Newt Gingrich says he’s not a hypocrite because his own marital indiscretions instructed him on impeaching Bill Clinton
March 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media On Sunday mornings I usually wake up by turning on the plethora of talk shows. But watching Fox News Sunday yesterday quickly shook the cobwebs out of my brain. It obviously pains Chris Wallace to bring up Newt Gingrich’s personal life because he’s a leading voice of conservative hypocrites and a fixture on Fox News, (who doesn’t work for Fox News that’s involved in election 2012?) but he knows he must, so he does it even if it feels like he’s getting a tooth pulled with no anesthesia. Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: I want to talk about your personal life. I hate doing it. But you know it’s going to be an issue in the campaign. GINGRICH: Sure. WALLACE: So, I’m going to go there. You were asked recently about the fact that you cheated on your first and your second wives. And here’s how you responded. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GINGRICH: There is no question that at times in my life partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard, and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: Speaker, you’ve had more than a decade to come up with an answer. And in all honesty, there were a lot of people who thought that answer was kind of lame. I know it’s heart-felt. But let me explain why. You love your country and you’re working hard. And so you strayed. That wouldn’t work with my wife. GINGRICH: No, it didn’t work in my life. I went on to say that I had to seek God’s forgiveness and I had to seek reconciliation and I had to believe that being genuinely repentant mattered. As you know, first, I have a great marriage. Gingrich explains away being a serial cheater on wives who were also very ill: it’s because he loves his country so much! Wallace sees how heartfelt his response was, but reacted to it like someone who is married: That wouldn’t work with my wife. Newt has been on a monumental crazy-train roll of insane logic lately to justify his previous wretched behavior because he wants to be president now. That’s one of the reasons why he’s been playing the God card (he has God’s forgiveness, y’see) so much. But his response to his role in Bill Clinton ‘s impeachment may have even surpassed some of Michelle Bachmann’s mindless brain activity. And to Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post I say that without a hint of sexism. Transcript continues…. WALLACE: There’s something else that bothers people. You were leading the charge to push Bill Clinton from office for lying about an affair and yes, he lied in a court proceeding, in a deposition, where he was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, but nothing but the truth. At the same time, you were leading that charge, you were having an affair. Isn’t that hypocrisy? GINGRICH: No. Look, obviously, it’s complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of. On the other hand, what I said, very clearly — I knew this in part going through a divorce — I had been in depositions. I had been in situations where you had to swear to tell the truth. I understood that in a federal court, in a case in front of a federal judge, to commit a felony, which is what he did, perjury was a felony. The question I raise was very simple: should a president of the United States be above the law? I don’t think the president of the United States can be above the law. And it’s not about personal behavior. It’s about whether — it’s not about what he did in the Oval Office. You can condemn that. You can say it’s totally inappropriate. But it was about a much deeper and more profound thing, which is: does the president of the United States have to obey law? Or as long as he’s popular or she is popular, can they flout the law and become a third world country where the leader gets to get away with anything they want to, but you and I obey the law? I thought the notion — I mean, I don’t know what you would have had me do because I think the notion that the president of the United States committing perjury — remember, he is a lawyer. This is not some accidental thing. And I thought the outcome was about right. The House indicted – in effect indicted him. That’s what impeachment is. He’s using his own twisted behavior with his previous marital relationships to justify why he felt he wasn’t being a hypocrite to Bill Clinton. You can’t make this up. WALLACE: But I’m just going to ask you man-to-man. Did you ever think to yourself “I’m living in a really glass house”? GINGRICH: Yes. WALLACE: Maybe I shouldn’t be throwing stones? GINGRICH: No. I thought to myself if I cannot do what I have to do as a public leader, I would have resigned. Now, look, I think you have to look at whether or not people have to be perfect in order to be leaders. I don’t think I’m perfect. I admitted I had problems. I admitted that I sought forgiveness. But I also think over time, if you look at my total record, I’m a pretty effective leader. I fight for this country and I fight for the changes we need with tenacity and I take a fairly tough beating, including from you and others, in order to stand in the arena and stand up for what I believe is really important. And I think this country is worth that kind of a fight. And we’ll find out six months or a year from now whether people are forgiving and whether we put in context events that are 15 and 10 years old. We’ll see. WALLACE: Thank you for being so forthright in answering that. See, Wallace found an out. He turned Gingrich’s hypocrisy into just Newt being “forthright’ instead of a lying liar. Now that’s called pulling a Houdini. (h/t Heather for making the video from Video Cafe ) I know other blogs wrote about this yesterday like Think Progress: Gingrich: My Infidelities Helped Me Understand How To Impeach Clinton , Little Green Footballs , and Liberaland and many more. We don’t always rush to get a story up first.
Continue reading …
Raising Malawi’s decision to drop plans for $15m elite academy for girls cost workers’ their jobs, claims lawyer Eight charity workers in Malawi are suing Madonna after the collapse of her $15m (£9.4m) academy for girls cost them their jobs. The employees’ lawyer said they are taking the US singer to court for unfair dismissal and non-payment of benefits. The board of Raising Malawi was ousted after failing to start the building of an elite girls’ school amid allegations of financial mismanagement , including lavish spending on offices, cars and golf membership. Madonna, who has adopted a boy and a girl from the southern African country, lent $11m (£6.9m) to the charity and now sits on the board. The charity workers’ lawyer, Mzondi Chirambo, said the singer had 14 days to respond to their concerns. “Their employment was terminated by the trustees of Raising Malawi Academy for Girls ostensibly following the change of plan not to build the school as planned,” he told Reuters news agency. “My clients are also being forced to sign a discriminatory termination agreement before they are paid their benefits.” The papers were filed with Malawi’s industrial court, which handles employment disputes. Madonna’s US representative was not immediately available for comment, but there were reports that the singer is considering filing a counter-suit. Chirambo said some of the workers he represented were directly connected to the school project, while others taught Kabbalah, a form of Jewish mysticism of which Madonna, 52, is a devotee. The group includes Dr Anjimile Oponyo, who had been recruited to head the school. An audit by the Global Philanthropy Group , brought in by Madonna to rescue the charity, reportedly said of Oponyo: “Her charisma masks a lack of substantive knowledge of the practical application of educational development, and her weak management skills are a major contributor to the current financial and programmatic chaos.” The school was to take in 500 girls and prepare them as female leaders of the future. When news of its demise emerged two months ago, the Malawian government expressed concern and there was anger among villagers who had sacrificed their homes to make way for the 47.4-hectare (117-acre) site near the capital, Lilongwe. It was reported by the New York Times last week that $3.8m (£2.4m) had been spent on the abortive project. The charity’s executive director, Philippe van den Bossche, the boyfriend of Madonna’s former personal trainer, left in October amid criticism of his management style and cost overruns. Malawi Madonna Universal primary education David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Raising Malawi’s decision to drop plans for $15m elite academy for girls cost workers’ their jobs, claims lawyer Eight charity workers in Malawi are suing Madonna after the collapse of her $15m (£9.4m) academy for girls cost them their jobs. The employees’ lawyer said they are taking the US singer to court for unfair dismissal and non-payment of benefits. The board of Raising Malawi was ousted after failing to start the building of an elite girls’ school amid allegations of financial mismanagement , including lavish spending on offices, cars and golf membership. Madonna, who has adopted a boy and a girl from the southern African country, lent $11m (£6.9m) to the charity and now sits on the board. The charity workers’ lawyer, Mzondi Chirambo, said the singer had 14 days to respond to their concerns. “Their employment was terminated by the trustees of Raising Malawi Academy for Girls ostensibly following the change of plan not to build the school as planned,” he told Reuters news agency. “My clients are also being forced to sign a discriminatory termination agreement before they are paid their benefits.” The papers were filed with Malawi’s industrial court, which handles employment disputes. Madonna’s US representative was not immediately available for comment, but there were reports that the singer is considering filing a counter-suit. Chirambo said some of the workers he represented were directly connected to the school project, while others taught Kabbalah, a form of Jewish mysticism of which Madonna, 52, is a devotee. The group includes Dr Anjimile Oponyo, who had been recruited to head the school. An audit by the Global Philanthropy Group , brought in by Madonna to rescue the charity, reportedly said of Oponyo: “Her charisma masks a lack of substantive knowledge of the practical application of educational development, and her weak management skills are a major contributor to the current financial and programmatic chaos.” The school was to take in 500 girls and prepare them as female leaders of the future. When news of its demise emerged two months ago, the Malawian government expressed concern and there was anger among villagers who had sacrificed their homes to make way for the 47.4-hectare (117-acre) site near the capital, Lilongwe. It was reported by the New York Times last week that $3.8m (£2.4m) had been spent on the abortive project. The charity’s executive director, Philippe van den Bossche, the boyfriend of Madonna’s former personal trainer, left in October amid criticism of his management style and cost overruns. Malawi Madonna Universal primary education David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Theresa May says face coverings could be banned and known troublemakers barred from political rallies in the wake of violence after Saturday’s anti-cuts march The government will consider giving the police new powers, including the banning of face coverings, following the weekend’s anti-cuts march, the home secretary, Theresa May, has said. May said police could be given the power to ban known troublemakers from attending political demonstrations – similar to how known hooligans can be banned from travelling to football matches. She told the Commons that 149 of the more than 200 demonstrators arrested during violent clashes with police have now been charged, as she praised officers for learning the lessons of the tuition fees protests. “The message to those who carry out violence is clear,” she said. “You will be caught and you will be punished.” Organisers of Saturday’s protest through central London, which culminated in Hyde Park, estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 people took part in a peaceful rally. But in separate violent clashes, activists threw missiles at officers in parts of the West End, while others attempted to damage the Olympic countdown clock in Trafalgar Square. Describing the demonstrators who clashed with officers as “gangs of thugs”, May said she “utterly condemned” those responsible for the “mindless” violent behaviour. She said that “on the whole” the police operation was a success, adding that 56 officers were injured, 12 of whom needed hospital treatment. Fifty-three members of the public were hurt. May added: “The police might not have managed to prevent every act of violence but they were successful in preventing wider criminality and are now actively engaged in investigating the perpetrators so that they can be brought to justice.” She said that the tactics deployed on Saturday reflect that the Metropolitan police has learnt lessons from the student demonstrations in December, but added that there was more that could be done. “Just as the police review their operational tactics, so we in the Home Office will review the powers available to the police,” she said. “I am willing to consider powers which would ban known hooligans from rallies and marches and I will look into the powers the police already have to force the removal of face coverings and balaclavas. “If the police need more help to do their work, I will not hesitate in granting it to them.” May said parliament would always back the police “when they do their important work”, adding it was necessary they operated within the “right legal framework”. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said Labour condemned the “few hundred mindless idiots” responsible for violence. “In a democracy this kind of violence is no form of political protest,” she said. “It is violent assault and criminal damage, it is thuggish behaviour of the worst kind and it must face the full force of the law. “I welcome the speed with which the police have acted to charge 149 people with offences already. They will have the opposition’s support in taking a strong line.” Police Public sector cuts Public services policy Theresa May Protest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Theresa May says face coverings could be banned and known troublemakers barred from political rallies in the wake of violence after Saturday’s anti-cuts march The government will consider giving the police new powers, including the banning of face coverings, following the weekend’s anti-cuts march, the home secretary, Theresa May, has said. May said police could be given the power to ban known troublemakers from attending political demonstrations – similar to how known hooligans can be banned from travelling to football matches. She told the Commons that 149 of the more than 200 demonstrators arrested during violent clashes with police have now been charged, as she praised officers for learning the lessons of the tuition fees protests. “The message to those who carry out violence is clear,” she said. “You will be caught and you will be punished.” Organisers of Saturday’s protest through central London, which culminated in Hyde Park, estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 people took part in a peaceful rally. But in separate violent clashes, activists threw missiles at officers in parts of the West End, while others attempted to damage the Olympic countdown clock in Trafalgar Square. Describing the demonstrators who clashed with officers as “gangs of thugs”, May said she “utterly condemned” those responsible for the “mindless” violent behaviour. She said that “on the whole” the police operation was a success, adding that 56 officers were injured, 12 of whom needed hospital treatment. Fifty-three members of the public were hurt. May added: “The police might not have managed to prevent every act of violence but they were successful in preventing wider criminality and are now actively engaged in investigating the perpetrators so that they can be brought to justice.” She said that the tactics deployed on Saturday reflect that the Metropolitan police has learnt lessons from the student demonstrations in December, but added that there was more that could be done. “Just as the police review their operational tactics, so we in the Home Office will review the powers available to the police,” she said. “I am willing to consider powers which would ban known hooligans from rallies and marches and I will look into the powers the police already have to force the removal of face coverings and balaclavas. “If the police need more help to do their work, I will not hesitate in granting it to them.” May said parliament would always back the police “when they do their important work”, adding it was necessary they operated within the “right legal framework”. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said Labour condemned the “few hundred mindless idiots” responsible for violence. “In a democracy this kind of violence is no form of political protest,” she said. “It is violent assault and criminal damage, it is thuggish behaviour of the worst kind and it must face the full force of the law. “I welcome the speed with which the police have acted to charge 149 people with offences already. They will have the opposition’s support in taking a strong line.” Police Public sector cuts Public services policy Theresa May Protest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I laughed so hard at this segment. First Chris Wallace allows Newt Gingrich to make the “but Clinton broke the law” excuse for his sexual hypocrisy, and Wallace never once mentions Newt’s $300,000 fines from the House Ethics Committee. Not once. Immediately following this shagfest, Chris Wallace engages in a whiney rant about the White House turning down an FNS request for Secretaries Clinton and Gates to appear, though they went on other networks. Chris Wallace claims that the mean White House is denying Fox News viewers the opportunity to hear why American troops are being committed in Libya. Well, they COULD change the channel, Chris. Then the punchline: But next we’ll hear from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. What, Jon Kyl was busy? Honestly could you choose two more predicable regurgitators of Roger Ailes dreck? Way to keep your massive number of viewers “informed” there, Fox. And the FNS website once again has the audacity to call their appearance an “exclusive.” Because neither of these over-ripe wingut windbags are on Meet The Gregory every other weekend. enlarge Credit: Fox News Sunday Your right wing propagandistic Sunday Show is not prom night, Chris. Let’s hope the White House is done with you permanently. Your network has no other goal except to destroy this White House and everything it does. Why should they bother with you?
Continue reading …Executive Editor Bill Keller Confesses to NYT’s ‘Culturally Liberal’ Outlook, Makes It Sound Appealing
March 28, 2011 No Comment
The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “ Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes? ” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests. Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.” Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.) Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists? Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news. Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper: Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered . Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)
Continue reading …Doctor and Lawyer Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison, Overriding CA Laws on Medical Marijuana
March 28, 2011 No CommentI can’t think of many bigger wastes of time and money than going after people who are using and distributing medical cannabis. While I don’t have a dog in this fight, I know my deceased ex-husband counted on marijuana to get him through his chemo, and I have a friend who has serious balance and nausea issues as a result of long-term head trauma who uses it to stay functional. Lots of people, whether they know it or not, probably know at least one person who uses/used pot to get through cancer treatment. Is this really how we want to spend tax money ? Seriously? After more than six years of litigation, and three years of appeals for manufacturing and conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cannabis, Dr. Marion “Mollie” Fry and her husband of 25 years, civil attorney Dale Schafer, attended a hearing at the US courthouse in Sacramento Monday week, in which their bonds were revoked and they were given a the date of May 2 to surrender to serve five-year federal prison terms. Fry and Schafer’s prior home located in the hills just north of Sacramento was raided in 2001, with 34 plants confiscated – what they believed to be well below the 99 plant limit set forth by local ordinances. According to Schafer, the couple had never grown more than 44 plants in a given year. A little known fact, he explained, is that under federal law more than 100 plants grown in a five year period, accumulatively, is cause for the mandatory five-year sentence, overriding state laws. Dr. Fry, who had gone through a radical mastectomy just three years prior, had made the decision to grow her own medicine, medicating through her illness, surgery and continued to medicate from myriad complications from chemotherapy until the arrest. Schafer suffers from hemophilia and failed back syndrome, is under constant care, and had also medicated with cannabis legally. According to Fry and Schafer, prior to the arrest they had conferred numerous times with local officials, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and El Dorado County Sheriff’s Detectives Timothy McNulty and Robert Ashworth, regarding the legality of their cannabis production for their own use and for Fry’s patients. “We weren’t selling the medical cannabis to my patients,” Fry said. “We had staff and were charging $10 for delivery only, and that’s a common practice today.” Ultimately it was staff, Schafer said, who broke rules, and ultimately they were responsible for all actions. “We fired anyone who wasn’t following the code of the law,” Schafer said. “One week before we were raided, two undercover Federal Agents attended a workshop for 215 cardholders we were holding at the local Grange Hall. The chef teaching the class allowed patients to go home with some of the edibles made , including the agents.” Fry said comments were made during the class that may have been misunderstood by the agents, saying it was a comedy of errors with a not so amusing ending. “The judge wouldn’t allow any medical evidence. They wouldn’t let us tell the jury I was sick, or that I was a doctor,” Fry said. “They wouldn’t allow that I was helping sick patients. Ironically, two years before the raid, local authorities asked me to tell them who of my patients were ‘really’ sick, and who wasn’t.” I told them it wasn’t my job to police my patients, and that everyone who came to me had legitimate health issues. They have treated us like criminals.” Fry’s lineage includes seven generations of doctors. Family notables include her grandfather, Dr. Francis Marion Pottenger, celebrated for being at the forefront of curing tuberculosis in the early 1900s, and founding the field of internal medicine in the process. Her grandmother studied under Carl Jung in the 1950s, founding a Jungian institute in Houston in the 1960s, while her mother also became a physician in the 1950s. Dr. Fry’s license to practice has been revoked for some time now, as has her husband’s license to practice law. The couple’s grown children with grandkids have moved back home to help with finances and save the family home. A Pay Pal account has been set up for donations. It can be accessed here
Continue reading …Doctor and Lawyer Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison, Overriding CA Laws on Medical Marijuana
March 28, 2011 No CommentI can’t think of many bigger wastes of time and money than going after people who are using and distributing medical cannabis. While I don’t have a dog in this fight, I know my deceased ex-husband counted on marijuana to get him through his chemo, and I have a friend who has serious balance and nausea issues as a result of long-term head trauma who uses it to stay functional. Lots of people, whether they know it or not, probably know at least one person who uses/used pot to get through cancer treatment. Is this really how we want to spend tax money ? Seriously? After more than six years of litigation, and three years of appeals for manufacturing and conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cannabis, Dr. Marion “Mollie” Fry and her husband of 25 years, civil attorney Dale Schafer, attended a hearing at the US courthouse in Sacramento Monday week, in which their bonds were revoked and they were given a the date of May 2 to surrender to serve five-year federal prison terms. Fry and Schafer’s prior home located in the hills just north of Sacramento was raided in 2001, with 34 plants confiscated – what they believed to be well below the 99 plant limit set forth by local ordinances. According to Schafer, the couple had never grown more than 44 plants in a given year. A little known fact, he explained, is that under federal law more than 100 plants grown in a five year period, accumulatively, is cause for the mandatory five-year sentence, overriding state laws. Dr. Fry, who had gone through a radical mastectomy just three years prior, had made the decision to grow her own medicine, medicating through her illness, surgery and continued to medicate from myriad complications from chemotherapy until the arrest. Schafer suffers from hemophilia and failed back syndrome, is under constant care, and had also medicated with cannabis legally. According to Fry and Schafer, prior to the arrest they had conferred numerous times with local officials, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and El Dorado County Sheriff’s Detectives Timothy McNulty and Robert Ashworth, regarding the legality of their cannabis production for their own use and for Fry’s patients. “We weren’t selling the medical cannabis to my patients,” Fry said. “We had staff and were charging $10 for delivery only, and that’s a common practice today.” Ultimately it was staff, Schafer said, who broke rules, and ultimately they were responsible for all actions. “We fired anyone who wasn’t following the code of the law,” Schafer said. “One week before we were raided, two undercover Federal Agents attended a workshop for 215 cardholders we were holding at the local Grange Hall. The chef teaching the class allowed patients to go home with some of the edibles made , including the agents.” Fry said comments were made during the class that may have been misunderstood by the agents, saying it was a comedy of errors with a not so amusing ending. “The judge wouldn’t allow any medical evidence. They wouldn’t let us tell the jury I was sick, or that I was a doctor,” Fry said. “They wouldn’t allow that I was helping sick patients. Ironically, two years before the raid, local authorities asked me to tell them who of my patients were ‘really’ sick, and who wasn’t.” I told them it wasn’t my job to police my patients, and that everyone who came to me had legitimate health issues. They have treated us like criminals.” Fry’s lineage includes seven generations of doctors. Family notables include her grandfather, Dr. Francis Marion Pottenger, celebrated for being at the forefront of curing tuberculosis in the early 1900s, and founding the field of internal medicine in the process. Her grandmother studied under Carl Jung in the 1950s, founding a Jungian institute in Houston in the 1960s, while her mother also became a physician in the 1950s. Dr. Fry’s license to practice has been revoked for some time now, as has her husband’s license to practice law. The couple’s grown children with grandkids have moved back home to help with finances and save the family home. A Pay Pal account has been set up for donations. It can be accessed here
Continue reading …Krugman: No ‘Scientific Impropriety’ in ClimateGate – ‘Hide the Decline’ an ‘Effective Graphical Presentation’
March 28, 2011 No Comment
For many years, conservatives have been claiming that Paul Krugman makes up economic data to support his political conclusions. Proving the point, the New York Times columnist said Monday, “Nothing in the [ClimateGate email] correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety,” and in the truly damning message from Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, “it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence”: Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike. But that didn’t stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered “Climategate,” a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon. After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer. No scientific impropriety? Jones was just making an effective graphical presentation? Well, as NewsBusters reported last February, Jones himself, in an interview with the BBC, admitted that he manipulated data. Of course, given his background, it's not at all surprising Krugman wouldn't consider this a scientific impropriety. Former Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent in May 2005 said the Nobel Laureate “has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” With that in mind, let's examine what Krugman now claims was just an “effective graphical presentation.” As Marc Sheppard wrote in December 2009, “[T]he decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists — those determined by proxy reconstructions.” He continued: Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [ PDF ], “WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990,” when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann's series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series. In February 2010, Jones admitted this to the BBC: “[It] was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.” In simple terms, Briffa's tree-ring data showed a decline in temperatures between 1960 and 1999 that weather stations around the world disagreed with. So, Jones spliced into Briffa's data set the real “instrumental” numbers for that period thereby “hiding the decline.” This should raise eyebrows for a number of reasons. First, Jones and Company gave no notification to folks receiving this data — including the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change — that Briffa's numbers included instrumental data. But more importantly, as the tree-ring numbers deviated so demonstrably from the observed temperature data between 1960 and 1999, why should anyone believe they're accurate for any periods in the past that can't be confirmed with instrumentation? The entire global warming myth depends on tree-ring data that was grossly errant for forty years in the last century. This makes the decline ClimateGate scientists were trying to hide FAR MORE serious than most people believe. I guess we can now include Krugman on this list. That folks care what this man has to say about anything is astounding.
Continue reading …