less than it was at this same time last year.

MarketWatch
The U.S. federal budget deficit shrank to $52.8 billion in July from $69 billion a year ago, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The deficit was about $5 billion less than the $58 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office a week ago. Receipts came in $1 billion more than expected, while outlays were $4 billion less than CBO projected. Through the first 10 months of the fiscal year, the federal deficit has totaled $302.6 billion, $110.2 billion less than at this time in 2004. Receipts are up 13.7% year-to-date at $1.75 trillion. Outlays are up about 6.1% year-to-date at $2.05 trillion.

How hard do you have to look in order to see that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing? Sheesh. It's time to make them permanent.

Plame-Blame

The mainstream media's shameless twisting of the truth, in an attempt to bring down the left's favorite target Karl Rove, has finally ticked off Robert Novak enough that he responds--contrary to the advise of his lawyers.

Robert Novak sets as much of the record straight as he can:

Novak: The abuse of my integrity provokes this response
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA (Harlow) says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.

So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Novak's indignation is certainly justified.  The leftist press only demanded the Plame-blame investigation because they thought it would take down Novak, a conservative journalist of all things, in addition to leading to a Bush administration official. They never expected their pet investigation to come right back at them, putting a journalist in jail for refusing to reveal her sources, and endangering the "right" of the press to protection from prosecution. The mainstream press is flabbergasted by the turn of events. With their credibility already suffering from self-inflicted wounds, they find themselves in the unenviable position of being over-extended on a non-story and they've put their favorite political party in the position of defending an indefensable attack on Mr. Rove.

My favorite part of the article: "I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case."

Can't you just hear the knees knocking?

Update: Joshua Micah Marshall can't seem to come up with anything untrue in what Novak says. He want's you to try.