Bullies or victims? Fairness and proportionality strike out in sport and sexuality

So, a guy who plays pro sport is an idiot. Good Lord, I can’t believe it! I mean, who knew?

Yes, Yunel Escobar was dumb enough to write on his face in Spanish something akin to “You are a faggot,” thus enabling every hypocrite and self-indulgent victim fetishist to moan about the horrors of homophobia.

Big money and big entertainment will do pretty much anything to not offend the gay community these days, and in this case their acts of ostensible contrition were positively nauseating.

Frankly, I don’t think Escobar intended a slur on homosexuals, and was probably not even thinking of homosexuality when for some perverse reason he wrote these nasty words beneath his eyes. It was probably some silly, jock, inside joke.

When it’s used by teenage boys, the word faggot generally means idiot or loser. I’ve heard kids who are trendily pro-gay and pro-same-sex marriage use the term “fag” with no apparent understanding that there is a connection. I’ve also heard gay people use it about other gays. The word will disappear naturally, as is right.

It should never have been written, and no professional sports team should allow an employee to write anything, even innocuous, on his face.

But the story ends there really.

Rogers, the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays, fined the guy $90,000 and suspended him for three games, which is fair enough.

Unlike in 2011 when television sports anchor Damian Goddard was fired from Sportsnet, also owned by Rogers, just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage.” He had been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving death threats and abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

It could have been a coincidence of course, but we’ll leave that to the human-rights commission where it is being considered. Goddard never used an offensive word, and merely expressed his opinion of marriage. Perhaps he should have written it on his face — he may well still be employed!

As for Escobar — bad word, move on. Stop the grovelling, stop the nonsense, get it in proportion. After all, it’s nothing like what happened to Peter Vidmar. You didn’t know? OK, let me explain. Vidmar is one of the most successful athletes in U.S. history. He was chosen to be the chef de mission of the U.S. Olympic team in the last Olympics, as was gay activist Mark Tewksbury for Team Canada. But Vidmar is a Mormon, and it was discovered that he had made a small donation to the Proposition 8 campaign, enshrining marriage as the union of a man and woman. He has never called anyone a nasty name, never treated gay people badly, is an example of a gentleman in sport. But he opposed gay marriage, and after relentless pressure he was forced to resign.

So who are the bullies, who are the victims, in sport and sexuality? Nobody should face or feel discrimination in professional sport, but can we please stop magnifying a dumb gesture into an act of sociological and moral barbarism?

Oh, and as for compulsory sensitivity training, the Jays are in far greater need of baseball training. The genuine victims are the fans.

 

Presidents Don’t Run the Economy

So often when he addresses crowds, Bill Clinton officiates at a marriage of mendacity and excitable ignorance. This was plainly the case in his acclaimed address to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The speech was very well received, and my suspicion is that President Obama’s post-convention poll bounce was primarily attributable to Clinton’s performance.

“No president, not me or any of my predecessors, could have repaired all the damage in just four years,” Clinton claimed, absolving Obama of blame for America’s economic misery since he took office. This is a recitation of the Democratic plaint that Obama “inherited” a mess (notwithstanding Obama’s tripling of an already-massive budget deficit), and it perpetuates the leftist fantasy that the president runs the economy.

Clinton’s image of the president as a repairman, who really needs to get in there with hammer and tongs, maybe holding some nails in his teeth, and tinker with every aspect of the economy, is especially galling because he knows this is nonsense. He knows it because the successes of his own presidency – from his declaration that “the era of big government is over” to Welfare Reform, tax cuts and beyond – came from getting government out of the way and letting the private sector thrive.

To be certain, a president can cripple or ruin an economy, as Obama’s term in office has aptly demonstrated, but the extent to which the economy thrives is inversely proportionate to the amount of meddling an administration does.

Indeed, the “damage” Obama encountered, in the form of the 2008 market crash, was thirty years in the making, and largely attributable to government meddling. President Jimmy Carter mandated mortgages for people who could not afford them in the form of Community Reinvestment Act loans, and Clinton’s own HUD Secretary, now Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, threatened lenders with charges of racism and discrimination if they did not extend CRA mortgages.

Admittedly, this was exacerbated by investment whizzes who bundled those risky mortgages into securities, then sold them around the world to bankers and fund managers who should have known better. But how does a president “repair” greed and bad judgment? By signing Dodd-Frank, which codifies that such greedy parties will perpetually be bailed out by the government, if their losses are big enough?

The current “damage” afflicting America is the largest debt in history and unfunded net liabilities exceeding the GDP of the planet. Even if we accept the notion that a president runs the economy, would there be anyone less qualified than Obama, who has added almost $6 trillion to that debt in less than one term, to “repair” it?

Yet there was Clinton, the presumed personification of an economically successful presidency, casting out theories and numbers he knows to be at odds with how he attained that status. The sight and sound shook one’s faith in democracy. The cutaways to the DNC crowd were unhelpful, also – silly people nodding along to Clinton’s statistics as though they’d checked the numbers themselves and could confirm his veracity, blithely unaware of their absurd appearance (it is axiomatic that you can wear a giant foam cowboy hat in public, or be a policy expert – but not both).

“Arithmetic,” Clinton crowed to whoop-whoop approval, was the secret to Democrats’ success. A more accurate reading of history, including Clinton’s own tenure, is that Democrats are successful when they abandon their impulse to central planning and let people get to work.

Economist Thomas Sowell has documented how, from the administration of Warren G. Harding to the present, downturns have been less severe and recoveries more robust when presidents resist the urge to intervene. To wit, whenever politicians get agitated to “do something,” they almost always do it wrong.

Even so, Clinton and other Democrats insist Obama must be re-elected because there is, “more work to do.” What “work” would that be, exactly? More taxes? More spending? More regulations, to go with the tens of thousands of pages Obama has added to the Federal Register?

Command economies don’t work, and demand economies cannot be commanded. America, at least for now, remains the largest market on the planet. That means hundreds of millions of people making independent choices, each pursuing happiness in their own way. Politicians and voters must set aside the conceit that such a complex mechanism can be manipulated by a lone individual. No one person, not even a president, runs the economy.

 

Islamist jihad against West rages

As Americans stopped to mark the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and ponder how much the world has changed during these years, an ocean away more terrorist attacks were mounted on American interests in the Middle East.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, with three members of his staff and several Libyans, was an act of war by men indoctrinated with the same ideology of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden is dead and so is Ayatollah Khomeini, but the war they declared against the “satanic” West continues. The West, on the other hand, has opted to be an ostrich.

The result is more than a decade after hijacked jetliners plowed into tall buildings in New York, Islamists are ascendant across the Middle East and hoisting their Shariah-based totalitarian ideology. The U.S. under the Obama administration stands instead as having reverted back to the pre-9/11 mentality.

The American election is barely seven weeks away and the Islamist jihad against the “Crusaders,” in the language of al-Qaida’s founder, will very likely get obscured in the fog of political debates and recriminations in the U.S.

But there is no mistaking that an apologetic West, as represented by President Obama, emboldened the Islamists, resulting in the manner in which the so-called Arab Spring unfolded.

The abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt accompanied by the embrace of Muslim Brotherhood is turning out to be a repeat of Iran in 1979 when Khomeini swept into power.

It is extraordinary that an apologetic America, as President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo symbolized, and Europe with its appeasement mind-set cannot get their act together in compelling a third world rogue state, Iran, to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability or face dire military consequences. This failure to disarm Iran while embracing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the political grandfather of all the various Islamist offsprings in the greater Middle East and beyond — makes the present situation eerily similar to the 1930s.

What needs to be done, and should have been done by the previous Bush administration, is to take a page from George Kennan — the architect of President Truman’s policy against the Soviet Union — and update his strategy of containment for the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab-Muslim world deserves to be isolated and contained, as was the former Soviet Union. An Iron Curtain, in Winston Churchill’s memorable words, should descend separating the West and its allies from the Arab-Muslim world until the latter has exhausted itself of its own demons.

The situation America, and by its default the West, finds itself in relation to the Arab-Muslim world is to a large extent, ironically, the result of its own guilt-ridden attitude and political correctness. This state of mind, or multiculturalism, gravely inhibits a realistic assessment of 9/11 and what has followed.

The explanation on offer that this new wave of Muslim rage was ignited by a crudely amateurish docu-drama about Islam’s prophet, and the individual responsible must be severely punished, is pathetic in describing a guilt-ridden West seeking to placate the Arab-Muslim world.

Islamists are at war, and the West needs to respond accordingly.

 

This week in idiocy: Obama makes hideous, false claim, his media sucks it up, swallows.

Obama is a divider. I mean that’s his whole shtick.

You and everyone who has been watching the campaign would say that he has tried to divide the country  –  into rich versus poor, union versus non-union, government against private sector, black versus white, women versus men, “his” America versus the real America. He has clearly tried to bring the country apart. That has been his obvious strategy.

Therefore, as is his habit, he says exactly the opposite to the media and his other gushing audiences during staged campaign events (like news media interviews). For example, this is what he said to Entertainment Tonight yesterday:

“…And I don’t think you or anybody who’s been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country. We’ve always tried to bring the country together …”

– Barack Hussein Obama, Wednesday, Aug 15, 2012.
Seriously.

He opens his mouth and lies pour out. You can’t trust this guy. He Lies. He spreads lies and division and derision and hate. This is the most divisive, dishonest, partisan, left-wing ideological, dis-unifying president I’ve ever known.

The media, which under a pretense of objectivity only a complete moron would buy into, isn’t even embarrassed by their abject Obama worship anymore. As we’ve seen, they are going to repeat their 2008 strategy of just setting up their boy Obama, letting him get away, unquestioned, with his repeated, ridiculous lies; then repeat them for him, attack Republicans and conservatives for him,and overlook the dozens of gaffes, missteps, and outright idiocy of the Obama regime, choosing instead to focus on comparatively minor  –  or even completely made-up  –  Republican stumbles.

But he is right in one regard. I mean he’s right that “you”  –  meaning the Entertainment Tonight “reporters” assigned to the case  –  would never say that he’s tried to divide the country, or dispute his line that he’s tried to bring the country together. It’s like he knows what the media is going to say even before they say it.

 

My Speech to the NAACP

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Although I believe your organization is no longer necessary and is on the balance harmful to race relations in America, I am nonetheless honored to speak to you tonight. I am honored to speak to you because I recall the days when the NAACP was committed to racial equality. I recall many fine victories during the struggle for civil rights, which was coming to a head when I was a young boy living in Mississippi. Those victories could not have been secured without a firm commitment to First Amendment principles, including the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is in the spirit of the First Amendment that you invited me here tonight despite our profound differences of opinion on a range of important moral issues. By giving me a platform, you have regained some of the integrity that was once a hallmark of this once-great organization.

Like you, I was surprised when Mitt Romney chose me as his running mate. I have been critical of Mitt Romney for his previous capitulation on the issues of abortion and gay rights. I told Governor Romney that I would accept the Vice Presidential nomination under one condition: that I would be placed in charge of all judicial appointments, including selecting justices to serve on our nation’s highest court.

I also asked Governor Romney to consult me in the process of selecting a presidential cabinet, should he win election in November. He assured me that I will be consulted regularly during that process. You should be pleased with some of the cabinet recommendations I intend to submit to our next president. They will include Professor Walter Williams for Secretary of Treasury and Thomas Sowell for Secretary of Education. But I will not be recommending them because they are black. I will be recommending them because they are better qualified than anyone who is white. Because it is inherently racist I despise affirmative action. And you should, too.

The main reason you need to vote for Mitt Romney is that such a vote would do much to end racism in your organization and racism in America. Fighting abortion and ending racism go hand in hand. If you vote for Barack Obama, you will be voting for someone who is an ardent supporter of abortion, which is now responsible for ending over one-half of all black pregnancies. And if you vote for him knowing that he supports the dismemberment of slightly more than one-half of the black population, you will only be doing so because he is considered black – although that is only a half-truth. So it bears repeating: a vote for Mitt Romney would do much to end racism in your organization and to end racism in America.

The Republican Party has a history of fighting racism and inequality. We freed the slaves and ended involuntary servitude by pushing for the ratification of the 13th Amendment – despite Democratic resistance. Then, the Republican Party ended the perpetuation of slavery by pushing for the ratification of the 14th Amendment – despite Democratic resistance. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were needed to end Democrat devised and implemented “vagrancy” statutes and “convict lease systems” that were using the criminal justice system to send black men back to the plantation to work off unjust fines. And, to top it all off, Republicans won voting rights for blacks by pushing for the ratification of the 15th Amendment – despite Democratic resistance.

But along came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He snatched the black vote away from the GOP during the Great Depression by promising a number of entitlements. It is understandable that blacks were enticed by the promise of government entitlements. Who wouldn’t be? But those government entitlements have not provided permanent “solutions” to “problems” in the black community. In fact, there are no government solutions to problems – whether individual or racial in nature. In politics, there are only trade-offs.

Make no mistake about it: the trade-off for blacks voting for Democratic presidents changed markedly in 1973. That was the year that Roe v. Wade granted a “right” to abortion on demand in America. There is no way that black voters could have anticipated that within a third of a century “choice” would end more than one-half of all black pregnancies. But that is the reality in 21st Century America. There is no honest black man or woman who can drive through a black neighborhood in a major U.S. city without acknowledging the ominous presence of Planned Parenthood. In those neighborhoods, Martin Luther King’s dream has not been realized. But Margaret Sanger’s has. And so the decision you have to make is really very simple: Will the 49% of blacks who survived Roe V. Wade continue to support the murder of 51% of blacks just so they can receive government entitlements? I hope not.

When I become Vice President, I will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. In doing so, I will help restore the right to choose – including the right to choose a president – to millions who would otherwise have been aborted by Democratic policies. So vote for Romney/Adams so that millions of blacks will someday have chance to exercise rights conferred upon them by God and secured by the GOP.

Thank you and good night.

 

Most gov “job-training” cash just pays gov “job-training” staff? Wow! Shocka!

Imagine my surprise when I found that after a U.S. Senator (a Republican  — imagine!) actually bothered to look into how taxpayer dollars are being spent  –  sorry, “invested”  –  by the giant government, the study uncovered waste and idiocy!

Senator questions $18B for job training, as study suggests rampant waste, abuse

A study commissioned by Sen. Tom Coburn is casting doubt on whether taxpayers’ $18 billion annual investment in federal jobs training programs is paying off.

“The vast majority of money we spend in job training doesn’t go to job training, it goes to employ people in those job training federal programs,” Coburn told  Fox News.

The 2011 Government Accountability Office study he commissioned, which examined programs in fiscal year 2009, found an overlapping and duplicative maze of 47 federal jobs programs run by nine agencies. Some were rife with mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.

The study found:

  • Some job training participants spent their days sitting on a bus.
  • Some were trained for jobs that didn’t exist.
  • Others were paid to sit through educational sessions about jobs they already had.
  • High school students were knowingly exposed to the cancer-causing agent asbestos as part of a job training program.
  • Funds were misspent to pay a contractor for ghost employees and to purchase video games.
  • Job training administrators spent federal funds on extravagant meals and bonuses for themselves.
  • In one state, workforce agency employees took more than 100 gambling trips to casinos mostly during work hours.

No, you're not ready, I'll bet.

Sign says she's ready, but chances are, she's not. She's waiting for the government to make her ready. Like a North Korean might.

I’m still trying to figure out why progressives think that a core function of government is to spend countless billions of taxpayer dollars training people for jobs, and creating yet another reason for people to rely on the government for their basic subsistence, instead of encouraging people to just look after themselves and take personal responsibility for their own lives. People used to learn new skills on their own. It worked out pretty well.

Below is a related YouTube video of Senator Coburn talking about the size of the U.S. government, which he points out is now twice the size it was in 2001.

Everybody already knows all this, actually. The Right, the Left, the liberal media, teachers, car workers, housewives, zoo workers  — everybody. But everybody ignores it. Entitlements are pernicious that way. Give people lots of “free” goodies, and it’s hard to ever un-take it. That is exactly the goal of the progressives. They keep piling onto the government and building it up and out. Progressives think their job is to think of and build more government programs and entitlements and grow the ones already created, until everybody is reliant upon the government. So when we hear that the “jobs training” money is being wasted, we know that progressives are on the job.

.

 

Big Brother to Ban Tanning for Under-18? Bad Request.

Sometimes stories about the government (a.k.a. big brother, nanny-state, big sis, progressives, liberals, totalitarians…) meddling more and more into our lives and removing all semblance of personal responsibility such that we become totally reliant upon the state for our very existence, write themselves.

To wit: I swear I didn’t set this up. I simply clicked on the link.

Here’s the link:

And here’s the response after clicking it:

Exactly.

 

#cdnpoli – People aren’t as stupid as leftists seem to think

If only the political establishment and the chattering classes were as sensible and considerate as the Canadian people.

The mass response to the so-called robocalls scandal has been one of drowning indifference. Eager pollsters have rushed to the electorate to fulfill their hopes and dreams that the possibility of a few people making dumb phone calls to some Liberal voters may have done irreparable damage to the Harper government.

The verdict? Nobody cares. We have better things to do, and rather like the way the Conservatives have maintained a stable economy and a strong, respected foreign policy.

Meaning that the people are not as stupid as liberals and leftists like to think — it’s always been one of the great ironies of politics that those who claim to love people in fact rather despise them.

Canadians have also realized that 30,000 complaints about false calls during an election do not suddenly materialize in a few days, when most people have long forgotten the boring old election and are busy paying bills, raising families, being normal.

What we now know is that the moaning calls were being encouraged and orchestrated, often by radical organizations based in the United States.

So, the real scandal here seems to be that foreign interests assume they can influence Canadian politics, which is unacceptable Yankee imperialism — let’s organize a few demonstrations, and do some occupying!

Something else which came to light last week was a particularly dirty campaign in Guelph, the epicentre and origin of the entire mess. What is so often ignored is that the Liberals well won this riding, so if there were any misleading calls, they were pointless.

What we do know happened was that large numbers of people in Guelph received recorded calls from someone describing herself as a local resident, making a personal attack on Marty Burke, the Tory candidate.

The calls claimed that Burke would make all abortion illegal, and take away “a woman’s right to choose.”

Actually, Burke has said that he thinks the abortion issue should be debated, in which he is supported by half the country. The call is purposely misleading and dishonest, and designed solely to have people vote against the Conservatives.

We have no idea who was behind the calls, but it certainly wasn’t the Tories.

Burke, by the way, is a typically evil and nasty Conservative. He served more than two decades in the military, defending this country around the world, and then defending democracy, equality and human rights in extremely dangerous areas as a peacekeeper. He’s now a respected and experienced Air Canada pilot.

In other words, he’s massively responsible, brave, worldly and experienced. The Liberal MP for Guelph, Frank Valeriote, is a long-time politician.

Such propaganda calls are typical, as are assorted lies and personal attacks on Tory candidates, coming from declared opponents as well as mainstream voices in the consensus media.

The reason you may not have heard about them is that the victims have generally taken the higher ground, and tend to accept democratic results and not cry that their sacred right to govern has been lost.

Don’t be, well, robotic on this one, and think for yourselves.

Pro-immigration rallying cry: ‘Let them in!’

Behind numbers lies politics when it comes to the subject of immigration in recent years.

As I indicated in my previous column, the trend line of immigrants arriving in Canada slopes upward. What this means is simple: The numbers of new arrivals into the country bears little relationship to how the economy is performing.

The obvious question then is, on what basis does the federal government — irrespective of which party, Conservative or Liberal, is in power — decide to keep the immigration tap open, disregarding the cyclical nature of an open economy?

The answer in part is the role of the pro-immigration lobby or industry, deeply entrenched in Ottawa, maintaining the argument that the net benefit of immigration for the economy is greater than any social cost over time.

The historical premise of this argument is how greatly the U.S. economy and society, for instance, benefited from the “great migration” during the century between 1815 and 1914. Immigration provided for upward mobility as people moved from conditions of adversity, natural or man-made, to situations offering greater opportunity.

In Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them (2006), Philippe Legrain, an economist based in London (England), presents the case for increased immigration from less developed to developed countries. Legrain argues on economic grounds, drawing upon the example of migration into the U.S., and on ethical grounds of social justice.

Legrain’s book is a fine example of the pro-immigration lobby’s case for increased numbers of immigrants. It is an argument for open borders with rich countries helping poor countries by keeping the immigration tap open, and in the process also correcting the demographic imbalance in rich countries due to the sharply declining birth rates.

Legrain writes, “America’s long tradition of immigration testifies to the power of newcomers to forge a dynamic economy and society.” And he concludes, “Opening our borders offers huge opportunities for all. Our rallying cry for a better world must be ‘Let Them In’.”

This open-border argument is favoured by a majority of business, political, media and intellectual elites in the West, since they are generally cushioned by their status from the effects of cyclical downturns in the economy. The argument also tends to show how proponents of open borders are more sophisticated than those limited by, or holding to, the stale ideology of nationalism in a globalizing economy.

One cannot fail to note that this argument for open borders made by the pro-immigration lobby occurs in countries that are already most open to migration. And those favouring this argument are also generally dismissive of the concerns of those in society negatively affected in the labour market by immigration numbers, especially during economic slowdown.

Over time, the assumptions behind the policy of open borders have become, in effect, the political divide in Canada and other western countries between the elite and the public increasingly apprehensive of how immigration numbers are altering, perhaps irreversibly, the traditional cultural foundation of the society.

This division has grown sharper, and the politics behind the numbers increasingly acrimonious. In the aftermath of 9/11, concern over the negative effects of higher levels of immigration is genuine, and will be increasingly divisive.

Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hockey stick rigged by alarmists

Note to alarmists: Keep Michael Mann away from sending e-mail.

From the Climategatew 2.0 collection, Keith Briffa wonders out loud to Michael Mann whether he should participate in the 2007 National Research Council (often mistakenly referred to as the National Academy of Sciences) review of the hokey stick. Mann encourages Briffa, but tells him not to worry since its all arranged to produce the right outcome.

After receiving the invitation from the National Research Council, Briffa writes to Mann:

Mike
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
Keith

Mann responds,

Hi Keith,

I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim [Osborn] I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.

I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument

So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5 hours, but then free most of the day… [Emphasis added]

Briffa responds,

Mike

thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be politic to retreat into “neutral” mode, at least until after the IPCC. Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.

best wishes
Keith

With the Looming dominance of Steve McIntyre, Mann presses Briffa,

Hi Keith,

I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike

The full e-mail exchange is below.

Hi Keith,
I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the
science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed
by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re
coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any
possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/
the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for
him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that
McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the
legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I
> have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is
> intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be
> politic to retreat into “neutral” mode , at least until after the IPCC

> Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics
> are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less
> public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I
> am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:14 09/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
>> http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/
8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?
OpenDocument
>>
>>
>> So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d
>> like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone
>> number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5
>> hours, but then free most of the day…
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Mike
>>> IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be
>>> frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
>>> Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>> X-SBRS: None
>>>> X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.41—————————————————
>>>> X-IronPort-AV: i=”4.02,98,1139202000″;
>>>> d=”doc’32?scan’32,208,32″; a=”8557254:sNHT39904420″
>>>> Subject: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:58 -0500
>>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>> Thread-Topic: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Thread-Index:
>>>> AcYce3i/
tURJ1nRBSbezvDYAmbiDhQAAJeAgAABmHeAAAFz5YAABterwAAAqT9AAKTmk4AAFc
V2QAAGRMBAAADHXgALyVAvAAJatBwAAACel8AABGFiwAAGtjsAAXF4z0A==
>>>>
>>>> From: “Kraucunas, Ian”
>>>> To:
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dr. Briffa,
>>>>
>>>> The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United
>>>> States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature
>>>> Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years”. The committee
>>>> will be
>>>> asked to summarize the current scientific information on the
>>>> temperature
>>>> record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that
>>>> have
>>>> been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess
>>>> the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial
>>>> scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such
>>>> reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the
>>>> paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific
>>>> knowledge
>>>> on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal
>>>> (Word document).
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we
>>>> have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific
>>>> experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an
>>>> authoritative report on the subject. The committee slate will be
>>>> formally announced on Wednesday, but I can tell you that Jerry North
>>>> (Texas A&M) will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike
>>>> Wallace, Karl Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in
>>>> addition to a half-dozen other scientists with expertise in
>>>> statistics,
>>>> climate variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on
>>>> Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work with this area
>>>> and to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the
>>>> study proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant
>>>> peer-reviewed literature, but is also interested in any recently
>>>> submitted or accepted papers. We will be inviting 8-10 other
>>>> experts to
>>>> speak; a complete agenda will be made available prior to the meeting,
>>>> and the meeting will be open to the public. Speakers will be
>>>> reimbursed
>>>> for travel expenses and invited to stay for the entire open session of
>>>> the meeting (which will include a reception on Thursday evening and a
>>>> few speakers on Friday morning).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are
>>>> available and willing to meet with our committee. If you are not
>>>> available on March 2nd, we have a limited number of timeslots
>>>> available
>>>> on March 3rd. We are trying to finalize the meeting schedule by
>>>> Friday
>>>> so please let me know if there is a particularly convenient time
>>>> that I
>>>> could call you this week to discuss details and answer any
>>>> questions you
>>>> might have (or feel free to call me directly).
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Ian Kraucunas
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D.
>>>> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
>>>> National Research Council of The National Academies
>>>> 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>> Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu
>>>> Phone: (202) 334-2546
>>>> Fax: (202) 334-3825
>>>
>>>
>>> –
>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>>
>> –
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>
> –
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm