Fish Fear Me

The Difference In A Day

There are days up north when the wind is howling down by the lake, but up in the woods the trees block it all out and it is almost surreal how still it is. Yesterday wasn't one of those days. Yesterday was a "get your inner Jeremiah Johnson going" day if you wanted to go pretty much anywhere outside:

It's hard to tell how much snow we got total. In some places the wind scoured it down to almost nothing. In others, the drifts piled up over three feet. Call it somewhere between half a foot and a foot I guess.

What a difference a day makes:

We're going to try to beat the next storm back to Minneapolis tomorrow. It's looking like it might be a little close, but then, I live for danger.  ;)

But Is It Running As A Republican Or A Democrat?

NYPD monitoring of Muslims enters mayoral race

The Lake Was Angry That Day, My Friends...

...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli.*

Big storm on the North Shore of Lake Superior today. The forecast is for 5 to 9 inches of snow by tomorrow and we're seeing wind gusts up to 36 mph right now blowing the snow completely sideways. Visibility has worsened since that pic and as I write this it's down to maybe 500 ft. The lake is rockin' today.

By golly, we've struck winter!

 

*I've used it here before, but what the heck. It's from one of my favorite Seinfeld bits. I really don't know why I find "...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli" to be so hysterically funny, but I do.

Quote Of The Day

Steven Hayword has a very good recap of where things stand with the Peter Gleick fraud and provides the quote of the day regarding those who believe humans are causing climate change:

The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims.

Exactly. 

Look Closely

This is an ad I saw at thehill.com this afternoon:

(click here  View this photo for a larger but somewhat fuzzy version)

So is that a man or a woman? At first glance I thought it's a man. A second look had me thinking it could be a woman, probably because of the pink tee and the earring, not that those are exclusively feminine these days. And are those boobs or moobs? Now I'm thinking it's an image designed to be androgynous to let the viewer subconsciously decide whichever gender they prefer him/her to be. 

Oh, and it also reminds me of David Bowie, which kind of reinforces the third option depending on what moments in his life that you pick.

Opinions?

Misc. Fakegate

Just a few additional thoughts on the Heartland Institute controversy that I posted on yesterday.

Some of the posts I read last night defending Peter Gleick's actions were appalling, especially those from people who proudly proclaim that they are scientists. It is not just their approval of Gleick's deception in obtaining documents under false pretenses, but their willingness to wholeheartedly embrace a document of mysterious origin that the supposed issuer has denounced as a fake. They embrace it not based on any proof of authenticity, but because it fits their narrative. They want to believe it and so they do. Trust their opinions on climate science if you wish, but I don't.

There's seems to be some confusion, to be charitable, about what documents came from where and when, with some people continuing to believe that the "climate strategy" document in question was emailed to Gleick with all of the others. It was not. Gleick claims that the document was printed and snail-mailed to him. He later posed as someone from Heartland and received the other documents via email. Some are alleging that Gleick faked the original document himself and his story about it is a lie, but without some evidence or a confession along those lines we should give Gleick the benefit of the doubt that he so easily denies his detractors.

I read somewhere yesterday that Peter Gleick is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and so he is. The NAS is often one of the appeals to authority used to attempt to shut down skeptics on the issue of climate change. We are urged to set aside our concerns and heed the call of our nation's best scientists. Yet one of those scientists has just admitted to unethical and possibly illegal behavior in attacking a critic of the NAS party line. How will they respond? Will they even respond?

This whole thing is looking more and more to me to be another in a long line of gimmicks and stunts and it reminded me of another gimmick I see all of the time now. I'll bet you have seen this or a similar variation before:

"Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused."

Have you ever wondered where that figure comes from? Here's a link to a summary of the study itself(pdf) and you can read two detailed critiques of the study that created that talking point here(pdf) and here, but I'll boil it down.

Two researchers from the University of Illinois created an online survey and emailed an invitation to complete it to 10,257 "Earth scientists" located mainly in the U.S. A total of 3,146 of those invited completed the survey. Of that group, roughly 5%(or 157) self-identified as "climate scientists". Of that group, 79 respondents reported that 50% of their published papers were about climate science. Of that group, 75 out of 77 answered yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" And on that basis, 75 responses out of 10,257 original requests, a consensus talking point was born.

That can't be true, can it? That 97% figure cited by so many can't be based on something so flimsy, can it? Oh yes it can. Read it for yourself and weep.

From requesting input from only 'Earth scientists" and therefore excluding the opinions of the men and women who study that insignificant glowing thing in the sky called the sun, to the poorly worded questions that are so glibly transformed into "climate change is real and human caused," the entire survey is a stunt. A gimmick. It's about as valuable and real as the crap about "6 out of 7 dentists prefer toothpaste X" that we heard as kids. 

What's most depressing is the common use of that 97% by people who claim to be scientists and devotees to the scientific method. The quote above comes from a piece published in the Wall Street Journal by a group of scientists headed by this man:

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

This is how pathetic the discussion about climate change has become. Men and women who by their credentials should be regarded as esteemed scientists now publicly stoop to citing a gimmick to buttress their arguments. Do they understand where that figure of 97% comes from? Do they care?

Trenberth and company, and anyone else who cites that 97% figure, should be deeply ashamed. They mark themselves as either profoundly ignorant or willfully deceitful. Either way, they are a disgrace.

Oh, and one of Trenberth's co-signers on that opinion letter? Why, none other than one Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

Surprise! 

More Fake But Accurate

Last week nine internal documents that had allegedly been obtained from the Heartland Institute were posted on the internet. The Heartland Institute claimed that one document called "January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" was a fake and that the other eight had been obtained under false pretenses. The documents were touted as a glimpse into the "...Heart of Climate Denial Machine." 

Looking into this for myself, it quickly became apparent that all of the documents except the climate strategy were essentially innocuous, though they did contain confidential information about donors. There was also a pathetic attempt to spin Heartland funding for an Anthony Watts public information project into something nefarious. Imagine that, the bastard wanted the public to have timely access to accurate information! Why, the next thing you know the stupid public will want to get a closer look at that man behind the curtain.

Meanwhile, the one document that did actually appear to show ill intent on Heartland's part, the "Climate Strategy" one, was increasingly looking to be a fake. It was a PDF image, a scan of a text document instead of a PDF text document like the others. The timing of the file creation was also different from the others and there were striking differences in wording and tone. Megan McArdle has a good writeup dissecting those and other issues. I can't tell you with certainty that the climate strategy document is fake, but it definitely doesn't pass a sniff test.

And this is where things went from stupid spin from Heartland's detractors to something much more reptilian. As doubts about the authenticity of the climate strategy document grew, here was part of the response from one of the main writers at DeSmogBlog, one of the central actors on the global warming side of this little dust up:

The DeSmogBlog is committed to accuracy. Joe Bast says the document is a fake, a statement we take with a grain of salt given the Heartland Institute’s previous dissembling on the subject of climate change and its discredited position on teh safety of second hand smoke.  In the circumstances, if the Heartland Institute can offer any specific criticism of the Climate Strategy or any evidence that it was faked and not, actually, written on Joe Bast’s laptop, printed out and scanned, we would be pleased to consider that evidence.

That's from Richard Littlemore writing at DeSmogBlog.

Committed to accuracy my ass. I don't know what Heartland has put out on second hand smoke and I don't care. Richard Littlemore is presenting the document as evidence for his charges and it is his duty to authenticate it or at least treat it skeptically, not the other way around. Littlemore has turned that on its head and is asking Heartland to come up with evidence that it was faked, a virtual impossibility unless the creator of the fake comes forward. What a low-life standard for making an allegation against someone. I wonder how Littlemore would feel if I published a document that purported to be his first-hand diary of many acts of child molestation. Hey, by his own standards it would be up to him to prove it to be fake, right?

Last night another piece of the puzzle in this mini-storm of a Fakegate fell into place when the individual who misrepresented himself to the Heartland Foundation came forward. In his statement, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute admitted that he used someone else's name to obtain the eight electronic documents from the Heartland Institute. He did so, he claimed, because someone had sent him the climate strategy document in hard copy and he was trying to verify its authenticity. Now we have confirmation that the one supposedly damning document was never sent from Heartland and arrived at Gleick's doorstep anonymously. It's not definite proof that it's a fake, but it certainly badly dings its credibility even more compared to the others.

So what do we know? We know that Peter Gleick is not a man of integrity. Men of integrity don't use other people's names to obtain confidential documents that they are not entitled to. We know that DeSmogBlog has a standard of evidence so low that even Big Brother might hesitate before using it. In my opinion, if you trust anything written there you are a willing tool.

But we do know one good thing now, in the words of Peter Gleick the science is not settled:

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

Hooray! A rational debate is needed! 

Oh, wait. I'm guessing he doesn't mean a debate about what the science, the real science, says. He's just willing to debate whether he and his pals use lube or not when they bend the American economy, and you and I, over the barrel. 

I've got to run now, but I'll have a bit more to add to this later.

Civility!

Is this some more of that civility that President Obama has talked about?

"I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons," she told the crowd. "They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they’d rather do whatever they can do destroy this president rather than for the good of this country.”

I'm not seeing much civility there, but that's probably the racist in me.

Monday Stuff

Rest In Peace, Whitney Houston. The news of her death saddened me. Such talent and beauty, and yet so many struggles too. Now that those are over, may she find peace.

Yikes! Randy Moss says he wants to return to the NFL. I realize that there is no chance of a threepeat with the Vikings, but the news still makes me want to curl up in a corner of my basement with a blanket and a bottle of whiskey.

Uh huh. I think I'm going to need a little confirmation before I buy this:

Usama bin Laden wanted his younger children to go to college in the West and live in peace rather than embrace terrorism, according to his brother-in-law.

Zakaria al Sadah said bin Laden, who was killed by US Navy Seals at his compound in the Pakistan city of Abbottabad last May, was adamant that his children "should not follow him down the road to jihad."

Not that it wouldn't be a good thing if true. But call me when the same sentiments ring through the mosques and madrasas of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. While I'm generally not opposed to Obama's policy of hitting Muslim terrorists with drone attacks, it is pretty much a game of whack-a-mole as long as the extremist imams and their financial backers keep pumping out fresh jihadis by the thousands every year. We need to go up the chain a few levels, but I don't think we have the guts.

Well, it did seem a bit fishy:

Police investigating a report of a body being dumped in a river in France's Loire region made an unusual discovery on Monday -- a 2.2 metre (7.2 foot) catfish wrapped in a sheet.

A police spokesman told AFP a local resident in the village of Unieux in south-central France called police to report having seen several people dump a body wrapped in a sheet in the Loire River on Thursday.

The sheet's a bit puzzling, but then would you want a sheet back that had been wrapped around a 7.2 foot catfish? Me either.

A long time ago, I ran across some divers working on the locks at the Ford Dam on the Mississippi. During the conversation it came out that they made a damn impressive $50 an hour in their work. Then they started telling stories about the dangers of working in those very murky waters. The risk of getting snagged or having the current slam something, even logs, into you without warning. What really impressed me were the fish tales though. Huge catfish and sturgeon that would suddenly appear inches from their faces. Impressive as those wages sounded, I decided I would try my hand elsewhere.

That's where it went. It turned cold here for a few days, but this week should see us back into the mid-thirties for high temps again. That's about ten degrees warmer than normal for this neck of the woods. Eastern Europe hasn't been so lucky:

Military planes and police helicopters flew in tons of emergency food to snowbound villages and ships in the Balkans on Monday, after blizzards so fierce that some people had to cut tunnels through 15 feet (4 meters) of snow to get out of their homes.

Since the end of January, Eastern Europe has been pummeled by a record-breaking cold snap and the heaviest snowfall in recent memory. Hundreds of people, many of them homeless, have died in the bitter cold and tens of thousands have been trapped by blocked roads inside homes with little heat.

I can understand the rumblings from winter sports enthusiasts here about the warm winter this year and I miss having some snow cover over the dead leaves and grass. I'm not going to complain though. After three or four harsh winters we can use the break, though I hope that's not happening at Eastern Europe's expense. It's brutal there right now. 

I'm Shocked, Shocked To Find That Entitlement Thinking Is Going On In Here!

The New York Times visits Minnesota to interview those damn Tea Party types who complain about government spending but take their checks too. Hilarity ensues:

LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Okay, not really hilarity, but since this sort of thing has become a common staple of the poo-flinging wing of the Democratic party it should be examined. Let's go with the last item first.

This year will mark the 57 year anniversary of a little program called Medicare. For that entire time, politicians of all stripes have loudly proclaimed to every American that if they pay this little payroll tax while working then the government will pay for most of not all of their health care after age 65. "You're entitled to it!" Really, they were quite clear about that. So how then, can anyone be surprised that people who paid into a system for most if not all of their working life feel entitled to get the benefits of it? Tea partier or not, it's what they paid for all of those years. It's what was promised them. Anyone who thinks that's surprising or hypocritical needs to step back and check their logic, because it is profoundly flawed.

Pretty much the same reasoning goes for the earned-income tax credit and the school food. Raise your hand if you examine your taxes each year to see how you can maximize the federal government's take. Anybody? Anybody at all? I won't hold my breath. As the story notes, the man was urged by his accountant to claim the credit because he was eligible. The EITC is part of the tax code, part of the game. There's a word for people who don't take the deductions and tax credits that are handed to them on a silver platter. I'll spell it out so the retarded poo-flingers don't get confused: C.H.U.M.P.

I'm not going to criticize Mr. Gulbranson for taking advantage of "free" school food for his kids because that's baked into the game too. If the freakin' idiots in Washington D.C. would roll back the insane policies that have driven up the cost food and energy, items that hit lower income Americans the hardest of all because they take a higher percentage of income, perhaps he wouldn't need that particular government freebie. 

How does the song go? Oh yeah:

"They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please"

Government policies create pain, government to the rescue. When arsonists do this, it's called "Hero Syndrome" and we get them psychological help when they are caught. In Washington D.C., it's just another day in the office.