Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Mann’s Hockey Stick

15 Comments

Gone. And the Medieval Warm Period, restored:

Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick.

…Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann).

No comment. The most amazing thing is that this paper is co-authored by Keith Briffa:

I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.

As he notes, expect a bunch of desperate papers soon to try to resurrect it. The “climate” “community” is eating its own.

And here’s a bonus: thoughts on the upcoming legal proceedings from Roger Pielke.

[Update a few minutes later]

A new paper from Judith Curry on the manufactured consensus:

Students of science are taught to reject ad populam or ‘bandwagon’ appeals, a sentiment is articulated by the motto of the UK Royal Society: ‘nullius in verba’, which is roughly translated as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a scientific consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the consensus-supporting scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Because, sadly, there was an agenda. And many of the supporters of the climate “science” don’t understand how science actually works.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Benghazi Gets Worse And Worse

47 Comments

It’s hard to square this with the official story:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.

So if so, who did it? Because whoever did killed those men.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Those Evil Bush Policies

1 Comment

Just once, I wish that someone like Chris Wallace would challenge this kind of nonsense coming from the Demagoguesocrats:

And, my concern and what I hear from Coloradans is a President Romney would go back to the policies of the Bush administration, which were pretty simply, cut taxes, cut regulations, and run up the debt. That isn’t going to work.

“Senator Udall, just what regulations did the Bush administration cut that caused our current problems? And how do tax-rate reductions damage an economy?” He’d be flummoxed.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

The Spartans

10 Comments

…at least had 300:

It is heart breaking that the two defenders of the annex, former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who were in Libya as security contractors separate from the consulate, ran to the sound of the guns at the consulate–though they were unarmed–and picked up dropped weapons on the way (tip to Instapundit).

They didn’t know what was going on and didn’t have real-time information about what was happening, but they followed their instincts and ran to the sounds of the guns.

It is a good thing that they acted that way, or the American body count could have been much higher–or we’d be discussing Day 47 of America Held Hostage. The two Americans allowed the escape of 20 of our people in the consulate and then they set up a defense perimeter and held off an attack by 100-200 jihadis at the annex.

And they killed 60 of the attackers in their stand.

Our president said he is sharing information about what happened as he finds out. Why have I read this on a blog rather than on the news? Who would be disturbed to hear that our people performed acts of heroism with little hope of help?

Or is this account inaccurate? Certainly, our 20 people did escape the attackers. Those two men at least did that.

But I can’t doubt that it could be true. These were former SEALs. Certainly, they held for many hours. I’ll await further reporting about the jihadi body count. And if true, wonder why this is the first I’ve read of this epic defense. Somebody in the press corps might want to directly ask our president and government just what happened there.

Nah…why would they want to do that?

I think that we should start a meme to award both men a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Obama’s Mistakes

6 Comments

…and the role of race:

I can easily imagine a white voter who would deny that race made him “much more likely” to support Obama or even that race was “an important factor”, but who was nonetheless delighted that an exceptionally talented black man had presented himself as a candidate for the presidency, who felt it was a good thing for the country, and who would want to support him other things equal. I bet most of the people I know fall into this category (and they’re not all partisan Democrats). None of them would say they voted for Obama because he’s black–a sentiment, of course, that would be insulting to the man. Nonetheless, I think they’d say, it’s great that he is.

Call it reverse racism if you must. (That label is one good reason, by the way, to suspect “underreporting of pro-black sentiment”. People would rather think of themselves as color-blind than prejudiced in either direction.) Whatever: I think that attitude is entirely justified. It’s not being captured in the studies I’ve seen. And if it’s as widespread as I’d guess it to be, it could easily be worth another 2 to 4 percent of the popular vote.

As I’ve often written, the fact that he was (half) black was the only reason I could see to vote for him. But other things weren’t equal, so I didn’t. And won’t.

Business, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

“Balance”

9 Comments

Andy Pasztor always has to toss fecal matter in the punchbowl:

John Marshall, a former member of NASA’s outside safety review board, said SpaceX continues to face major challenges in demonstrating its rocket is ready to carry astronauts. “They are still a long way from having a vehicle” that can be certified as reliable enough for such missions, Mr. Marshall said in a recent interview. “The company is clearly not ready,” he added, to tackle manned launches “by a long shot.”

At least he found someone willing to go on the record with this kind of stuff. What does “a long shot” mean? What does “certified” mean? Do others have a different opinion.

You know what? If it were important to get someone to the station, it’s “safe enough” now. But it’s clearly not.

That’s not to say, of course, that they shouldn’t investigate, and find out what happened, and mitigate it. But there’s no reason to think that they won’t do it, and do so quickly. Garret Reisman said that they would in Las Cruces, and he’s presumably going to ride it himself.