Whooooahhhhhh Nellie.

This blogger claims he has it on "impeccable" authority.

I've just heard from an impeccable source that Barbara Mikulski, the Democratic Senator who is up for reelection this November, will choose to retire. Mrs. Mikulski is expected to make her formal announcement in the next few days.

Mrs. Mikulski seriously fractured her right ankle last fall just prior to Edward M. Kennedy's death. Due to the severity of the fracture, she has had to open reduction surgery, that included the insertion of pins, as well as the use of special surgical boots, during recovery. She had tried to arrive in time for Mr. Kennedy's funeral but was turned away.

Her recovery has been exceptionally slow and she is evidently still in a great deal of pain. Reportedly, she has told her physician that she does not desire to seek reelection. Additionally, friends and family have been saying in the near future she will announce her retirement. Because of the very slow recovery, she has been forced to use a wheelchair, a walker or a cain in order to get around.

Thanks to enoxo.

Oh: In case you were wondering -- a Maryland pickup was on no one's radar. That seat was thought very safely, even unassailably Democratic.

Even with Mikulski retiring, the seat would probably stay Democratic. Maryland is as Democrat as f*ck.

But... there would be an outside chance, at least.

Over in Indiana... Hot Air has updated to say the filing deadline is tomorrow, not Friday. And further, the process is a little pain-in-the-assy (signatures needed from a bunch of county chairs or somethin') and the likely candidate, Ellsworth, might not be able to do it.

Which means he might have to do it through a caucus process, which will be difficult, and will give hard-core left-wingers a chance at the nomination-- and also to beat up on the eventual candidate, even if they lose.

More: A lot of speculation that he might have an idea to challenge Obama in the 2012 primaries. Not rumors, just speculation. Bayh called out his own party for overspending and asked rhetorically "Why should anyone trust the Democratic Party?" recently, for example.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (259)
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

Or -- a half of a percent shaved off GDP every single year. And that's big, because even solid growth is a mere three point five percent. (And our best hope is probably for a weak 2% rate of growth for the next ten years.)

So yes, let's definitely stop oil and gas drilling. We can easily afford another two and a third trillion on top of Obama's planned ten trillion.

And by the way -- by "banning" such drilling, what they're really talking about is continuing the bans already in effect.

Obama's talking about loosening the bans up -- talking. And they don't need to be loosened up, they need to be dramatically reduced. (The bans, I mean, which in turn increases actual drilling.)

This should provide some ammo for industry groups pushing the White House to allow wider drilling: A new report says U.S. oil-and-gas drilling bans will increase consumer energy costs and decrease cumulative U.S. GDP by $2.36 trillion over the next two decades

ThatÂ’s an average annual GDP drop of roughly a half a percent.

The report, commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, comes as President Obama is signaling that heÂ’ll back expanded offshore drilling as he seeks GOP and centrist Democratic support for a broader energy and climate bill.

The report explores restrictions on offshore drilling and onshore areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was conducted by the Science Applications International Corp. and the industry-backed Gas Technology Institute.

It concludes that maintaining limits on domestic exploration will cause U.S. oil production to decrease by nearly 10 billion barrels total by 2030, while OPEC imports rise. The U.S. used roughly 7 billion barrels of oil in 2008.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Oddly, he's flanked by his family, as if this is some sort of scandal, which it's not.

I guess he really wants to sell the "spend more time with my family" storyline.

Dick Morris Crows: Dick Morris has been predicting a total GOP takeover of both houses of Congress for a couple of weeks now.

I'm not sure if he really believes this or is exaggerating his belief in this outcome in order to garner attention.

He's crowing today. Obviously the Bayh retirement doesn't hurt his prediction.

The process seems to work as follows:

a. Public anger manifests itself in the Brown victory

b. The improvement in Republican chances impels top notch, former statewide elected officials to jump into races against Democratic incumbents

c. The Democrat bows out in the face of likely defeat. Suddenly, he wants to spend more time with his family.

This process has run its course in Indiana and may shortly be manifest in Wisconsin where former Governor Tommy Thompson is considering a run against Senator Russ Feingold. It may yet play out in Arkansas where Senator Blanche Lincoln now has a top tier opponent in Congressman John Boozman. And Senator Patty Murray may hear footsteps behind her with the entry into the race of wealthy businessman Paul Akers and the possible entry of former almost-Governor Dino Rossi. Rossi lost the governorship of Washington State in a Franken-esque theft after initial counts showed him defeating Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. Now Governor Gregoire won in the recount.

In New York State, billionaire Mort Zuckerman may take on appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and, if he doesn't, former Governor George Pataki might jump into the race.

When we predicted a Republican win in the Senate in 2010, some laughed. But nobody's laughing now.

Mort Zuckerman would not really be much of a win for us. He's a liberal. He has harshed on Obama of late, but still, he'd be with Obama most of the time.

Democratic Candidates Need to File At End of Week. Just over Fox.

Not a Double Post: Yes, weisenheimers, I saw the earlier news.

I was putting this up because there was specifically a press conference going on.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

What precisely is left of this "theory"?

[Question:] Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

[Phil Jones:]... Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Here are the trends and significances for each period:

1860-1880: 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940: 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998: 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009: 35 0.161 Yes

That "Yes" at the end is the answer to whether each is statistically significant -- as you can see, they all are, and all are pretty much just as significant as the current period of warming (assuming it exists).

He later claims this doesn't mean much, because he says he can explain previous periods of warming by volcanic and solar activity, which cannot (he maintains) explain the current period of warming. But as Powerline notes, he's simply wrong about that.

He also claims -- unscientifically, as Powerline notes -- that if we can't explain warming by two factors (volcanic activity and solar activity), it must of course all be due to human activity. Not only is that silly to begin with, but he completely blows off the oscillations of the ocean, which seem to track pretty well with temperature changes.

And then there's that pesky Medieval Warm Period.

[Question:] There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

[Jones:] There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

There is "much debate" over whether the MWP was global? Gee, that comes as a shock to me, because I keep being told there is no debate about -- the warmistas claim the MWP didn't exist, that the very clear (as he himself calls it) evidence of high temperatures in the northern hemisphere are offset by unsubstantiated low temperatures in the conveniently-lacking-in-temperature-proxies southern hemispheres.

That is the whole claim of the hockey stick -- that temperatures were flat for 1000 years and only now is there significant warming.

Compare these two graphs -- the hockey stick, and a more sensible chart of global temperatures, and the one that once was completely accepted by the scientific community (also known as "the overwhelming consensus," aka "the science is settled).

Via Hot Air.

Obviously, if there was a Medieval Warm Period (and there, you know, was) then the current warming is not "unprecedented." In fact, it's small beans compared to the MWP. And the MWP was a period of great bounty for the earth-- the plentiful crops in fact (if I'm remembering right, and I think I am) were a major factor in ushering the Renaissance, as fewer humans were needed to produce food and more people became artisans, merchants, and so forth.

That's a big, big problem with the Warmistas admitting the MWP -- a higher temperature then actually translated into an era of plenty, and progress. Pretty much tells you right there that our current temperature is not our best temperature -- our "best" temperature seems to be a degree or two higher than it is now.

And the science continues to unsettle every day -- now a key IPCC claim, oft-repeated by the stooge Pachuari, that African crop yields would decline by 50%, turns out to be made-up nonsense by a guy who literally makes his living (literally) on carbon credits.

Oh -- one more startling omission by Jones.

The debate? That we keep being told "is over"?

He says it's not over at all.

[Question:] When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

[Jones:]It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Not only does he say he doesn't agree that "the debate is over," but that the vast majority of scientists (his words) don't think the debate is over, either.

So why do Al Gore and Barack Obama keep saying it is? Their boy -- boy! -- is himself saying that the debate is not over.

Ooops: I forgot a key admission. Phil Jones justifies his "hide the decline" tactics by admitting he includes tree ring proxies which are congruent with his theory and tossing out proxy series which undermine it.

More: Where is the American Media? Note that the BBC is doing actual journalism while the American media continues embargoing the story.

And note even the left-wing Guardian UK is writing balanced pieces here -- in this piece, they note that the "hockey stick" was thought badly flawed and cherry-picked even by the CRU.

And this continues to be incredibly important, because even as AGW comes apart under the very first scrutiny ever given to the "theory", the White House is planning on using inherent -- and invented -- executive powers to force a carbon-controlling regime on us that would never in a thousand years pass Congress.

And Oh Yeah: The Evidence That the Earth Has Warmed At All is In Serious Doubt: As related already by DrewM. A new peer-reviewed paper shows that temperature increases are greatly and consistently overstated, because the readings aren't properly adjusted down for factors like urbanization.

And let me re-quote this withering passage:

In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.
Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

...Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

"That is worrying." This guy just accused the IPCC of manipulating data -- he discards the "innocent mistakes" explanation as implausible, because if the mistakes were innocent, we should see them going either way. In fact, they all go the exact same way.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 1444 words, total size 9 kb.

They don't say that of course -- they describe it in a much nicer way. The administration is merely seeking to improve Holder's "political ear," they tell us.

You tell me how this isn't "politicizing Justice," as the Democrats charged Bush in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

After 9/11 Trial Plan, Holder Hones Political Ear

Last winter, when Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called the United States a “nation of cowards” for avoiding frank conversations on race, President Obama mildly rebuked him in public.

Out of view, Mr. Obama’s aides did far more. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina, the White House chief and deputy chief of staff, proposed installing a minder alongside Mr. Holder to prevent further gaffes — someone with better “political antennae,” as one administration official put it.

When he heard of the proposal at a White House meeting, Mr. Holder fumed; soon after, he confronted his deputy, David W. Ogden, who knew of the plan but had not alerted his boss, according to several officials. Mr. Holder fought off the proposal, signaling that his job was about the law, not political messaging.

A year later, he is no longer so certain.

...

Now Mr. Holder has switched from resisting what he had considered encroachment by White House political officials to seeking their guidance. Two weeks ago, he met with advisers there to discuss how to unite against common foes. They agreed to allow Mr. Holder, who has not appeared on a Sunday talk show since entering office, to speak out more; he agreed to let them help hone his message.

The political attacks over terrorism cases were “starting to constrain my ability to function as attorney general,” he said in an interview last week. “I have to do a better job in explaining the decisions that I have made,” Mr. Holder also said, adding, “I have to be more forceful in advocating for why I believe these are trials that should be held on the civilian side.”

But now Mr. Holder is in the awkward position of pushing for an approach that he acknowledges he would accept defeat on. The administration hopes to announce a new venue for the Sept. 11 trial within three weeks, he said last Tuesday. But Congress could pass legislation requiring that Mr. Mohammed be tried by a military commission, or Mr. Obama himself could change direction.

“You always have to be flexible,” Mr. Holder said, allowing that justice could be served in a commission trial, too, and praising generals who “adapt their game plans” as the situation changes.

The NYT is striving mightily to portray this merely as a matter of political messaging. That is, they are trying to pretend that only Holder's words will change, not his policy.

But right there -- even as they try to sell you on this -- they acknowledge that Holder has changed his policy on KSM's trial.

That's pretty obvious. So obvious that even the NYT seems to notice. But instead of noting that and asking Holder about it, they just whine that he's in a "tough spot" where he supposedly has to explain his policy better and more "forcefully" even when he's already announced the likelihood that policy will change.

Um, NYT? That's not about "messaging." That's about Justice Department policy being changed by Rahm Emanuel and the political team for the sake of politics and polls.

Of course I approve of this change in policy -- but even the NYT should be able to figure out that this change has occurred not due to principled belief, but due to poll numbers. And they should be able to figure out that a major change in policy is going on here, not a mere change in the "mere words" used to justify it.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.

The problem isn't the policies, it's the communication. That's the age old answer when an enterprise is failing. It's a lot easier to change the brochure or website than it is to retool the whole assembly line. This is especially true for a President, who in many ways is the product...he is who he is.

Aside from the so-called "stimulus" (which is now wildly unpopular), the Obama administration hasn't gotten much done and has seen the Presidents approval ratings plunge.

So naturally they've devised a 4 point communications plan to turn things around. Basically it comes down to...We Need More Obama!

First, they said, is a return to the disciplined messaging that was a hallmark of the 2008 campaign, in which unhelpful themes were filtered out in favor of topics that advanced the candidate's goals. In the White House, they said, that will mean a tighter focus on Obama's commitment to the economy and jobs for average Americans. "The threshold for things he will go out and talk about is higher," one senior aide said.

Second, White House advisers promise a quicker, more aggressive response to GOP attacks on the president and his policies. They noted that Obama and his top White House advisers have pushed back hard against Republican accusations that the FBI mishandled the interrogation of the man accused of trying to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day -- and as Biden did on Sunday.

...

A third change is a return to the backdrops for Obama that aides considered so effective during the presidential bid. The image of Obama standing in the Diplomatic Room surrounded by men in dark suits will be replaced, as often as possible, by scenes of a more relaxed president in crowds. The goal is to have Obama travel outside of Washington -- what they call "the bubble" -- at least once a week, advisers said.

Finally, aides said it was recognized inside the West Wing that Obama has strayed from his most successful message of the campaign: that he would be a change agent in Washington.

Good luck with that guys.

Yes Obama is still personally very popular but that hasn't mattered much when it's come to results,, has it? Ask the Democrats how they are enjoying their wins in NJ, VA and MA...oh wait.

This is simply a perpetual campaign. It makes sense that they would go this way because that's what Obama is good at. Problem is, that's not his job anymore. Once you become President, politics is supposed to become a means to an end, producing policies. The two are related and interconnected but not actually the same.

Look at the first point, message control. After a year in the White House they don't get that they simply can't control the message and the news of the day the way they did during the campaign.

Team Obama really should recall the words of former UK Prime Minister when asked what the greatest challenge for a leader was answered, "'Events, my dear boy, events'. From a cop arresting a friend to an attempt to blow up an airliner, it's obvious disciplined messaging only gets you so far.

The biggest event however is the economy. The problem for Obama is that his prescriptions only make things worse for the majority of Americans. No amount of communication genius is going to convince people who are out of work or worried about losing their jobs to ignore the basic realities of life.

Besides, does anyone really think the most exposed President in history only needed more and smarter exposure to turn things around? Again, good luck with that one guys.

Update: David Brooks emails to say, "This plan does nothing to address the challenge of keeping President Dreamy, er, I mean Obama's, pants perfectly creased. Failure to pay attention to the important things will only lead to disaster. Disaster I tell you!".

Always nice to hear from Mr. Brooks.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:32 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 682 words, total size 4 kb.

DrewM. sends this along as counter-point to my Eeyore-ism on retaking the Senate:

So I think the GOP will be favored in Indiana however the candidate field shakes out this week, and I think the GOP is favored in Arkansas, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Dakota as well. Win all those and you have a 52-48 Democratic Senate. Beyond that you have Illinois looking like a toss up and then California and New York looking like they definitely have the potential to become highly competitive based on the incumbents' lack of popularity and Washington and Wisconsin as maybe the longest shots for the GOP but possible with an A list candidate.

And really, if it's a 50-50 situation does anyone trust Joe Lieberman not to throw his hat with the Republicans? Three months ago I would have said Republicans have about a 5% chance of taking back the Senate. Now I'd put it more in the one in three chance range, and rising by the week. And who knows when the bad news for Democrats will stop pouring in...

Thanks, Drew.

I'm not ruling out Republican wins in AR, IL, PA, CO, or IN. That's why I wrote "toss up" next to those races. But, I highly doubt that Republicans are going to take Boxer's or Gillibrand's seats and anyone who holds up Scott Brown as an example is ignoring the unusually perfect GOP candidate, the exceptionally bad Democrat candidate, and the extremely unusual circumstances of the special election. None of Boxer's GOP challengers has managed to beat her in the polls yet, even though Democrats are having the worst year of their life.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:03 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report but pretty soon the Gaia worshipers will be saying he was a mildly retarded guy they just kept around out of pity to run errands (like Benny from LA Law).

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

And now even the true believers are admitting the IPCC is damaged goods and may have to go under the bus.

In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

...Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

...Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.

You'd think we folks like this on board with the whole 'asking questions is ok' thing we'd hear less of the 'denier' and 'anti-science' crap but I doubt it.

Still, it's astonishing how rapidly and far the position of the believers has gone from "of course it's man made and will kill us, the only question is how do we stop it" to "no seriously, we're not lying crooks, let's talk about how we can convince you".

There's still a long way to go to bring sanity to this debate but the momentum is clearly on the side of the true supporters of science (the people who want to see the data and be able to argue it).

Posted by: DrewM at 07:29 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.

Above the Post Update and FLAMING SKUUUUUUULL:

According to the Indiana Secretary of State, candidates must file for the primary by Friday, February 19 at 12-noon. It must be accompanied by nomination forms signed by 4,500 IN voters.

It is presently snowing in Indiana.

Original Post:

Another very likely Republican pick-up.

First the news:

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country.

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh will say.

Now, the puzzled guess-work: Why would Bayh quit? He polls way ahead of his potential GOP challengers. Like 20 points ahead. He's got a $13 million warchest.

So, scandal, family matters, or "family" matters?

More: Some are suggesting the set-up to a 2012 run against the President. Bayh would have to re-cast himself as a Beltway outsider, so that makes some sense.

I just want to re-emphasize that this comes as a shock because Bayh was polling 20 points over Coats. His senate seat was designated "Leans Democratic." No one really expected him to lose.

How does this affect Republican chances in the Senate?

Here is Mallamutt's list of places Republicans could pick up seats currently held by Democrats with my notes on what is expected:

1. North Dakota [Expected to go Red]

2. Arkansas [Toss Up]

3. Delaware [Expected to go Red]

4. Nevada [Expected to go Red]

5. Illinois [Toss Up]

6. Pennsylvania [Toss Up]

7. Colorado [Toss Up]

8. Indiana [Now Open]

9. New York (Gillibrand) [Staying Blue]

10. California [Staying Blue]

Don't forget, Republicans also have to hold on to seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Florida and Kentucky.

So, will Republicans retake the Senate? Um, NO. You're telling me they're gonna sweep all those states and lose none? I got a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:42 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 322 words, total size 3 kb.

Really?

[National Security Adviser] Gen. Jim Jones defended Brennan, the president's top counterterrorism adviser, after Brennan on Saturday compared the U.S. criminal recidivism rate of 50 percent to the one in five terrorists who are released to other nations and return to the battlefield.

"Twenty percent isn't that bad," Brennan said.

Jones said the United States has to make sure to do the best it can, but it's unrealistic to think no terrorist allowed to go free won't return to battle.

"It's never going to be zero," Jones said on "Fox News Sunday." "We have a long history of having convicted terrorist in federal courts, locking them up for many, many years and doing the best we can, but zero is not going to be the standard in which we try to achieve it."

Lawfare at its worst. Jones makes the idiotic comparison of terrorism to crime. He makes a fundamental assumption that terrorists should be "allowed to go free", something not required by domestic or international law exactly because a detained combatant may rejoin the fighting.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:23 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.