nerdgirl

Thought it was hoof and mouth. Or are you doing ever stranger things with your livestock these days? Both are used vernacularly. The neatest unexpected consequence of FMD concerns for me was coming back from Chamonix/Mont Blanc in June 2001 (iirc), USDA inspection service cleaned my hiking boots for me upon return to the US. I started to try to explain that it was unlikely that FMD virus would suvive on glacial ice/snow ... but then kept quiet when I saw how well they were being cleaned. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Haven't seen it -- sounds interesting tho'. Sounds like it might be based on/inspired by Al Weisman's book The World Without Us? Read that in December - fast read. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Southwest Research Institute has one of the five existing US BSL-4 labs. UT Galveston (Medical) has a BSL-4 under construction. Soon to be a few more And a few more, subset shown by geographical distribution, & again that doesn't show the BSL-3 capable facilities (lab, box, or bag) that have nothing to do with biodefense research, i.e., most vet schools and university research labs. And there's the pathogens to which access is granted. (Heck there are discussions, & a law in one case, on what percent or part of pathogen genome to which access can be granted.) Technically, most work with B. anthracis and Y. pestis, the causitive agents of anthrax & plague, respectively, only require a BSL-2 facility unless they are being produced in large quantity or aerosolized. Like HIV, however, a large number of researchers work at a higher biosafety level. Every BSL-3 & BSL-4 facility does not have access to the CDC-Category A, B, or C agents or the USDA restricted agents. Otoh, there are labs that have access (other than a few very special cases, i.e., variola major [smallpox] and foot and mouth disease) to agents or parts of agents that aren't BSL-3 or BSL-4. Biosafety Level designation is all about keeping bugs inside and the people who work with the pathogens, as well as the surrounding community, safe. Bioafety does not equal biosecurity. (And just having a pathogen does not equal having a weapon.) With the still unsolved fall 2001 anthrax terrorism incident (5 deaths, 22 confirmed cases, prolly a couple more that fell outside the CDC official diagnosis, 11 of which were inhalational), the FBI was able to track back to the origin of the B anthracis through molecular epidemiology because there were only 4 possible domestic places from which the pathogen could have acquired (& the the molecular genetics were closest to the strains that were in those domestic labs; e.g., comparisons were done with strains at DSTL in UK). The Ames strain has only been found in nature once. With the proliferation of BSL-3 and BSL-4 agents and if comensurate access to agents occurs, biosecurity becomes more complicated. There's also a question that never really got fully answered: does the US really need all the additional BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities? Some like Plum Island desperately needed to be updated for safety, security, and the 20th (not 21st) Century. In 2003, there was an usused BSL-4 facility (owned by the NIH) in Reston, Virginia, which will likely never be used bacause of safety concerns, and an unused BSL-4 facility in Toronto. While it should not be the primary driver, imo, the cost of maintaining & operating a BSL-4 lab is less than trivial. Who's going to pay for it? Right now it's primarily being paid for by NIH-NIAID. NIH is a spectacular organization (!) with good track record on biosafety; they do not have a culture of security. Before 1998, the DoD funded ~90% of the biodefense RDT&E work; now they fund ~10% (roughly $500M). I have a great quote from a talk I gave in 2003 from the head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in which he basically makes the case why its too expensive for industry to own & operate such labs, which is true. Large industry has to be metaphorically dragged to the bench to pursue biodefense products because the market is small; small industry is a very different case. It's more than just biosafety designations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's part of the argument Southwest Research is making as part of the NBAF finalist consortium (through UT Health Science Center). My speculation is that it will go to the Kansas or Mississippi group. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Southwest Research Institute has one of the five existing US BSL-4 labs. UT Galveston (Medical) has a BSL-4 under construction. Most veterinary schools have a BSL-3 facility, and many researchers (but not all *&* it's not strictly required) work at BSL-3 level when working with HIV. Lots of universities have BSL-3 capable hoods or 'glove boxes'. There's a whole separate issue of access to agents. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This past weekend was walking/hiking/trail running bliss for me. And my thighs are reminding me that I haven’t done that much in a while … getting old is not for wimps! Friday did Stanford’s 3.7 mile Dish loop, followed by ~1/2 the Ridge trail up (couple miles) at Skyline Ridge Reserve (after lunch w/ a former colleague). Saturday did a 2.4 mile uphill hike (1150ft) through redwoods, coastal oaks, knobcone pines, and Manzanita in Big Basin State Park near Santa Cruz. Made it up to the top in ~65 minutes, used to be able to do it in ~45 minutes Trail ran down back down about 2/3 of the way … my own Nike commercial. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for all the updates, videos, & pics! Really fantastic! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Accepting your personal assertion as true -- and I don't really see any reason not to -- why do you doubt anyone else sees it any differently (white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc)? What is special or different about you and by extention other folks who vote like you that you see such choices as being based on politics and others as not? This is a few months old, but presents some insightful numbers & trends:"In a national survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., 59 percent of black Democrats backed Obama, an Illinois Democrat, for their party's presidential nomination, with 31 percent supporting Clinton, the senator from New York. 59% or just over half. How does that compare with overall delgates? Pretty darn close. (And the Democratic party appropriates delegates -- other than the "Superdelegates" -- proportionally). One might conclude that when an instance when 70-80% of some definable electrorate goes to Sen Obama occurs you hear about it. When it doesn't, you don't. For example, do you have any citable stats on how that distribution is for white Republicans and candidates? It's likely to be 98%+ both because of the racial distribution of the candidates and because it's perceived as a non-issue. "The 28 point lead for Obama is a major reversal from October, when Clinton held a 24 point lead among black Democrats." So at one point more black Democrats supported Sen Clinton -- by 24 points. As Sen Obama's popularity has risen among Democrats, so as his support among black Democrats. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You must be familiar with Sen Obama’s positions, history, and record to make such authoritative assertions; what specifically in your primary research have you found that would indicate such? For example, what do you see in Sen Obama’s positions, history, and record that indicates a move toward elimination of all private property? And, what do you see in Sen Obama’s positions, history, and record that indicates a move to state-based collectives? And, while I do strongly support increase in defense budget neither the Heritage Foundation nor I have advocated for an increase to >40% of GDP going to the services' budgets, which is a subset of the overall defense budget? By what indication and mechanism in Sen Obama’s positions, history, and record do you see that being accomplished? What do you see in Sen Obama’s positions, history, and record that indicates a state-control and ownership of all media? Are you asserting that it is the cause of the rise in food commodity prices? Would it not be more effective in the long run to turn to raising your own crops? Or were you being hyperbolic? It’s rarely clear on the internet. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In the notional scenario posed, how an Obama presidency would face those challenges and how it would affect my life would first be dependent on who he selects for appointee positions. He's got some fantastic folks (imo) on his advisory team, e.g., former SecNav Richard Danzig (defense); Joe Cirincione & Susan Rice (foreign policy); Austan Goolsbee & Jeffrey Liebman (both staunch centrists who prefer empiricism to ideology in political economics); Christina and David Romer (macroeconomics); & Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (immigration, also has expertise in homeland security aspects of immigration policy). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I agree and that's why I would support an appeal, working through the rule of law ... as the Texas Rangers and CPS have been over the last 2 months. The difference here is that you are not advocating for proecting child abusers, even suspected ones, and discounting protection of minors who happen to largely be girls. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I disagree with that court's ruling and suspect that an appeal may already be in process. The Texas Rangers and CPS acted reasonably and did the right thing, imo. Unresolved illegal behavior remains including but not limited to the 23 suspected underage girls with children who have not revealed their ages, the "fathers [who] have refused DNA testing, worried that the state might try and prove they fathered children with underage girls and press criminal charges,” and criminal sexual abuse, which you may be able to discount and dismiss for whatever your personal reasons are, I won't. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps. Looking through their site they seem to be a group of sportsmen who became disenchanted with the NRA. Lots of complaints about NRA positions, which may include political choices. If it is a Democratic based gun rights organization -- yeah! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How would you propose going about decreasing both? I don't see any easy solutions. For clarification, unfreezing assets should be a "carrot" to be put on the table as part of discussions (step 5). The specifics need a lot more consideration. Some non-trivial percentage of the frozen assets were returned after the hostages were released in 1981. Concur heartily! As you probably know, ITAR & AECA are restrictions not sanctions. In quite a few cases, export to *all* countries is forbidden, including close allies. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That seems to be a question that's still unresolved. Per the article cited above there still 23 assumed underage mothers in state custody (because they won't give ages or names). How many does it take? Another linked article from the same source notes that "... many fathers have refused DNA testing, worried that the state might try and prove they fathered children with underage girls and press criminal charges.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The older I get the less I care about ‘winning’ at the little things, like sports the way I play, i.e., for fun & exercise. The big things are a completely different case. Although I don’t think about it in terms of “winning” - think about it terms of strategy to achieve the outcome I want and the responsible tactics to achieve that goal. Otoh, I will never intentionally lose a game of Trivial Pursuit against a guy I like again. Imo, you’re teaching the girls just as much about winning as losing and when it matters (or doesn’t). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No one has put forth that argument in this forum. Deterrence, multilateral engagement, and direct bilateral engagement do not equal “gentle touch” or weakness. Can you point me to some references regarding your account? I am not familiar with that version nor can I find any open-source reference … altho’ I can see the value of it being put forth as such politically. And within that context much of the resistance makes sense. Are you talking about US DepSecState Richard Armitage’s direct engagement via telephone calls with Iran's permanent envoy to UN after the December 2003 Bam earthquake w/r/t allowing US C-130s to land with humanitarian assistance and the 90-day suspension of US sanctions? President Bush denied that US had changed its policy towards Iran and explicitly stated that moves to help Iran post-earthquake did not indicate a thaw in relations but were purely humanitarian. Ayatollah Khamenei’s position was similar. Or are you referring to the offer to send Sen Elizabeth Dole as part of a relief delegation in January 2004? Iran did decline that noting “the time was not right,” leaving open possibility of later negotiations. The State Department’s response: “We have heard back today from the Iranians that, given the current situation in Bam and all that is going on there now, it would be preferable to hold such a visit in abeyance [i.e., temporary inactivity or suspension]. Therefore, we are not pursuing it further at the moment.” An unspecified administration official has been quoted w/r/t the offer to send the delegation: “Political motives should not be read into it. Nor do we read political motives in the fact that the Iranians said it's not a good time to do it.” Is that what you mean by “slapped in the face”? Compare the response to the Gilan earthquake of 1990. No aid was accepted, to direct conversations, whatsoever. Here’s a pretty comprehensive list of US-Iran direct interactions since October 2001. After September 11th, the Iranians made diplomatic advances w/r/t assistance against the Taliban. Iran wasn’t motivated by ideals, imo: they wanted to stop the influx of refugees from Afghanistan and they didn’t want US troops on their eastern border. In his Oct03 testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October 2003, then DepSecState Armitage noted w/r/t Afghanistan: “The Iranians have backed up that rhetoric with pledges of material support at both the Bonn and Madrid Donors’ Conferences and they continue to cooperate with regional counter-narcotics and refugee repatriation efforts. Although we make no conclusions about the nature of Iranian intent, we have encouraged such constructive behavior by engaging in direct dialogue on issues of mutual and immediate concern. This dialogue has been limited in scope and produced some success in the Afghanistan context.” During questions, Armitage (a realist not a neo-conservative) acknowledged that the spring 2003 cease-fire agreement with the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) had been less than useful: “We shouldn’t have been signing a cease-fire with a foreign terrorist organization.” The point is not to be critical but to give him great credit for acknowledging and learning from a policy choice that seemed wise at the time (short-term) but had long-term unanticipated consequences. And to further doubts w/r/t the “door was slapped in [our] face” characterization. Otoh, I familiar with and there are many available citations regarding the May 2003, overture the Iranian Foreign Ministry (their version of the State Dept) sent via the Swiss. It was rebuked (to put it diplomatically). We didn’t even respond. Here’s a copy of what was sent to the State Dept’s Near East desk. An additional account from the Jerusalem Post US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003 & another from the Jewish Daily Forward. (I intentionally chose to cite 2 sources that would not have any perceivable pro-Iran bias.) The conservative American Prospect commented that “Iran’s historic proposal for a broad diplomatic agreement should have prompted high-level discussions over the details of an American response.” Amb Richard Haass (a realist), who advised SecState Colin Powell (a realist) as Director of Policy Planning and who was Special Assistant to Pres. GHW Bush (a hardcore realist) and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on National Security Council, has publicly stated that the Iranian overture was rejected because in the current administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change” (the neo-conservative position). Dr. Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, counterterrorism expert on State Policy Planning Staff, & CIA senior analyst, called the May 2003 entrée a “respectable effort” to start negotiations with the US. COL Larry Wilkerson, USA (ret) and former Chief of Staff for SecState Powell, said that it was a significant proposal for beginning “meaningful talks” between the US and Iran but that it “was a non-starter so long as Cheney was Vice President and the principal influence on Bush.” His version of events is that State supported the offer, however, “as soon as it got to the Vice President’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil‘… reasserted itself” and Cheney’s office rejected it." Former SecState Powell himself has commented publically: “My position in the remaining year and a half [of his tenure as SecState] was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran. But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that.” [W/r/t/ subsequent characterization of efforts by him and his deputies to deal with Tehran and Damascus as failures, Powell notes] “I don't like the administration saying, ‘Powell went, Armitage went ... and [they] got nothing.’ We got plenty.” “You can't negotiate when you tell the other side, ‘Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start’.” Days later after that attempt was rejected, Iran proposed a more limited exchange of al-Qaeda prisoners for MEK prisoners, which was rejected too. To be explicit, Iran’s behavior is not motivated because they want to be an upstanding member of the international community, imo. They’re driven by competition for (scarce) resources in a struggle for power among competitors and struggle for regional influence. We are one of the competitors. They’re driven by history and religious fundamentalism. And the point is not to be an apologist for Iran (hell, no!), but to illustrate with enough credible conservative realist voices (as opposed to neoconservative) how much isn’t in the dialogue. And how far conservative realist foreign policy differs from neoconservative. Imo, it’s not about perceived affronts to the US ego or pride, even if they didn't occur; it’s about maximizing the likelihood of accomplishing US foreign policy goals. Again, that why figuring out what the goal(s) is to start with is so critical. Then strategy and finally tactics. When President Nixon met with Mao in 1972 what was the goal of the meeting? Normalizing relations. Secondary was security situations, south east Asia and Taiwan. Do you think that “reform” or regime change should be the number 1 goal of US foreign policy toward Iran? If so, by what ways and means would you recommend the next President pursue that goal? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for posting that Wendy. Inspiring to me! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. More than just "environmental fashion", US companies (e.g., Schlumberger) have developed innovative technology across the petroleum discovery, location, and recovery industrial space. China & India are trying to catch up. It's a great leveraging point that the US should use! While US commercial media may focus on the US because that serves their demographic, all of the focus has hardly been on the US. "Killing and Drilling" is an example of a documentary from the late 1990s on Chevron and Shell's 'exploits' in Nigeria. I've already cited international objections to the Myanmar (nee Burma's) military govt's use of slave labor (the Karen ethnic minority) for building pipelines through the north of that country. One can speculate as to why the information isn't more readily disseminated. It's not because the information or criticisms are not there. It is politicized that way, yes. And I would agree that there are groups of folks whom I would characterize (less than diplomatically) as 'environmental luddites.' They also frequently oppose vaccines, want everything 'chemical-free' (which never fails to amuse me: "chemical free" ='s a vacuum), etc. Then there's the portion that innovate low-tech, e.g., guys converting old Deisel trucks to biodeisel from old vegetable oil, and high-tech: solar, the renaissaince in nuclear power, algae-derived fuels, etc. etc. etc. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Science is not a process done by concensus. Remember your earlier example of Galileo, when he published his ideas they were challenged heartily. So was Robert Koch when he first started suggesting germ theory (i.e., bacteria & viruses cause diseases, so wash your hands before doing surgery, etc). Biotechnology and nanotechnology have their critics (e.g., political scientist Frank Fukuyama & literary theorist David Berube.) In March the President's Commission of Bioethics (which has very few, if any bioscientists left) issued their latest report condemning/criticizing biotechnology applications: Human Dignity and Bioethics. Darwin is still being challenged (mostly) by those outside of science. Do you see a pattern here? Then there are the Pons & Flesihmans (cold desktop fusion) and Telayarkens (cold sonoluminescence-induced fusion). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Some like sun-centered solar system, germ theory, evolution, vaccination, anthropogenic climate change, stem cell research, xenotransplantation (using human organs 'grown' in animals for organ transplants) have engendered controversy in the public arena. Science should be challenged by scientists and by non-scientists both. Science is a public, repeatable process done with data. Policymaking is more like proverbial sausage-making ... & it's not always public or repeatable. Btw: I tried to point you to the list of papers I linked above in my response to Mike showing challenging publications. Ironically, trying to help you. The crux is most of what you seem to be objecting to is the implications of policy choices. Again, the ideas & experiments on climate change go back to the late 1800s. Is that your definition of a "bandwagon"? Yes, money is changing hands -- I'm of the opinion capitalism is a good thing! Do you hold a different opinion? The leading area of US investment for venture capitalists last year was "clean tech" including things like solar enery, according to Steve Forbes. McIntyre & McKitrick are making substantial money as climate change gadflys. Are you equally critical of their capitalistic endeavors? Or is that situation "different"? Fantastic - we agree! Some of have done the things you're describing. Public transportation, walking, choosing to live close to where I worked so I could bike. (I also like the excecise, but that's a indirect benefit.) Participating in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, which rely on locally grown produce. (Found a neat one with a slightly different execution model here in Georgia: Moore Farms.) It's a false construct -- altho' a rhetorically powerful one that has been used in many of the debates I mentioned above -- to portray the only option as a dystopic vision, in this case return to 17th Century way of living. You do realize that it didn't take the industrial revolution for humans to have a negative impact on their environment sometimes to the ultimate demise of cities or whole civilizations, e.g. Cahokia, Anasazi, Catalhayuk, yes? Yep, that's the problem -- the hard personal choices and policies which are the crux. And hindsight is glorious -- if the 1970s, policymakers would have decided to invest strongly in basic research for solar technology, fuel cells, fusion (the real kind like the Europeans have been barely keeping going), algae-based biolfuels (get away from the cellulosic, unless its kudzu) imagine where we might be now? (I can think of one >$110B, yes billion, program that I would put to the top of the list as a candidate for better investment for Americans and national security if it had gone toward the areas I just mentioned ...) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You're right. I confused Energy & Environment (E&E), which is a low-tiered interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal, with Environmental Science and Technology (EST), which is a leading environmental science journal published by the American Chemical Society (professional society). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Come on’ Mike … that assertion has already been shown to be false at least once: e.g., this list of articles that not only were accepted by the editors but made it through the peer review process, including one published in Science. Here are 3 more publications from peer-reviewed technical journals from Steven McIntyre & Ross McKitrick’s own website: “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005, copyright 2005 American Geophysical Union (doi: 2004GL012750). Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted. This is a preprint of the GRL paper that shows Mann's program mines for hockey sticks and overstates the statistical significance of the final result. “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate index: Update and Implications” Energy and Environment 16(1)69-100. AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT by kind permission of the publisher. This paper shows how Mann's results can be reconciled to our results based on handling of the PC algorithm and a Gaspe cedar ring series. We also discuss the bristlecone pines in detail and show why they should not have been included in the original data set. "Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772. This is the "correction" to Mann's analysis of tree ring data; it was published in a leading environmental science journal. (Unfortunately most of M&M's own links appear to be broken.) Short answer: it was published. And it does not appear to have been used "to correct the temperature database" ... as it's about statistical methods, that makes sense. The McIntyre & McKitrick episode ended up being a fascinating little trail to unwind. In a completely nerdy-way, it was cool little puzzle to unravel. -[at myself]. Follow it for yourself – don’t take my word. Per McIntyre & McKitrick’s own website, the interaction with Nature in 2004 is a little different: “In the light of this detailed advice, we have regretfully decided that publication of this debate in our Brief Communications Arising section is not justified. This is principally because the discussion cannot be condensed into our 500-word/1 figure format (as you probably realise, supplementary information is only for review purposes because Brief Communications Arising are published online) and relies on technicalities that do not bring a clear resolution of the underlying issues.” They wouldn’t fit into the word limit. Nature editors do not discriminate when it comes to word limits. I’ve gotten the “hack” or “go take your manuscript elsewhere” response from Nature editors on nanotechnology-related manuscripts. They got good reviews. They just didn’t follow the journal’s rules. It’s akin to complaining about not being picked for a world record RW attempt when you don’t follow the organizer’s rules. Nature is an elite journal which publishes ~1% of the manuscripts submitted. (I’ve had more articles rejected than I have had published.) They had an option to shorten/revise and resubmit. Their paper on the subject that was published in Energy and Environment was 32 pages long. While, it is most likely that they expanded it, no one gets 32 pages in Nature. IIRC, the longest articles are 6 pages. At McIntyre & McKitrick’s request, Nature did publish a Corrigendum, i.e., a notification of significant error in the calculation of Mann’s manuscript (1 July 2004, v430, p.105 + >80 additional supplementary files – PM me if you want a pdf.) Mann et al’s original paper was from 1998. The editors sought a correction from the original authors 6 years later. McIntyre & McKitrick also note: “On March 2, 2006, Steve and I made an invited presentation to a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences investigating millennial climate reconstructions. Our presentation was one of 11 solicited from experts around the world.” According to McIntyre & McKitrick’s own website, the NAS invited them. That’s not a conspiracy. Science is an adversarial pursuit. Digging into & pulling data apart is a non-discriminatory practice amongst scientists. While they do list a number of activities and presentations, McIntyre & McKitrick don’t mention anything about NOAA or a "temperature database." As their correction – “the underlying data should be transformed to have a standardized variance prior to taking a PC [principal component], which implies we should have used a PC based on the decomposition of the correlation matrix rather than the covariance matrix” [italics in orginal] -- is related to statistical derivations based on tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees, that’s not surprising. Perhaps you may not be aware that McIntyre & McKitrick’s methods & conclusions are being challenged: "The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003) claims to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or "MBH98". An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98." "MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative revision of the MBH network (which is based on a complicated combination of original data from MBH98 and data substituted from other sources). The reader must do a considerable amount of detective work, based on scrutiny of the Tables in their pages 20-23 and the indicated data links, to determine just what data have been eliminated from the original MBH network." Apparently McIntyre & McKitrick selectively eliminated data when they did their "correction." Thank you – this is actually a great case illustrating that the scientific peer review system worked! If anyone got through 'easy' is was McIntyre & McKitrick, ironically! And the case vividly illustrates that there is no conspiracy. It also illustrates the critical importance of skeptics. It’s part of the process of science (public, repeatable). What's the next case?

Turn them loose in the neighborhoods of the politicians who insist that Gitmo be shut down. I was thinking of placing them in the politicians homes as a sort of half way house where they could better adapt to the I hate America way of life. Former SecState Colin Powell, Former SecState James Baker, former SecState Henry Kissinger, and SecDef Robert Gates’ homes? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I concur with much of your underlying analysis but not the conclusion. Two counter-arguments: The first, longer-term, comprehensive and more strategic: US foreign policy goals, strategy, and actions should not be about or driven by any single political personality, imo. What are our goals (ends) and how do we accomplish them (ways & means). It’s not about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The second counter-argument: If the President refuses to meet with Ahmadinejad, specifically *him,* then it only strengthens Ahmadinejad. When the US singles *him* out, it reinforces his personal empowerment as a counterweight to the US. You and I and most Americans may not care or perceive that, but the clerics, the Majlis, the Supreme Leader, the people of Iran, and much of the Middle East [another example] (sans Israel), Venezuela, Russia, Pakistan, Eritrea, etc do. While Eritrea may not seem particularly important, they all matter (& given al Qa’eda’s interest in East Africa, Eritrea might matter) to US foreign policy goals of decreasing spread of radical Islamic terrorism. Making it about him just feeds the anti-US Islamic ‘fighter’ image toward fulfillment of the 12th Iman prophecy that he wants to perpetuate throughout the Muslim world. It’s not about Ahmadinejad; it’s about the US foreign policy goals. Ahmadinejad is a hurdle that needs to be managed. This is where execution of strategy moves to tactics. I agree that specific and cautious tactics need to be developed … perhaps not publicized. Direct engagement is with the person who is in the position of ‘democratically-elected’ head of the Islamic Republic of Iran not with “Mr. Ahmadinejad.” He needs to be managed carefully because he is very smart, and he may be delusional, e.g., his letter to President Bush. The first 4 pages are cogent (to be diplomatic), and the last 4 pages are not. Ahmadinejad gets his effective power largely from the ruling clerics and the Majlis. (Of course, the Supreme Leader has final authority.) He’s risen up through local Tehran politics. Ahmadinejad and the hardline fundamentalism he represents must be seen as a liability to the clerics, the Majlis, and the Supreme Leader and to the populace, especially of Tehran. As much as I would love to be able to argue that the views of the people mattering more … well, that’s a nice ideal, but I’m more of a realist w/r/t strategy.) It would be an interesting case to explore in context of some suggestion that Ayatollah Khomeini may have ended war with Iraq after the popular support base in Tehran threatened with Iraqi missiles, altho’ I’m not sure if that would end up supporting your conclusion or mine. If any US President meets with Ahmadinejad and is arrogant or dismissive of Iranian concerns that will strengthen Ahmadinejad and the hardliners. To be explicit, which I suspect you appreciate; strength is not equivalent to arrogance. If Joe Smith or Jane Doe from the US foreign service or diplomatic corps acts like the ‘bad guy’ (or the ‘good guy’), it does not carry the same political weight as when it is the President. Note: I incorrectly designated two #3 points/pillars – my error: deterrence should be #3, multilateral engagement should be #4 and direct engagement #5. Direct engagement is the last unseverable piece intentionally. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Quotebecause I just found out I'm getting promoted. Quote Congratulations! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying