HONOLULU — A senior Obama administration official pushed back against critics of the White House’s plans to transfer some detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Yemen as it moves toward closing the facility, saying the process for transfers are “consistent with our national security interests.” [...] “I am aware of a lot of people pointing back at the way the transfers were handled under the Bush administration that apparently they have some concerns about that,” said the official, who had not seen the senators’ letter. “I didn’t hear many of those concerns at the time, but there were obviously hundreds and hundreds of detainees that were transferred under the old regime.”
Regime?
Regime?
We don't have no stinkin' regimes in America. Or do we?
While the "official" isn't identified, it's one that is fairly close to the president since 1-the Politico item is datelined "Honolulu", where the president is vacationing; and, 2-the official is pushing back against an important pillar of Obama's "security strategy".
Expect to see others to notice--if they haven't already.
Makes those people who warned of the dangerous encroachments to free speech and civil liberties that are coming out of this administration seem just a little less paranoid, no?
NOTE TO SELF: Make sure to check this post to see if there's anything that might upset the present regime before publishing.
HOW THE SYSTEM WORKED IN JANET NAPOLITANO's MIND --EVEN AFTER SHE SAID IT FAILED IF ONLY... The Undibomber's Name had been Billy Bob Abdulmutallab
Let me see if I have this right.
A terrorist from Nigeria boards a plane in Amsterdam and attempts to blow it up on its approach to Detroit.
He fails, in large part, because he only fried his frank and beans instead of NWA 523's fuel tanks.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (the greatest federal oxymoron going today) then goes on to defend the procedures that allowed said terrorist to board the plane--even though it failed because of the actions of everyone BUT the DHS. Her words were the now-infamous, "The system worked".
Napolitano goes on to say that he's not a part of any terrorist plot--even though he was on a terrorist watch list and evidently had just been to Islamist hotbed Yemen. Where he'd been instructed by the same cleric that "advised" the Ft. Hood shooter.
NAPOLITANO: What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action.
WHICH SYSTEM FAILED? WHICH "SYSTEM WORKED" WAS JANET NAPOLITANO REFERRING TO? WAS SHE RIGHT BOTH TIMES?
What hasn't been discussed (at least that this writer's knowledge) is exactly which system Janet Napolitano was referring to. Was it the system to keep foreign terrorists from killing Americans--because that system was an epic fail--both in the Ft Hood shootings and the attempted NWA 523 bombing.
Or was it the system to prevent "domestic terrorists" composed of anti-tax, recession-suffering ex-military conservatives from running amok in the streets doing God-knows-what? Because apparently, that system has been a stunning success.
So maybe everyone's being too hard on Napolitano: maybe both of her statements were correct.
When she said "the system worked" just maybe she was thinking of the fact that no airliners have been brought down by the vast far right wing militia conspiracy of her April 2009 report.
And she'd be right.
When she realized exactly what everyone was talking about, she appeared and agreed that "the system failed miserably"--because then she was referring to the system that is supposed to keep Americans from being blown up by foreign jihadis.
She's right again! So Secretary Napolitano is, in reality, batting 1.000 on DHS "system" assessments.
"Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force." --Peter Wehner, The Health-Care Backlash
Congressional Democrats are an agile, nimble group: they're patting each other on the back as they whistle past an 2010 electoral graveyard of their own making.
Presidential advisers have been making the rounds, as has the President, talking about the "bounce" the perpetrators of this bill will receive. They are right: a great many of them will get a "bounce". But, it will not be the "bounce" they are expecting: it will be a bounce from their high-paying, pontificating, sneer-at-their-constituent jobs they hold now.
2010 will be an electoral tsunami.
Thought the health care "reform" bill passed the Senate cloture on a strict party-line vote, the result of this bill will be universal bipartisanship at the polls in 2010. There is a true sense of anger, frustration and contempt that cuts across political and, in some cases, ideological, lines.
Rarely, except in wartime, has the Democrat, Republican and Independent electorate been so united. Nothing will unite a free nation quite like the message of "I told you to shut up and take your medicine".
And Democrats, as the party in charge and, particularly, as the party in charge of this abominable creation called "health care reform" will feel an electorate united against the pig-trading that birthed this monstrosity.
Democrats will try to take refuge behind their old allies in the press, but the legacy media is a shadow of its former self; though it will provide some help in urban areas, voters are wise to their tricks. Confidence in Big Media is scraping along near the bottom--where this Congress' approval ratings dwell. While Internet usage continues to climb, reliable mouthpiece media organs consolidate, shrivel and die.
Americans want control of their government back. They want public servants--not publicly-enriched masters.
An electoral tsunami is coming in 2010. It will hit Congress and its corrupt members and wash them away.
For President Obama and his men: the waves aren't stopping in 2010.
EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 16, 2009.
Here's one take that paints a disturbing picture. Hint: not much paint is needed.
Nudge, nudge folks… This seems a minor change but let us break it out for you as we see it. Let’s look at the section from Executive Order 12425.
Here’s the text of 2(c), which this Executive Order now has applying to Interpol:
(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Their premises or staff can no longer be searched either. Their files are not subject to legal subpoena or discovery. Our government could just hand documents and files over to Interpol and Americans would no longer have access to them. Interpol can legally keep files now on all citizens of the US with no right to redress.
In reality, we have just handed over our sovereignty. Interpol headquarters in the US is currently headquartered in the Department of Justice. A ‘separate’ Interpol agency has been created in the DOJ – let that sink in for a moment. Interpol has been granted diplomatic immunity now by Obama – they have exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, US taxes and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. This action could also be used to divulge American military secrets and a whole host of horrific practices having to do with going after our military. It’s the road to internationalism on steroids.
That's quite a bad scenario. In fact, it's quite bad--but it's not the only horrifying scenario.
Now for another scenario.
Here's an entity--residing in the Department of Justice--to which files, executive branch information, in short, any information that the President does not want Congress or the press to see--where "inconvenient" info can be dumped that's beyond the power of most to bring to the light of day.
How can this be Constitutional?
How can Congress stand for this?
How can the press stand for this?
This Congress has shown itself to be corrupt and able to be bought off--maybe the White House is planning on using TARP money to buy off any pesky congressmen or senators?
The Press has shown itself to be "compliant" to the White House's wishes, demands and claims. It's hard to believe that the White House press corps won't question Robert Gibbs about this? Hopefully, there will be strong follow-up questions.
To use an Obamaism, this is truly "unprecedented" on a variety of levels.
Truly, Richard Nixon must be asking himself, "Why didn't I think of that?"
Compared to this White House, Nixon was bush league when it came to naked power grabs.
A Canadian doctor who has treated golfer Tiger Woods, swimmer Dara Torres and NFL players is suspected of providing athletes with performance-enhancing drugs, according to a newspaper report.
The New York Times reported on its Web site Monday that Dr. Anthony Galea was found with human growth hormone and Actovegin, a drug extracted from calf's blood, in his bag at the U.S.-Canada border in late September. He was arrested Oct. 15 in Toronto by Canadian police.
A lot more at the story link above.
Team Tiger doesn't want to get into it.
Asked about Woods' involvement with Galea, agent Mark Steinberg told the newspaper in an e-mail: "I would really ask that you guys don't write this? If Tiger is NOT implicated, and won't be, let's please give the kid a break."
A break? Seems he's gotten a break for years, but that's just one opinion.
The quick verdict? Probably not a lot there. But then, that's what this writer thought when first hearing of Tiger's car crash.
LINE OF DEFENSE?
If Team Tiger paid a former mistress to say something helpful, it got its money's worth yesterday.
Cori Rist wept on TV as she revealed that she believed she was the only ‘other woman’ in his life - until she caught him secretly sending texts as they lay in bed together. She said it ended their affair.
Is this the beginning of the anticipated "I was a Billionaire Sex Addict" defense?
Readers have seen such a route to "rehabilitation" before: apologize, go to rehab, confess to some "secret" on Oprah, write a book, return to form.
Looks like Cory Rist just laid the groundwork.
The only questions from this corner: how much was she paid and by whom?
Was Julie Postle (photos below) Tiger Woods' mistress? Did Tiger Woods and Julie Postle have an affair? Brian Kimbrough claims Julie Postle and Tiger Woods were an item a few years back and he talked to the New York Post about it. Kimbrough, claiming to be Postle's former boyfriend, used to work at the Roxy Night Club in Orland where Julie also worked as a cocktail waitress. He said the two started dating in 2004.
Seems that Postle fits the Tiger Woods' mistress checklist.
Blonde hair? Check.
Cocktail waitress. Check.
Nubile. Check.
The verdict? Probably true.
[ABOVE: Tiger Talk of performance-enhancing drugs, divorce and more sponsors dropping the golf superstar.]
National Health Service, Deathpanels, Obamacare and The Future Of America.
Britain was the first free country to establish uniform national healthcare, The National Health Service. And what a ride it has been. Like most Canadians, (who have a slightly different system), Brits hold their heads above such primitives as Americans, who actually must pay for medical service.
They tend to wag their fat fingers in our faces and brag about all of the free health care they get. We have sat at more than a few cocktail parties wherein Brits and Canadians have lectured that America immediately adopt such a system as their national health system.
Their urgency always seemed misplaced.
Who gives a damn if the Brits think that health care is free and pulling ones own teeth with pliers is part of the deal? As long as it is only the Brits. And given the state of English teeth, their loss is no more disconcerting than their presence.
But now that the socialists in America have decided to foist the wonderful National Health Service on America (Clinton's praises of the same still ring in my ears and sear my intelligence), it is time to see how things worked out.
British health care is little better than that of former Communist countries, which spend a fraction of the billions poured into the NHS....
The figures showed:
* British cancer and heart attack victims are more likely to die than almost anywhere in the developed world; * Asthma and diabetes patients are more than three times as likely to end up in hospital as their neighbours in Germany; * Life expectancy in Britain - 79 years and six months for a man - is far worse than in France, where men expect to live until 81. The deficit is similar for women.
Britain performed only marginally better than former Communist states whose governments spend only half as much on healthcare.
Last night critics seized on the league table as an indictment of Labour's failure to improve the Health Service over 12 years - despite tripling NHS spending to more than £100billion a year.
But don't worry. Obama's intent to spend a $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year will make our country of four times the population just right.
And about those silly seniors and their heart attack moments? We can't imagine how cutting out payments to cardiologists or decreasing Medicare payments by $560 Billion will have any effect at all.
Perhaps a million bucks for education on the self-treatment of cardiac arrest will solve the problem.
And you know how this administration has recommended that women cut back on mammograms and men on prostate tests? That is working out well in Britain. Been there and done that, as they say.
But who cares really? Because...
On the positive side, the survey shows British healthcare is much more equitable than most other countries.
And that really is Obama's and Pelosi's point, isn't it? All should suffer as much as the worst.
Except themselves.
Whom they have excused from the system. And if it came to pass, they would simply go to another country like Canadians and increasingly, Brits, do now. All the while feeling well of themselves.
Four-plus years of Google.cn: Who's Changed the Most: Google or the PRC? * Google depicts Taiwan and People's Republic of China as One * No reports of Decreased Google self-censorship in the PRC * Google's Selective Transparency
[ABOVE: Google Analytics show the country of Taiwan as part of mainland China in the site's visitor tally map overlay.]
ONE CHINA UNDER GOOGLE Google's China Policy Same As the Communists
IS THIS ANOTHER CONCESSION TO DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA? How many concessions are too many?
It's been over four years since Google.cn began and changes that Google intended for Chinese users' experience aren't evident. However, the Google experience is different.
For Google itself.
Was one of the conditions of Google launching its Google.cn service the depiction of Taiwan as a part of mainland (Communist) China?
The search engine giant is not telling unsuspecting users of Google Analytics--which depicts Taiwan and Mainland China as the same country--and officially, the company isn't saying, either. Read this article in its entirety at DBKP: Google, China: One China, Two Googles, How Many Deals?
When Google launched its site for mainland China (Google.cn) in 2005, there were protests on college campuses and elsewhere over the "filtering"--critics said "censorship"--in which the search engine giant had to participate, in order to launch the site. There was even a hearing before Congress.
The Googlization of China came with a different twist than in the USA: politically "sensitive" topics were verbotten. "Tibet independence", "Tank man" and images politically inconvenient to the Communist Chinese leadership were kept from Google users searching for that information.
In effect, Google helped the Communist Chinese leadership re-write history--at least as far as Chinese users searching for information are concerned.
Google maintains that if they don't play along with the Chinese leadership, they'll simply be unable to do business in the world's most populous country.
But the "filtering/censorship" issue was well-publicized.
The depiction of Taiwan, which is recognized by 23 countries and organizations such as the International Olympic Committee and the World Trade Organization, as part of the mainland, was not.
Looking at the map overlay in Google Analytics, a chance discovery was made a few days ago: Google depicts both countries as one. This is exactly the same policy as the People's Republic of China.
The USA, Taiwan (Republic of China) and the PRC all do a complicated diplomatic dance over the status of Taiwan; the slightest changing of a word or even a published newspaper account is enough to set off alarms on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
So, for Google Analytics to portray the two countries as one, not just in China but to the rest of the world, was unexpected.
For the most part, the Taiwanese are adamant about their not being part of the PRC. The Communists are just as adamant that Taiwan is nothing more than a renegade province. International news organizations often report that "China considers Taiwan a renegade province that must be united with the mainland by force if necessary".
As stated, it's a delicate dance.
[ABOVE: Though Google shows visitors from the two countries as separate tallies, the countries are shown as being one.]
But is Google only dancing with one partner, the Communist Chinese?
All of this might seem like much ado about nothing--if it weren't for the deals cut with the Chinese Communist leadership as a price of doing business by a company who relentlessly promotes its policies as "open", "transparent" and "do no evil".
This writer posed the following questions to Google's Press department on December 22, 2009.
While looking through Google Analytics yesterday, I noticed that you show Taiwan as a part of mainland China in your map. When you mouse over Taiwan, it appears as part of China and visa versa. I went back through the various PR releases of Google on the Google blog, but could find nothing relating to this question. This is not accepted US foreign policy; the USA does not recognize Taiwan as a province of China, but a separate country.[NOTE: As noted above, it's a bit more convoluted than that.]
Is this an error on Google's part? Is this one of the compromises that Google had to make in order to launch Google.cn? Is there any plans for Google to inform users in the rest of the world that Taiwan is not a part of mainland China?
The head of communications for Google's Map Division, Kate Hurowitz, responded pleasantly, if a bit cryptically, on December 23, 2009:
The depiction of maps in tools such as Google Analytics is merely an illustrative representation of the region to assist website owners in getting statistics of the usage of their site in certain geographical areas. As a very generalized reference map, it is neither drawn to scale nor does it purport to represent the most current political status of the region.
That said, it is our intention to offer the most accurate and up-to-date information possible in our products and services, and we are exploring technical solutions that will improve the accuracy of maps like those depicted in Google Analytics.
Fair enough.
But, it didn't answer the question: was this just another compromise that Google had to cut with the PRC, like the famous "filtering/censoring" that goes on at Google.cn?
If this is another pay-off, it may be much more important because Google Analytics is used the world over to track and monitor website traffic. Where one policy only affects Chinese users, the other might be seen as pro-Chinese leadership propaganda that affects perhaps as many as 50% of the websites the world over. (it's hard to get an exact figure on how many sites use GA, but a survey done this year of the world's Top 10,000 websites found that "a full 50% used GA"--the percentage may be larger on smaller sites because GA is free.)
In 2004, Google explained why links to non-approved news sources wouldn't be shown in Google News viewed by mainland Chinese users in China, Google News and source inclusion:
There has been controversy about our new Google News China edition, specifically regarding which news sources we include. For users inside the People's Republic of China, we have chosen not to include sources that are inaccessible from within that country.
This was a difficult decision for Google, and we would like to share the factors we considered before taking this course of action.
Google is committed to providing easy access to as much information as possible. For Internet users in China, Google remains the only major search engine that does not censor any web pages. However, it's clear that search results deemed to be sensitive for political or other reasons are inaccessible within China. There is nothing Google can do about this.
Later in the post, signed by "The Google Team",
Google News does not show news stories, but rather links to news stories. So links to stories published by blocked news sources would not work for users inside the PRC -- if they clicked on a headline from a blocked source, they would get an error page. It is possible that there would be some small user value to just seeing the headlines. However, simply showing these headlines would likely result in Google News being blocked altogether in China.
So Google's position was, "Approved Google News is better than no Google News."
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says the White House gate-crashers got in through a "screw-up," he's unhappy with everyone involved and it won't happen again.
"I was unhappy with everybody who was involved in the process," Obama said in the interview. "And so, it was a screw-up."
He added that the incident was not even "the fifth or sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got the most news."
The president answered "yes," when asked whether he was "seriously angry" about the intrusion. "That's why it won't happen again.
Sheeesh. Get over it. If it was Bush the couple would be hailed as gods for fooling the Moron In Chief by the Mainstream Media. Now when they treat you with kid gloves about a minor, harmless screw-up, you act like it is important.
Obama you are just a little too self righteous and a bit creepy. So you had a couple of innocuous party crashers. Clearly this is the first time in your life that anyone wanted to be at a party with you. Can you ever lighten up, Mr Doofus In Chief? Do you have a joke in which is not a play on someones else's fault? Do you have any humility or sense of fun at all?
GIVING THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SCIENCE BEAT THE SAME OBJECTIVITY IT'S BROUGHT TO POLITICS
AP'S SETH BORENSTEIN PROBLEMS
Seth Borenstein's byline is usually 'Associated Press Science Writer'. It should read 'Associated Press "Science" writer' The scare quotes around "science" are necessary because Borenstein practices a type of reporting that is anything but objective--at least when the subject matter is climate change.
Anyone who's familiar with Borenstein's body of work on climate science for the news cooperative can be certain of two things. 1-That when the AP does a story on climate science, Borenstein's name will likely be on it; and, 2-Whenever a Borenstein AP story and climate science meet, Seth will do his best to scare the bejeezus out of readers: there ain't no happy ending.
A quick look at what this objective "reporter" has written--and the AP has distributed--since the CRU leaked emails surfaced. Readers can make their own judgment.
Recent AP articles by "Science" writer, Seth Borenstein, include:
Keep in mind these were all written after the ClimateGate emails were made public on November 19, 2009. One question upon perusing the above list: is Seth Borenstein responding as an objective reporter would?
In case anyone missed his politics, Borenstein also found time from his intrepid AGW journalism to write this paean to President Barack Obama, in which Borenstein compared Obama to Star Trek's Mr. Spock: CAPITAL CULTURE: Is Obama another Mr. Spock? Monday Nov 30, 2009.
The piece had the expected Borenstein M.O.: a heavy reliance on "experts" who already agreed with Borenstein's thesis and the quote of one person, former Bush science adviser Jack Marburger,--for "balance"--who disagreed, which was relegated to the last paragraphs; which are the very ones newspapers most likely will cut when pressed for space.
One such "expert" is Chris Mooney.
"I keep being amazed at how much attention he's [Obama's] spending on science policy," said science policy and journalism blogger Chris Mooney, author of the book "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."
Chris Mooney, in case readers haven't guessed, is a typical Borenstein witnesses for the prosecution: another of Mooney's three books is titled, "The Republican War on Science".
Have Associated Press's Seth Borenstein and Chris Matthews had a Vulcan mind-meld? Two weeks ago, you may recall, the MSNBC "Hardball" hosts wondered if the president was just "too darned intellectual."
Today, AP's Borenstein wondered, "Is Obama another Mr. Spock?"
It seems that Seth Borenstein cherry-picks his sources--just as some of the climate scientists he covers are accused of doing with their data.
MY OWN PRIVATE CLIMATEGATE
Say what you will about Seth Borenstein: he seems to have no qualms about asking for help--especially from those who are alarmists--and about whom he writes.
Nowhere in any of Borenstein's many articles will the reader find that he asked the subjects of his articles for guidance in what he should write.
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer [7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076 202-641-9454
Breezy--for a junior high girl. Not so much for a so-called objective journalist.
As Anthony Watts put it: "But to have Mr. Borenstein report upon the investigation of the leaked East Anglia emails, when he himself is part of the emails, is certainly a conflict of interest."
Clearly.
Watts again:
Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION: Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.
When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.
To say the least, the Associated Press has a Seth Borenstein problem. WHAT'S IN AN AP CLIMATE ARTICLE BY SETH BORENSTEIN?
Pick out any random article on climate change by Seth Borentstein and it will exhibit one, if not all of the following features:
* Heavy reliance on "reliable" sources whom he quotes generously; * A discrediting of contrary views, even if those views are supported by data; * Dispatches littered with hopes, dreams and opinions masquerading as settled science; * Ethical problems, including chumminess with sources who support alarmist scenarios.
One may add the following charges to the list, though they are subjective: Borenstein's been advocating climate alarm for a while; and, if Seth ever gives up his day job, he might apply for a position as a climate alarmist--he's got plenty of experience torturing data to fit his pre-conceived notions.
Maybe Borenstein should invest two minutes in the following video.
Most likely, he will not. One images that he might ask his climate scare buddies what to do with the information the video contains, however. OTHERS HAVE NOTICED
It's been hard to overlook Borenstein's increasingly-shrill point of view over the last few months. Others have noticed.
"On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: Marc Morano has a website aggregating news stories on the other side of the climate change fraud, Climate Depot. AP's Science writer was asking the East Anglia CRU guys to help him out. Material surfaced in a legitimate journal refuting their version of things and Borenstein in an apparent sweat wanted to know how to handle it. This email is in the public domain. --AP's Seth Borenstein in ClimateGate emails, July 23, 2009
These people have just produced a piece of propaganda disguised as credible reporting. The intent is to fool the public and is itself a fraud. You wonder why people don’t read the papers any more? — Here’s a hint, it ain’t because we’re trying to save the earth from tree farmers.
A link to the propaganda is here. I put the link on the period to prevent accidental IQ loss from inadvertent clicking of it. Read it at your own risk. tAV accepts no responsibility for damages real or perceived from reading it.
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
Taking apart Borenstein's latest effort: AP "science" writer, Seth Borenstein's latest: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. There's no information contained in this article--which he helped author--about whether he was coached this time by discredited climate fear-mongers.
The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level. [...]
Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
What kind of media outlet would publish this hysterical nonsense with much of the nation in the grips of extremely harsh winter conditions? Does the AP have any idea?
It snowed in Houston Wednesday tying a record for the earliest appearance of the white stuff in the city's history.
There were rare snowfalls in Southern Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi Thursday.
They're expecting possible record-breaking cold in the Pacific Northwest.
If the reader thinks that Seth Borenstein is a late convert to pushing climate change scaremongering, he would be wrong. Borenstein has not only been skewing his articles by quoting AGW proponents as primary sources--many times, the only sources--he's been attacking any who question his beliefs for a long time.
Read the following article Borenstein wrote on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and ask yourself if this is the work of someone who's reporting news--or someone who's preaching a set of beliefs.
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie _ replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets _ mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press. --Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The article labors to project a veneer of objectivity amid all of the climate scare boosterism that's taking place.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.
Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, however, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong," said Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. "The best face I can put on this is that he doesn't know what he's doing. The worst is that he's intentionally deceiving people as he accuses environmentalists (of doing) in 'State of Fear.' "
The majority of climate scientists say the world is warming, mainly because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The biggest increase in those gases comes from the burning of fossil fuels. U.S. and foreign authorities predict a 5-degree Fahrenheit increase in the world's average temperature by the end of the century. Ice sheets are melting, and species of birds and animals have moved to new areas because of warming.
Again, Borenstein provides cover for himself by writing that Crichton declined a request to be interviewed. Might the writer have known which way the Borenstein climate wind was blowing?
WHAT WILL THE AP DO ABOUT SETH BORENTSTEIN?
When it comes to the reporting of climate science, perhaps the AP should stand for "Associated Propaganda"? After all, Seth Borenstein has been pushing a particular side of a controversial subject for some time. Some might call that "propaganda".
Why hasn't the AP done something about this problem? For some AP readers, Seth Borenstein's "science" is the only science reporting they will read. Doesn't the AP have a responsibility to present news of an important subject like climate change in an objective manner?
Apparently not.
It's hard to take the AP and Borenstein seriously when they refuse to treat an important scientific subject in an even-handed--dare we say "scientific"--way.
But perhaps the AP is not aware of this problem. Seth Borenstein may think he is doing actual reporting.
Readers could help the AP out and let them know that there is a problem. Maybe Seth Borenstein would do more reporting and less proselytizing?
Contact information for the AP is at the end of this article.
The pushing of a particular viewpoint would be no problem for Seth Borenstein, private citizen. Or, Seth Borenstein, director of PR for some AGW think tank (Perhaps he's auditioning?).
It's a huge one for Seth Borenstein, AP "Science" Writer.
Yet, Seth Borenstein still writes, churning out opinion pieces masquerading as news. He continues citing sources from one side of the debate, colluding with the subjects he's writing about, and attacking those who disagree with his favored views--very unscientific for a "science" writer.
Seth Borenstein is also ensuring that his views on climate change--and the AP's as well--become increasingly irrelevant, overtaken by time and the science about which he pretends to write objectively.
