Every Breath You Take

Stuff keeps happening faster than I can comment.

• The moment of complete overreach has arrived -- the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that CO2 is a pollutant. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if CO2 is a pollutant, I've been polluting the air with every breath I take. And unless the enforcement agents are cyborgs, they have been too. There isn't any activity that I undertake that isn't potentially subject to regulatory enforcement now. I'd suggest that if the EPA were really concerned about setting a good example, they could have all their bureaucrats stop breathing. But that would be churlish. The good news? I suspect this move will go back to the Supreme Court and will get slapped down, even though the Supremes (perhaps) inadvertently gave this folly the green light back in 2007. But it never should have come to that.
• Meanwhile, the Branch Carbonians continue to gather in Copenhagen for a week of holy ritual and holy writ. Many of these well-appointed scolds have been arriving in Copenhagen via private jet. An excellent point made here: "Taking a private jet to a conference on stopping global warming is a bit like traveling in a sedan chair carried by indentured servants to a summit on stopping human trafficking." These folks oppose incandescent lights. They apparently don't worry too much about incandescent hypocrisy. Read the whole thing -- lotsa good one-liners, including this one: “It’s too cold to walk from the hotel to the convention on global warming. Let’s take a limo!”

Lightning Round 120709

Trying not to be so much of a one-note samba. But there's at least two AGW things in this list, but I'll get them out of the way right away.

• If you want to understand how consensus is formed, here's a clue. Behold the splendor as Timesman Andy Revkin is put on notice.
• If the worthies who will gather in Copenhagen are so concerned about their carbon footprint, they might want to comport themselves a little differently. Of course, they aren't especially concerned about their carbon footprints. They're concerned about yours.
• Max Baucus gets a little action. Not on health care, mind you.
• Hey Vikings fans -- now you know what Bad Brett looks like.
• The Big 10 couldn't fill their bowl allotment so the Little Caesar's Bowl is now a MAC conference game, with one of the teams being 6-6 Marshall. If you ever needed proof that there are way too many bowl games, there it is.

Bjorn Again

One of the smarter voices in the AGW debate is Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist. He makes some valuable points in this essay for Time. First, of all, he's a realist.

For years, we have been spinning our wheels on what I call the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen road to nowhere, slavishly following the notion — first endorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and then extended in Kyoto 13 years later —that the only way to stop global warming is by means of draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. All we have to show for this devotion is a continuing series of unmet targets, along with a startling increase in the number of people who no longer think climate change is worth worrying about.

That's right. I've written a lot, maybe even too much, about AGW in the past few weeks since the East Anglia revelations have come to the fore. But it's important to say this: those of us who are in the skeptic camp are skeptics for a variety of reasons. But if you want to turn people into skeptics, one of the best ways to do it is to propose ridiculous solutions. As Lomborg notes, the cure is worse than the disease it purports to treat:

In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Tol, a lead author for the U.N. climate panel, determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to meet the 2° goal, the leading industrial nations would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels — one that by the end of the century would reach something on the order of $4,000 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or $35 per gallon of gas ($9 per liter). According to Tol, the impact of a tax hike of this magnitude could reduce world GDP 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. In other words, to save ourselves $3 trillion a year, we'd be giving up $40 trillion a year. No wonder we're not getting anywhere.

I put gas in my vehicle this afternoon and paid about $2.38 per gallon -- I had a coupon that saved me a few cents. We had incredible anger when gas prices reached $4/gallon last year. Does anyone really believe that there would be any way for the typical citizen to afford to pay $37.43 per gallon for gasoline? It's not going to happen. While I can see the reasons a government would like to have that sort of money, and there'd certainly be some sort of refund mechanism in place to offset some of the cost, there's always a bureaucratic carrying charge.

Lomborg's view is that if we believe fossil fuels are imperiling the planet, the way to solve the problem is to find better alternatives. And how does one do that?

It's time to stop trying to put the cart before the horse. Instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper. The cost of fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol (in terms of lost economic growth) has been estimated at roughly $180 billion a year. For just a little more than half that amount, we could fund a fiftyfold increase in spending on R&D for the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs — like smart grids, ultra-efficient batteries or even cheap, manageable fusion — we will need to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Such a commitment would resolve many of today's political challenges. Developing nations would be much more likely to embrace a positive path of innovation than a punitive one that handicaps their ability to grow their economies.

All true. And much of the research could take place in the private sector. Which is one reason that so many governmental figures oppose it.

Read the whole thing.

New Adventures in the Age of Enlightenment

The Times of London reports that the British Meteorological Office is going to re-examine 160 years of climate data:

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

That seems reasonable. So how would the British government respond to such reason?

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

Shut up, they explained.

There's Probably a Perfectly Good Explanation

Okay, so the data set from the East Anglia CRU is perhaps hopelessly compromised. Doesn't matter, we are assured, because there are corroborating data sets that confirm the AGW theory. And because one of the most important data sets is in the hands of NASA, it should be easy to get and share, right?

Wrong.

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

As longtime readers of this feature likely know, I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony. In a nutshell, what William of Occam postulated was this: the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. In this case, I can think of two Occam's Razor reasons for the 2-year delay in responding to this FOIA request. They are:

1. NASA, like any government agency, is riddled with unresponsive bureaucrats and the delay is the result of typical government red tape; or
2. NASA has something to hide.

Under ordinary circumstances, if I were a betting man I'd put my marker on explanation #1. Given today's context, #2 is uncomfortably possible.

According to the article, NASA is trying to respond:

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

Given that the deadline for complying to FOIA requests is 20 days, and given the way things are currently playing out, I'd humbly suggest that someone light a fire under Mr. Hess's ass.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Week 13

BIG GAME TOMORROW! FLORIDA AND ALABAMA! CAN YOU FEEL THE HYYYYYYYPE!!!!

Ow. My ears. Why are you screaming so loud, Seabiscuit? Or are you part of the hype machine?

Winner goes to Pasadena for the Title Game, Decrepit! That's a big deal, huh? Huh? Is this mike on?

Sorry, I turned it down a bit on you. So I'm guessing you'll be offering your views on this one, young fella?

Well, yes, but first we have other business. Like this:

Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (-12) vs. Hawaii Rainbow Brites. Did I really just call them the Rainbow Brites? Man, that's cold. Anyway, Wisconsin would be a 9-win team if they win this final game and it should be pretty easy. Hawaii is a .500 team this year in a generally poor conference, so it's not as if they've won a quality game this time around. And it won't start now. Badgers 50, Rainbow Brites 0.

Bucky was actually pretty smart in scheduling Hawaii this year. The last time they played out there in Paradise, Colt Brennan was not a factor. Now he's gone entirely. I was pretty disappointed with how the Badgers failed to respond against a decent but hardly outstanding Northwestern team. I suspect their best performances are a year away. But they'll certainly have enough to beat the depleted Rainbows. Wisconsin 31, Hawaii 20.

Nebraska Cornhuskers (+14 1/2) vs. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You. The game will be played in Arlington, Texas, at the new Cowboys stadium. It's very expensive to get into that place. I'll admit that Nebraska is a good team, especially to have made it to the Big XII title game, but Texas should win. If they don't win, then watch for either TCU or Boise State to have a chance to play for the BCS Championship. We're Texas (And You're Not) 42, Nebraska 21.

I don't have a really good feel for this game. I only saw about 20 minutes of one Nebraska game this year and my sense is that the Big XII is down a little. The Longhorns are deep and talented, but I don't think they really belong in the BCS title game. They will be, though. And a big performance for Colt McCoy will cinch his Heisman. Texas 34, Nebraska 17.

Alabama Crimson Tide (+5 1/2) vs. Tim Tebow Nation and the rest of the Florida Gators. Seems like an even game, right? You thought wrong! I'm trying not to scream and SET LOOSE THE HYPE MACHINE. Deep breaths, Benster. Just chill. Okay, I'm better now. I regard that it is going to be a tough game for Alabama. Mark Ingram, the standout Alabama tailback/Heisman hopeful, suffered a hip pointer last week against Aw-barn. I think he'll play but not a lot and not effectively. Florida is going to the BCS game and Tim Tebow will get his second Heisman. As usual, you are wrong to doubt the POWER OF TEBOW! TEBOW! TEBOW! So I must inform you that you are mistaken, Decrepit. Gators 60, Bama 50.

Uh, Benster? No. I think the Hype Machine has filled you with laughing gas or something. I'll have to have a word with the Hype Machine later. Anyway, back to the game. I saw a good chunk of the Alabama/Auburn game. While I understand that Alabama played better in other games this season, I wasn't impressed with them at all. Auburn is an ordinary team and Alabama scarcely looked better. In fact, the Tide reminded me of Iowa a little bit. No one thinks Iowa is a national championship team. The Gators? Just maybe. Florida 23, Alabama 16.

Minnesota Vikings (-3 1/2) vs. Arizona House of Cards. Hey Vikings fans! Do you remember what happened the last time you were in Arizona? Click on this for the soundtrack! Sorry Mom, I just had to do that. By the way, Mom just told me I'm going to eat leftover liver and onions for posting that link. Anyway, back to this year. Minnesota should win, unless they put Benny Sapp on Larry Fitzgerald. I can just imagine the words coming out of Paul Allen's mouth again. Norsemen 39, Matt Leinart Nation 17.

I don't know about you, but I never get tired of that link, Benster. Heh. Anyway, this year it's different. The Cardinals are a much better team, but so are the Vikings. And while I suspect this will be a fun game, I think the Vikings will be better than the somewhat enigmatic Cardinals. Vikings 34, Cardinals 23.

St. Louis Sheep (+9) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Da Bearz are wounded. They do however get a team that's just as good as a camera without batteries. In other words, the Sheep don't get the picture. Da Bearz 90, Sheep 7.

I may have to check the sports page. I'm not sure Da Bearz have scored 90 points in total all season. Okay, they've scored 216. So let's put it this way. They aren't likely to score 90. But they are likely to win against a truly awful Rams team. Jay Cutler gets a feel good game. Da Bearz 27, Rams 13.

Baltimore Ravens (+3) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. Green Bay has been playing much better since the awful episode with the Creamsicles a few weeks back. This game, however, will not be easy. The Ravens have a talented young offense and I can't get out of my mind a vision of Ray Lewis throwing Alan "Swinging Gate" Barbre aside like a sack of potato chips and getting into Aaron Rodgers' grill. Still, I think Green Bay will win. Packers 37, Edgar Allan Poe 30.

It occurs to me that we're going to agree on everything this week, Grasshopper. Well, the good news for the Packers is that "Swinging Gate" Barbre probably won't see much of the field this time around. The Raven defense is still fierce but they can be had. And very quietly the Packers have become the #1 defense in the National Football League this season. I think this one will be tight but the Pack will win, too. Packers 20, Ravens 17.

Dad, YOU CAN'T RESIST THE POWER OF THE HYPE MACHINE!!!!!! TEBOW! TEBOW! TEBOW! FEEL THE SPIRIT OF LEE CORSO! PUT ON THE GATOR HAT! YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO, DECREPIT! LIVE IT! BE IT! DANCE FOR ME, GREEK! I THINK I'M DONE! BEN OUT!

This much is certain -- no Mountain Dew for you, Sparky.

Paying the Piper

One of the complaints you hear about bloggers is that they aren't really a replacement for newsgathering organizations. That's true, but it's largely irrelevant. While other bloggers consider themselves citizen journalists, I never have.

Still, you have to wonder about moves like this one that Mitch Berg documents, which would deny bloggers the "press shield" protection offered working journalists. He produces the proposed language from Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois:

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the
following:

[a "journalist" is shielded if he/she] (iii) obtains the information
sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for,
an entity—

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

There's a lot of mischief here. Would this feature be considered a periodical? Or would I, in the course of producing my work, have to periodically publish a hard copy of this blog and distribute it somehow?

But more important is this:

In section 10(2)(B), strike ‘‘and’’ at the end.
In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’.
In section 10(2), add at the end the following:
(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

So anyone who blogs but does not use his/her own name is basically SOL.

Mitch, who of course blogs under his own name, has a particular concern about this issue, since he does a lot of reporting on issues he holds dear, especially charter schools. He actually does fit the bill of citizen journalist. He also makes the following relevant point:

The conservative blogosphere is dominated by independents who cover their fields of expertise, whatever they are (this blog: music, financial planning, wine, tomatos and Minnesota politics) for the pure, unadulterated love of the game. From Power Line (which covers all they survey) to Speed Gibson (who patrols the ramparts of northwest-suburban education), we mostly do it because we want to, money be damned.

Speed Gibson is a great example: he's a concerned citizen. He's tough but he's fair and he does a lot of original and important reporting on what goes on in his school district. And it's hard to see the benefit of denying him the press shield.

Of course, it may not matter that much longer anyway. Consider this (via Instapundit):

Section editors at Dallas Morning News now report to sales managers -- More here and here.

That's the next post.

Object of Desire

Mrs. D came through in a big way for my birthday. She got me this. I don't know if it's appropriate for a 46-year old guy to say this, but I'm totally geeked about it.

They Call the Wind Zelaya

If you haven't been paying attention to Honduras lately, the Times of London has an update:

MPs in Honduras have voted overwhelmingly against reinstating President Manuel Zelaya, shrugging off international pressure four months after a coup that has isolated one of the poorest countries in the Americas.

As the vote continued, more than two-thirds of members of Congress had voted not to return the deposed president to power for the remainder of his term, which ends on January 27, as Washington and many Latin American governments had urged.

Honduran media put the ongoing vote at 98-12, well in excess of the simple majority needed in the 128-member, single-chamber Congress for the vote against restoring Mr Zelaya to succeed.

So what does President Obama's man in Tegucigalpa have to say?

Mr Zelaya, who listened to the proceedings from the Brazilian Embassy, where he has been given sanctuary since he returned to the country, had said he would not return for a token two months even if asked.

Well, good. It would mean that Zelaya seems to have accepted his fate, right? Not so fast:

He urged other governments not to restore ties with the incoming administration of Porfirio Lobo, who won Sunday's presidential election.

So, here's the question: what would that accomplish? Even if Zelaya had been restored to power months ago, he'd still have had to leave and there would have been a new government in place. The U.S. government does not dispute the legitimacy of the election that the Hondurans recently undertook. In fact, the political party of both Zelaya and his successor Roberto Micheletti, lost to Lobo's party. If Honduran democracy were in peril, would Micheletti have agreed to abide by the election results?

Radio Free Dilettante — 120309

Sometimes the ol' iTunes just amuses me:

Last Five:
Open Sesame, Kool & the Gang
She's Gone, Tavares
Ballbreaker, AC/DC
Burning Up, Madonna
Starry Eyes, The Records

Next Five:
I Know But I Don't Know, Blondie
How Can I Be Sure, The Rascals
I Know There's An Answer, The Beach Boys
Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, The Ramones
Being Boiled, The Human League

An interesting question

Gino often has some really lively debates over at his place. One of his regular commenters is a guy who goes by the nom de blog Tully. Tully asked an interesting question on this thread. Gino's original point was this:

Instead of a "War On Terrorism", why don't we just declare war directly on Al Quiada and then go balls out, burning villages and napalming mountainsides til nothing is left.

A superpower can beat cave dwellers if we put aside the failed, and historically recent, notions of humanitarianism and just do it old school.

Later on in the comment thread, Gino made another point, to wit:

i'm not comfortable with waging wars on abstractions.

To which Tully asked:

Isn't Al-Quaeda an abstraction? It seems it's more of an internationally popular brand-name than an entity.

What do you think?

Thanks, Mary Jane and Ed!

Your firstborn son has made it through another year.

Lightning Round - 120209

It all happens so fast, sometimes you need a lightning round:

• Was at my son's Boy Scout meeting last night so I missed the Obama speech at West Point. I'll try to watch it at some point; about all I know for sure is this: I surely wouldn't tell the enemy when we would begin pulling out. If you want a more immediate reaction, Instapundit has a handy compilation of many links.
• Got to have a jones for this, a jones for that. But this runnin' with the Joneses, boy, just ain't where it's at.
• Further in re the Climategate mess: I'd been waiting to see what Ronald Bailey, the ace science reporter for Reason magazine, would have to say about all this. Read it here.
• Mike Huckabee, the once and potentially future presidential candidate, is taking a lot of heat for his decision to commute the sentence of the man who killed four police officers in cold blood in Washington state on Sunday. He should. Although you'll still get people who argue about the propriety of using Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis all these years later, the power to grant clemency is one of the most important powers a governor has. And it would appear that Huckabee made a mistake here. Instead of blaming the prosecutors or the system, he should simply acknowledge that he made a mistake. I know that politicians hate doing that, but I always think better of a person who is willing to admit error than one who tries to pin the blame on subordinates. Don't you?

Take a guess

Why did I post this particular picture of former Packer great Vince "Maybe a yard for" Workman?

Charlie's Gone

Notre Dame fired Charlie Weis yesterday. It's been odd to watch the ongoing demise of what has been one of the most famous and successful football programs in college history. Weis was always a bit of a gamble as a coach -- he's a brilliant offensive mind but he had limited head coaching experience; he's the sort of guy that you would expect to see coaching at someplace like Rutgers, where he'd have to prove himself worthy as a head coach before he'd get a plum job.

My suspicion is that Notre Dame isn't such a plum job any more. After the Domers had fired Tyrone Willingham a few years back, the coach they wanted was Urban Meyer, who eventually spurned the Irish for the University of Florida job. The rumors are afoot that maybe Meyer will come to Notre Dame this time, but I don't see any reason to believe that he would.

The particular irony is that the Notre Dame model -- finding top athletes who can still succeed in an elite academic environment -- is alive and well elsewhere. Stanford is having an excellent year under Jim Harbaugh and Northwestern finished comfortably in the first division of the Big Ten. If I were Notre Dame, I'd be talking to Harbaugh or NU coach Pat Fitzgerald, who have demonstrated that it can be done.

Update: The ever-amusing Sisyphus has compiled another good list of potential candidates over at Nihilist in Golf Pants. And the Nihilist himself weighs in (so to speak) over at Fraters.

The Value of Value-Added Data

The AGW theory is based on science, right? And settled science, right? The Times of London has learned something about the data at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU):

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

What a shame. We'll just have to take the CRU's word for it. So what did the scientists keep?

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

It would be a wonderful world indeed if we could all rely on "value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." You'll be happy to know that I've checked my "value-added data" and I am actually the King of Portugal. You might be a winner, too! So what does it all mean?

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how
its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

My son's 8th grade math teacher expects her students to show their work. You would think that the world's foremost repository of climate information, which is the backbone for just about everything we know about AGW, would be able to do the same. You would be wrong. The worthies at East Anglia might flunk out of my son's 8th grade math class, but we should have no compunctions about fundamentally altering the way the world works because of data they can't produce. Makes perfect sense. But that's okay -- we know it's true, because we do trust the East Anglia CRU, right? They wouldn't lie to us, right? There's no reason to question Al Gore and his pals, because they wouldn't steer us wrong. It's those nasty skeptics who are standing in the way of Progress again.

That little December 10 soiree in Copenhagen ought to be pretty interesting. I can forgive the president for getting his protocol screwed up and bowing to the Japanese emperor. But he'd better damned well not bow to the East Anglia CRU.

Black Friday

Well, I'm back from my Black Friday shopping trip. I went to three stores and still made it back to the house in time to pack for our trip to Madison. I bought a couple of kids toys to give as donations, a couple of cooking items, a gift for Mr. D and a couple of items for myself, I mean "miscellaneous" items :)

Walgreens had more employees than customers in the store. Wal Mart and JCP were crowded but not horrible.

The funniest sight I saw was a Wal Mart employee who was wearing a bright orange safety vest that said Event Staff on the back of the vest.

Code Green

I'm watching the unfolding scandal from the East Anglia CRU carefully, because what we're learning is huge. Charlie Martin, a computer programmer by trade, has taken a look at the notes of "Harry," the computer programmer who had the unfortunate job of trying to turn the climate data into something useful. His entire synopsis is definitely worth reading.

The computer code is crucial to understanding what's happened. The data from the East Anglia CRU have formed the very backbone of much of the science behind global warming/global climate change/AGW/whatever they're calling it these days. Martin identifies the key passage, in which they discover that they can't run the program on the existing data, which cannot be replicated because it's been through so many gyrations already. "Harry's" comments are italicized:

This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).
For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented. For 1996 to 2002:
1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;
2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;
3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);
4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;
5. add to gridded data from step 3.
This should approximate the correction needed.

Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …

Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).

They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Again, I ask the question: would you remake the entire world economy and impose a gigantic regulatory scheme of the sort envisioned by the luminaries who will gather in Copenhagen in December? Are you confident that the matter is settled?

I'm not. And I'm not willing to accept the blithe assurances of those people who are trying to stampede us into action.

Just a guess -- Al Gore makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. There's a lot more and I'll be talking about it in the coming days.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Week 12

What's shakin'? Benster is here and we're going to cover the games that you might watch after you've stuffed a whole mess of turkey down your throat.

I'm hoping that they chew it a little first.

Friendly pilgrims, the picking is here. Chew on some of this:

Glorious Green Bay Packers (- 10 1/2) vs. Motor City Kitties. It's Detroit's chance to embarrass themselves on national television! Fearless Maria is standing right here and she asked, "don't they always?" Well, yeah, Maria. They do. Green Bay is back from the dead but they are without Aaron Kampmann and Al Harris, which would hurt them if they were playing a real NFL team. Fortunately, they aren't. MattStaff (a/k/a Matthew Stafford, rookie QB for the Lions) is out with a separated shoulder. Even though he showed some toughness on Sunday, he needs to stay on the bench this week. Calvin Johnson is listed as questionable, which means that ol' Daunte Culpepper might have to run for his life. Packers 80, Kitties 3.

They do play a little defense in Detroit, Seabiscuit, so I'm guessing that the Packers aren't likely to score 80 points. However, they will score a fair amount and if Stafford and Johnson are unavailable, it will be yet another truly ugly Thanksgiving in Detroit. Packers 34, Lions 17.

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+10 1/2) vs. Minnesota Vikings. Jay Cutler, come on down! You're the next contestant on the show, "Can You Survive Three Guys and a Mullet?" Cutler is a big fat bust. In fact, I might even call him Ryan Leaf. Cutler could be a good quarterback this season if interceptions and demanding trades counted as good statistics. But they don't. And I wouldn't be surprised if Jared Allen chases him right out the Metrodome doors into oncoming traffic. It's going to be a normal Vikings victory. Vikings 50, da Bearz 10.

I don't know what to say about Cutler. He has a fabulous arm and a two-cent head, based on what I've observed this year. The Bears have really mortgaged their future for this guy and it's a shame. No, wait a minute -- I'm a Packer fan. This is justice. Sweet, sweet justice. Meanwhile, da Bearz aren't likely to do much on Sunday. Vikings 34, da Bearz 13.

New England Belicheks (+3) vs. New Orleans Saints. Get your popcorn ready -- Tom Brady is coming to the Superdome to play the big, bad Saints, led by my man Drew Brees, fantasy football star extraordinaire. You can't stop the Saints and the Saints defense could get into Brady's grill. I'm not down on Brady; I'm just saying it's going to be a hostile environment. Saints 63, Belicheks 56.

That's a basketball score, Ben. You realize we pick football games 'round here, right? No matter. I have a feeling about this game. The Patriots need to make a statement and this is the place where they make it. Vikings fans take note: you could be seeing a home field advantage happening this year, just like '98. Maybe it will turn out better this time. Patriots 31, Saints 27.

Alabama Crimson Tide (-10 1/2) vs. Auburn Tigers. Alabama is #2 in the nation according to the random old dudes and sputtering computers that make up the Big Conference Shutout (BCS). 'Bama should win but Auburn might be willing to play spoiler and they might. Auburn 40, Bama 37.

I'm not sure that Alabama has given up 40 points all season, Skywalker. In any event, they have been able to win the games that matter up to this point and while Auburn is a traditional rival and generally a very good program, they aren't quite at their usual high standard this year and Bama will win. Alabama 21, Auburn 10.

Notre Dame Golden Domer Twinks (+10 1/2) vs. Stanford and Son Cardinal. Hey Charlie? Feelin' the heat? You could be out of a job after this game. Just like Ty Willingham. And Bob Davie. And Gerry Faust. Oh yeah, those Notre Dame alumni don't like coaches who don't win much. And you don't. Stanford won at USC by a lot and with that in mind, Stanford won't roll over and die to the Irish. Cardinal 31, Fire Charlie Weis 21.

It's not easy being Charlie Weis these days. That much is certain. The expectations are so very high in South Bend and I wonder if the level of excellence the Irish once had is even sustainable these days. It doesn't help that Stanford turns out to be pretty good. Stanford 27, ND 16.

Cretin-Derham Hall Raiders (NL) vs. Eden Prairie Eagles. For those of you who don't know who the heck these guys even are, this is the Minnesota State 5A championship game. Decrepit picked this game because the college ranks were pretty thin, and I can't blame him -- I have no interest in picking the Coe vs. St. Thomas game. I don't follow high school football that much, but I do know that these guys are both powerhouses. I think Eden Prairie will win because they have more experience playing at this level. EP 31, CDH 20.

Actually, Cretin has a glorious sports history, being the alma mater of Joe Mauer, Paul Molitor, Chris Weinke, Steve Walsh and a host of other luminaries. This year the Raiders feature the #1 recruit in the country, the enormous offensive lineman Seantrel Henderson, who is about 9'4" and weighs something like 7,230 lbs. Okay, I might be exaggerating a little, but he's a huge dude. Having said that, I think Eden Prairie won't be intimidated by Mr. Henderson (and any dude that big is automatically a Mister) and their overall balance and power will win the day. Eden Prairie 21, Cretin 16.

Jay Cutler also reminds me of Ricky Stanzi, the Iowa quarterback that I love to rip. What does Seantrel Henderson eat, anyway? I think it must be old warehouses or something. Ben out!

Is the Climate Changing on Climate Change?

By now you might have heard about the e-mails and other information from the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit that was hacked and put out on the internet. The MSM has been trying to avoid discussing the matter, with one notable and honorable exception: Declan McCullagh of CBS News. He moved the discussion forward in a big way yesterday:

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Cheering the death of skeptical journalists is bad form. Trying to keep contrary research out of peer-reviewed journals is something else entirely. One of the keys to the case of those who support the AGW theory is that there isn't any dissent and that the science is settled. Al Gore has made that argument, as have many others.

So why would people who believe in scientific inquiry try to stop the work of others from seeing the light of day? As McCullagh explains, some of the key research is cobbled together in a way that cannot be duplicated, a key to demonstrating the soundness of any scientific theory. He picks up the narrative of an East Anglia computer programmer named "Harry," who sets out his complicated tale of woe:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

As anyone who has ever worked with statistical analysis knows, one of the keys is getting past the noise in the numbers. It is exceedingly rare that you can get an entirely pure data set, but this description points to a number of highly red flags, especially the business about "manual and semi-automated interventions" and the lack of corroboration of the Canadian data and the suspicion of duplicate data in the set.

It's important to understand -- this data set is the basis for much of what we've been told is definitive about AGW. If there's this much noise in the numbers, we certainly shouldn't be relying on this data set. And we definitely shouldn't be basing an entire regulatory scheme (Cap and Trade) on it.

This is going to get very interesting.