Currently viewing the tag: “More”
On Wednesday, we reported that some of the earmarks Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) had requested over the years appear have the potential to benefit Issa’s real estate empire. Yesterday, Issa responded to our article over Twitter:
Issa did not dispute the fact that his earmark could benefit his real estate property. Instead, he argued that the earmark was simply a request from a constituent. In his Tweet, Issa linked to a letter from a county government group requesting the earmarks at issue. It would be appropriate if the earmark had been requested coincidentally near property Issa already owned. Over the years, starting with fiscal year 2007, Issa had placed the West Vista Way earmark on his list of interested earmarks. However, the timeline of events shows that Issa actually purchased his $ 16.6 million office building with the knowledge that his own earmark next to it was finally pending:
– February 20, 2008: According to the letter provided by Issa’s office, the San Diego Association of Governments requested $ 2 million in taxpayer earmarks for widening and improving the West Vista Way road in Vista, California.
– April 3, 2008: Issa releases the list of over $ 200 million in earmark requests that includes the $ 2 million request for the improvements on West Vista Way.
– October 8, 2008: Issa negotiates the purchase of the Vista Medical Plaza for $ 16.6 million. The building is situated next to West Vista Way and along the area where the earmarked improvements are targeted.
– February 2009: A few months after closing the deal on his multi-million dollar Vista Medical Plaza office building, Issa pushes for his West Vista Way earmark in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Unlike any of Issa’s other earmarks, Issa secured two separate earmarks for West Vista Way into the bill: one for $ 245,000 and another for $ 570,000.
– February 2009: Although Issa publicly listed over $ 200 million in earmarks for the FY2009 budget, he only secured a few. He did not obtain a million dollar Boys and Girl grant, nor did he secure one for a flood control grant in his district. Out of all of the earmarks he publicly listed, the West Vista Way one seemed to fair better than most.
– March 11, 2009: President Obama signs the Omnibus into law, granting a total of $ 815,000 to the West Vista Way project for Issa. Issa later begins advertising his Vista Medical Plaza and its “Excellent Access with Freeway Visibility.”
As we noted yesterday, Issa has said that an “earmark is tantamount to a bribe.” Issa’s fellow House Republicans in the San Diego area have a long history of earmark related scandals. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) got caught enriching himself off of land deals boosted by the earmarking process. Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) was embroiled in a similar controversy. Responding to the Cunningham scandal, Issa made a poignant observation:
“The Duke Cunningham earmark-bribery scandal brought new scrutiny to members of Congress and, specifically, to the appropriations process. Constituents want to know that the project requests we make benefit our communities, our country, and don’t line our pockets.”
Planning his role as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Issa called for hearings on the earmarking process. Given Issa’s remarks on the Cunningham scandal, he should be acutely aware of the ethical problems posed by buying property next to his own earmark projects.
Why did Issa purchase the land when he had a pending earmark request that could increase its value? Will he now withdraw his earmark since he might benefit financially from the project?
Earlier this week, Sen. Richard Durbin convened a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims.” The subcommittee heard from four witnesses, each giving the same one-sided narrative on this issue, but did not hear from any witnesses offering an alternative view. This was a sharp contrast to the more balanced and, indeed, statesmanlike hearings convened by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, earlier this month.
That committee’s hearing on radicalization in the American Muslim community was an opportunity for focusing the public’s attention on how Congress often works. While the witness statements and exchanges provided those who care deeply about U.S. national security with valuable insight as to what is causing “homegrown terrorism” and hindering law enforcement efforts to stop it, the hearing itself also gave us a window into some procedural, tactical and strategic lessons that can be drawn from that day’s conversations as Congress hopefully continues to examine this issue.
To be sure, the substance of that hearing proved vital. We received first-hand accounts of families experiencing the process of recruitment to the jihadist cause. We learned that there are in fact brave American Muslims like Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy who are fighting — against incredible odds — to counteract the destructive presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups amongst Muslims in the United States. And we learned much about the congressional critics of the hearing as well, if only from their total lack of substance. Most of them, rather than delving seriously into this issue, fell back on tired claims of “Islamophobia,” insisting that the Ku Klux Klan and radical environmentalist groups were deserving of at least equal scrutiny, and that Chairman Peter King’s decision to convene this hearing was McCarthyism risen from the dead.
There were other important takeaways, however, which can inform what happens next.
The presence at the hearing of witnesses Rep. Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim Members of Congress, and Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County (who had previously defended his close working relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history) caused some who were otherwise sympathetic to Chairman King’s objectives to question whether he was perhaps giving in to political correctness.
But as Hill staffers will tell you, it is common practice for congressional committee chairmen to accommodate a small number of witnesses with perspectives opposite their own, often as a matter of protocol, out of institutional respect for the Ranking Member and/or the other minority party members on the committee. Though there is no hard rule that committee chairmen allow minority-view witnesses to testify, it does happen. While the exact reasons for this are not definitively stated, it is worth observing, for example, that even Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — both staunch advocates of the New START treaty with Russia — last year allowed testimony before their committee from two known treaty skeptics (though they were vastly outnumbered by witnesses in support of the treaty).
So we know that opposing-view witnesses do appear at congressional hearings, and their presence should not necessarily be used to question the committee chairman’s commitment to his/her own stated views.
More importantly, given this reality, the presence of opposing-view witnesses should be seen as another opportunity to draw out significant points, albeit through different methods. Rep. Chip Cravaack saw it as such, when he used what little time he had to question Sherriff Baca on his working relationship with CAIR, pointing out that CAIR has deep ties to Hamas and has arguably been using its relationship with the sheriff to give itself cover to undermine the pursuit of effective counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization policies. Similarly, Senators Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, despite facing a one-sided witness panel in the Senate Judiciary subcommittee’s hearing, took the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses that drew out the Senators’ critical points about rising radicalization in the American Muslim community, and the need for Muslim American organizations to address hateful and violent rhetoric emanating from within elements of that community.
Watching these exchanges provides a valuable reminder to those dismayed by the presence of witnesses they may find objectionable: rather than asking “How could the committee let them testify?” they should instead be asking: “How do we turn this into a learning and teaching opportunity?”
Chairman King’s hearing also underscored the level of congressional interest in the subject of radicalization in the American Muslim community, and will hopefully serve as the critical jumping-off point not only for future hearings on it in the House Homeland Security Committee, but also in other congressional committees and subcommittees whose jurisdictions could merit their own scrutiny of related aspects of this important issue.
Some possibilities include, for example:
- The House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee could examine the Obama Administration’s foreign policy with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood overseas, and the question of whether our approach to a rapidly changing Middle East runs the risk of empowering that organization and its affiliates in the region.
- The House and Senate Armed Services Committees could examine the extent to which our warfighters are being adequately trained to understand the doctrine of jihad that is motivating our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Additionally, the Armed Services subcommittees on Oversight and Investigation could arguably further examine the extent of or risks of Islamic radicalization inside the United States military;
- The House and Senate Judiciary Committees could usefully explore whether our immigration policies are contributing to a radicalization environment in some parts of the country (subcommittees on immigration and border enforcement/security), and whether organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood — with radicalized agendas, but through non-violent means — are using civil rights laws and relationships with law enforcement agencies to provide themselves the kind of cover Rep. Cravaack discussed during his exchange with Sheriff Baca;
- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform — specifically, the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Ops — could usefully explore the methodology the federal government uses in providing homeland security grants, and to which outside organizations and entities;
- Finally, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees — including the House Subcommittees on Oversight, and on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence — could conceivably take up an exploration of the intelligence dimensions of all these issues.
There would likely have to be some discussion between committees as to which one should take the lead on any number of these issues, as there is arguably some issue overlap. It may also be the case that some of these committees are already taking up these matters in a classified, closed-door setting.
But what is hopefully the case is that Chairman King’s hearing is just the beginning of Congress taking an honest and thorough look at homegrown terrorism and jihad, Islamic radicalization, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts in America, not only through the critical vehicle that is the House Homeland Security Committee, but throughout Congress.
And if such further hearings do take place, hopefully Members of Congress will avail themselves of every opportunity to get to the bottom of this question of national security — no matter who shows up to testify.
Originally published at The American Spectator
Today, House Judiciary Chairman and immigration hardliner Lamar Smith (R-TX) published an editorial which claims that the Obama administration is not telling the truth about the progress that has been made along the southern border with Mexico. Smith complains that only 15 percent of the border is “air tight” and notes that “more than 34,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug-related violence.” The violence hasn’t spilled over, but Smith seems convinced it will. Smith also rails on Obama for ending the practice of worksite immigration raids and accuses the administration of supposedly cooking its deportation numbers:
While the Obama administration claims their approach is working, the truth is that the Southwest border remains porous and seven million illegal immigrants work in the United States. The administration’s immigration enforcement and border security strategies cannot be effective if it amounts to little more than spin. The American people are smart enough not to buy into the false promise that legalizing millions of illegal immigrants will secure the border and reduce illegal immigration.
Smith calls for the deployment of national guard troops at the border, the expansion of the controversial electronic employment verification system (E-verify), and the completion of a double layer border fence.
Yet, experts call Smith’s “border security first” argument a red herring. The Center for American Progress contends that evaluating border security “cannot and should not be measured against a standard of total control.” Given that most security specialists out there don’t believe it is possible to completely seal the border, “The question should be: Have we implemented the right set of policies and deployed the right set of tools to minimize risk and maximize control in a constantly changing environment with evolving challenges?” While Smith is right that the border is not 100 percent airtight, in terms of risk management, DHS has made serious headway.
Meanwhile, the American people actually are smart enough to know that comprehensive immigration reform that combines a path to legalization with a modernized visa system and continued enforcement efforts will reduce illegal immigration. That’s why a large majority of the public supports it.
Finally, while Smith accuses the Obama administration of fudging its deportation numbers, the immigrant advocacy community would probably argue just the opposite. “What’s disappointing is that this administration is deporting more people than ever before — it’s more well funded than ever before, but many people have the perception that immigration enforcement is underfunded and that this administration is extremely pro-immigrant,” said one advocate. Grassroots groups have launched a campaign to “urge President Obama to use his discretionary authority to stop separating families through deportations.” The White House maintains that “administrative solutions are not feasible or do-able on a large scale.”
Smith’s criticism comes at a time when House Republicans are drafting a “legislative assault on illegal immigration” which includes plans to add more fencing, sensors, agents and drones at the border. The Secure Border Act of 2011 will reportedly require the Department of Homeland Security to submit a five-year plan to Congress that would essentially eliminate unlawful entries and smuggling down. It would be up to Congress to decide whether to fund it or not.
The NRSC helpfully provides President Obama with his first campaign ad of the 2012 cycle:
The NRSC helpfully provides President Obama with his first campaign ad of the 2012 cycle:
Why are any of us not surprised … this is just like spending $ 3000 for the ceramic cat on the Wheel of Fortune.
What is wrong with these people? The Pentagon is looking to spend $ 600,000 on this so-called art of a gurgling toad sculpture. Is this going to be the centerpiece in the main lobby of the Mark Center? NOPE. To make matter worse, only an estimated 2,500 people will see this piece of art daily. This is yet just another example of what happens when people spend others peoples money. The US Treasury is going broke and we have government folks who think its a good idea to spend $ 600K on a frog. UNREAL.
A $ 600,000 frog sculpture that lights up, gurgles “sounds of nature” and carries a 10-foot fairy girl on its back could soon be greeting Defense Department employees who plan to start working at the $ 700 million Mark Center in Alexandria, Va. this fall. That is unless a new controversy over the price tag of the public art doesn’t torpedo the idea.
Decried as wasteful spending that will be seen by just a couple thousand of daily workers who arrive on bus shuttles, foes have tried to delay the decision, expected tomorrow, April 1. But in an E-mail, an Army Corps of Engineers official said that the decision can’t be held up because it would impact completion of the huge project.
Sadly, this is not an April’s Fools joke, the only fools are those that thought this was a wise purchase. All the kisses in the world will not turn this $ 600K toad into a prince.
A plurality of Americans is taking the side of public-employee unions in the fight over collective bargaining policies, according to a new Gallup poll out today, as more states enact or consider enacting legislation that they say will help close significant budget shortfalls.
Nearly half of Americans – 48 percent — agree more with “state-employee unions” in “disputes over collective bargaining policies and the state’s budget” occurring in Wisconsin and other states, according to the poll. Just 39 percent agree more with the governors in these disputes. Four percent said they agree with neither governors nor state-employee unions, and nine percent were undecided.
But among the 28 percent of Americans who said they were following the issue “very closely,” support for unions and the governors is virtually split.
The poll results break largely along partisan lines. A majority of Republicans, 65 percent, agree with the governors — while only a quarter agree with the unions. Democrats are also united, with 70 percent agreeing with unions, to just 19 percent siding with governors. Among independents, unions have a slight edge, 45 percent to 40 percent — within the margin of error.
Men are split evenly on the issue. But women side heavily with the state-employee unions over the governors, 50 percent to 33 percent.
The latest edition of the biweekly Notable Quotables is up at MRC.org, the Web site for NewsBusters's parent organization the Media Research Center.
Some of the topics this week: the same media who trashed George W. Bush for going after a bloodthirsty dictator now see greatness in Barack Obama doing the same; Brian Williams feels the commander-in-chief’s pain; and Chris Matthews has a death wish for Republicans who fail to practice civility in politics.
After the jump, a sample of what’s in this issue; the entire April 1 edition is posted at www.MRC.org:
It All Depends On Who’s in the White House
“This intervention could wind up being Barack Obama’s finest hour. His intentions are pure — this is a humanitarian mission, not blood for oil. We’ve got a coalition with us, the United Nations, the Arab League. And the diplomacy has truly been masterful — future military planners will surely use Obama’s Libya template as a guide.”
— NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press, April 1.
vs.
“It’s terrible that Saddam Hussein is butchering his people, but the United States simply cannot send in the Marines to take on every dictator. And, while the Bush administration likes to brag about the 30 nations in their coalition, it will be the United States that does most of the fighting in Iraq. I fear this is the wrong war at the wrong time and in the wrong place.”
— Mitchell talking about the Iraq war on Meet the Press, April 1, 2003.
Obama’s an Intellectual Gift to Us All
“While everyone this week — from discredited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to the President’s own progressive allies — were beating up on him for trying to save lives in Libya, I was struck by an observation I came across from a Harvard professor. He reminded us all that Barack Obama is really a, quote ‘true philosopher-President whose peers include the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and, our last professorial President, the under-rated Woodrow Wilson,’ end of quote. That’s a renewing resource of intellectual insight we should all learn to appreciate as the cherry blossoms bloom here in Washington.”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer in his end of the show commentary on the April 1 Face the Nation.
Brian Williams Polishes and Pouts
“The first time I met you, I couldn’t help but hear what you were saying through the prism of a fellow married father of two. Your wife and daughters know you ran for this office for them and their future. But they clearly suffer when hard times cause you to overwork, and clearly suffer when you’re attacked despite all that effort. As you sit here on a beautiful day in New York in April, reflect for me on how the criticism from all sides, at all times, can threaten to ruffle your legendary calm.”
— NBC’s Brian Williams interviewing President Obama on the April 1 Nightly News.
Frank Takes One Last Potshot at Palin
“In Alaska, Sarah Palin endorsed aerial hunting of wolves. Now Palin is moving to Arizona. What would she consider fair game for the airborne hunters of the Grand Canyon State? Roadrunners? Illegal immigrants? A saguaro cactus that the megalomaniacal, thin-skinned, half-term governor thought was giving her the finger?”
— Frank Rich, in his April 1 farewell column for the New York Times.
“Racist, Sexist Teabaggers” Would Find Patrick Henry Too Squishy
“In Lubbock, Texas, defense lawyers for college student and terror suspect Khalid Aldawsari are seeking the prosecution’s evidence. Today’s Big Question: Are you frustrated that Aldawsari wasn’t a racist, sexist, homophobic teabagger?”
— Daytime anchor Contessa Brewer on MSNBC News Live, April 1.
“The absolutist, liberty-or-death Tea Partiers are trying to purge the GOP. Purity is the gold of the wingnut realm. It’s clear that not even Founding Fathers like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry would have enough purity to gain the support of the Republican base if they ran for office today.”
— CNN contributor John Avlon on the April 1 edition of CNN Newsroom.
No More Violent Rhetoric or We Shoot You
Host Chris Matthews: “John Boehner said Obama’s health care plan was going to be ‘lethal’ for the economic recovery….We all agreed a few weeks ago after the horror in Arizona that we weren’t gonna talk about, you know, ‘shoot ‘em up.’ We weren’t gonna use terms, ballistic terms in the way we talk. We’re not gonna say, ‘Mow down our opponents,’ or all that. We’re gonna stop talking about guns in regular political discourse. Somebody didn’t get the message!”
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson: “Yes, I know Chris. I think the Speaker should watch what he says and should apologize for-”
Matthews: “I mean, Gene, this is out of bounds talk! I’ll tell you what, the DNC needs to make Boehner the target of all their direct mail fundraising right now. He should be their public enemy number one! They’ve got to cut him off at his knees. They’ve got to knock him off!…Remember that scene in The Godfather, Part II, where Fredo goes out on the fishing boat and is, you know, disposed of? Maybe someone in the White House might want to suggest Boehner that a great way to work on that tan of his, go on a fishing trip, you know what I’m saying? Because, seriously, this kind of violent rhetoric from the likes of Boehner just needs to stop!”
— MSNBC’s Hardball, April 1.
There's even more media wackiness – be sure to check it out at www.MRC.org.
The latest edition of the biweekly Notable Quotables is up at MRC.org, the Web site for NewsBusters's parent organization the Media Research Center.
Some of the topics this week: the same media who trashed George W. Bush for going after a bloodthirsty dictator now see greatness in Barack Obama doing the same; Brian Williams feels the commander-in-chief’s pain; and Chris Matthews has a death wish for Republicans who fail to practice civility in politics.
After the jump, a sample of what’s in this issue; the entire April 1 edition is posted at www.MRC.org:
It All Depends On Who’s in the White House
“This intervention could wind up being Barack Obama’s finest hour. His intentions are pure — this is a humanitarian mission, not blood for oil. We’ve got a coalition with us, the United Nations, the Arab League. And the diplomacy has truly been masterful — future military planners will surely use Obama’s Libya template as a guide.”
— NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press, April 1.
vs.
“It’s terrible that Saddam Hussein is butchering his people, but the United States simply cannot send in the Marines to take on every dictator. And, while the Bush administration likes to brag about the 30 nations in their coalition, it will be the United States that does most of the fighting in Iraq. I fear this is the wrong war at the wrong time and in the wrong place.”
— Mitchell talking about the Iraq war on Meet the Press, April 1, 2003.
Obama’s an Intellectual Gift to Us All
“While everyone this week — from discredited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to the President’s own progressive allies — were beating up on him for trying to save lives in Libya, I was struck by an observation I came across from a Harvard professor. He reminded us all that Barack Obama is really a, quote ‘true philosopher-President whose peers include the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and, our last professorial President, the under-rated Woodrow Wilson,’ end of quote. That’s a renewing resource of intellectual insight we should all learn to appreciate as the cherry blossoms bloom here in Washington.”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer in his end of the show commentary on the April 1 Face the Nation.
Brian Williams Polishes and Pouts
“The first time I met you, I couldn’t help but hear what you were saying through the prism of a fellow married father of two. Your wife and daughters know you ran for this office for them and their future. But they clearly suffer when hard times cause you to overwork, and clearly suffer when you’re attacked despite all that effort. As you sit here on a beautiful day in New York in April, reflect for me on how the criticism from all sides, at all times, can threaten to ruffle your legendary calm.”
— NBC’s Brian Williams interviewing President Obama on the April 1 Nightly News.
Frank Takes One Last Potshot at Palin
“In Alaska, Sarah Palin endorsed aerial hunting of wolves. Now Palin is moving to Arizona. What would she consider fair game for the airborne hunters of the Grand Canyon State? Roadrunners? Illegal immigrants? A saguaro cactus that the megalomaniacal, thin-skinned, half-term governor thought was giving her the finger?”
— Frank Rich, in his April 1 farewell column for the New York Times.
“Racist, Sexist Teabaggers” Would Find Patrick Henry Too Squishy
“In Lubbock, Texas, defense lawyers for college student and terror suspect Khalid Aldawsari are seeking the prosecution’s evidence. Today’s Big Question: Are you frustrated that Aldawsari wasn’t a racist, sexist, homophobic teabagger?”
— Daytime anchor Contessa Brewer on MSNBC News Live, April 1.
“The absolutist, liberty-or-death Tea Partiers are trying to purge the GOP. Purity is the gold of the wingnut realm. It’s clear that not even Founding Fathers like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry would have enough purity to gain the support of the Republican base if they ran for office today.”
— CNN contributor John Avlon on the April 1 edition of CNN Newsroom.
No More Violent Rhetoric or We Shoot You
Host Chris Matthews: “John Boehner said Obama’s health care plan was going to be ‘lethal’ for the economic recovery….We all agreed a few weeks ago after the horror in Arizona that we weren’t gonna talk about, you know, ‘shoot ‘em up.’ We weren’t gonna use terms, ballistic terms in the way we talk. We’re not gonna say, ‘Mow down our opponents,’ or all that. We’re gonna stop talking about guns in regular political discourse. Somebody didn’t get the message!”
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson: “Yes, I know Chris. I think the Speaker should watch what he says and should apologize for-”
Matthews: “I mean, Gene, this is out of bounds talk! I’ll tell you what, the DNC needs to make Boehner the target of all their direct mail fundraising right now. He should be their public enemy number one! They’ve got to cut him off at his knees. They’ve got to knock him off!…Remember that scene in The Godfather, Part II, where Fredo goes out on the fishing boat and is, you know, disposed of? Maybe someone in the White House might want to suggest Boehner that a great way to work on that tan of his, go on a fishing trip, you know what I’m saying? Because, seriously, this kind of violent rhetoric from the likes of Boehner just needs to stop!”
— MSNBC’s Hardball, April 1.
There's even more media wackiness – be sure to check it out at www.MRC.org.
UPDATE: GOP Chair Hall referred to the emails of “East Angeles“!
Muller says of surface temperature dataset, “Some of the most worrisome biases are less serious than I had thought.“ That’s because he doesn’t read the scientific literature!
There is a climate science hearing trial today at 10 am of the full House Science Committee, “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” (webcast here).
The Charter (here) makes clear this is a Scopes-like trial of Climategate, since it has an extended discussion of the stolen e-mails (which it claims were “leaked” — as if) along with innuendo-laden treatments of “Data Quality” and the “IPCC process.” The Charter never mentions the multiple vindications of the scientists whose emails were stolen and of the IPCC itself — and it omits any discussion of the massive amount of data and independent analyses that underpin our understanding of climate science. And those phony attacks are then used to question EPA’s rather obvious finding that unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases are a danger to the health and well-being of Americans.
The fossil fuel funded Tea Party and climate zombies of the GOP have turned it into the party of no science — see Tim Pawlenty: “Every one of us” running for president has flip-flopped on climate change and National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.” So rather than calling this the Scopes trial, let’s just call it the Nopes trial.
The Democrats were allowed one witness and invited a serious climate scientist, MIT’s Kerry Emanuel. The GOP had five witnesses and invited 3 non-scientists to spread disinformation on greenhouse gas regulations and costs. Of the two actual scientists they invited, Richard Muller and John Christy, only one is actually a climate scientist. Christy, though, is also a serial disinformer. Skeptical Science debunked point by point his last testimony (see “Should you believe anything John Christy says?“). For more, see House GOP line up the usual disinformers for climate science hearing.
Muller likes to claim he is an independent, apolitical physicist trying to restore “credibility” to the temperature record. But in fact, like Christy, the Koch-funded Muller has also launched phony attacks on climate science for years (see here). Like Christy, Muller is a serial disinformer, as we’ve seen (see “Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller makes up story about Al Gore, Ralph Cicerone, and polar bears“). Indeed, Skeptical Science has begun a multipart debunking of Muller, which I repost below:
[Note: SkS accuses Mueller of “misinformation” — but the charge below has been debunked so many times in the past two years, including by the independent commissions reviewing the emails — that it must now qualify as disinformation. Willful ignorance of the facts — like ignorance of the law — is no defense.]
The most cited ‘Climategate‘ email is one from Phil Jones discussing a graph he produced for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, where he discusses “Mike’s trick” and “hide the decline”. A number of misconceptions have arisen concerning this email. Unfortunately a prominent source of ‘hide the decline’ misinformation Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley. One of Muller’s errors is confusing several separate techniques, blurring them into a single “hide the decline”. Muller commits this error in a public lecture (emphasis added):
A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. That’s the words, “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Mike is Michael Mann, said “hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That’s all.” My response is I’m not worried about the word trick. I’m worried about the decline.
Muller uses the phrase “Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline” as if it’s Phil Jones’s actual words. In a lecture recorded last weekend at Berkeley, Muller continues to expound on how Michael Mann’s trick was used to hide the decline (emphasis added):
What they said is “how can we hide the decline?” And the suggestion came back from Phil Jones at the UK, “Let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Mike’s trick consisted of erasing that data, calling it unreliable, and then substituting the temperature data from thereon.
However, the original text from Phil Jone’s email indicates otherwise:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. Muller has taken different sections of Phil Jone’s emails and morphed them into a single phrase. To understand how this is a misleading characterisation, it’s helpful to examine exactly what “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” refer to.
What does “hide the decline” refer to?
Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn’t make this error – he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem“. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
In Phil Jones’ original email, he refers to a graph produced for the cover of a 2000 WMO report.
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records (WMO 2000).
To construct the green line, Jones took tree-ring density data from Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees (Briffa 2000). Note – the reason the paper was eventually published in 2000, not 1999, was due to a publication delay. We can see the original tree-ring density data in the figure below, taken from Briffa 2000. The green line represents Low Frequency Density (LFD) and diverges from the instrumental temperature record (the thick black line), as noted by Briffa in the caption.
Figure 2: An indication of growing season temperature changes across the whole of the northern boreal forest. The LFD curve indicates low-frequency density changes. Note the recent disparity in density and measured temperatures.
In creating the WMO graph, Jones cut off the tree-ring density curve around 1960 when it diverged from instrumental temperature and grafted the instrumental temperature onto the green line. This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph. However, the decline in tree-ring density is not a hidden phenomena – it’s been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995) and was also discussed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Lastly, it bears remembering that other research finds tree-ring density is reliable before 1960. Briffa 1998 finds that tree-ring width and density show close agreement with temperature back to 1880. The high-latitude tree-rings that show divergence after 1960 also match closely with other non-diverging proxies going back to the Medieval Warm Period (Cook 2004). This indicates the divergence problem is restricted to modern times.
What is “Mike’s Nature trick”?
This refers to a technique (in other words, “trick of the trade”) used in a paper published in the journal Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann et al 1998). The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. This graph is commonly known as the hockey stick.
Mann’s 1998 paper in Nature plotted temperature back to 1400 AD. The temperature reconstruction was extended back to 1000 AD and published in Mann et al 1999 which was reproduced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). The IPCC TAR version of Mann’s hockey stick is shown below:
Figure 3: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (IPCC TAR).
There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental (red) and reconstructed temperature (blue) are clearly labelled in Mann’s 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al 1999 and the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
A common and broadly held misconception is that Mann’s hockey stick hides the decline. There is no “decline” in Mann’s reconstructions. As we shall examine shortly, the source of “the decline” come from temperature reconstructions calculated from tree-ring density at high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). There are very few of these in Mann’s proxy data and hence his reconstructions never required removal of any declining tree-ring density.
Thus it’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” has nothing to do with Briffa’s “decline”. There is no “decline” in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 1999. To conflate two separate techniques via the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” is adding to the glut of ‘Climategate‘ misinformation.
Written by Veronica Khokhlova
More on Alexey Navalny's anti-corruption activities – at A Good Treaty and RussiaWatchers. Also, the newyorker.com transcript of Julia Ioffe's Q&A on Navalny is here; “I think Navalny is Russia’s best hope,” she responds to one reader.
Washington (CNN) – Some conservative Tea Party activists attending a rally on Capitol Hill Thursday pushed for deeper cuts to the federal budget with many saying if more spending isn’t slashed – they believe that government operations should go dark.
One activist – Kathy Dirr who resides in Speaker John Boehner’s Ohio district – used stark language as she spoke to the crowd, urging House Republican leadership to, “take off your lace panties” and push for deeper cuts.
This comes as Democrats and Republicans continue to engage in the political equivalent of stare down negotiations over the budget.
At the rally, sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots, lawmakers and activists spoke to what appeared to be a few hundred supporters. Among the speakers were Representatives Steve King of Iowa, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin.
Another speaker, Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, echoed the sentiment of many conservatives.
“With a deficit this year of $ 1.65 trillion and a national debt of $ 14 trillion and a defiant liberal majority in the Senate, it is time to pick a fight,” Pence thundered in front of the grassroots activists.
“If liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and shut down the government instead of making a small down payment on fiscal discipline and reform I say, shut it down,” Pence added.
Pence’s comments appear to be different than those of House Speaker John Boehner, who said it was Democrats that welcomed a shutdown.
Boehner talked to reporters on Thursday (link to Deirder piece) saying, “Now, here is the bottom line: Democrats are rooting for a government shutdown.” He added, “We are listening to the people who sent us here to cut spending so that we can grow our economy. As I have said from the beginning our goal is to cut spending not shut down the government.”
Fellow Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota took a similar tact as she spoke at the rally.
“[Democrats] They’ve got their fingers crossed right now that the government will shut down,” Bachmann claimed. “That’s their plan. They want to shut the government down and they want to turn you into their scapegoat and say it is the Tea Party’s fault for shutting the government down. Now, the cat is out of the bag. We know who has no interest in negotiating. It’s Harry Reid. It’s the big liberals over in the Senate.”
And yet the message from Bachmann and Boehner ran directly counter to those of some Tea Party supporters.
“We’re very concerned about the fact that the Republicans in congress are not taking a strong enough stand in relation to insisting on serious budget cuts,” Robin Maas, a Tea Party supporter, said. “I’m not the slightest bit worried about a government shut down. I think we find out that there are many things government does that we really don’t need to keep this country going. And a government shutdown would actually save us some money.”
“I don’t want them to waive on this $ 100 billion cut to our budget. We need it bad,” John Sanders, also a Tea Party supporter, said. “I want the $ 100 billion they [Republicans] promised us. I say shut the government down. Let’s go for it.”
Recent polling shows they are not alone.
A fresh CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey asked if a government shutdown, for a few days, would be good for the country. Twenty-one percent of Democrats said yes, 35 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans agreed. But 62 percent of Tea Party supporters said a shutdown of a few days would do the country good.
Dirr told the crowd that she drove from Ohio last night to attend the rally.
“The [Republican] leadership is worried about a government shut down and they’re worried about future elections,” Dirr said.
“And to me that’s like a house that’s burning to the ground and the Republicans won’t put out the fire because they’re afraid that some water might splash on a nearby house. I say to the Republican leadership: take off your lace panties, stop being noodle backs, take a strong, bold, unwavering stand for the American people.”
-Follow Shannon Travis on Twitter: @ShanTravisCNN
Senator Rand Paul took a nice little dig at Newt Gingrich, and Fox News last night at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner:
>PAUL: I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. […]
There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?
Senator Rand Paul took a nice little dig at Newt Gingrich, and Fox News last night at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner:
>PAUL: I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. […]
There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?
