nerdgirl

That was the finding of the Senate Appropriations Committee as part of the Conference report for the DOJ FY2009 Appropriations Bill. The SAC found that the J. Edgar Hoover Building cannot satisfy requirements for storage and use of classified intelligence. “The Hoover Building does not meet the Interagency Security Committee’s criteria for a secure Federal facility capable of handling intelligence and other sensitive information.” While making determinations about the classification of sensitive materials is ultimately the responsibility of the executive branch,* Congress establishes law that restrict disclosure of information or impose requirements on safeguarding documents and classified materials. (* A 2 July US District Court ruling on FISA found that “The authority to protect national security information is neither exclusive nor absolute in the executive branch. Congressional regulation of the use of classified information by the executive branch… is therefore well-established.”) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This past Sunday on Fox News Sunday, William Kristol (very smart, conservative analyst and commentator) noted that he had met with President Bush during the previous week. While remarking that “almost everything interesting was off the record,” Kristol did offer that the President “conveyed the following impression” that the biggest challenge for the next US President would not be Iraq or Afghanistan but would be Pakistan. Kristol further elaborated noting that al Qa’eda is now “headquartered in the remote region of Pakistan,” the lack of access for US troops, the “sort of friendly government,” and the problems of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Last Wednesday, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, commented that more troops are needed for Afghanistan, because the mission there “has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there.” Mullen acknowledged that Afghanistan has become “a very complex problem,” beyond counterinsurgency to include the extensive, resurgent drug trade; a near-failing economy (he said "faltering," which one might consider generous); and porous borders with Pakistan (and implicitly the tacit support if the border regions civilian populace). From the Defenselink.mil transcript: “I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate. “I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. “There’s no easy solution, and there will be no quick fix. More troops are necessary, and some of our NATO allies have recently committed to sending more of their own, but they won’t fully ever be sufficient. We need and are pursuing a broader interagency international approach, one that includes infrastructure improvement, foreign investment and economic incentives, and I’m hopeful these efforts will begin to pay off in the near future. But we all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time, and it takes a certain level of commitment. It takes flexibility.” This month’s Military Review (published by the US Army) features an article, “Twelve Urgent Steps for the Advisor Mission in Afghanistan" by Captain Dan Helmer, USA, asserting “without major and rapid changes to structure and execution, the advisory effort in Afghanistan will fail to arrest the growing insurgencies.” Helmer asserts that the folks who are commanding stability ops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being trained via an Iraq-model fits all doctrine. The comments of both ADM Mullen and CPT Helmer reminded me of those I heard early 2005 by Kimberly Marten, who had been embedded as a researcher with Canadian Forces in western Kabul, Afghanistan in 2003 & 2004. She gave a talk entitled “Enforcing the Peace: There Aren’t Enough Canadians” …apparently more Canadians are still needed. There's also the intersection with the thread on "Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism." In the context of ADM Mullen and CPT Helmer's assessments, is trying 'soft power' (beyond SST[R] & the Human Terrain teams) that poor of a foreign policy choice? Most curious to me in Kristol’s comments … almost conspicuous in its absence … was the complete lack of mention of the 1,648,195 km² wedged between those other 3 states. So what do you think – what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President? And what kind of policy is needed to address US foreign policy concerns regarding Pakistan, if you concur with Kristol's impression of President Bush's comments? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The analogy is fundamentally flawed. The person who commits the rape is the one who not in control of their actions, analogous to a human who drives drunk and injures someone. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Whether the US is involved in military training the Colombians (see the US SOUTHCOM article I cited), engages in intelligence sharing (see the SOUTHCOM and Pentagon spokemen statements I quoted), or received briefings are neither the issue nor in dispute. One can speculate both reasonable (as Vinny and I did, along with ones I've hinted at throughout the thread) as well as unreasonable scenarios. The issue goes back to request for citations related to the thus-far unsubstantiated assertion that it was joint operation -- i.e., “were rescued from the FARC today by Col/US Forces." Perhaps a more productive approach: why or on what basis do you (general, non-specific you) assert that it was not "100% Colombian" "planned, led, and executed" (to combine quotes/statements from MOD Santos and the PNT spokesman, respectively)? If it was 100% Colombian operation that is a strong indicator of success for training and investment (“more than $4 billion in military aid since 2000”) by the US to enable an ally to conduct its own domestic security operations with minimal US involvement, i.e., the goal of training is that the trainee can do the job without the instructor. And the question relates to US success infiltrating an entrenched non-state actor and working with the indigenous military to execute a complicated operation. US intelligence community and defense involvement would be a positive indicator from that perspective. One can't publicly cite this as an example of that unless one has a publicly available citation, which I can't find & no one has (thus far) provided, altho' it has been asserted (which prompted the initial query). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That strikes me as a reasonable hypothesis. One could also speculate that it's related to Congressional prohibitions as part of Plan Colombia, which impose explicit limitations on the number of US military members and defense contractors that are legally permitted there (

What are the foreign policy priorities and what level of corruption and/or grey economy is acceptable in support of those priorities? Especially if it keeps those nuclear weapons secure(-ish)? How do states build non-corrupt governments? Historically it's through strengthening civil institutions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear; I have not read the book ... whether I agree or disagree, I appreciate reading well-thought out arguments that make me think. One person's conspiracy theory is another's revealed truth (that the rest of us silly/naive fools fail to see. ) From the free excerpt and the additional resources, it's evident that there are underlying "truths" (facts); it's what appears to be the set-up of strawmen and anti-capitalism causality that causes my skeptic's filter to narrow. Perhaps the text will emerge as a companion to Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media." What do you find so remarkable in the book's thesis? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sounds like some of it may be very well spent: “The UK assistance will continue to focus on health, including the battle against diseases like TB and polio -- and on good governance and earthquake affected areas’ reconstruction. There will now be an additional emphasis on assistance to the border areas as well as on education, with more than UK Pounds 250 million being made available to bring five million children into school and to increase training opportunities for young people.” The US is considering a $7B non-military aid package: · $1.5bn a year in civilian aid for at least five years · $1bn "democracy dividend" as a reward for holding elections and forming a coalition government · Counter-terrorism aid will be performance-based · The Pakistani government will be consulted before any further air strikes against militants on Pakistani soil by US unmanned "Predator" aircraft · More counter-terrorism assistance will be given to civilian law-enforcement and intelligence organisations Since 2002, the US has offered ~$6B in military aid to Pakistan (some estimates are closer to $10B). The GAO has been very critical of the lack of oversight (most recent report from 24Jun08), which may be factually correct but may not reflect the ground truth of doing business with Pakistan. In geo-strategic terms, keeping Pakistan’s military allied is not necessarily a completely negative priority, conditional on having reason to believe they have the desire and ability to be effective at carrying the fight to al Qa'eda and Taliban strongholds in Pakistan … & securing those nuclear weapons. Additionally, some of that money has come back to the US in the form of purchase of conventional military equipment -- e.g., F-16s, air defense radars, and naval equipment -- that are more likely to be directed toward a conventional adversary [read: India] than against an unconventional adversary in land-locked NW Provinces [read: al Qa’eda]. Albeit some of the funding has been for transfer of equipment such as AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters that have operational relevance to counterterrorism. How much military aid is the UK giving? How much coordination is there between the military and non-military aid, where appropriate? And how much coordination is there among international donors? Pakistan is a state to which I would love to see Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) expanded with Russia as a contributing partner (rather than the US paying for it all/the vast majority). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the recommendation. Always appreciate hearing about intellectually provocative new ideas, even if I disagree with them. Klein's discussions of Milton Friedman's ideas, q&a with Alan Greenspan, and interview with Bill Maher should be provocative ... how intellectually provocative is TBD. It's not apparent to me that Klein's assertions on economics, politics, conflict, marketing, and natural disaster are going to hold up to scrutiny. Must acknowledge that my skeptic's filter narrows anytime a claim or hypothesis seems to turn on/rely on a conspiracy theory, whether it be the CIA or the Bilderbergs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Might I suggest that you read between the lines if you want the answer to that question, as I doubt you will find it in the media plainly stated as such, for obvious reasons. What are those "obvious reasons"? (Other than perhaps the one that the Pentagon spokesman, SOUTHCOM spokesman, the Colombian Defense Minister, etc cite.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks to the two folks who sent links to media accounts noting diplomatic briefings. If an ally conducts an operation that directly impacts US civilians held illegally in a foreign state, briefing the Ambassador (the representative of the USG in that state) is SOP. The President (US) was briefed too. The question I’m interested in relates to the assertion that it was joint operation -- i.e., “were rescued from the FARC today by Col/US Forces” --against a non-state actor (terrorist group) entrenched in a non-governed area. Haven't found any citations supporting that and was hoping someone could point toward something. That's more than sharing electrons. From 03Jul08 State Dept Daily Press briefing: Q: What was the level of involvement of the U.S. yesterday in the FARC Colombian rescue? [State Dept Spokesman] MR. MCCORMACK: I can tell you what I’ve been told, and that we played a supporting role in that. I – beyond that, I don’t know. I have been told that this was a Colombian planned and executed operation, but I don’t know what sort of support the U.S. provided. From Defenselink.mil story (03Jul08) “Colombian Military Rescues Hostages, Including U.S. Contractors”: "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the operation was planned, led and executed by Colombia. "Asked today if the United States played a role in the mission, Whitman said only that the two countries’ militaries have a strong relationship that includes 'a certain amount of cooperation and information sharing.'" From the previously mentioned interview with Colombia’s Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos (their version of SecDef). He implies that the origin of the idea came from some relatively low level Colombian military intelligence personnel: JUAN MANUEL SANTOS:There was a group of junior officers, a major and two captains, and some petty officers who designed the scheme, and they brought it up to a colonel. He, at the beginning, rejected it. But then they insisted. They persevered. They said, ‘This can work. Let us try.’ And he let them try. When it started to work, it went up to the commander of the army. He took it to me. I put it on trial a couple of times. I was convinced that the risk was worth taking. I took it to the president. He said, ‘OK.’ And we did it. And the plan was at the beginning was quite audacious, a bit crazy. But then we started to mature it and thought maybe it would work, and it did work, so there we are. JIM LEHRER: Was this a complete operation of the Colombian government? Or did you have any outside help, any U.S. intelligence help, or anything like that? JUAN MANUEL SANTOS: No, this was 100 percent Colombian-made operation. We have worked with the U.S. many times before, and we appreciate very much very useful collaboration that the U.S. gives us. But in this case, it was a Colombian operation. We informed the ambassador and the U.S. authorities about a week ago the scheme was already in place, because President Uribe had promised President Bush that, if we did anything with the hostages, involving the American hostages, they would be informed. They studied the scheme, and they said, ‘We also think it's worthwhile. It's a very, very good scheme, and go ahead.’ Santos account is not at all dissonant with the referenced statements of Amb Brownfield or the AP article (posted on yahoo). An article from AP (04Jul08) that gets slightly different editing whether read on CNN or FOX. From FOXNews.com: “The U.S. military says it flew thousands of spy flights over Colombian jungles trying to find and free three Pentagon contractors since their kidnapping in 2003. In the end, it was a daring operation by Colombian military intelligence agents that finally rescued the American trio from leftist rebels.” On Friday, the Colombian government released a video of the hostage rescue, available via BBC online, it claims partially to clarify who led and executed the operation. The “So What? Who Cares?” (imo) w/r/t the specific question relates to US success infiltrating an entrenched non-state actor and working with the indigenous military to execute a complicated operation. US intelligence community and defense involvement would be a positive indicator. The command and control within the FARC has clearly been disrupted (in order to execute such an operation). How was it done? What lessons can be learned and applied to other non-state actors in non-governed areas, e.g., Pakistan’s Northwest Provinces. 50 years of Al Qa’eda in NW Pakistan is not something I want. At the same time, if the operation was executed without US military involvement that is a very positive indicator for Colombia *and* for the long term training efforts and investment (“more than $4 billion in military aid since 2000”) by the US to enable an ally to conduct its own domestic security operations with minimal US involvement, i.e., the goal of training is that the trainee can do the job without the instructor. E.g., US SOUTHCOM posted a story 02Jul08 on “U.S. Soldiers Help Colombia Transform its Enlisted Ranks” on successful NCO training since 2003. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I know, talk about great coordination between the Colombian and US intelligence services in duping the FARC to make this rescue happen. All without a bullet being fired, too

It appears all y'all were pretty darn close in your prediction: "President Bush Boosts Porn Industry With Economic Stimulus Plan, According to AIMRCo""An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans’ mailboxes across the country. "According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, 'Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market.' "Jillian Fox, spokeswoman for one of the sites reporting figures to AIMRCo, added, 'In a June 15, 2008 survey to our members, thirty two percent of respondents referenced the recent stimulus package as part of their decision to either become a new member, or renew an existing membership.' "Fox also added, 'Getting more people to buy porn was probably the last thing Bush had on his mind when he came up with his 'stimulus package,' but we'll take it.'" Apparently it was stimulating. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The House Committee of Foreign Affairs just distributed notice of a full committee hearing on “U.S. Policy Toward Iran” for next Wednesday. Current scheduled “witness” (i.e., person to be testifying) is the Honorable William J. Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (3rd down from SecState). The HCFA is very good about posting transcripts and webcasts. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations announced earlier that it will be holding a full committee hearing on “Meeting the Iranian Challenge” on Tuesday. Same witness scheduled. The SCFR is also very good about posting webcasts of hearings. (The Senate Armed Services Committee is less web-friendly - usually have to catch it on C-SPAN.) Those who are interested and want to hear for themselves (rather than read someone else’s distilled version through a media lens – of whatever hue – or rather than hear condensed media versions) may consider listening. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Am I concerned? Yes. (Have I read Sy Hersh’s piece? No.) Is a nuclear weapon enabled Iran something I want to see? To paraphrase the VP, not just no, but hell no. Reading the tea leaves of Beltway chatter is always a precarious sport. From yesterday’s Defenselink.mil “Bush to Press G8 to Keep Up Pressure on Extremists, Iran”: “Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Bush said he’ll also encourage participants at the Group of Eight’s annual summit in Hokkaido, Japan, to keep up pressure on Iran so it abandons its nuclear weapons development plans. “‘While ‘all options are on the table,’ Bush said, the best way to deal with the issue is through diplomacy. Together, the world community needs to send Iran the message that it will be isolated and suffer economic hardship if it continued trying to enrich uranium, he said.” That’s the official DoD media version. From the White House Press Conference, “President Bush Discusses 2008 G8 Summit” THE PRESIDENT: I have always said that all options are on the table, but the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically. I've also make it clear -- made it clear that you can't solve a problem diplomatically unless there are other people at the table with you. And that is why we have been pursuing multilateral diplomacy when it comes to convincing the Iranians that the free world is sincere about, you know, insisting that they not have the technologies necessary to develop a nuclear weapon. And we're making progress along those lines. There's been the numerous Security Council resolutions, and in my recent trip to Europe I was very encouraged to see these leaders stand up and speak out about the need to keep our coalition active and keep the pressure on. Q Let me follow up on that. Would you strongly discourage Israel from going after Iran militarily? And do you believe when you leave office Iran will be pursuing a nuclear weapon? THE PRESIDENT: I have made it very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be to solve this problem diplomatically. And the best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message, and that is, that you will be isolated and you will have economic hardship if you continue trying to enrich. And so we will continue working diplomatically.” Yes, the President is very publicly encouraging Europe to continue sanctions. While I may not have chosen the same metaphor, I also concur with the underlying sentiment expressed by former US national security adviser Anthony Lake in an interview in Monday’s Financial Times and cited in today’s Middle East Times: “The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon. “Unless you assume that (Iranian negotiators) have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the privilege of speaking with us. “So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks? Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?” The price of oil reached $145.85 (US) per barrel yesterday; on the Brent crude exchange (London), it reached $146.69 on the ICE Futures. What’s driving this latest spike? “Ongoing rhetoric about possible attacks on Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and OPEC’s second-largest exporter, also left the market jittery. “Traders are worried Tehran could try to halt shipments and seize control of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz if attacked by Israel or the United States. About 40 percent of the world’s tanker traffic passes through the Middle Eastern choke-point.” Using some of the toughest/strongest language Iran has used so far, on Monday, Iranian Guard (IRGC) commander-in-chief Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari told Jam-e Jam newspaper (Tehran): “‘If enemies from outside the region use the soil of regional countries against the Islamic Republic of Iran ... the governments of those countries will be responsible and it is our obvious right to act in the same way against their military capabilities and abilities of enemies everywhere.’ ”The Iranian top commander also stressed that his country would impose controls on shipping in the vital Persian Gulf oil transit route if it came under attack. “Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz,’ General Jafari said. “‘If there is a confrontation between us and the enemy from outside the region, definitely the scope (of the confrontation) will reach the oil issue,’ Jafari cautioned. “‘After this action (of Iran imposing controls on the Persian Gulf waterway), the oil price will rise very considerably and this is among the factors deterring the enemies,’ he said.” [The comment of one oil trader]“‘The news about Iran indeed has impacted the sentiment in the market although most investors are confident enough an attack is not imminent,’ Abdulla al-Aqil, a trader at Samba Financial said.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Congratulations! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Generally concur. And would assert that more robust technical understanding (of the the underlying science & engineering) rarely would hinder environmental economics and likely would increase the validity of an argument ... that's an observation that reflects some of my biases and experiences, tho'. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Or if one is an economist evaluating the impact of climate change and different policies (including the economic impact of doing nothing). There are peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field, e.g., Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, and degree programs, e.g., Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and UCSB's Economics and Environmental Science. The impact of the market is a major area of interest: "Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. As stated by Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007) in their textbook Environmental Economics." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Historical precedent, while not predictive, has shown that revolutionary breakthroughs occur at interdisciplinary junctions. See, for example, JR Hollingsworth, “High Cognitive Complexity and the Making of Major Scientific Discoveries,” (London: Sage Publications, 2006) and LG Zucker and MR Darby, “Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, November 1996, vol. 93, pp. 12709-12716. As Vannevar Bush recognized in 1944, if you want drive the economy, drive innovation, and enable national defense, strengthening science and fostering discovery and innovation is critical. Narrow demarcations of research into traditional disciplines—literally 'old school thinking'—have become increasingly less likely to yield scientific breakthroughs and transformational technologies. Look at nanotechnology. It's an intrinsically interdisciplinary domain that bridges/crosses/confounds many disciplines. One of my favorite examples showing just how meaningless some of these narrow disciplinary stove-pipes are can be found in the cutting research on the design of exquisitely sensitive sensors for detection of chemical and biological agents that design and use single strand DNA wrapped around single-walled carbon nanotubes. Two of my favorite groups pursuing of that work are (1) a combined team with members from electrical engineering and computer science department in one case (C. Dwyer, et al, "DNA Functionalized Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes," Nanotechnology, vol. 13, 601-4, 2002) and (2) a physics and astronomy department research group in another (AT “Charlie” Johnson, et al “DNA-decorated Carbon Nanotubes for Chemical Sensing,” Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1774-1778; cartoon attached). No biologists in sight. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, that does seem to be the implicit perception that one might conclude from some of the secondary, tertiary, quartenary, etc rhetoric perpetuated. Unfortunately, it's also not correct. (Makes for a powerful rhetoric tho'.) The "hockey stick" shape can be generated from other data sets using ice cores (isotope ratios); corals (from around the world); boreholes; cave stalagmites; and lake, peat, & ocean sediments that don't use the NA bristlecone pine tree ring data. More examples, with Mann’s 04 reconstruction included & citations and here, the latter was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). The 2nd one is a much more authoritative reference, it's longer, however. I wouldn't use the word "refute." Because that's kind of like asserting pro-packing refuted flat-packing. One can certainly make a case why one is preferred over another in certain circumstances, e.g., I pro-pack my Stiletto but flat-pack my Flik. M&M didn't like/argued against Mann, et al 1998 method. That's fine, and their comments probably helped further refine the methods used in reconstructions. That's how science works.

By whom? Who's ignoring it? For paleoclimatologists, it's kind of a given – like skydivers don’t point out that an Otter is a plane (not a riverine mammal) or that a Sabre’s a canopy (not a historical weapon with an odd spelling). All of the questions that you posed … and more … have been asked, repeatedly, and more stringently. Models have to be validated by known data. Otherwise they're not valid. Largely I agree. The planet will survive. Humans will survive. Humans are amazingly resilient: 70,000 years ago, the human population decreased to ~2000. What is to be done or not is not purely a science question; it's a policy question. Science can inform the decisions … & I would argue *should* inform decisions … but in the end, it's a lot more than just a science question. It's an issue of how comfortable it will be for humans. How much it will cost? And for whom? For some it will likely be a boon – like growing crops in parts of Canada. How much "suffering" is what some folks try to estimate in order to inform policymakers. Humans have decimated their local environments historically, that's not new, e.g., the Cahokia Indians in the area that's now East St. Louis, the Anasazi of the US "Four Corners" region, Easter Island, the Polynesians on Pitcairn Island. Will we humans ever learn from the past or are we destined to repeat Santayana's precept ad infinitum? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur ... & not happily. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Don't recall any evidence supporting that claim. Can you show me where anyone put forth evidence of that notional speculation? What was observed is that if one examines variables & factors that can be measured and compared versus anecdote or stereotypes, whether historically ‘observed’ or purely notional, that the "democracy is universal" or "not" assertion does not hold metaphorical water. It's a dependent variable not an independent one. What kind of factors (independent & dependent variables) are associated with political instability or decline from functioning political system to violence? And which aren’t? On the positive correlation (to instability), the factors include: NB: these are blatantly extracted (i.e., stolen verbatim) from Political Instability Task Force and folks at RAND. Ideological factors -- Contested homeland or “indivisible territory” occupied by competing ethnic “nations,” Where there is disagreement over a “homeland” or other “indivisible territory” ethnic conflict is much more likely. Remember the assertion made earlier w/r/t artificially imposed boundaries? The “Dark side of Democracy” hypothesis suggests that when two ethnonational movements claim their national boundaries include the same territory, ethnic cleansing can result. (Michael Mann, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing). -- Religious and/or ethnic groups making competing claims. E.g., one group actively advocates the imposition of Sharia law; another group actively opposes it. -- Discrimination/inequality on religious or ethnic lines to include formal institutional discrimination from the national or local government, informal institutional discrimination stemming from a competing group's possession of the government, or broad discrimination across a state. It might also include cases involving significant ethnic or religious-based inequality as a result of historical discrimination or other predicates. Conflicts are more likely to become violent when inequities coincide with religion or ethnicity (Pranab Bardhan, “Method in the Madness? A Political-Economy Analysis of the Ethnic Conflicts in the Less-Developed Countries,” World Development 25, no. 9 (September 1997): 1381-1398). -- Religious extremism – One or more religious groups in the city is an extremist religion. Economic factors -- Negative or very low GDP growth . -- High unemployment. (Klaus Deininger, “Causes and Consequences of Civil Strife: Micro-level Evidence from Uganda,” Policy Research Working Paper 3045 (World Bank)). -- Sharp economic reversal/J-curve. -- Widespread poverty/slums. -- Recent development economics/economic reforms/austerity measures within the last 3 years. Development economics and other economic reforms (especially “market based” reforms) can increase inequality, creating grievances. (Henk-Jan Brinkman, "Preventing Civil Strife: An Important Role for Economic Policy,” Economic & Social Affairs, DESA Discussion Paper No. 20, (September 2001): 11; and Albert Keidel, “The Economic Basis for Social Unrest in China,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (May 26, 2005). -- Poor infrastructure in at least three of the following areas: transportation, medical, waste disposal, potable water, and energy/power. -- Dependence on primary commodity exports. i.e., raw materials such as ore, unrefined oil, grain, etc. Countries that have remained dependent on primary commodities for their exports face dangerously high risks of prolonged conflict. (Paul Collier, et al, Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy). Military factors -- Recent history of civil war w/in 5 years. -- Existing rebel/terrorist/insurgent groups. Once a rebel group is constituted, it is difficult to demobilize (“STTR”), and its existence increases the likelihood of future conflict. (Collier, et al, Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy). -- High availability of weapons – Availability of small arms and other weapons is “high,” i.e., city residents have or could easily come to have an average of at least 1 firearm per household (Collier, et al, Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy). Political factors -- Transitional or partial democracy. ‘Half-hearted’ democratization leads to instability; even well intentioned democratization too rapidly instituted can lead to instability. Extremely oppressive/repressive autocratically-ruled states have tended to be very stable (until strong man dies). Democratization increases susceptibility to terrorism (James A. Piazza, “Draining the Swamp: Democracy Promotion, State Failure, and Terrorism in 19 Middle Eastern Countries,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30 no. 6 (June 2006): 521-539.) -- History of significant repression within the last 20 years (originally included colonial occupation). -- Significant refugees or internally displaced persons. Refugees and Diaspora can stress a city as well as maintaining grievances that would otherwise fade. -- Rapid population growth (> 3.5 % per year). -- Ethnic “dominance” (largest ethnic group 50-90% of pop). “The likelihood of civil war doubles when the largest ethnic group constitutes between 45% and 90% of the population” (James A. Sprigg, Jr., On the Use of Social, Economic, and Political Factors to Forecast Instability, February 2005, 18). -- Change in ethnic balance, e.g., migration and/or fertility have resulted in significant change in the city's ethnic balance over the last 10 years. Geographic Factors -- “Bad neighborhood” (neighboring country war or civil war in last 5 years). Peaceful countries that are adjacent to countries engaged in civil war suffer from direct and long-term effects caused by the civil wars of their neighbors. -- Oil or other “lootable” commodities/wealth increases the likelihood of conflict (Michael Ross, What do we Know About Natural Resources and Civil War?). “Lootable” commodities like gemstones and drugs do not make conflict more likely to occur, but they tend to lengthen existing conflicts. -- Prone to significant natural disasters: floods, earthquakes, mudslides, tsunamis, etc. (aka a Jared Diamond-esque “geographic luck”). Natural disasters, especially in countries with a history of unrest, can lead to unrest (A. Cooper Drury and Richard S. Olson, “Disasters and Political Unrest: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 6, no. 3 (September 1998): 153-161). -- Significant trend of declining fresh water, crop land, or calories per capita for the residents of the city. Factors that have a negative correlation (i.e. those factors which retard instability) include: -- Inter-ethnic or inter-(other identity) civic associations. Inter-ethnic civic associations are shown to reduce violence, improve communication between potential adversaries and with authorities, and help mitigate the severity of unrest during violent periods (United States Institute of Peace, Lethal Ethnic Riots: Lessons from India and Beyond, 2003). -- Tradition of effective civilian control of military. -- Presence of foreign troops, e.g., UN peacekeepers. -- Mature democracy. At minimum, has been a democracy for at least 10 years and has had at least two electoral transfers of power deemed legitimate by international observers. -- The country has a strong central state, capable of and actually extending its authority over the entire sovereign territory of the country. Indicates both state capacity and significant possession of forces of order. -- Government perceived as legitimate by citizen/resident perceptions of legitimacy (irrelevant to perceptions of international observers). People have more patience when they perceive that they have a responsive government (Kirk S. Bowman and Jerrold D. Green, “Urbanization and Political Instability in the Middle East,” in Population, Poverty, and Politics in Middle East). -- Rule of Law - “the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.” -- Institutions There are a number of different analytical models that have been applied. The one w/which I am most familiar is the Political Instability Task Force, which has been in operation for over a decade and has done particularly well at predicting political instability: they assert >80% accuracy for the world’s countries from 1955 - 2003. See, e.g., Jay Ulfelder and Michael Lustik “Modeling Transitions to and from Democracy” and Jack A. Goldstone, et al., “A Global Forecasting Model of Political Instability.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As I understand it, his education is limited to a Masters degree in Google. I suspect he might understand bits and pieces of what he paraphrases. Regardless whether he [or anyone] has a PhD in atmospheric physics from Stanford and is tenured at Caltech or has a GED from the School of Hard Knocks, science has to be done in public. Therefore it has to be subject to scrutiny and skepticism. That's part of what makes it science (repeatable, testable, dealing with physical phenomena are other defining characteristics). There's everything right with asking questions and being skeptical … I will concede there may be moments of frustration going over the same thing repeatedly

Sorry Mike, but that's just incorrect. There are different methods for dealing with multivariate data. M&M found one (of many) that when they selectively eliminated data producing a different result (that fulfilled the result they wanted). When the bristlecone pine data is used in reconstructions with the 'centering' variance M&M suggest, the data still generates a "hockey stick." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying