The HiV of Western Culture
4 years ago
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The American Spectator : Washington Knows Best
Political Hay
Washington Knows Best
By Peter Ferrara on 12.30.09 @ 6:08AM
The health policy atrocity that Washington Democrats are now finalizing represents an ugly new turn in American politics. From almost the founding of the Republic, we have seen demagogues seek to sway public opinion in their favor with crass arguments appealing to base motives in the electorate, from racism to class warfare to xenophobia. But that is NOT what we are seeing in Washington today, on issues from health care to "global warming" to federal deficits, spending, taxes, welfare, energy, and beyond.
What we are seeing in Washington today is much worse. What this mob currently in power is telling us on health care, and the rest of the issues, is that they know what is best, and they are not the slightest bit interested in what the people think. If any of us disagree, that is because we are ignorant yahoos, malevolent Nazis, or crazy teabaggers, and our "elected representatives" have not hesitated to respond by calling American citizens precisely such names when they have exhibited the temerity to dissent. This is not a perversion of democracy. This is a complete abdication of democracy, or rule by the people, displaced by a new elitism, or rule by elites, which is a form of undemocratic authoritarianism.
We can't use phrases like "health care debate" to discuss what has happened, because there has not been any such debate. Ditto that for global warming policy, where the EPA, following the lead of President Obama, insists on plowing ahead regardless of what the public thinks, or what any dissenting scientific authorities have to say. Debate requires a willingness to listen to what others have to say, and to respond with rational arguments. But Democrats have refused even to hold hearings on their final health care proposals, which were not even released to their Congressional colleagues until the last second, and then rushed to a vote, without even full scoring of their implications. This spectacle is an abuse of office.
From the polls, to phone calls and letters to the Hill, to public protests, all signs indicate overwhelming and exploding public opposition to the Democrats' government takeover of health care. The Left has now joined the Right in opposing the legislation for their own reasons. But none of this has made any difference to the ruling Democrats. The attitude they are displaying is that they already know everything about everything, and they are not interested in what anyone else has to say.
Demagoguery at least shows some respect for public opinion. What we are seeing in Washington today is the replacement of a functioning democracy, based on consent of the governed, with a New Authoritarianism based on arrogant power. Washington knows best is the new ruling doctrine, and no dissent is respected, or would even be allowed to be heard if the new ruling class were to have its way. Certainly that is the view of the governing bodies of the old establishment media, which not only refuses to allow the airing of dissenting views, but joins in ridiculing them. The one TV network that does allow all sides to be heard, Fox News, is attacked by high government officials for doing so, including the President himself, joined by the so-called mainstream media, from the New York Times, to NBC, to Time magazine. This is starting to look more like Venezuela than America.
That is because from the halls of power in Washington, to the corridors of media in New York City, the New Left from the 1960s has suddenly seized power in America. Its troops are behaving exactly like the New Left campus leftists who have shouted down and shut out dissenting views for decades. The result now is a fundamental crisis of democracy in America. If our system that previously produced the greatest, freest, most prosperous country in the world is to survive, patriots across America, from every village and farm, every town and county precinct, every neighborhood, barrio, and ghetto, every profession, every church, every discipline, will have to rally to save it. Putting America back on track to freedom and prosperity, and the restoration of the American Dream, will require fundamental reforms of our system of government, to put the people back in charge, ensure power to the people, and never allow the threat of such an effective anti-democratic coup d'état ever to arise again.
Medicare's New Death Panel
This new anti-democratic, elitist, authoritarianism can be seen in the emerging policy results of the health care debacle. As Scott Gottlieb explains in the December 24 Wall Street Journal, the Senate health bill establishes a new unelected Medicare Commission with the power to displace your doctor's judgment as to your treatment and care with its own. Gottlieb writes, "In particular, the Obama team wants to give the agency the power to decide when a cheaper medical option will suffice for a given problem and, in turn, when Medicare only has to pay for the least costly alternative….In fact, the bill lets Medicare seek almost any restrictive payment authority it wants from a Medicare Commission established for the purpose of cost control."
The Obama Administration, indeed, has already sought judicial approval of this new authority under current law in the case of Hays v. Sebelius, decided just before Christmas. The case involved Ilene Hays, a Medicare Part B beneficiary, who had been taking the prescription drug DuoNeb for approximately four years under the advice of her doctor, to control Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Though that drug regimen had worked well for Ilene, the Medicare bureaucracy decided that another, less costly drug treatment would work just as well, contrary to the advice of her doctor, and ruled that it would only pay for the cost of that cheaper drug treatment.
Ilene sued, claiming that Medicare does not have the authority under current law to overrule her doctor. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Ilene, concluding that the Secretary of HHS and the Medicare bureaucracy were attempting an end-run around current law, and that "Nothing in the statute authorizes this least costly alternative policy." But on Christmas Eve, the 60 Democrat Senators voted to overrule Ilene and the Court, and grant the Medicare bureaucracy precisely the power that was rejected in this case, through their vote for the "historic" Reid/Obama health care bill.
When Medicare was adopted, the law expressly prohibited any such government intervention in the decisions of your doctor regarding your treatment and care. Now the Democrats in Washington have voted to take the power and control over your health care away from you and your doctor and give it to the government. And that policy won't be limited to Medicare. As Gottlieb writes, "The impact of these provisions won't be limited to Medicare. Private insurance in the federally regulated 'exchanges' will take cues from Medicare, since they're both managed from the same bureaucracy. Medicare will set the standard for medical care across the entire marketplace." Again, the Democrats and their bureaucrats in Washington are sure they know everything about everything, even how to treat your serious medical condition better than your doctor.
Yet, the problem with the Democrats' New Left extremism on health care is even more fundamental than this. Today's pacemakers include wireless computer chips that enable doctors to go online at their offices or other locations to monitor exactly what is happening with their patient's heart at home or elsewhere. A doctor can send a message for the pacemaker to jolt a stopped heart back to life, or the pacemaker can be programmed to do that on its own. In one case, the heart of a senior citizen who had suffered four heart attacks over 17 years stopped three times on the way to the hospital after his doctor warned him of the danger from a remote location, and each time the pacemaker jolted him back to life. The man is still alive today, and just enjoyed Christmas with his family.
But under the Obamacare socialized medicine system that the Democrats have now whooped through both houses of Congress, you can forget about the investment in both physical and human capital that was necessary for this modern medical miracle. Who is going to invest in the development and manufacture of such high tech medical equipment, and in developing the medical expertise to administer it, under government policies to sharply restrict the compensation for such investment?
Such medical innovation will not only come to a halt. The ability of our medical system to provide such cutting edge, high tech medical care to save lives will deteriorate and go backwards. The great historic achievement that the Democrats claim now to have won is the government takeover of health care so that they can precisely redistribute resources from such care to achieve what they say would be a greater good. But the ugly truth is that what they are really doing is redistributing the hefty health resources that today save the lives of the really sick to other uses where they think they can buy far more votes for all that money. That is the New Authoritarianism at work.
The self-deluded Democrats in Washington are so sure the American people are going to somehow be grateful for this government takeover and trashing of their health care. But the American people will not stand idly by and accept this fundamental assault on a central component of their current high standard of living. Nor will they meekly accept what is essentially a loss of democratic control over their own government, and the fundamental disrespect, of the New Authoritarianism. These are just a couple of the reasons why a political revolution is coming that no one in Washington can comprehend today.
Change We Can Believe In
What is needed is fundamental change in our system of government to ensure that the people will remain in charge, and to pull the plug on the New Authoritarianism. Such changes will be embraced by a broad, tri-partisan coalition of Republicans, Independents, and even grassroots Democrats. These populist reforms fit perfectly the grassroots populism of the Tea Party movement.
Exhibit 1 of such reform is a constitutional amendment extending the concept of Recall to members of Congress, both representatives and senators. The amendment would give the people the right to petition for a special election to remove and replace a specific congressman or senator representing them. Many states have long had such recall authority. Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected governor of California through such a recall election, which removed the previous duly elected Democrat Governor Gray Davis. Such right of recall needs to be applied to future Presidents as well.
What this Congress has proven is that our "elected representatives" can no longer be trusted with two years between elections, given that they sneer at their constituents now rather than seeking to represent them. With the health care fiasco, for example, they are openly trying to bury the country with a mess that they think can never be reversed, regardless of the consequences in the next election, which already seems long overdue. Ditto that for the EPA's threatened global warming abuse, wasteful green energy subsidies, Barack Obama's one third increase in federal welfare spending, and other runaway spending, deficits, and debt. With the constant threat of a recall election, democratic accountability would be maintained throughout each term, and the New Authoritarianism would be short-circuited. Our representatives would have to consider the views of their constituents and the impact their policies will have on them throughout their term, rather than just talking a good game at election time.
This would aid greatly as well in countering the growing problem of stolen elections. Senate Democrats, in fact, never earned their 60-vote majority at the ballot box. At least four of those 60 currently sit as a result of stolen elections. These include Al Franken of Minnesota, where Democrats pursued recounts in Democrat precincts until they could manufacture enough votes to put him over the top, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota, who was originally "elected" by counting Democrat votes on the state's Indian reservations as many times as necessary for him to win. Then there is Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, whom the state Supreme Court allowed Democrats to add to the ballot to replace disgraced Sen. Robert Torricelli well after the deadline for such replacements by state statute, because Torricelli seemed hopelessly behind in the polls. Alaska Democrat Al Begich sits in the Senate today because the Justice Department brought criminal charges against incumbent Sen. Ted Stevens just before election day that were later thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct and corrupt evidence. Without that filibuster-proof 60-vote majority, the health care abuse would have been stopped. With recall, those who steal elections can be immediately subject to replacement by special election in accordance with the will of the people.
Recall would also stop the growing problem of Blue Dog Democrat fraud, where liberal Democrats get elected by posing as Reagan conservatives at election time, and then vote like George McGovern once they get to Washington. When representatives betray promises made to voters soon after their election, they can be quickly recalled. In an age of dishonest, party-controlled media, such right of recall is even more necessary to maintain rule by the democratic will of the people, because without a free press to keep candidates honest, electoral mistakes are more likely to be made.
Another populist Amendment would impose term limits on congressman, two terms for senators, and six terms for representatives, for a total of 12 years in each office. The Supreme Court ruled that the states could not constitutionally impose term limits on members of Congress, which is what killed the popular term limits movement. So this highly desirable reform can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
Another Supreme Court decision requires a constitutional amendment to adopt a presidential federal line item veto. This would maintain democratic accountability by providing a means to counter earmarks and other abuses buried in large omnibus bills, continuing resolutions, and must pass defense bills. Most states provide this power to their governors, and it would be an important tool to counter runaway federal spending. A similar amendment would adopt the one subject rule at the federal level now in force in 47 states, which requires each bill to cover one subject. That would again avoid evasion of democratic accountability by preventing the New Authoritarians from burying elitist policies in mega bills where they would metastasize unnoticed until it is too late, another reform all the more necessary because of our corrupt media.
Writing in the December 22 Wall Street Journal, Lee Casey and David Rivkin introduce a constitutional amendment that would enable two-thirds of the states to propose constitutional amendments directly, without calling a constitutional convention. Such proposed amendments would then have to be ratified by two-thirds of the states, a process with plenty sufficient safeguards against ill-considered amendments. As Casey and Rivkin argue, this power would restore the critical balance between state and federal power that was originally intended and that has now been lost to a power mongering, runaway federal government.
The Tea Party now has a populist agenda. Besides these reforms, we can overthrow the New Authoritarianism by not underestimating the political revolution that is now underway. There is a tide in the affairs of men, Shakespeare taught us, and what we have to look to even more than where the public is today, which is plenty interesting already, is where the current sweeping tide is leading us a year from now. Given all that has happened in one year, and all the dangerous pitfalls that lie ahead for incumbents due to potential adverse developments, the greatest danger to the revolution is that potential candidates, donors, political professionals, and others will underestimate the strength of the tide a year from now, and challenges that could have succeeded will never get off the ground. Long-time liberal incumbents that may seem invulnerable today will seem hopeless a year from now.
Example by way of prediction: Barbara Boxer is already toast in California, if Carly Fiorina can just be sure to put together a well-financed campaign with strong grassroots organization to get her vote out. Example of the possibilities: fathead Chuck Schumer could be beaten next year by a good candidate running a strong campaign. Sweeping possibilities exist as well for Democrat primaries against seemingly entrenched left-wing incumbents.
Remember what Shakespeare said about that tide not taken at the flood that would have led on to fortune, but omitted all of life is spent in shallows and miseries.
Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.
Washington Knows Best
By Peter Ferrara on 12.30.09 @ 6:08AM
The health policy atrocity that Washington Democrats are now finalizing represents an ugly new turn in American politics. From almost the founding of the Republic, we have seen demagogues seek to sway public opinion in their favor with crass arguments appealing to base motives in the electorate, from racism to class warfare to xenophobia. But that is NOT what we are seeing in Washington today, on issues from health care to "global warming" to federal deficits, spending, taxes, welfare, energy, and beyond.
What we are seeing in Washington today is much worse. What this mob currently in power is telling us on health care, and the rest of the issues, is that they know what is best, and they are not the slightest bit interested in what the people think. If any of us disagree, that is because we are ignorant yahoos, malevolent Nazis, or crazy teabaggers, and our "elected representatives" have not hesitated to respond by calling American citizens precisely such names when they have exhibited the temerity to dissent. This is not a perversion of democracy. This is a complete abdication of democracy, or rule by the people, displaced by a new elitism, or rule by elites, which is a form of undemocratic authoritarianism.
We can't use phrases like "health care debate" to discuss what has happened, because there has not been any such debate. Ditto that for global warming policy, where the EPA, following the lead of President Obama, insists on plowing ahead regardless of what the public thinks, or what any dissenting scientific authorities have to say. Debate requires a willingness to listen to what others have to say, and to respond with rational arguments. But Democrats have refused even to hold hearings on their final health care proposals, which were not even released to their Congressional colleagues until the last second, and then rushed to a vote, without even full scoring of their implications. This spectacle is an abuse of office.
From the polls, to phone calls and letters to the Hill, to public protests, all signs indicate overwhelming and exploding public opposition to the Democrats' government takeover of health care. The Left has now joined the Right in opposing the legislation for their own reasons. But none of this has made any difference to the ruling Democrats. The attitude they are displaying is that they already know everything about everything, and they are not interested in what anyone else has to say.
Demagoguery at least shows some respect for public opinion. What we are seeing in Washington today is the replacement of a functioning democracy, based on consent of the governed, with a New Authoritarianism based on arrogant power. Washington knows best is the new ruling doctrine, and no dissent is respected, or would even be allowed to be heard if the new ruling class were to have its way. Certainly that is the view of the governing bodies of the old establishment media, which not only refuses to allow the airing of dissenting views, but joins in ridiculing them. The one TV network that does allow all sides to be heard, Fox News, is attacked by high government officials for doing so, including the President himself, joined by the so-called mainstream media, from the New York Times, to NBC, to Time magazine. This is starting to look more like Venezuela than America.
That is because from the halls of power in Washington, to the corridors of media in New York City, the New Left from the 1960s has suddenly seized power in America. Its troops are behaving exactly like the New Left campus leftists who have shouted down and shut out dissenting views for decades. The result now is a fundamental crisis of democracy in America. If our system that previously produced the greatest, freest, most prosperous country in the world is to survive, patriots across America, from every village and farm, every town and county precinct, every neighborhood, barrio, and ghetto, every profession, every church, every discipline, will have to rally to save it. Putting America back on track to freedom and prosperity, and the restoration of the American Dream, will require fundamental reforms of our system of government, to put the people back in charge, ensure power to the people, and never allow the threat of such an effective anti-democratic coup d'état ever to arise again.
Medicare's New Death Panel
This new anti-democratic, elitist, authoritarianism can be seen in the emerging policy results of the health care debacle. As Scott Gottlieb explains in the December 24 Wall Street Journal, the Senate health bill establishes a new unelected Medicare Commission with the power to displace your doctor's judgment as to your treatment and care with its own. Gottlieb writes, "In particular, the Obama team wants to give the agency the power to decide when a cheaper medical option will suffice for a given problem and, in turn, when Medicare only has to pay for the least costly alternative….In fact, the bill lets Medicare seek almost any restrictive payment authority it wants from a Medicare Commission established for the purpose of cost control."
The Obama Administration, indeed, has already sought judicial approval of this new authority under current law in the case of Hays v. Sebelius, decided just before Christmas. The case involved Ilene Hays, a Medicare Part B beneficiary, who had been taking the prescription drug DuoNeb for approximately four years under the advice of her doctor, to control Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Though that drug regimen had worked well for Ilene, the Medicare bureaucracy decided that another, less costly drug treatment would work just as well, contrary to the advice of her doctor, and ruled that it would only pay for the cost of that cheaper drug treatment.
Ilene sued, claiming that Medicare does not have the authority under current law to overrule her doctor. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Ilene, concluding that the Secretary of HHS and the Medicare bureaucracy were attempting an end-run around current law, and that "Nothing in the statute authorizes this least costly alternative policy." But on Christmas Eve, the 60 Democrat Senators voted to overrule Ilene and the Court, and grant the Medicare bureaucracy precisely the power that was rejected in this case, through their vote for the "historic" Reid/Obama health care bill.
When Medicare was adopted, the law expressly prohibited any such government intervention in the decisions of your doctor regarding your treatment and care. Now the Democrats in Washington have voted to take the power and control over your health care away from you and your doctor and give it to the government. And that policy won't be limited to Medicare. As Gottlieb writes, "The impact of these provisions won't be limited to Medicare. Private insurance in the federally regulated 'exchanges' will take cues from Medicare, since they're both managed from the same bureaucracy. Medicare will set the standard for medical care across the entire marketplace." Again, the Democrats and their bureaucrats in Washington are sure they know everything about everything, even how to treat your serious medical condition better than your doctor.
Yet, the problem with the Democrats' New Left extremism on health care is even more fundamental than this. Today's pacemakers include wireless computer chips that enable doctors to go online at their offices or other locations to monitor exactly what is happening with their patient's heart at home or elsewhere. A doctor can send a message for the pacemaker to jolt a stopped heart back to life, or the pacemaker can be programmed to do that on its own. In one case, the heart of a senior citizen who had suffered four heart attacks over 17 years stopped three times on the way to the hospital after his doctor warned him of the danger from a remote location, and each time the pacemaker jolted him back to life. The man is still alive today, and just enjoyed Christmas with his family.
But under the Obamacare socialized medicine system that the Democrats have now whooped through both houses of Congress, you can forget about the investment in both physical and human capital that was necessary for this modern medical miracle. Who is going to invest in the development and manufacture of such high tech medical equipment, and in developing the medical expertise to administer it, under government policies to sharply restrict the compensation for such investment?
Such medical innovation will not only come to a halt. The ability of our medical system to provide such cutting edge, high tech medical care to save lives will deteriorate and go backwards. The great historic achievement that the Democrats claim now to have won is the government takeover of health care so that they can precisely redistribute resources from such care to achieve what they say would be a greater good. But the ugly truth is that what they are really doing is redistributing the hefty health resources that today save the lives of the really sick to other uses where they think they can buy far more votes for all that money. That is the New Authoritarianism at work.
The self-deluded Democrats in Washington are so sure the American people are going to somehow be grateful for this government takeover and trashing of their health care. But the American people will not stand idly by and accept this fundamental assault on a central component of their current high standard of living. Nor will they meekly accept what is essentially a loss of democratic control over their own government, and the fundamental disrespect, of the New Authoritarianism. These are just a couple of the reasons why a political revolution is coming that no one in Washington can comprehend today.
Change We Can Believe In
What is needed is fundamental change in our system of government to ensure that the people will remain in charge, and to pull the plug on the New Authoritarianism. Such changes will be embraced by a broad, tri-partisan coalition of Republicans, Independents, and even grassroots Democrats. These populist reforms fit perfectly the grassroots populism of the Tea Party movement.
Exhibit 1 of such reform is a constitutional amendment extending the concept of Recall to members of Congress, both representatives and senators. The amendment would give the people the right to petition for a special election to remove and replace a specific congressman or senator representing them. Many states have long had such recall authority. Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected governor of California through such a recall election, which removed the previous duly elected Democrat Governor Gray Davis. Such right of recall needs to be applied to future Presidents as well.
What this Congress has proven is that our "elected representatives" can no longer be trusted with two years between elections, given that they sneer at their constituents now rather than seeking to represent them. With the health care fiasco, for example, they are openly trying to bury the country with a mess that they think can never be reversed, regardless of the consequences in the next election, which already seems long overdue. Ditto that for the EPA's threatened global warming abuse, wasteful green energy subsidies, Barack Obama's one third increase in federal welfare spending, and other runaway spending, deficits, and debt. With the constant threat of a recall election, democratic accountability would be maintained throughout each term, and the New Authoritarianism would be short-circuited. Our representatives would have to consider the views of their constituents and the impact their policies will have on them throughout their term, rather than just talking a good game at election time.
This would aid greatly as well in countering the growing problem of stolen elections. Senate Democrats, in fact, never earned their 60-vote majority at the ballot box. At least four of those 60 currently sit as a result of stolen elections. These include Al Franken of Minnesota, where Democrats pursued recounts in Democrat precincts until they could manufacture enough votes to put him over the top, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota, who was originally "elected" by counting Democrat votes on the state's Indian reservations as many times as necessary for him to win. Then there is Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey, whom the state Supreme Court allowed Democrats to add to the ballot to replace disgraced Sen. Robert Torricelli well after the deadline for such replacements by state statute, because Torricelli seemed hopelessly behind in the polls. Alaska Democrat Al Begich sits in the Senate today because the Justice Department brought criminal charges against incumbent Sen. Ted Stevens just before election day that were later thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct and corrupt evidence. Without that filibuster-proof 60-vote majority, the health care abuse would have been stopped. With recall, those who steal elections can be immediately subject to replacement by special election in accordance with the will of the people.
Recall would also stop the growing problem of Blue Dog Democrat fraud, where liberal Democrats get elected by posing as Reagan conservatives at election time, and then vote like George McGovern once they get to Washington. When representatives betray promises made to voters soon after their election, they can be quickly recalled. In an age of dishonest, party-controlled media, such right of recall is even more necessary to maintain rule by the democratic will of the people, because without a free press to keep candidates honest, electoral mistakes are more likely to be made.
Another populist Amendment would impose term limits on congressman, two terms for senators, and six terms for representatives, for a total of 12 years in each office. The Supreme Court ruled that the states could not constitutionally impose term limits on members of Congress, which is what killed the popular term limits movement. So this highly desirable reform can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.
Another Supreme Court decision requires a constitutional amendment to adopt a presidential federal line item veto. This would maintain democratic accountability by providing a means to counter earmarks and other abuses buried in large omnibus bills, continuing resolutions, and must pass defense bills. Most states provide this power to their governors, and it would be an important tool to counter runaway federal spending. A similar amendment would adopt the one subject rule at the federal level now in force in 47 states, which requires each bill to cover one subject. That would again avoid evasion of democratic accountability by preventing the New Authoritarians from burying elitist policies in mega bills where they would metastasize unnoticed until it is too late, another reform all the more necessary because of our corrupt media.
Writing in the December 22 Wall Street Journal, Lee Casey and David Rivkin introduce a constitutional amendment that would enable two-thirds of the states to propose constitutional amendments directly, without calling a constitutional convention. Such proposed amendments would then have to be ratified by two-thirds of the states, a process with plenty sufficient safeguards against ill-considered amendments. As Casey and Rivkin argue, this power would restore the critical balance between state and federal power that was originally intended and that has now been lost to a power mongering, runaway federal government.
The Tea Party now has a populist agenda. Besides these reforms, we can overthrow the New Authoritarianism by not underestimating the political revolution that is now underway. There is a tide in the affairs of men, Shakespeare taught us, and what we have to look to even more than where the public is today, which is plenty interesting already, is where the current sweeping tide is leading us a year from now. Given all that has happened in one year, and all the dangerous pitfalls that lie ahead for incumbents due to potential adverse developments, the greatest danger to the revolution is that potential candidates, donors, political professionals, and others will underestimate the strength of the tide a year from now, and challenges that could have succeeded will never get off the ground. Long-time liberal incumbents that may seem invulnerable today will seem hopeless a year from now.
Example by way of prediction: Barbara Boxer is already toast in California, if Carly Fiorina can just be sure to put together a well-financed campaign with strong grassroots organization to get her vote out. Example of the possibilities: fathead Chuck Schumer could be beaten next year by a good candidate running a strong campaign. Sweeping possibilities exist as well for Democrat primaries against seemingly entrenched left-wing incumbents.
Remember what Shakespeare said about that tide not taken at the flood that would have led on to fortune, but omitted all of life is spent in shallows and miseries.
Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
How about if we sue you for breathing?
The New Climate Litigation
How about if we sue you for breathing?
Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.
Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups—if that's not redundant—are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under "nuisance" laws.
A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.
What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. "My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions," Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. "We're trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature."
Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn't suing to right a wrong. He admits that he's suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public's elected representatives choose.
Cap and trade or a global treaty like the one that collapsed in Copenhagen would be destructive—but at least either would need the assent of a politically accountable Congress. The Obama Administration's antidemocratic decision to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency would be even more destructive—but at least it would be grounded in an existing law, the 1977 Clean Air Act, however misinterpreted. The nuisance suits ask the courts to make such fundamentally political decisions themselves, with judges substituting their views for those of the elected branches.
And now that you mention it, the U.S. appeals courts seem more than ready to arrogate to themselves this power. In September, the Second Circuit allowed Mr. Blumenthal's suit to proceed, while a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal of the Katrina case in October. An en banc hearing is now under consideration.
But global warming is, well, global: It doesn't matter whether ubiquitous CO2 emissions come from American Electric Power or Exxon—or China. "There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 150, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants," says David Rivkin, an attorney at Baker Hostetler and a contributor to our pages, in an amicus brief in the Katrina case. "These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each 'contributes' to global concentrations of carbon dioxide."
In other words, the courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all. Not only might businesses sue to shackle their competitors—could we sue the New York Times for deforestation?—but judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants. In practice this would mean ad hoc command-and-control regulation against any industries that happen to catch the green lobby's eye.
Carbon litigation without legislation is one more way to harm the economy, and the rule of law. We hope the Fifth Circuit will have the good sense to deflect this damaging legal theory before it crash-lands at the Supreme Court.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
How about if we sue you for breathing?
Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.
Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups—if that's not redundant—are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under "nuisance" laws.
A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.
What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. "My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions," Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. "We're trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature."
Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn't suing to right a wrong. He admits that he's suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public's elected representatives choose.
Cap and trade or a global treaty like the one that collapsed in Copenhagen would be destructive—but at least either would need the assent of a politically accountable Congress. The Obama Administration's antidemocratic decision to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency would be even more destructive—but at least it would be grounded in an existing law, the 1977 Clean Air Act, however misinterpreted. The nuisance suits ask the courts to make such fundamentally political decisions themselves, with judges substituting their views for those of the elected branches.
And now that you mention it, the U.S. appeals courts seem more than ready to arrogate to themselves this power. In September, the Second Circuit allowed Mr. Blumenthal's suit to proceed, while a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal of the Katrina case in October. An en banc hearing is now under consideration.
But global warming is, well, global: It doesn't matter whether ubiquitous CO2 emissions come from American Electric Power or Exxon—or China. "There is no logical reason to draw the line at 30 defendants as opposed to 150, or 500, or even 10,000 defendants," says David Rivkin, an attorney at Baker Hostetler and a contributor to our pages, in an amicus brief in the Katrina case. "These plaintiffs—and any others alleging injury by climatic phenomena—would have standing to assert a damages claim against virtually every entity and individual on the planet, since each 'contributes' to global concentrations of carbon dioxide."
In other words, the courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all. Not only might businesses sue to shackle their competitors—could we sue the New York Times for deforestation?—but judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants. In practice this would mean ad hoc command-and-control regulation against any industries that happen to catch the green lobby's eye.
Carbon litigation without legislation is one more way to harm the economy, and the rule of law. We hope the Fifth Circuit will have the good sense to deflect this damaging legal theory before it crash-lands at the Supreme Court.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
IF George W. Bush
IF George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different...... Two Different Versions.................. Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing,
“We shall overcome.” Then Rev.. Jeremiah right has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing,
“We shall overcome.” Then Rev.. Jeremiah right has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Obama notified of unruly passenger on flight-WHouse | Reuters
The story here isn't in the story but in the comments. Virtually no one respects this president...
Obama notified of unruly passenger on flight-WHouse
KAILUA, Hawaii, Dec 27 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was notified on Sunday about an unruly passenger on a flight to Detroit and stressed the importance of maintaining heightened security measures for air travel, the White House said.
"The president stressed the importance of maintaining heightened security measures for all air travel and gave instructions to set up another secure teleconference briefing as soon as possible," White House spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
(Reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Editing by Vicki Allen)
I miss Bush! At least we were safe back then!
http://90recruitsin90days.com
I miss common sense…not 30 telepromted speechwriters, and 90 days of polling to make a STATEMENT, not a DECISION on anything…more sunblock Mr. President? Hahahahahahah
“I miss Bush! At least we were safe back then!”
You do realize that Bush was President during September 11 and the anthrax attacks, right?
Yeah, and we haven’t had any attacks here until obams came in. What a bonehead.
Yeah, and we haven’t had any attacks here until obams came in. What a bonehead.
After Obamahammed appoints Muslim radicals into Homeland Security, into military intelligence, bows to the Saudi King, speaks bad about the USA to Muslims overseas in major speeches where he validates their phoney “victimhood” and revisionist history, who should be surprised that suicide bombers are encouraged? After all, he reinforces their view of infidel Americans as scum. The man and his cadres of Marxist-Islamic foot-kissers HATE the USA and HATE their fellow Americans. You ordinary Americans are HATED by the Obamaniacs!
PS. The reactions of Homeland Security to this are terrible. They now will demand everyone sit in their seat for hours, without anything on their laps, like schoolchildren in a monestary. And this is done just so we won’t have to institute profiling of Muslims, or restricting Muslim travel, subjecting people like the suicide bombers to more serious scrutiny. They wage a defensive war against clever scheming spys and traitors, which has never worked. It will turn us into a Police State more surely than anything ordered by the Bush people. We need to realize, the Muslims are waging war against the non-Muslim world, and have been for nearly 1400 years. Geert Wilders is correct, Islam is no “religion” only, but is a political movement and push for world conquest.
ok…..so…was this the kid whose FATHER reported him some time ago WHOSE NAME WAS ON A LIST that was NOT checked….who got through airport security? Wow.
How much money does the American public spend annually fighting the terrorists, and how long has it been since 9/11?
Uh, why is this newsworthy? Or is this a press release?
Seriously — Ms. Allen, exercise some editorial judgment here.
But let me take this opportunity to reinforce the administration’s message: no jihad at work here, folks — just random criminality. Move along.
I miss Bush too. If this had happened under his watch he would do something about it. Obama will make a long speech that does nothing.
Potus Obama was sleeping or golfing or surfing and his advisors finally tell him of the terrorist attack. Where’s the outrage from the left or the state media? We all remember how Bush was mocked as he was reading a book to children in a Fla school.
As long as we are to stupid to profile we should restrict flights to natural citizens only and give the Arabs their own. Let em blow each other up.
Uh… for those who say there were no terrorist attacks during Bush’s term: September 11, Shoe bomber, Anthrax attacks, Daniel Pearl, etc etc ETC ETC ETC.
But of course, Repugs can and will rewrite history.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What a non-story joke. Reuters will print ANYTHING to make it appear that Obama is “closely involved” and “on the case”.
In reality, this Muslim sympathizer and political usurper couldn’t care less about the average American. As long as his teleprompter speeches continue to fool most Americans, and he has a Democratic majority in Congress, it’s party time and fist bumps for everyone!
WAKE UP, AMERICA. We’ve been had, and the liberal media – including Reuters – continue their whitewashing of this Marxist phoney. And why wouldn’t they? Their next on the list for an Obama “stimulus” bailout.
Keep kissing the hand that feeds you, Reuters…..
Obomba needs to retun to Kenya to visit his African Muslim family and freinds for the Holidays. Then he could fly back to D.C. on Air Kenya or Air Nigeria commercially with all the muslims who belong to this most compasionate and peacful religon. They can all sing alla akbar together. He would not have a thing to worry about because they are his brothers. I might go with him but alas I am an ifidel. This is all so funny but in all seriousness Muslims need to be profiled and if things get worse We should not let them in our schools or flying schools or colleges as they learn our weaknesses. Remember wwii and internment camps. We wont need them if we dont let them in in the first place to plan their diabolical terrorist attacks on our soil. We need to wake up and realize their religon wants to kill us and our children and families. Mark my words if these attacks start back up they will be putting up no muslim signs at all ports of entry into the United States.
I say we ask Bush to be the President in exile and let Obama surf. What a look on Drudge, the BOBBLE head Obama, issuing statements – while Americans fight terrorists on planes. How reassuring. I have not felt safe since Jan. 20, 2009 -
Has Obama raised the threat level to Red?
Or has he simply torn to pieces all the Bush procedures that kept us safe since 9/11?
Our security is gone…thanks to Omama lamalam..He has been on vacation since the day he took office and he has allowed his Muslum brothers to work their way into our security.
This POTUS is a nightmare! Look how bold these extremist are. I miss President Bush. No matter how much anyone disagreed with him, you always felt safe with him in office. Obummer just plain sucks all around.
Yes, 9/11 and anthrax were on Bush’s watch. But we were blissfully unaware at the time. It was a gigantic sucker punch, and it was the last time anyone was successful – until Obama came on scene and started trash-talking America.
Thanks people.
Really now. The difference is that we now talk about “attacks” like this…How many times was there a “red” threat level under Bush? What prompted it? Why are you discussing things you clearly do not understand?
Tell me, did the man who attacked the base in fort hood suddenly join the Military due to some new Obama policy? (No), was there some change in policy by the Obama administration that allowed this to happen? (No)
What attacks have actually been carried out and killed Americans due to a change in policy under the Obama administration? What specifically has he done to make us “less safe”? What security measures have been “dismantled”?
I bet not one of you can respond with anything other than racist hatred.
What an idiotic article and headline. “Unruly passenger” is that what was passed to the POTUS? Not, “probable terrorist attack”, “potential disaster averted”, “radical Islamist attempt to kill Americans stymied” or some other more truistic statement about the ongoing state of affairs against the global war on terrorism debunked earlier this year by President Obama Administration’s resolute to kissing and coddling th enemies posterior to win thier favor. It’s along time till 2011 and even longer still to 2013–to much time for even more determental changes are handed out to Americans before we can take back the country. Pray for resilence. What a Rubbish Reuter writer…who edits these stories, another “I want the world to love us Lib?”
Agreed; what a stupid story. I’d like to report a neighbor of mine to Obummer that is acting suspiciously. He was in his basement for over an hour doing who knows what. Maybe you guys can send a few reporters over here and a photographer. Don’t you at Reuters have any news to print besides stupid things like this? Jeez.
Oh, and it took TWO people to do this ’story’ of two small paragraphs. Too funny.
Here’s a simple way to end any future aircraft issues. All foreign Muslims flying to a US destination must do so only on Emerates, Royal Jordanian, Saudi, etc airlines. You can bet that this particular “threat” would magically end when the property of the Arab kingdoms became involved.
All questions as to why this was reported as an ‘unruly passenger” will be answered if you click on the reporter’s name.
The half wit half breed is all Mooslem so he can’t attack other Mooslems without being an apostate.
Objective evidence people! Obama diminishes CIA security and interrogation measures 1/22/09. What is the LOGICAL result of this decision? Less information gained regarding the Al-Qaeda and planned terrorist plots. And what is the LOGICAL result of not having this information? Increased risk of terrorist attempts within the US borders. The US people do not realize the consistent war fought against domestic terror during the Bush administration and the number of foiled terror plots from the information gained by the CIA. Obama has diminished this valuable and needed resource, and as a result, you and I are at a greater risk of terrorist activity then when Bush was in office. People may blame Bush for economic situations from heightened security and military spending, but I would pray that every other administration (including this one) would make those same decisions given the information that Bush was given from the CIA and backed by other foreign intelligence sources. Every decision that Bush made was for United States security. When Bush said that we are in a war against terror, that is what he meant. The Al-Qaeda are NOT Iraqi citizens. These are Islamic extremists from Iran, Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries who have a blood lust for American soldiers and for the American people, and who have the objective of placing every Middle Eastern country under an Islamic regime. I would even argue that the money that currently funds cell groups in Afghanistan and Iraq will be shifted to funding terrorist acts within the borders of the US once US troops leave those countries.
In my personal opinion, Obama has shown disrespect to the office of the “President of the United States” by the blatant disregard of the US military, continued apologies to heads of state for what Obama believes to have been the mistakes of previous administrations (and the military and the people of the US) – not to mention that his first administrative statements were NOT to the people of the US, but to Islamic television and radio stations in the Middle East.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
A Climatology Conspiracy?
December 20, 2009
This story uses various "CRU e-mails" and our own personal knowledge of events and issues. References will be made to items in an appendix that are arranged chronologically. The e-mails have an index number which comes from a compilation at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php.
-- implies prior correspondence.
This exchange provides the first reference to the International Journal of Climatology.
The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.
Santer responds (6 Dec 2007) with the key reason for attacking DCPS:
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html at December 27, 2009 - 02:12:36 PM EST
A Climatology Conspiracy?
By David H. Douglass and John R. ChristyThe CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.
We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.
*The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others.
Introduction
This story involves the publication of:
Douglass et al. 2007 (DCPS)
31 May 2007 submitted to IJC
11 Oct accepted1 Nov page proofs accepted5 Dec 2007 published online15 Nov 2008 print version (11+ months after on-line publication)[reference in appendix B]
and the subsequent publication of
Santer and 17 team members
25 Mar 2008 submitted to IJC
18 July revised
20 July accepted
10 Oct published on-line
15 Nov print version (36 days after on-line publication)[reference in appendix B]
This story uses various "CRU e-mails" and our own personal knowledge of events and issues. References will be made to items in an appendix that are arranged chronologically. The e-mails have an index number which comes from a compilation at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php.
2. The story
Our record of this story begins when Andrew Revkin, a reporter for the New York Times, sends three team members an e-mail [30 Nov 2007] with the page proofs of the DCPS paper. This is a week before the online publication. The subject of Revkin's email --
sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effort
-- implies prior correspondence.
Team member Mears quickly responds with an e-mail to fellow team members Jones, Santer, Thorne, Sherwood, Lanzante, Taylor, Seidel, Free, and Wentz [4 Dec 2007]. Santer replies to all:
I'm forwarding this to you in confidence. We all knew that some journal, somewhere, would eventually publish this stuff. Turns out that it was the International Journal of Climatology.
Santer knows this because he reviewed and rejected the DCPS paper when it was previously submitted to another journal. Phil Jones responds to Santer:
It sure does! Have read briefly -- the surface arguments are wrong. I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful -- and IJC was improving.
This exchange provides the first reference to the International Journal of Climatology.
The next day (5 Dec 2007 -- the day the DCPS paper appeared on-line), Santer sends an e-mail to Peter Thorne with copies to Carl Mears , Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, and Steve Klein. Santer says,
Peter, I think you've done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns about the Douglass et al. paper ... I don't think it's a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil [Jones] pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be given the final word. [TL1]
The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.
The next day (6 Dec 2007), Melissa Free responds with a cautious note, evidently because she had presented a paper with Lanzante and Seidel at an American Meteorological Society conference (18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change) acknowledging the existence of a discrepancy between observations and models -- the basic conclusion of the DCPS paper.
What about the implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air trends? Is this really so dire?
Santer responds (6 Dec 2007) with the key reason for attacking DCPS:
What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their arguments.
This "willful neglect" of "observational datasets" refers to the absence of two balloon datasets, RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4. (DCPS explain in an addendum that these data sets are faulty. See below.)
A further e-mail from Jones (6 Dec 2007) discusses options to beat DCPS into print. Wigley enters (10 Dec 2007) to accuse DCPS of "fraud" and that under "normal circumstances," this would "cause him [Douglass] to lose his job." We remind the reader that DCPS went through traditional, anonymous peer review with iterations to satisfy the reviewers and without communicating outside proper channels with the editor and reviewers.
Tim Osborn, a colleague of Jones at CRU and a member of the editorial board of IJC, inserts himself into the process, declaring a bias on the issue and stating that Douglass's previous papers "appear to have serious problems." Santer responds with gratitude for the "heads up," again making the claim that DCPS ignored certain balloon datasets. As noted below, DCPS did not use these datasets because they were known to be faulty.
On this day (12 Dec 2007), an unsigned report appeared on RealClimate.org attacking DCPS, especially about not using RAOBCORE 1.4. This prompted the DCPS authors to submit an Addendum to IJC on 3 Jan 2008 to explain in one page two issues: (1) the reason for not using RAOBCORE 1.4 and (2) explaining the experimental design to show why using the full spread of model results to compare with observations (as Santer et al. would do) would lead to wrong conclusions about the relationship between trends in the upper air temperature versus the surface -- see Appendix A. (A copy of the addendum may be found at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass.)
Osborn (10 Jan 2008), writing to Santer and Jones, then discusses the "downside" of the normal comment-reply process, in which DCPS would be given an "opportunity to have a response." He explains that he has contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to "see what he can do." According to Osborn, McGregor "promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around." He also says:
(and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he [McGregor] may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it.
He [McGregor] also intends to "correct the scientific record" and to identify in "advance reviewers who are both suitable and available," perhaps including "someone on the email list you've been using." Given the bias of Osborn and McGregor as expressed in the emails, one could wonder what it means to be a "suitable" reviewer of the Santer paper.
Santer responds with his conditions, highlighting the intent that he must have the "last word".
1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a
comment on Douglass et al. ...
2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the opportunity
to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to
reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the
same issue of IJC.
I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance on
1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel free
to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.
This Osborn e-mail and response by Santer essentially lays out the publication strategy apparently agreed to by Santer, Jones, Osborn, and editor McGregor. Santer accepts Osborn as a conduit and defines the conditions (having the "last word"). This is exactly what he seeks to deny for DCPS, who published the original paper in this sequence in IJC.
DCPS are never informed of this process, which specifically addresses our paper, nor are we contacted for an explanation on any point raised in these negotiations. Santer's allegations regarding DCPS and his conditions for publication are simply accepted. One wonders that if the results of DCPS were so obviously and demonstrably in error, why would anyone fear a response by DCPS? See Appendix A.
A new development occurs on this day (10 Jan 2008) as Jones tells the team (Wigley, K. Taylor, Lanzante, Mears, Bader, Zwiers, Wentz, Haimberger, Free, MacCracken, Jones, Sherwood, Klein, Solomon, Thorne, Osborn, Schmidt, and Hack) a "secret" he learns from Osborn: that one of the recipients on the Santer e-mail list is one of the original reviewers of DCPS who did not reject the article.
The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you? I don't want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn't know I'm sending this. It isn't me by the way - nor Tim ! Tim said it was someone who hasn't contributed to the discussion - which does narrow the possibilities down!
Does Santer start wondering who the original reviewer is? Does Osborn reveal this part of McGregor's secret?
Then, on the matter of paying for expensive color plots, Jones adds, "I'm sure I can lean on Glenn [McGregor]" to evidently deal with the costs. Obviously, this was not offered to DCPS.
The final approval of the strategy (Santer's conditions) to deny DCPS an opportunity to respond in the normal way is acknowledged by Osborn to Santer and Jones (11 Jan 2008) in that Osborn writes that McGregor, as editor, is "prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al." and "my [McGregor's] offer of a quick turn around time etc. still stands." Osborn also reminds Santer and Jones of the potential impropriety of this situation:
... the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted ...
Santer now informs the team that the strategy has been agreed to (11 Jan 2008). DCPS were never notified of these machinations, and it is clear that Santer's story of the situation was never investigated independently. In this long e-mail, the issues of radiosonde errors is discussed and the fact one dataset, RAOBCORE v1.4, is missing from DCPS. To explain briefly, Sakamoto and Christy (SC09, accepted in 2008 and appearing in 2009) looked closely at the ERA-40 Reanlayses on which RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4 were based. SC09 demonstrated that a spurious warming shift occurred in 1991 (a problem with a satellite channel: HIRS 11), which was then assimilated into RAOBCORE, producing spurious positive trends in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. SC09 had been working on this since 2006 when they first met, so they were aware of the problems at that time. Sherwood later comments (27 May 2008) on this evidence during the deliberations of Santer's publication, so the team was aware of the problem, too. Even though Santer had seen the DCPS addendum (sent to him by McGregor) with the explanation of the RAOBCORE problems as early as 10 Apr 2008, their published paper contains the statement:
Although DCPS07 had access to all three RAOBCORE versions, they presented results from v1.2 only ...
Another interesting comment here is that Santer does "NOT" want to "show the most recent radiosonde [balloon] results" from Hadley Center and Sherwood's IUK (i.e., withholding data that does not support his view). The reason is likely that these two datasets, extended out in time, provide even stronger evidence in favor of DCPS. The final paper cuts off these datasets in 1999.
Douglass becomes concerned that he has not heard a response from McGregor on the Addendum sent on 3 Jan 2008. He writes on 1 Apr 2008 as to the status of the Addendum. On 10 April 2008, McGregor responds that he has "great difficulty locating [the] addendum." Douglass responds with the file number sent back to Douglass from IJC defining the event on 3 Jan but attaches the Addendum again. This was obviously successful because that very day (10 Apr 2008), McGregor sends the Addendum to Santer to "learn your views." Santer is afforded the opportunity to comment on the DCPS Addendum. DCPS never hear from McGregor again concerning the Addendum.
McGregor informs Santer that he has received one set of comments (24 Apr 2008) and though he
... would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation of revisions.
-- Santer informs the team of the situation (24 Apr 2008). One wonders if there was any possibility that Santer's paper could have been rejected, given the many favors already extended to this submission. McGregor now knows in the Addendum what the core response to Santer et al. might be, yet he evidently drops it from consideration. At this point, DCPS are unaware of a response by Santer, as they were dealing with the RealClimate.org blog with this matter.
Santer is worried about the lack of "urgency" in receiving the remaining reviews and complains to McGregor (5 May 2008). He reminds McGregor that Osborn had agreed to the strategy that the "process would be handled as expeditiously as possible." McGregor hopes that the further comments will come within "2 weeks" or so. Osborn writes to McGregor on the next day (6 May 2008) that Santer's ninety-page article was much more than anticipated, implying that Santer is being rather demanding, considering how much has been done to aid him. One wonders why it should take ten months and ninety pages to show that any paper contained a "serious flaw" and why Santer et al. needed to be protected from a response.
A paper by Thorne now appears in Nature Geosciences which referenced the as-yet-unpublished paper by Santer et al.(including Thorne). Douglass writes to Thorne (26 May 2008) asking for a copy and is told (27 May 2008_A) that he cannot do so because Santer is the first author. Douglass (27 May 2008_B) points out to Thorne Nature's ethics policy --
NATURE JOURNALS' POLICIES ON PUBLICATION ETHICS
Availability of data and materials
"An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols available .."
-- and asks again for a copy of the paper. At the same time, Douglass asks Santer for a copy (27 May 2008_C). Santer responds by saying, "I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper." From the e-mails, we now know that the Santer et al. manucsript had not been accepted at this point, though it was cited in a Nature Geosciences article. What is very curious is that in the e-mail, Santer claims that Douglass did
... not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper ...
In fact, Santer had been a reviewer of this paper when it had been submitted earlier, so he was in possession of the material (only slightly changed) for at least a year. Additionally, Santer received a copy of the DCPS page proofs about a week before it even appeared online.
In further e-mail exchanges the next day (28 May 2008) the author team discusses this uncomfortable situation of having a citation in Nature Geosciences and being unable to provide the paper to the public before "a final decision on the paper has been reached." Santer states they should "resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible," which implies that Douglass's point about the ethics policies of Nature, which likely requires the availability of cited literature, may put them in jeopardy.
Santer writes to Jones (10 July 2008) that the two subsequent reviews are in, but reviewer number two was "somewhat crankier." Santer indicates that McGregor has told him that he will not resend the coming revised manuscript to the "crankier" reviewer in another apparent effort by McGregor to accommodate Santer.
Conclusion
On 21 July 2008, Santer hears that his paper is formally accepted and expresses his sincere gratitude to Osborn for "all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC." Osborn responds that "I'm not sure that I did all that much."
On 10 Oct 2008, the Santer et al. paper is published online. Thirty-six days later Santer et al. appears in print, immediately following DCPS, who have waited now over eleven months for their paper to appear in print. The strategy of delaying DCPS and not allowing DCPS to have a simultaneous response to Santer et al. has been achieved.
David H. Douglass is Professor of Physics, University of Rochester. John R. Christy is Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
December 01, 2009
Appendix B. Email chronology.
[Appendix A here]
31 May 2007
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50]
*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN
_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot Earth Blog620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018-1405
phone: 212-556-7326 fax: 509/ /-357-0965 mobile: 914-441-5556
3. Jones responds to Santer
Melissa Free wrote:
One further question about the Douglass paper: What about the
implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air
trends? Is this really so dire?
Melissa
Benjamin D. Santer
Hello Ben and Colleagues,
I've been following these exchanges with interest. One particular point in your message below is a little puzzling to me. That's the issue of trying to avoid circularity in the culling of models for any given D&A study.
Two potential problems occur to me. One is that choosing models on the basis of their fidelity to observed regional and short term variability may not be completely orthogonal to choosing based on long-term trend. That's because those smaller scale changes may contribute to the trends and their patterns. Second, choosing a different set of models for one variable (temperature) than for another (humidity) seems highly problematic. If we are interested in projections of other variables, e.g. storm tracks or cloud cover, for which D&A has not been done, which
group of models would we then deem to be most credible? I don't have a good alternative to propose, but, in light of these considerations, maybe one-model-one-vote doesn't appear so unreasonable after all.
Dear Phil,
------------skip beginning--------------
The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame.
With best regards,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
All,
IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in doing this as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear. Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on recent experiences.[Note a] A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some way would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down this route at some point. How models simulate the recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the new work Peter alludes to with the sondes.There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J. Climate accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the oceans. Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it highlights a major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally cooler.And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to being results from ERA-40 up to date.
Cheers
Phil
Tom.
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. Santer was the reviewer who rejected the first submission to GRL]
[Note b. DCPS ignored radiosonde datasets that were demonstrably faulty, but were not allowed the chance to explain that in this process controlled by McGregor as will be demonstrated below.]
Tim Osborn [Note a] wrote:
Hi Ben,
I guess it's likely that you're aware of the Douglass paper that's just come out in IJC, but in case you aren't then a reprint is attached. They are somewhat critical of your 2005, paper, though I recall that some (most?) of Douglass' previous papers -- and papers that he's tried to get through the review process -- appear to have serious problems.
cc Phil & Keith for your interest too!
With best regards,
Ben
Subject: An issue/problem with Tim's idea !!!!!!!
Ben,
Tim's idea is a possibility. I've not always got on that well great with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route - it is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as Tim thinks he realises he's made a mistake. Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two reviews - one positive, the other said it wasn't great, but would leave it up to the editor's discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong choice.
Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I'm sure we can lean on Glenn. Also we can just have colour in the pdf. I'll now send a few thoughts on the figures!
Cheers
Phil
11 Jan 2008 [1200076878]
[Note a. McGregor reconfirms the plan of complete cooperation with team member Osborn, essentially promising a "quick turn around" and acceptance as a "new submission" to disallow DCSP the opportunity to reply to direct criticisms in the normal manner.]
Ben Santer wrote:
Dear folks,
Just a quick update. With the assistance of Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Dian, I've now come to a decision about the disposition of our response to Douglass et al. I've decided to submit to IJoC. I think this is a fair and reasonable course of action. The IJoC editor (and various IJoC editorial board members and Royal Meteorological Society members) now recognize that the Douglass et al. paper contains serious statistical flaws, and that its publication in IJoC reflects poorly on the IJoC and Royal Meteorological Society.[Note a] From my perspective, IJoC should be given the opportunity to set the record straight.[Note b] The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of - that our paper would be viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the "last word" in this exchange. In my opinion (based on many years of interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious scientific errors. Their "last word" would have been an attempt to obfuscate rather than illuminate. That would have been very unfortunate.[Note c] If our contribution is published in IJoC, Douglass et al. will have the opportunity to comment on it, and we will have the right to reply. Ideally, any comment and reply should be published side-by-side in the same issue of IJoC.
With best regards,
[Note a. Santer notifies 17 team members that the plan has been agreed to by Glenn McGregor]
[Note e. It shows DCSP were aware of the problems with RAOBCORE. On April 10 McGregor will send Santer a copy of the DCSP Addendum which explains the problems. Briefly Sakamoto and Christy (2009 - SC09) looked closely at the ERA-40 Reanlayses on which RAOBCORE 1.3,1.4 were based. SC09 demonstrated that a spurious warming shift occurred in 1991 which was then absorbed into RAOBCORE temperatures, producing spurious positive trends in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. SC09 had been working on this since 2006, and so were aware of the problems at the time of DCPS. Even though Santer had seen the Addendum with the explanation of the RAOBCORE problems on that date (10 Apr 2008) their published paper contains the statement " Although DCPS07 had access to all three RAOBCORE versions, they presented results from v1.2 only."]
Dear folks,
[Note h. Leo is the author of the RAOBCORE datasets, so has a vested interest in seeing they are featured and likely not ready to accept the problems of their reference base in ERA-40 (see above.)]
best
glenn
24 april 2008 [1209080077]
Dear Dr Santer
I have received one set of comments on your paper to date. Altjhough I would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation for revisions. Accordingly please find attached one set of comments. Hopefully I should have two more to follow in the near future.
26 May 2008 (Douglass' email)
Dear Dr Santer
In a recent paper by Peter Thorne in Nature Geoscience he references a paper that you and he (and others) have written. I can not understand some parts of the Thorne paperwithout reading the Santer/Thorne reference.
Would you please send me a copy?
Sincerely;
David Douglass
I felt after I sent the e-mail that I was too hasty to assume that Santer would not send a copy of the manuscript. So I did ask him. His very quick and long reply ended with "I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper."
At 23:48 27/05/2008, Tom Wigley wrote:
Steve et al.,
Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving anything to Douglass until the paper appears in print.I guess the reason John likes 1.2 is because it agrees best with UAH MSU -- which, as we all know, has been inspired by and blessed by God, and so MUST be right.
---------------------------------------
Steven Sherwood wrote:
Hi Ben,
I for one am happy with submission pronto, leaving to your discretion the comments I
sent earlier. I wouldn't feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass. This paper will likely be accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not just send him a copy too once it is ready and final.
I am surprised that invited papers are exempt from Nature's policy on ethics. However, I accept that because Santer has expressly forbidden it that you feel that you can not send me the Santer/Thorne paper. I want to be able to continue our scientific relationship so I will not pursue this issue with you.
I have two questions about your Nature Geophysics paper.
1. You state
"The uncertainty with respect to upper air temperature estimates in the tropics is so substantial that we can draw no meaningful conclusions as to whether or not there is a discrepancy between long-term trends in the real world and our expectations from climate models."
Does this statement include the results in the IJC paper that I published with John Christy? In particular, are the UAH and the RSS satellite MSU temperature trends also included?
2. Your paper contains the statement
"... evidence for a strong warming in the tropical upper troposphere, providing long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions."
Will you expand on this statement? Are you among those "long-awaiting" the experimental verification of the model predictions?
Regards;
David
30 May 2008 7:07 AM (Douglass' email)
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. McGregor does not allow the "cranky" reviewer a chance to look at the final manuscript again, making it very easy on S08 to get through the system. For DCPS on the other hand, there were a number of iterations with the one neutral reviewer who kept wanting more details on the statistical aspects of DCPS. DCPS was not accepted until these were satisfied.]
Ben
Benjamin D. Santer
[Note a. This email from Santer to Osborn speaks for itself.]
Climate Conspiracy Appendix A
By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy Appendix A: A scientific discussion of the DCPS paper.
[Appendix B here]
As brief background we state here what DCPS addressed and how our analysis was designed to answer the question posed. The basic question we addressed dealt with the tropical relationship between the surface and the upper air temperature trends. We posed this question: IF the observations and the models had the same surface temperature trend, do observations and models have the same upper air temperature trends? In other words, do models and observations show the same surface to upper air relationship? The answer, as we demonstrated, was no - significantly no.
As brief background we state here what DCPS addressed and how our analysis was designed to answer the question posed. The basic question we addressed dealt with the tropical relationship between the surface and the upper air temperature trends. We posed this question: IF the observations and the models had the same surface temperature trend, do observations and models have the same upper air temperature trends? In other words, do models and observations show the same surface to upper air relationship? The answer, as we demonstrated, was no - significantly no.
The conditional "if" is critical here. Without a common surface trend between models and observations, it would be inappropriate to compare their upper air trends, because it is the relationship between surface and upper air trends with which we were concerned. In other words, since we were comparing the absolute magnitudes of trends in the upper air (between models and observations), the absolute magnitude of the surface trends needed to be the same before something could be said about the relationship of the two. As it turns out, there is a fairly fixed relationship between the surface and upper air temperatures, so the "if" is critical.
Very few model surface trends were near the observational value, but fortunately, the average of the 22 models did indeed produce a surface trend very near that which was observed. Given this result, we calculated the mean of the 22 models' temperature trends for all levels for the comparison study. In essence, the "average" was a way to normalize the models to be comparable with observations to deal with the question we addressed. It also had the advantage of being analogous to the IPCC "best estimate" methodology. We showed that when the different observational datasets were compared with the models' upper air average trends, there were significant differences.
One of the key points of contention with S08 is the magnitude of the error bars on the model output (Santer et al. or S08, Fig. 6). DCPS utilized the standard error of the mean (i.e. the standard deviation of the model trends divided by the square root of the number of models in the sample minus 1.) In other words, once the surface trend is set in a model, there is very high confidence (small error bars) of what the upper air trends are. Thus, a model with a surface trend of, say +0.13 °C/decade, will produce upper air trends for each layer above within a very tight range because of the consistency of the surface vs. upper air relationship.
Given the conditional requirement and our method of error calculation, even S08 confirmed our result (so our arithmetic was fine). However, they strongly objected to the narrowness of our error bars. Their view was to allow models to have a very wide range of possibilities of trends (roughly the range from the coolest model to the warmest) no matter what their associated surface trends might be.
Another way to think of this is that S08 compared observational upper air trends against upper air trends of the entire spread of model results which themselves were associated with a wide range of surface trends. The models' surface trends ranged from +0.03 to +0.31 °C/decade, while the three observational surface datasets all showed values very close to +0.125 °C/decade. Why would we want to compare the upper air trends from models, that were associated with surface trends as little as +0.03 or as high as +0.31 °C/decade, with observations associated with a surface trend of +0.125 C/decade? This would be comparing apples to oranges. This is why we claim S08 have set out a false premise and should not have been published without at least the opportunity for direct response to show their fundamental misunderstanding of DCPS. While the models had a range of trends that might be interpreted as a range associated with natural variability, the key here is that the relationship between surface and upper air in the models has very little variability over multi-decadal time periods. To DCPS, using such a wide range of model trends invalidated the intent of the basic question we posed as it ignored the fundamental condition "IF the models and observations had the same surface trends ..."
December 01, 2009
Climate Conspiracy Appendix B
By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy[Appendix A here]
31 May 2007
Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper (DCPS) submitted to IJC
11 Oct 2007
DCPS paper accepted.
1 Nov 2007
corrected proofs of DCPS paper returned to IJC
30 Nov 2007
In the Dec 4 2009 email below there is this embedded email by Revkin
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broccoli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Andrew Revkin anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effort
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broccoli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Andrew Revkin anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effort
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50]
hi,
for moment please do not distribute or discuss. trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction with this at all.
for moment please do not distribute or discuss. trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction with this at all.
*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN
phone: 212-556-7326 fax: 509/ /-357-0965 mobile: 914-441-5556
Attachments: DCPS-proofs_IJC07.pdf
[Note: Revkin of the NYT is asking Santer, Mears and Broccoli not to distribute or discuss what? What does scrubbing mean? (Revkin indicated later it means "critiquing"). If they are the proofs, how did Revkin get a copy? From one of DCPS?]
Dec 4 2009 [1196795844]
1. At 14:17:24 Mears sends the email from Revkin to Wigley
copies: Jones, Santer, Thorne, Sherwood, Lanzante, Taylor, Seidel, Free and Wentz
Hi Ben, Phil and others
"To me, the fundamental error is 2.3.1 [Note a]
"To me, the fundamental error is 2.3.1 [Note a]
Does IJC publish comments?"
2. At 17:53 Santer responds
Dear folks
I'm forwarding this to you in confidence. We all knew that some journal, somewhere, would eventually publish this stuff. Turns out that it was the International Journal of Climatology.
copies to Mears and Jones
[note a. from DCPS manuscript]
[note b. Santer knows about the coming publication of DCPS. He rejected this paper when it was previously submitted to another journal, so is very familiar with it]
3. Jones responds to Santer
Ben,
It sure does! Have read briefly - the surface arguments are wrong. I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful - and IJC was improving
Cheers
Phil
It sure does! Have read briefly - the surface arguments are wrong. I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful - and IJC was improving
Cheers
Phil
5 Dec 2007 [1196877845]
From: Ben Santer
To: Peter Thorne
cc: Carl Mears , Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz , Steve Klein.
To: Peter Thorne
cc: Carl Mears , Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz , Steve Klein.
Dear folks
Peter, I think you've done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns about the Douglass et al. paper... . I don't think it's a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be given the final word.[Note b]
[Note a. Santer has receive a communication from Peter Thorne. He is alerting the team which includes Phil Jones concerning the DCPS paper.]
[Note b. In typical procedures a "Response" to a published paper, such as Santer is suggesting regarding DCPS, includes a "Reply" (i.e. "final word") from the authors of the original paper side by side so readers can judge arguments conveniently. As shown below, the team, with cooperation of IJC editors, orchestrated a different outcome which was to exclude DCPS from offering a "Reply".]
5 Dec 2007 [1196882357]
From: Ben Santer
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Cc: Carl Mears, Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, Steve Klein
Cc: Carl Mears, Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, Steve Klein
Embedded email from Jones to Santer
Phil Jones wrote:
All,
IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in doing this as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear.
...
Phil Jones wrote:
All,
IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in doing this as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear.
...
Cheers Phil
[Note a. The group does not want the procedure to work "properly" and is aware a normal publication schedule would have DCPS appear before their response could. Phil Jones is pointing out problems with IJC]
5 Dec 2007
Douglass et al. paper (DCPS) published on line
6 Dec 2007 [1196956362]
From: Ben Santer
To: Melissa Free
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Cc: Phil Jones, carl mears, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Tom Wigley, "Thorne, Peter", Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante "'Dian J. Seidel'", Frank Wentz, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, peter gleckler
Dear Melissa,
No, this would not be dire. What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful
neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their
arguments. Recall that our 2005 Science paper presented information from
all observational datasets available to us at that time, even from
datasets that showed large differences relative to the model data. We
did not present results from RSS alone.
With best regards,
Ben
To: Melissa Free
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Cc: Phil Jones, carl mears, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Tom Wigley, "Thorne, Peter", Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante "'Dian J. Seidel'", Frank Wentz, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, peter gleckler
Dear Melissa,
No, this would not be dire. What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful
neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their
arguments. Recall that our 2005 Science paper presented information from
all observational datasets available to us at that time, even from
datasets that showed large differences relative to the model data. We
did not present results from RSS alone.
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. Melissa Free is a little cautious. About this time she presented evidence at an AMS conference that the radiosonde and model trends were indeed significantly different.]
Melissa Free wrote:
One further question about the Douglass paper: What about the
implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air
trends? Is this really so dire?
Melissa
Benjamin D. Santer
6 Dec 2007 [1196964260]
From: Dian Seidel
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Cc: Phil Jones, carl mears, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Tom Wigley, "Thorne, Peter", Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, peter gleckler
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort]
Cc: Phil Jones, carl mears, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Tom Wigley, "Thorne, Peter", Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, peter gleckler
[Note a.Dian Siedel is a little cautious.]
Hello Ben and Colleagues,
I've been following these exchanges with interest. One particular point in your message below is a little puzzling to me. That's the issue of trying to avoid circularity in the culling of models for any given D&A study.
Two potential problems occur to me. One is that choosing models on the basis of their fidelity to observed regional and short term variability may not be completely orthogonal to choosing based on long-term trend. That's because those smaller scale changes may contribute to the trends and their patterns. Second, choosing a different set of models for one variable (temperature) than for another (humidity) seems highly problematic. If we are interested in projections of other variables, e.g. storm tracks or cloud cover, for which D&A has not been done, which
group of models would we then deem to be most credible? I don't have a good alternative to propose, but, in light of these considerations, maybe one-model-one-vote doesn't appear so unreasonable after all.
[Note b. By using the average, DCPS gave each model one vote.]
With regards,
Dian
With regards,
Dian
Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Phil,
------------skip beginning--------------
The sad thing is we are being distracted from doing this fun stuff by the need to respond to Douglass et al. That's a real shame.
With best regards,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
All,
IJC do have comments but only very rarely. I see little point in doing this as there is likely to be a word limit, and if the system works properly Douglass et al would get the final say. There is also a large backlog in papers awaiting to appear, so even if the comment were accepted it would be some time after Douglass et al that it would appear. Better would be a submission to another journal (JGR?) which would be quicker. This could go in before Douglass et al appeared in print - it should be in the IJC early online view fairly soon based on recent experiences.[Note a] A paper pointing out the issues of trying to weight models in some way would be very beneficial to the community. AR5 will have to go down this route at some point. How models simulate the recent trends at the surface and in the troposphere/stratosphere and how they might be ranked is a possibility. This could bring in the new work Peter alludes to with the sondes.There are also some aspects of recent surface T changes that could be discussed as well. These relate to the growing dominance of buoy SSTs (now 70% of the total) vs conventional ships. There is a paper in J. Climate accepted from Smith/Reynolds et al at NCDC, which show that buoys could conceivably be cooler than ship-based SST by about 0.1C - meaning that the last 5-10 years are being gradually underestimated over the oceans. Overlap is still too short to be confident about this, but it highlights a major systematic change occurring in surface ocean measurements. As the buoys are presumably better for absolute SSTs, this means models driven with fixed SSTs should be using fields that are marginally cooler.And then there is the continual reference to Kalnay and Cai, when Simmons et al (2004) have shown the problems with NCEP. It is possible to add in the ERA-Interim analyses and operational analyses to being results from ERA-40 up to date.
Cheers
Phil
[Note a. Phil Jones need not worry. In a few weeks team member and fellow CRU employee Tim Osborn (and on the Editorial Board of International Journal of Climatology) will talk to editor Glenn McGregor and get assurances that will please Phil Jones. See below.]
10 Dec 2008 [1197325034]
From: Tom Wigley
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project]]
Cc: carl mears, Frank Wentz, Tom Wigley, Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante, "'Dian J. Seidel'", Melissa Free, Karl Taylor, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, "Thorne, Peter", "'Philip D. Jones'"
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project]]
Cc: carl mears, Frank Wentz, Tom Wigley, Steven Sherwood, John Lanzante, "'Dian J. Seidel'", Melissa Free, Karl Taylor, Steve Klein, Leopold Haimberger, "Thorne, Peter", "'Philip D. Jones'"
Dear all,
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job -- a parallel is the South Korean cloning fraud case. I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be told about this.
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job -- a parallel is the South Korean cloning fraud case. I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be told about this.
Tom.
[Note a. The DCPS paper was published through the traditional anonymous-reviewer process. The arithmetic was confirmed by S08. DCPS did not attempt to communicate outside of proper channels with the editor and reviewers. We don't know why Tom Wigley believes this is fraud. The implication here is that Mooney of the Washington Post is a useful tool for the climate establishment]
12 Dec 2008 [1197507092]
From: Ben Santer
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Douglass paper
Cc: Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley
Dear Tim,
Thanks for the "heads up". As Phil mentioned, I was already aware of this. The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finally accepted by IJC [Note a]. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC. It has serious scientific flaws. I'm already working on a response.
Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass et al. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did not support their "models are wrong" argument (even though they had these datasets in their possession)[Note b]. Pretty deplorable behaviour...Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators...
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Douglass paper
Cc: Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley
Dear Tim,
Thanks for the "heads up". As Phil mentioned, I was already aware of this. The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finally accepted by IJC [Note a]. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC. It has serious scientific flaws. I'm already working on a response.
Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass et al. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did not support their "models are wrong" argument (even though they had these datasets in their possession)[Note b]. Pretty deplorable behaviour...Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators...
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. Santer was the reviewer who rejected the first submission to GRL]
[Note b. DCPS ignored radiosonde datasets that were demonstrably faulty, but were not allowed the chance to explain that in this process controlled by McGregor as will be demonstrated below.]
Tim Osborn [Note a] wrote:
Hi Ben,
I guess it's likely that you're aware of the Douglass paper that's just come out in IJC, but in case you aren't then a reprint is attached. They are somewhat critical of your 2005, paper, though I recall that some (most?) of Douglass' previous papers -- and papers that he's tried to get through the review process -- appear to have serious problems.
cc Phil & Keith for your interest too!
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
[Note a. Tim Osborn, a colleague of Phil Jones at CRU, is on the Editorial Board of IJC and inserts himself into the process, indicating a clear bias regarding DCPS. Why does he not inform DCSP of this activity or his concerns?]
12 Dec 2007.
An unsigned report attacking the DCPS paper appears on the RealClimate blog. The issue of DCPS not using RAOBCORE 1.4 data is raised. It is noted that team member and coauthor Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of RealClimate. The RAOBCORE issue is discussed below.
3 Jan 2008
Addendum to DCPS paper was submitted to IJC explaining the omission of RAOBCORE prompted by the RealClimate blog discussion. The addendum explains why RAOBCORE was not used. IJC never published the Addendum. See more below in regard to editor McGregor and Santer in orchestrating this issue. (A copy of the addendum may be found at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/.)
10 Jan 2008 13:00 [1199988028]
From: Ben Santer
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Cc: "'Philip D. Jones'"
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Cc: "'Philip D. Jones'"
Hi Ben and Phil,
as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available.
as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available.
Obviously one reviewer could be someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you've been using - though I don't know which of these people you will be asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available as possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names.
Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow,Climatic Research Unit
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow,Climatic Research Unit
[Note a. Osborn works with Jones at CRU and is on the editorial board of IJC:
1. recognizes "downside" of allowing DCPS to reply. Why is there a downside associated with open debate?]
[Note b. Osborn contacts McGregor editor of IJC who:
1. promises to do everything he can
2. quick turn-around time
3. is keen to correct the scientific record
4. will hold back the hard copy appearance of DCPS so that the Santer paper could appear along side it.
5. asks Osborn to identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available.]
Dear Tim,
Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional information that you've given me. I am a bit conflicted about what we should do...
Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional information that you've given me. I am a bit conflicted about what we should do...
Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have the last word on this subject. If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it's fair to ask for the following:
1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a
comment on Douglass et al. ...
2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the opportunity
to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to
reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the
same issue of IJC.
I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance on
1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel free
to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.
comment on Douglass et al. ...
2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the opportunity
to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to
reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the
same issue of IJC.
I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance on
1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel free
to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.
[Note c. Ben Santer accepts offer of IJC Editorial Board member Osborn to be the conduit to McGregor and feels that McGregor would be receptive to receiving Santer's emails to Osborn.]
[Note d. The evidence indicates Santer is orchestrating the process with the aid of the IJC management. He does not want DCPS to have the opportunity to reply (i.e. have the last word.) In essence he is stating he wants done for his submission what should have been granted DCPS under normal conditions. How could his paper not possibility be viewed as a comment on DCPS? This is not how the peer-review process works in general, nor how it worked for DCPS at IJC.]
With best regards,
Ben
10 Jan 2008 16:14 [1199999668] "part of a secret"
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1
To: santer1
copies to: Tom Wigley, Karl Taylor, John Lanzante, carl mears,"David C. Bader","'Francis W. Zwiers'",Frank Wentz, Leopold Haimberger, Melissa Free, "Michael C. MacCracken", "'Philip D. Jones'",Steven Sherwood, Steve Klein, 'Susan Solomon', "Thorne, Peter", Tim Osborn, Gavin Schmidt,"Hack, James J."
Subject: An issue/problem with Tim's idea !!!!!!!
Ben,
Tim's idea is a possibility. I've not always got on that well great with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route - it is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as Tim thinks he realises he's made a mistake. Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two reviews - one positive, the other said it wasn't great, but would leave it up to the editor's discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong choice.
The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you? I don't want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn't know I'm sending this. It isn't me by the way - nor Tim ! Tim said it was someone who hasn't contributed to the discussion - which does narrow the possibilities down! Tim/Glenn discussed getting quick reviews. Whoever this person is they could be the familiar reviewer - and we could then come up with another reasonable name (Kevin - he does everything at the speed of light) as the two reviewers.
Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I'm sure we can lean on Glenn. Also we can just have colour in the pdf. I'll now send a few thoughts on the figures!
Cheers
Phil
[Note a. Osborn has told Phil Jones "part of secret" from Glenn McGregor that the DCPS paper had two reviews - one positive, the other said it wasn't great but not flawed, but would leave it up to the editor's discretion.]
[Note b. Coauthor Phil Jones says to Santer "The problem!! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you?". Questions: Does Santer scan his email list wondering who is reviewer #2 on DCPS? Does team member Osborn reveal this part of McGregor's secret?
[Note c. Phil Jones has revealed the idea of a "secret" to 17 other members of the team]
[Note d. On the basis of Osborn/McGregor discussion of quick review Phil Jones suggests Kevin Trenberth as a reviewer. Did this happen? In some journals, the editors who are unfamiliar with the area under examination solicit potential reviewer recommendations who may be called on at their discretion.]
[Note e. Jones feels "we can lean on Glenn" in regard to charges for colour. This was not a possibility for DCPS]
11 Jan 2008 [1200076878]
From: Tim Osborn
To: santer
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Cc: "'Philip D. Jones'"
To: santer
Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Cc: "'Philip D. Jones'"
Hi Ben (cc Phil),
just heard back from Glenn. He's prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also reiterates that "Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time etc still stands". So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide :-) (or feel free to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted]).
Cheers
Tim
just heard back from Glenn. He's prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also reiterates that "Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time etc still stands". So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide :-) (or feel free to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted]).
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
Climatic Research Unit
[Note a. McGregor reconfirms the plan of complete cooperation with team member Osborn, essentially promising a "quick turn around" and acceptance as a "new submission" to disallow DCSP the opportunity to reply to direct criticisms in the normal manner.]
[Note b. Osborn reiterates to Santer and Jones that McGregor will delay the print publication of DCPS, though he feels compelled to note that this is a restricted piece of information. Question: Will Santer and Jones reveal this secret to their coauthors?]
11 Jan 2008 23:33 [1200112408]
From: Leopold Haimberger
To: santer1
Subject: Re: IJoC and Figure 4
Cc: Peter Thorne, Dian Seidel, Tom Wigley, Karl Taylor, Thomas R Karl, John Lanzante, Carl Mears, "David C. Bader", "'Francis W. Zwiers'", Frank Wentz, Melissa Free, "Michael C. MacCracken", Phil Jones, Steve Sherwood, Steve Klein, 'Susan Solomon', Tim Osborn, Gavin Schmidt, "Hack, James J."
To: santer1
Subject: Re: IJoC and Figure 4
Cc: Peter Thorne, Dian Seidel, Tom Wigley, Karl Taylor, Thomas R Karl, John Lanzante, Carl Mears, "David C. Bader", "'Francis W. Zwiers'", Frank Wentz, Melissa Free, "Michael C. MacCracken", Phil Jones, Steve Sherwood, Steve Klein, 'Susan Solomon', Tim Osborn, Gavin Schmidt, "Hack, James J."
Ben Santer wrote:
Dear folks,
Just a quick update. With the assistance of Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Dian, I've now come to a decision about the disposition of our response to Douglass et al. I've decided to submit to IJoC. I think this is a fair and reasonable course of action. The IJoC editor (and various IJoC editorial board members and Royal Meteorological Society members) now recognize that the Douglass et al. paper contains serious statistical flaws, and that its publication in IJoC reflects poorly on the IJoC and Royal Meteorological Society.[Note a] From my perspective, IJoC should be given the opportunity to set the record straight.[Note b] The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of - that our paper would be viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the "last word" in this exchange. In my opinion (based on many years of interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious scientific errors. Their "last word" would have been an attempt to obfuscate rather than illuminate. That would have been very unfortunate.[Note c] If our contribution is published in IJoC, Douglass et al. will have the opportunity to comment on it, and we will have the right to reply. Ideally, any comment and reply should be published side-by-side in the same issue of IJoC.
The other good news is that IJoC is prepared to handle our submission expeditiously. My target, therefore, is to finalize our submission by the end of next week. I hope to have a first draft to send you by no later than next Tuesday.
Now on to the "Figure 4" issue. Thanks to many of you for very helpful discussions and advice. Here are some comments: 1) I think it is important to have a Figure 4. We need to provide information on structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of profiles of atmospheric temperature change. Douglass et al. did not accurately portray the full range of structural uncertainties.
Now on to the "Figure 4" issue. Thanks to many of you for very helpful discussions and advice. Here are some comments: 1) I think it is important to have a Figure 4. We need to provide information on structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of profiles of atmospheric temperature change. Douglass et al. did not accurately portray the full range of structural uncertainties.
[Note d] 2) I do not want our submission to detract from other publications dealing with recent progress in the development of sonde-based atmospheric temperature datasets. I am aware of at least four such publications which are "in the pipeline". 3) So here is my suggestion for a compromise. If Leo is agreeable, I would like to show results from his three RAOBCORE versions (v1.2, v1.3, and v1.4) in Figure 4. I'd also like to include results from the RATPAC and HadAT datasets used by Douglass et al. This allows us to illustrate that Douglass et al. were highly selective in their choice of radiosonde data. [Note e] They had access to results from all three versions of RAOBCORE, but chose to show results from v1.2 only - the version that provided the best support for their "models are inconsistent with observations" argument. I suggest that we do NOT show the most recent radiosonde results from the Hadley Centre (described in the Titchner et al. paper) or from Steve Sherwood's group. [Note f]
This leaves more scope for a subsequent paper along the lines suggested by Leo, which would synthesize the results from the very latest sonde- and satellite-based temperature datasets, and compare these results with model-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change. I think that someone from the sonde community should take the lead on such a paper.4) As Melissa has pointed out, Douglass et al. may argue that v1.2 was published at the time they wrote their paper, while v1.3 and v1.4 were unpublished (but submitted). I'm sure this is how Douglass et al. will actually respond. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Douglass et al. should have at least mentioned the existence of the v1.3 and v1.4 results.
[Note g] Do these suggested courses of action (submission to IJoC and inclusion of a Figure 4 with RAOBCOREv1.2,v1.3,v1.4/RATPAC/HadAT data) sound reasonable to you?
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. Santer notifies 17 team members that the plan has been agreed to by Glenn McGregor]
[Note b] The IJC editor and editorial board members never contacted DCPS for a rebuttal or explanation. They accepted Santer's story without investigation.]
[Note c. Having the "last word" is the critical goal rather than open debate with the normal back-and-forth arguments of scientists.]
[Note d. DCSP used published values of radiosonde errors - which include structural uncertainty.]
[Note e. It shows DCSP were aware of the problems with RAOBCORE. On April 10 McGregor will send Santer a copy of the DCSP Addendum which explains the problems. Briefly Sakamoto and Christy (2009 - SC09) looked closely at the ERA-40 Reanlayses on which RAOBCORE 1.3,1.4 were based. SC09 demonstrated that a spurious warming shift occurred in 1991 which was then absorbed into RAOBCORE temperatures, producing spurious positive trends in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. SC09 had been working on this since 2006, and so were aware of the problems at the time of DCPS. Even though Santer had seen the Addendum with the explanation of the RAOBCORE problems on that date (10 Apr 2008) their published paper contains the statement " Although DCPS07 had access to all three RAOBCORE versions, they presented results from v1.2 only."]
[Note f. These extended results that they do "NOT" want to show (HadAT2 and Sherwood's IUK) actually agree with UAH data and the results of DCPS. These extended results were not shown in Santer et al.
[Note g. DCSP did not use unpublished datasets about which problems were already apparent and were soon to be published.]
Dear folks,
I believe Ben's suggestion is very good compromise and we should prepare a Fig. 4 with three RAOBCORE versions, RICH, HadAT and RATPAC. As I have understood Ben in his first description of Fig. 4, also the range of model trend profiles should be included. Who will actually draw the figure? I can do this but I do not have the model data and I do not have the RATPAC profiles so far. It would be easiest to remove the Titchner et al. profiles and Steves profiles from Peter's plot. Or should we send our profile data to you, Ben? What do you think?
Concerning the possible reaction of Douglass et al.: RAOBCORE v1.2 and v1.3 are both published in the Haimberger(2007) RAOBCORE paper (where they were labeled differently). Thus they have at least omitted v1.3. RAOBCORE v1.4 time series have published in the May 2007 BAMS climate state of 2006 supplement.
Peter, myself, Dian and probably a few others will meet in Japan by the End of January and a few weeks later in Germany, where we can discuss the latest developments and plan the publishing strategy.
Thanks a lot Ben for moderating this Fig. 4 issue.
Regards,
Concerning the possible reaction of Douglass et al.: RAOBCORE v1.2 and v1.3 are both published in the Haimberger(2007) RAOBCORE paper (where they were labeled differently). Thus they have at least omitted v1.3. RAOBCORE v1.4 time series have published in the May 2007 BAMS climate state of 2006 supplement.
Peter, myself, Dian and probably a few others will meet in Japan by the End of January and a few weeks later in Germany, where we can discuss the latest developments and plan the publishing strategy.
Thanks a lot Ben for moderating this Fig. 4 issue.
Regards,
Leo
[Note h. Leo is the author of the RAOBCORE datasets, so has a vested interest in seeing they are featured and likely not ready to accept the problems of their reference base in ERA-40 (see above.)]
1 April, 2008 (from Douglass' files)
To: glenn.mcgregor
from david douglass
Dr Glen McGregor
Director of School
Geography, Geology and Environmental Science
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Director of School
Geography, Geology and Environmental Science
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dear Dr McGregor;
Congratulations and good wishes for success in your new position. I understand that you are still the Editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). So this communication is in that regard. On Jan 3, 2008 I submitted an addendum to the published paper
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions. David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer . Int. J. Climatol. (2007) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651 using the IJC webpage submission process. I received an acknowledgment of receipt via your computerized system a PDF copy of the submitted addendum manuscript which is attached.
I am inquiring as to the status of this submission.
Sincerely;
David Douglass
10 April 2008 [8:45PM] (from Douglass' files)
from:Glenn McGregor
To: David Douglass
dear david
thanks for your kind message
I am having great difficulty locating your addendum on the "system"
Were you allocated with a submission number eg. joc-08-0??
best
glenn
10 April 2008 [10:31PM](from Douglass' files)
thanks for your kind message
I am having great difficulty locating your addendum on the "system"
Were you allocated with a submission number eg. joc-08-0??
best
glenn
10 April 2008 [10:31PM](from Douglass' files)
from glen mcgregor
to: david douglass
thanks and will investigate further [Note a]
David Douglass wrote:
David Douglass wrote:
Glenn;
I did not record the submission number. The label on the PDF file that was sent back to me is s1-ln377204795844769-1939656818Hwf- 88582685IdV9487614093772047PDF_HI0001.pdf.. Does this help? If not, can you proceed by just entering the file I sent you into the system?
Regards;
David Douglass
I did not record the submission number. The label on the PDF file that was sent back to me is s1-ln377204795844769-1939656818Hwf- 88582685IdV9487614093772047PDF_HI0001.pdf.. Does this help? If not, can you proceed by just entering the file I sent you into the system?
Regards;
David Douglass
best
glenn
[Note a. this must have been successful because he sent it immediately to Santer. See next entry]
[Note b. This was never published. Nor was Douglass ever sent any notice]
10 April 2008 (from 25 april [1209143958])
g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>10-Apr-2008
> JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
Dear Dr Santer
Just to let you know that I am trying to secure reviews of your paper asap.
>10-Apr-2008
> JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
>
Dear Dr Santer
Just to let you know that I am trying to secure reviews of your paper asap.
I have attached an addendum[Note a] for the Douglass et al. paper recently sent to me by David Douglass.[Note b] I would be interested to learn of your views on this [Note c]
Best,
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor
[Note a. this addendum was submitted to IJC on Jan3. 2008]
[Note b. McGregor sends the DCPS Addendum Santer on 10 April, the day he apparently receives it for the first time. This is an extremely close relationship between the author and editor, and indicates Santer has some say in the issue.]
[Note c. Santer rejects see below]
24 april 2008 [1209080077]
From: Ben Santer
To: "Thorne, Peter", Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, "'Susan Solomon'", Melissa Free, peter gleckler, "'Philip D. Jones'", Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood, Frank Wentz
Subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology]
To: "Thorne, Peter", Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, "'Susan Solomon'", Melissa Free, peter gleckler, "'Philip D. Jones'", Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood, Frank Wentz
Subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology]
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
From: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
Dear Dr Santer
I have received one set of comments on your paper to date. Altjhough I would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation for revisions. Accordingly please find attached one set of comments. Hopefully I should have two more to follow in the near future.
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor
[Note a. Again, the evidence indicates a very close relationship. In other words, the editor is telling Santer that the paper is in essence accepted since he allows this early response without seeing the other reviews.]
Dear folks,
I'm forwarding an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor, the IJoC editor who
is handling our paper. The email contains the comments of Reviewer #1,
and notes that comments from two additional Reviewers will be available
shortly.
Reviewer #1 read the paper very thoroughly, and makes a number of useful
comments. The Reviewer also makes some comments that I disagree with.
The good news is that Reviewer #1 begins his review (I use this personal
pronoun because I'm pretty sure I know the Reviewer's identity!) by
affirming the existence of serious statistical errors in DCPS07:
"I've read the paper under review, and also DCPS07, and I think the
present authors are entirely correct in their main point. DCPS07 failed
to account for the sampling variability in the individual model trends
and, especially, in the observational trend. This was, as I see it, a
clear-cut statistical error, and the authors deserve the opportunity to
present their counter-argument in print."
I'm forwarding an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor, the IJoC editor who
is handling our paper. The email contains the comments of Reviewer #1,
and notes that comments from two additional Reviewers will be available
shortly.
Reviewer #1 read the paper very thoroughly, and makes a number of useful
comments. The Reviewer also makes some comments that I disagree with.
The good news is that Reviewer #1 begins his review (I use this personal
pronoun because I'm pretty sure I know the Reviewer's identity!) by
affirming the existence of serious statistical errors in DCPS07:
"I've read the paper under review, and also DCPS07, and I think the
present authors are entirely correct in their main point. DCPS07 failed
to account for the sampling variability in the individual model trends
and, especially, in the observational trend. This was, as I see it, a
clear-cut statistical error, and the authors deserve the opportunity to
present their counter-argument in print."
---rest of email omitted-
[Note b. Santer informs 17 team members that McGregor has given them a head start. They only have to deal with reviewer #1, whom Santer apparently knows. (Reviewer 1 misses the specific question DCPS addressed and is thinking like S08 about comparing observations with a universe of model results but which do NOT have the same surface trend as observations - the key condition in the DCPS paper - see Appendix A.)].
With best regards,
Ben
With best regards,
Ben
5 May 2008 [1210030332]
From: Ben Santer
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
05-May-2008
JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
Dear Dr Santer
I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
05-May-2008
JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere
Dear Dr Santer
I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have these in hand I will pass them onto to you.
Best,
Prof. Glenn McGregor
Prof. Glenn McGregor
Dear Glenn,
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that "Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.
In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that "Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.
In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
[Note a. Even though Santer should be extremely grateful to McGregor, he complains.]
6 May 2008 [1210079946]
From: Tim Osborn
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
Date: Tue May 6 09:19:06 2008
Hi Glenn -- I hope the slow reviewer is not one that I suggested! Sorry if it is. I'm not
sure what Ben Santer expects you to do about it at this stage; I guess you didn't expect
such a lengthy article... I've not seen it, but Phil Jones told me it ran to around 90
pages! Hope all's well in NZ.
To: g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology
Date: Tue May 6 09:19:06 2008
Hi Glenn -- I hope the slow reviewer is not one that I suggested! Sorry if it is. I'm not
sure what Ben Santer expects you to do about it at this stage; I guess you didn't expect
such a lengthy article... I've not seen it, but Phil Jones told me it ran to around 90
pages! Hope all's well in NZ.
Tim
[Note a. Osborn explains to McGregor that Santer is at fault.]
[Note b. In CRU email # 1226451442 Santer laments to Thomas Karl "Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper... ". Question: Why does it take 90 pages and 10 months to show "serious flaw" in any paper? Why, if the DCPS error was so flagrant, would Santer et al. need the protection of IJC to eliminate the possibility of a simultaneous comment from DCPS?]
26 May 2008 (Douglass' email)
Douglass to Thorne
Dr. Peter Thorne
Climate Research Scientist
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Met Office
Dear Dr. Thorne;
I have read your article in the most recent Nature Geoscience: "The answer is blowing in the wind". I am trying to understand the difference between your figure 1 and a similar figure by Douglass et al. [Nov. 2007 Int. J. Climatol. doi:10.1002/joc.1651]. For example, the plots IUK(?) and MALR in the fig are unfamiliar to me. The caption states that this figure is based in part from Santer et al. (submitted). Would you send me a copy of the Santer manuscript?
Thank you;
David Douglass
Climate Research Scientist
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Met Office
Dear Dr. Thorne;
I have read your article in the most recent Nature Geoscience: "The answer is blowing in the wind". I am trying to understand the difference between your figure 1 and a similar figure by Douglass et al. [Nov. 2007 Int. J. Climatol. doi:10.1002/joc.1651]. For example, the plots IUK(?) and MALR in the fig are unfamiliar to me. The caption states that this figure is based in part from Santer et al. (submitted). Would you send me a copy of the Santer manuscript?
Thank you;
David Douglass
27 May 2008_A 4:04 AM (Douglass' email)
Thorne to Douglass
Dear David,
As I am not first author on the Santer et al manuscript I am not in a position to send it on to you.
You would have to ask Dr. Santer directly.
The Figure contains several new datasets.
RAOBCORE 1.4 and RICH are from Leo Haimberger and described in his recently accepted
J. Clim piece that I believe is available online.IUK is from Steve Sherwood and is described in
a paper also accepted by J. Clim. Again, I believe this is now available online. The dataset is
available from this site:
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/radproj/
MALR is not a dataset but rather what the Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate would imply.
The other major difference is in how the models are treated. In my figure the range of model
amplification behaviour found in the Santer etal. Science paper has been used to determine
an expectation by scaling the 2 sigma range of model amplification behaviour at each pressure
level by the observed surface warming. This is possible as the behaviour is found to be so
strongly tied across models regardless of the modelled absolute trends. It is this behaviour that
I strongly believe we should be testing against and hence I feel this to be the most logical and
appropriate test approach.
Yours
Peter
27 May 2008_B (9:06 AM)
Douglass to Thorne
Peter;
I believe that you are required to make reference 5 [your paper with Santer] available to me (see Nature's policy on ethics below). I suggest that you send your paper with Santer to me and inform Santer that Nature's ethics policy requires you to do so.
Regards;
David Douglass
--------NATURE JOURNALS' POLICIES ON PUBLICATION ETHICS--------
I believe that you are required to make reference 5 [your paper with Santer] available to me (see Nature's policy on ethics below). I suggest that you send your paper with Santer to me and inform Santer that Nature's ethics policy requires you to do so.
Regards;
David Douglass
--------NATURE JOURNALS' POLICIES ON PUBLICATION ETHICS--------
Availability of data and materials
"An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols available .."
-------------------------------
27 May 2008_C [1211911286]
From: Ben Santer
To: David Douglass
Subject: Re: Your manuscript with Peter Thorne
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:01:26 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Christy John , "Thorne, Peter"
David Douglass wrote:
To: David Douglass
Subject: Re: Your manuscript with Peter Thorne
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:01:26 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Christy John , "Thorne, Peter"
David Douglass wrote:
Dear Dr Santer
In a recent paper by Peter Thorne in Nature Geoscience he references a paper that you and he (and others) have written. I can not understand some parts of the Thorne paperwithout reading the Santer/Thorne reference.
Would you please send me a copy?
Sincerely;
David Douglass
[Note a. Douglass asks for a copy of the new Santer et al. paper (recall at this point Santer has already seen the DCPS Addendum)].
Dr. Douglass:
I assume that you are referring to the Santer et al. paper which has been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology (IJoc). Despite your claims to the contrary, the Santer et al. IJoC paper is not essential reading material in order to understand the arguments advanced by Peter Thorne (in his "News and View" piece on the Allen and Sherwood "Nature Geosciences" article).
I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues. Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works (the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper and the 2006 Karl et al. CCSP Report) had the opportunity to review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication - presumably because you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as possible reviewers.
I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of
my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer
I assume that you are referring to the Santer et al. paper which has been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology (IJoc). Despite your claims to the contrary, the Santer et al. IJoC paper is not essential reading material in order to understand the arguments advanced by Peter Thorne (in his "News and View" piece on the Allen and Sherwood "Nature Geosciences" article).
I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues. Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works (the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper and the 2006 Karl et al. CCSP Report) had the opportunity to review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication - presumably because you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as possible reviewers.
I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of
my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer
[Note b Santer, as the reviewer of the earlier DCSP paper, had DCSP his possession from 2007]
27 May 2008_C 11:19PM
Peter
I felt after I sent the e-mail that I was too hasty to assume that Santer would not send a copy of the manuscript. So I did ask him. His very quick and long reply ended with "I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper."
It is, of course, your paper too.
David Douglass
28 May 2008 [1212009927]
28 May 2008 [1212009927]
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley, Steven Sherwood
Subject: Re: David Douglass
Date: Wed May 28 17:25:27 2008
Cc: santer1"Thorne, Peter", Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, ssolomon Melissa Free, peter gleckler, Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Frank
Ben et al,
Definitely the right response - so agree with Tom. I have been known to disagree with him, and he's not always right. Submit asap !!
Cheers
Phil
To: Tom Wigley, Steven Sherwood
Subject: Re: David Douglass
Date: Wed May 28 17:25:27 2008
Cc: santer1"Thorne, Peter", Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, ssolomon Melissa Free, peter gleckler, Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Frank
Ben et al,
Definitely the right response - so agree with Tom. I have been known to disagree with him, and he's not always right. Submit asap !!
Cheers
Phil
At 23:48 27/05/2008, Tom Wigley wrote:
Steve et al.,
Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving anything to Douglass until the paper appears in print.I guess the reason John likes 1.2 is because it agrees best with UAH MSU -- which, as we all know, has been inspired by and blessed by God, and so MUST be right.
Tom.
[Note a. Santer knows of the DCPS Addendum. Did he ever correct the Wigley statement? Wigley apparently is unaware of the problems with RAOBCORE 1.3, 1.4.]
---------------------------------------
Steven Sherwood wrote:
Hi Ben,
I for one am happy with submission pronto, leaving to your discretion the comments I
sent earlier. I wouldn't feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass. This paper will likely be accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not just send him a copy too once it is ready and final.
On a related note I've heard from John Christy who stated his opposition to the new Allen+Sherwood article/method (who would've thought). He argues that Leo's v1.2 dataset is the "best" version because the later ones are contaminated by artifacts in ERA- 40 due to Pinatubo. This argument made no sense to me on several levels (one of which:
Pinatubo erupted almost exactly in the middle of the time period of interest, thus should have no impact on any linear trend). But there it is.[Note b]
Pinatubo erupted almost exactly in the middle of the time period of interest, thus should have no impact on any linear trend). But there it is.[Note b]
[Note b. Sherwood misunderstand the problem. RAOBCORE 1.4 had a shift to warmer temperatures in the middle of the time series, not a spike, which means the problem was located at a point in the time series which causes the greatest error in the trend calculation.]
------------------------------------------------
on May 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in "Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper. At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the journal "Nature".[Note c]Asyou can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems[Note d].
on May 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in "Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper. At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the journal "Nature".[Note c]Asyou can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems[Note d].
With your permission, therefore, I'd like to resubmit our revised manuscript by no later than close of business tomorrow. I've incorporated most of the suggested changes I've received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we've now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that's it's more important to get the manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about relatively minor details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper and the response to the reviewers later this evening.
Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you.
With best regards,
Ben
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
[Note c. Douglass had pointed out to Thorne that he believes that it is the Nature's ethics policy that authors should provide upon request copies of references. (See email of 27 May 2008_B above.) We find out now that they could not because it was not completed.]
Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you.
With best regards,
Ben
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
[Note c. Douglass had pointed out to Thorne that he believes that it is the Nature's ethics policy that authors should provide upon request copies of references. (See email of 27 May 2008_B above.) We find out now that they could not because it was not completed.]
[Note d. Santer seems worried that Douglass has a point]
29 May 2008 5:16AM (Douglass' email)
Thorne to Douglass
Dear David,
after discussion with relevant Met Office colleagues it has been decided that we are not in a
position to release a paper to anyone when the lead author has expressly forbidden it.
Furthermore, it is our position that in such cases the lead author should also be asked first
so your direct request to Dr. Santer would have made no material difference to whether
this was released or not. I cannot therefore provide you with this manuscript which I note
is currently under revision anyway.
I will continue to provide any further advice that you need to be able to understand the
figure and how it was constructed. Please let me know if you need further assistance in
this regard and I will be happy to help you with any reasonable requests.
I note that the quoted ethics relates to submitted and not invited works. As the editors at
no point raised that I would be required either to lodge a copy of this paper with them or
make it available upon request I do not foresee any conflict with Nature Geoscience ethics
and practises and this Met Office agreed position
Yours
Peter
30 May 2008 (Douglass' email)
Dear Peter;
I am surprised that invited papers are exempt from Nature's policy on ethics. However, I accept that because Santer has expressly forbidden it that you feel that you can not send me the Santer/Thorne paper. I want to be able to continue our scientific relationship so I will not pursue this issue with you.
I have two questions about your Nature Geophysics paper.
1. You state
"The uncertainty with respect to upper air temperature estimates in the tropics is so substantial that we can draw no meaningful conclusions as to whether or not there is a discrepancy between long-term trends in the real world and our expectations from climate models."
Does this statement include the results in the IJC paper that I published with John Christy? In particular, are the UAH and the RSS satellite MSU temperature trends also included?
2. Your paper contains the statement
"... evidence for a strong warming in the tropical upper troposphere, providing long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions."
Will you expand on this statement? Are you among those "long-awaiting" the experimental verification of the model predictions?
Regards;
David
30 May 2008 7:07 AM (Douglass' email)
Thorne to Douglass
Dear David,
with respect to your two questions.
> 1. You state
> "The uncertainty with respect to upper air temperature estimates
> in the tropics is so substantial that we can draw no meaningful
> conclusions as to whether or not there is a discrepancy between long-
> term trends in the real world and our expectations from climate
> models."
> Does this statement include the results in the IJC paper that I
> published with John Christy? In particular, are the UAH and the RSS
> satellite MSU temperature trends also included?
The statement refers to the spread of all datasets now available and so includes all the
satellite datasets including those from Maryland and NESDIS that show more warming
than RSS and all radiosonde datasets including the newer ones contained in the Figure that
you referred to in your original request as well as the work with our HadAT automated
system which was not included but to which McCarthy et al. J. Clim 08 refers. These
newer raobs datasets are RAOBCORE 1.4 and RICH from the Vienna team of Leo
Haimberger and IUK which is a temperature analysis from Steve Sherwood's group.
So, it was trying to be fairly animal farm-esque and treat all datasets as equal. I know
that this does not suit all tastes, but issues have been found or undoubtedly exist with
all datasets and I don't think any group kids themselves that they have the answer
(we don't). I can't see a better way that is truly unambiguous (that's not to dismiss work
in this regard - I just can't say that I see it as yet being 100% scientifically definitive),
but I'd love there to be one as reducing the ambiguity would mean being able to do useful
science rather than being "angels dancing on the head of a pin".
>
> 2. Your paper contains the statement
> "... evidence for a strong warming in the tropical upper
> troposphere, providing long-awaited experimental verification of model
> predictions."
> Will you expand on this statement? Are you among those "long-awaiting"
> the experimental verification of the model predictions?
This statement was in fact an editorial change inserted by the editors
compared to what I originally wrote. My original statement was along the
lines (I can't remember the exact wording ...) "that the vertical
structure of the warming which was a common feature in the models had
not been replicated before". Yes, some satellite datasets had hinted at
it if you screwed your eyeballs hard enough and wished for
interpretation that wasn't really valid a la multi-channel splicing (see
Nature Corr arising to Fu et al.), but the structure had never been
shown.
In terms of long-awaited I would say by the community as a whole this
would probably be true which is why I accepted the editorial change.
This was, after all, meant to reflect in part a broader community view
context. News and views have a very different remit given than a
classical paper and tend to be more black and white than a scientist
would like as a result.
Myself? Harder to say. I'd like to think that I follow the evidence
rather than pre-conceived dogma but like everyone else I can't be sure I
do this. That said I'd not doubted that such a solution was possible by
any definition of reasonable dataset construction given the fairly
massive non-climatic influences inherent in the data - at least the
raobs data. I believe that winds may help us get the answer. I believe
multi-variate analyses are the only way to reduce this ambiguity
unambiguously. Whether that answer is as reported in A&S certainly
requires further work as I hopefully make clear in my final paragraphs.
I hope this answers both questions adequately
Peter
10 July 2008 13:56 [1215712600]
From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
To: P.Jones
Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]
Dear folks,
I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there. Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see, Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there. Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see, Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper.Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments.
With best regards,
Ben
[Note a. McGregor does not allow the "cranky" reviewer a chance to look at the final manuscript again, making it very easy on S08 to get through the system. For DCPS on the other hand, there were a number of iterations with the one neutral reviewer who kept wanting more details on the statistical aspects of DCPS. DCPS was not accepted until these were satisfied.]
22 July 2008 [1216753979]
From: Tim Osborn
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A long and rocky road...
Date: Tue Jul 22 15:12:59 2008
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: A long and rocky road...
Date: Tue Jul 22 15:12:59 2008
Dear Ben,
well, thanks for your thanks. I'm not sure that I did all that much, but glad that the small amount is appreciated. It's a shame that the process couldn't have been quicker still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly. Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I've skim read already -- looks very carefully done and therefore convincing (I'm sure you already heard that from others). I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision of SOM is a relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething problems.
A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has its SOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I'll now email Glenn to remind him of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I think this is a problem on the publisher's side of things rather than an editorial problem. Because of our absent SOM, we've temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personal website. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain if the paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your own website when the paper appears online. But hopefully there'll be no problem with it!
I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom's wedding -- hope that was fun!
Best regards
Tim
well, thanks for your thanks. I'm not sure that I did all that much, but glad that the small amount is appreciated. It's a shame that the process couldn't have been quicker still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly. Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I've skim read already -- looks very carefully done and therefore convincing (I'm sure you already heard that from others). I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision of SOM is a relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething problems.
A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has its SOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I'll now email Glenn to remind him of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I think this is a problem on the publisher's side of things rather than an editorial problem. Because of our absent SOM, we've temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personal website. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain if the paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your own website when the paper appears online. But hopefully there'll be no problem with it!
I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom's wedding -- hope that was fun!
Best regards
Tim
At 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote:
Dear Tim,
Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and is
"in press" at IJoC. I've appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It's been a long and rocky road, and I'll be quite glad if I never have to write another MSU paper again - ever! I'd be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC now has online publication, we're hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks. Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC.
Dear Tim,
Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and is
"in press" at IJoC. I've appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It's been a long and rocky road, and I'll be quite glad if I never have to write another MSU paper again - ever! I'd be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC now has online publication, we're hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks. Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC.
With best regards,
Ben
Benjamin D. Santer
[Note a. This email from Santer to Osborn speaks for itself.]
10 Oct 2008
Santer et al published on line
15 November 2008
The print version DCPS and the Santer & team papers are publish together in the same issue
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 28 Issue 13 , Pages 1693 - 1834 (15 November 2008)
Research Articles
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p 1693-1701)
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (p 1703-1722)
B. D. Santer, P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, F. J. Wentz
Published Online: Oct 10 2008 3:21AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756
B. D. Santer, P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, F. J. Wentz
Published Online: Oct 10 2008 3:21AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html at December 27, 2009 - 02:12:36 PM EST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SO?
What an asinine report.