Slashdot Mirror

[W]hat is he doing while still in office serving the public right now?

If Obama and Biden have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?

If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?

(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).

If Obama and Biden have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?

If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?

(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).

My first reaction was "Good because wading through terrabytes of useless data will really help win the war on terrer!" However on sober reflection I realize that the very technical infeasability of this is part and parcel of the problem.

For those of you that haven't seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil you must it is an essential requirement for anyone who would just react with the snarkiness I mentioned above.

They can't parse all of that data. A single major ISP on a single day would generate terrabytes of data if everything was logged. In that event any actual law enforcement methods would be swamped by the sheer beureucratic waste of it all. Massive computer systems performing continuous number crunching would still come up with garbage.

But that doesn't matter!

It isn't necessary for this to work. What is necessary is for them to make people perceive that it works at least enough to get it put in place. At that point the system becomes self feeding. Don't like it, well that can get you put on the short list for a check of your habits. Because they can look at a single person's habits, they may be wrong but they can and will do it. But in general the system will be a large self-feeding monstrosoty and any "errors", because there are always errors will be dealt with in the same way that the no-fly-list errors are handled: "not my department, next please!"

Eventually success of this process ceases to be the object only its continuation. Once a large enough beureucracy is established staffed with enough place-men and place-seekers to protect themselves then this will take over. Consider the Drug war as an example. Yes it hasn't hit full steam but think of ho many things today are justified by means of the "Drug War". And take a look at the way justifications for the war are handled. Money for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (led by America's Drug Czar) is spent convincing us to back the drug war or not to vote for legalization. In turn the DEA's budget (paying America's Drug Czar) goes up and who the hell cares if the drugs are stopped. And they aren't even fighting "Terrorists".

In many respects it reminds me of East Germany. At the height of their power the East German Stasi employed one in fifty members of the population as full or part-time spies. This doesn't count the large beureucratic staff that they had or the massive infrastructure that was built and run just to sort through it all. The social costs were enormous as any infraction was targeted for no good reason. The economic costs in turn were insane and deprived the state budget of much of the money that might have been spent say building an infrastructure or feeding the population. No nation on earth had more complete information on its citizens and no nation on earth spent more obtaining it.

Ultimately crime was still committed and even the dissident groups grew because they a) hated the government that much, b) were often flooded with spies sent in by the Stasi, and c) could get away with it. None of the objectives of the Stasi were acheived and East Germany fell, it fell and noone misses it.

This "Law and Order" bull must be stopped, and it must be stopped now! We cannot sit back and think that this is okay or that it will "work its way out. Those of us with a technical mindset are in the best position to explain why this will not work and what a costly destructive system this will be, and we cannot put it off.

For those in the U.S. go Here to find your house rep and place a phone call or send a letter. Then for good measure go Here and tell the Senate not to go there either. Following that try sending a letter to you local paper's letters to the editor. While many of us no longer read the dead-tree press it can and will make a big impact for those that do (read: most people over 35).

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

That figure seems to be repeated by climate conspiracy theorist senator James Inhofe (R-OK) here.

Sorry, there's no substitute for political action. We're not going to stop the Iraq war by not buying gas, and we're not going to stop climate change by buying hybrids.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D 7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04- 5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D 7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04- 5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D 7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04- 5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D 7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04- 5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
 

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

Decide for yourself if the government has been straight with us, look at this 2001 testimony from the director of the National Climatic Data Center:
"Some greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and increasingly trapping more heat."

link

Here's George Bush, circa 2001, on the topic:
"There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."

link

Seems like the cat's out of the bag on this one.

The Union of Concerned Scientists politicizes science, and they lean pretty hard to the left. I take what they have to say with a big grain of NaCl.

Just looking at the moderation on this comment is a good way to figure out which side is constantly attempting to censor the other. The ecofundamentalists threaten Nuremberg style trials for global warming skeptics. Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified. Who is trying to silence whom here?

What exactly do the ecofundamentalists have to hide? It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons" and the other side is threating trials and decertifications.

From the Senate:

There are opposing positions to Al Gore's propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." There are opposing views that should be discussed.

No one diputes the fact that the Earth is warming. However, there is not scientific consensus that it is caused, or substantially increased, by humans. The inconvenient truth that Gore fails to mention is that about 10,000 years ago, the Earth was so warm that citrus fruits were growing in what is now northern Germany.

There were no cars and precious few people to cause the Earth to be so warm. That period was followed by an ice age. When the ice age ended, the Earth began warming, and has been warming ever since. It will continue to warm, until another ice age occurs.

Many publications on global warming deliberately leave out these facts, so as to lend credence to the theory that we are causing global warming. The culprit is not the Earth's habitants; it is the sun, which we sometimes see in the Pacific Northwest. The Earth has been in a continual cycle of heating and cooling, and there is nothing we can to about it. That's another "inconvenient truth."

Muzzling attempt?

AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION January 19, 2007

Check out this blog post from James Spann:

From his blog - his bio:

"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education. I am CBM number 33, meaning I am the 33rd person in the nation to earn it. I wanted to be the first in Alabama, but a couple of guys in Huntsville beat me to it. Just not enough hours in the day!

Official bio here

January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie t

I don't understand why the previous bill split along party lines. I know the republicans are usually associated with corporate interests, but is this part of either party's official ideology or agenda?

You don't understand it because it didn't happen. The article is seriously misinformed. The bill in question (S.2917) was read by Senator Snowe on the Senate floor on May 19, 2006, where it was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. There was no vote, party lines or not. It was not killed. It presumably died of natural causes in committee when the 109th Congress ended, as there is no mention of it in the committee record.

Look it up.

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa."

I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good.

If you don't know her voting record, then on what are you basing your suspicion?

Maybe the fact that she's a senator, and that the senate voted 98-1 in favor of the PATRIOT Act?

I was completely shocked at this, but after some digging I still cannot find a RELIABLE source. As far as I can tell, the reason it has not hit the Mainstream Media is because it appears to be false. Please check your sources (The transcript of Gonzales' testimony is HERE: http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2473& wit_id=3936) There is nothing even close to the "quotes" from the article linked. If someone has an actual source, please inform me. If not, this is nothing more than propaganda by someone with an agenda.

http://dorgan.senate.gov/documents/newsroom/net_ne utrality.pdf

Read the draft rather than just guessing. If you have a problem with it, then you should be able to list the specific section you don't like, and "all of it" isn't an answer. Let's debate what's actually out there, not someone else's summary of it.

At the same time, the current situtation allows for ISPs to use the tiering features of their routing equipment as it was originally designed: To provide near real-time routing for time-sensitive traffic such as Voice Over IP.

They can do that now, and they can do that after Net Neutrality is passed. It seems that most of the complaints (on both sides) are about what they think could happen (but is illegal before and after, or legal before and after), not what is actually changed by it. About the only thing done now that *might* be illegal after would be restricting of P2P and servers housed in people's homes. My reading of the bill would make DNS filters and SMTP filters designed to stop DDOS and spam illegal. However, since these can affect performance for all and are not legal otherwise, those restrictions could probably remain, though a court would probably have to be consulted.

If you have a problem with the bill, please point me to the section you have an issue with. If you don't know the section you don't like, then you obviously don't know enough about it to object. The particular part I don't like is that many CLECs could be put out of business with Section 12 (d) of the draft bill. Oh, all right, here is one place you can take a look at a draft: http://dorgan.senate.gov/documents/newsroom/net_ne utrality.pdf (yes, it's a PDF) Now read it and tell me what in particular you think will bring the Internet to its knees, or shut up (and no, this isn't specifically aimed at the parent, but anyone out there talking about it without knowing what it is).

I feel comfortable with good ol' Vint on my side.

He's the other guy responsible for TCP/IP and, in my opinion, a bit more deserving of the title 'Father of the Internet' - although it really is more of a "founding fathers" situation.

In reference to your assertion of cranial-rectal immersion, the Republicants (spelling error mine) happened to have the power, and thus the ability to be ruthless with it, which they undeniably did. As for the Democrats, it's difficult to abuse power that you don't have. But now that the Democrats have the power, they are already moving to abuse it.

In other words, don't be a shill for a particular party. They both suck and neither cares about your rights.

Well this is a golden oldie... a book review that I wrote months ago. Thankfully (per my request) they deleted my election predictions that I closed the article with (I was only half-right, if you care).

This morning, the Senator from Maryland spent her entire seven minutes at the Judiciary Committee Hearing talking about the "Voting Rights Act" and recent election irregularities in Maryland.

And I see this is a subject she's talked about for some time now: Mikulski Says Voting Rights Act Needed Now More than Ever That's a press release from July 20, 2006.

The "Free Press" guys out in Ohio are of the opinion that the great Democratic landslide of 2006 would've been even larger without corrupt elections: Missing votes in Ohio call races into question, January 3, 2007

The only relation to the Senate is that the author of that BLOG entry is does PR work for the majority chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

The link location might be considered a "relation". In any case, the entry is unintentionally hilarious. My favorite quote is:

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research

True: climate research has been assisting the "alarmists". Hmmmm....

Come now editors you could at least check and make sure some things are spelled correctly, there are only 100 senators. Barbra Boxer is one of two female senators from California, both Democrats.

I think "crack" (of the $3 variety) is the operative term there.

Here's Barbara Baxter's website.

All isn't always as it seems. And if something seems too preposterous to be true, then it probably is. Before believing chicken little that the sky is falling, we should first look up and see for ourselves. So, to my mind, the weakest link in this chain of "the sky is falling, we are being censored" is the posting.

I would suggest that before any of us pile on to the discussion with knee-jerk agreement or disagreement, that we first do a little bit of cross-validation to see if the poster (and/or respondents) have given us enough information to respond intelligently. Most of us are saying perfectly reasonable things under one scenario or other. But here, there is only one scenario, the one that elicited the post. So let's restrict our comments only to what actually has happened and forget the rest. Let's break it down:

Here are the main claims:

1. Headline: Expert wants to decertify global warming skeptics
2. "Skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming" was specifically targeted for censorship.
3. A scientist in the senate is taking action to silence skeptics

Now let's dissect each claim:

1. Let's actually look at the post and read a bit:

   The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

   That sounds dire indeed, and if true IS inflamatory! So, what certification would they lose? If we click through to one more line to the original comments by Dr. Cullen that elicited the accusation of censorship, we will find a link to the AMS certifcation page.

   After reading from these two links, we learn from by Dr. Cullen on her blog that this is her opinion about certain meteorologists:

   If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

   Furthermore by looking reading the AMS link we learn that their certification is only a positive affirmation of their qualifications. There is no indication at all that lacking a "Seal of Approval" will legally interfere with the abilities of anyone (you or me, for example) from broadcasting the weather on any station who will have them (or us!). So, right out of the gate, the headline is disingenuous.

2. Does this amount to censorship?
   I see no evidence that lacking a seal of approval will effectively silence anyone. But that's beside the point. This was merely an opinion by Dr. Cullen as to what standards the AMA should have. Notably, Dr. Cullen is not the AMA. Again, this implication (noted prominently with the censored icon) is dubious at the very least. Who is being censored and how will they be censored? Reading the source links provides no evidence whatsoever to answer either question.
3. But this is serious! Isn't the senate taking action to censor debate?

   This implication is more than merely disingenuous. It is at best hastily posted and poorly considered and at worst an outright lie. But by now, we already know that. Since we read the original post, we know that this is merely the comments made on a blog on a senate.gov server

All isn't always as it seems. And if something seems too preposterous to be true, then it probably is. Before believing chicken little that the sky is falling, we should first look up and see for ourselves. So, to my mind, the weakest link in this chain of "the sky is falling, we are being censored" is the posting.

I would suggest that before any of us pile on to the discussion with knee-jerk agreement or disagreement, that we first do a little bit of cross-validation to see if the poster (and/or respondents) have given us enough information to respond intelligently. Most of us are saying perfectly reasonable things under one scenario or other. But here, there is only one scenario, the one that elicited the post. So let's restrict our comments only to what actually has happened and forget the rest. Let's break it down:

Here are the main claims:

1. Headline: Expert wants to decertify global warming skeptics
2. "Skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming" was specifically targeted for censorship.
3. A scientist in the senate is taking action to silence skeptics

Now let's dissect each claim:

1. Let's actually look at the post and read a bit:

   The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

   That sounds dire indeed, and if true IS inflamatory! So, what certification would they lose? If we click through to one more line to the original comments by Dr. Cullen that elicited the accusation of censorship, we will find a link to the AMS certifcation page.

   After reading from these two links, we learn from by Dr. Cullen on her blog that this is her opinion about certain meteorologists:

   If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

   Furthermore by looking reading the AMS link we learn that their certification is only a positive affirmation of their qualifications. There is no indication at all that lacking a "Seal of Approval" will legally interfere with the abilities of anyone (you or me, for example) from broadcasting the weather on any station who will have them (or us!). So, right out of the gate, the headline is disingenuous.

2. Does this amount to censorship?
   I see no evidence that lacking a seal of approval will effectively silence anyone. But that's beside the point. This was merely an opinion by Dr. Cullen as to what standards the AMA should have. Notably, Dr. Cullen is not the AMA. Again, this implication (noted prominently with the censored icon) is dubious at the very least. Who is being censored and how will they be censored? Reading the source links provides no evidence whatsoever to answer either question.
3. But this is serious! Isn't the senate taking action to censor debate?

   This implication is more than merely disingenuous. It is at best hastily posted and poorly considered and at worst an outright lie. But by now, we already know that. Since we read the original post, we know that this is merely the comments made on a blog on a senate.gov server

And Morano works for James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

It seems that somebody (opposed to the idea of a man-made impacy on climate) seems to have worked out how to evoke a popular (knee-jerk) response from Slashdot.

The secret is that ... most slashdotters simply don't read the article referred to, let alone the articles referred to by that article. They take the position that they can rely on whoever wrote the slashdot newsflash to do that for them. Instead they are happy to comment on the post and the previous comments (much more fun, and less work). So ... if you can insert any statement to excite slashdotters in your newsflash, you can pretty much lead them to endorse (or condemn) whatever orginal article you like.

So ... what is actually going on?

Q: Did those experts cited really propose to end scientific discussion by silencing those who oppose the idea of a man-made impact on global warning?

A: No! (see the original blog by Heidi Cullen at http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html )

Q: So if that wasn't the case, then where did the idea come from?

A: The idea came from a certain Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) who's blog was cited by slashdot. See the blog referenced by the slashdot newsflash at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23a d-440a-88824bb8e528)

Q: So if there was no question of the experts proposing to stifle discussion by de-certifying opponents then where does all the hoopla come from?

A :I think we are witnessing a rant by Marc Morano which received disproportionate attention by it's referral on slashdot. In case this referral was deliberate, we are witnessing a political mear campaign. Live and in colour

And Municipal Broadband seems unpopular with states.

There is faint hope for an opportunity in the Senate Communications Act of 2006 on page 184 of which I find:

''(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.--No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider.

There is no way the communications giants would let that pass.

And Municipal Broadband seems unpopular with states.

There is faint hope for an opportunity in the Senate Communications Act of 2006 on page 184 of which I find:

''(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.--No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider.

There is no way the communications giants would let that pass.

It's the way our Intellectual Property laws have been going for years and it will not get better any time soon ( See the perform act ). It's not only a crime to use someone else's IP without permission but it's also become a crime to enable others to do so - without regard as to whether or not it's your intent to do so either in the statements you make or the technologies you create. One thing that amazes me is that if someone walks into a Best Buy and swipes a CD it's considered petty theft (punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine) but if that same person downloads just one of those songs from the Internet it's considered piracy (punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine)

If you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.

It doesn't apply only to those with a government granted monopoly, broadcast license. The page you link to says: This bill would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters . To webcast does not require a license but as you can read this law applies to webcasters, "Internet broadcasters", as well. More confirmations follow:

• "1...This means that Internet, cable, and satellite will all be subject to the same rate standards;"
• "2. It requires that Internet, cable and satellite providers employ technology that will prevent downloading, manipulation and sorting of the music that they play to prevent individuals from creating their own personalized play-lists."
• " Background on the Feinstein-Graham PERFORM Act:"
  Creating Rate Parity - all cable, satellite, and internet companies should be subject to the same rates
  

Fact is is this proposed law would apply to media that doesn't require a license, unless you want to make webcasting requie a license.

If you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.

It doesn't apply only to those with a government granted monopoly, broadcast license. The page you link to says: This bill would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters . To webcast does not require a license but as you can read this law applies to webcasters, "Internet broadcasters", as well. More confirmations follow:

• "1...This means that Internet, cable, and satellite will all be subject to the same rate standards;"
• "2. It requires that Internet, cable and satellite providers employ technology that will prevent downloading, manipulation and sorting of the music that they play to prevent individuals from creating their own personalized play-lists."
• " Background on the Feinstein-Graham PERFORM Act:"
  Creating Rate Parity - all cable, satellite, and internet companies should be subject to the same rates
  

Fact is is this proposed law would apply to media that doesn't require a license, unless you want to make webcasting requie a license.

Acording to this document on Feinstien's website, at least home recording would be exempted under this awful bill. http://feinstein.senate.gov/07releases/r-perform01 11.htm

Mod parent up.

If you read what Feinstein herself says about the bill, it's clearly about commercial broadcasts-- the kind you need a government license for. If you broadcast other people's music under a government broadcast license, you have to apply DRM. If you make your own licensing arrangements with the copyright holders (i.e. yourself, perhaps), the bill doesn't apply.

Just because they're being funded by the oil companies doesn't mean they're not scientists.

Recently it has become difficult for scientists who don't support the AGW theory to get funding, and they've had to go elsewhere.

(see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 for one article to this effect).

People think of federal grant agencies as being unbiased but that's absolutely untrue. Even outside of political hot-button issues (e.g. my field, psychology) one has to write grants that toe the popular line a little bit. WITHIN such issues, such as global warming, the pressure to explore certain viewpoints at the expense of others must be immense.

So as far as I'm concerned, fair's fair. If the top down pressure from the grant agencies (which are not strongly under Bush's control, there are many intervening layers of bureacracy) is pushing one side, it's better to have the oil companies funding research which explores alternatives.

The climate is incredibly complicated and there is no way that scientists should have reached consensus on something as complicated as the anthropogenic cause of Global Warming. The fact that there is consensus is a glaring indication that the scientific process is not functioning properly on this issue. That is how science works best, by challenging ideas, not by agreeing with them.

Another interesting link
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=24 6768

There are several issues that make pornography on peer-to-peer networks more problematic than web or FTP-hosted pornography. You don't have to look for pornography on peer-to-peer networks; it will find you.

On SOVIET LIMEWIRE, PORN FINDS YOU!

From the testimony of Mr. Marc E. Kasowitz before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary:

One particularly effective illegal strategy involves the
following scenario: the short-selling hedge fund selects a
target company; the hedge fund then colludes with a so-called
independent stock analyst firm to prepare a false and negative
"research report" on the target; the analyst firm agrees not to
release the report to the public until the hedge fund
accumulates a significant short position in the target's stock;
once the hedge fund has accumulated that large short position,
the report is disseminated widely, causing the intended decline
in the price of the target company's stock. The report that is
disseminated contains no disclosure that the analyst was paid to
prepare the report, or that the hedge fund dictated its
contents, or that the hedge fund had a substantial short
position in the target's stock. Once the false and negative
research report -- misrepresented as "independent" -- has had
its intended effect, the hedge fund then closes its position and
makes an enormous profit, at the expense of the proper
functioning of the markets, harming innocent investors who were
unaware that the game was rigged, and damaging the target
company itself and its employees.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1972& wit_id=5486

Student exercise: Compare and contrast with the movement of AAPL stock shares before and after this report came out.

Yes, let's be sure to tell him what we think of that: http://mccain.senate.gov//contact/index.cfm?ID=64/

Yes, let's be sure to tell him what we think of that: http://mccain.senate.gov//contact/index.cfm?ID=64/

1. "fraudulent purpose"
2. "circumvent any security system"
3. "enter ... a secure area"

To see changes though, this would have to motivate the people. So far, the voters of the USA have chosen to leave things alone. Apparently, the TSA is doing just fine according to most Americans.

Further, I think the case can be made that Chris is innocent of the charges.

1. "fraudulent purpose": Chris has clearly stated his purpose. In particular, "3. Demonstrate that the TSA Boarding Pass/ID check is useless" does not represent fraudulent purpose. Senator Charles E. Schumer demonstrated the same thing and is likewise not guilty of any fraud. Their intents were clear, and they made no attempt to either create, use, or cause others to create or use a fake boarding pass.
2. "circumvent any security system": this is essentially the same claim. By publishing a program which automatically generates "valid" boarding passes, both Charles and Chris have acted to preserve security by publishing the method of operation of the system. Not only is this protected by the First Amendment, it is not circumvention unless action is taken to attack the actual systems in operation. Neither Chris nor Charles have entered secure areas without authorization. They have not caused others to do so. They are only guilty of revealing the method in use.
   
   If a system fails to control access when its encryption becomes public knowledge, it is not a secure system, in the same way that DRM can never stop piracy. This is immaterial to the case, however, since Chris only provided a web page to generate encrypted data, and did not reveal the key.
3. "enter ... a secure area": if the TSA has evidence that anyone has successfully entered their secured areas, I propose they present it in the court case. As a corollary, Steve Ballmer has said that linux users have "an undisclosed balance sheet liability," and he is likewise welcome to provide evidence of that liability. Innocent until proven guilty. However, in Chris's case, he has stated that he did not even print a boarding pass, much less get through security at an airport. What if there is a bug in his code and the pass does not actually work? He won't know. That wasn't his purpose.

This is analogous to the scientist that invents some "cure", skips FDA approval, injects himself, and it ends up harming himself and others.

I can see your point. However, what Chris has done is akin to publishing a Star Trek replicator's database entry for borg implants. He knows they are dangerous. He also knows that others (like Senator Schumer) have previously published the same information. If someone chooses to load the database entry into their replicator (they would have to intenti

In this case, he would have been better off just telling people it could be done IMO.

CSO Online told people about it in February 2006. Slate told people about it in February 2005. Senator Schumer told people about it in February 2005. Security expert Bruce Schneier told people about it in August 2003.

We're more than a little beyond "telling people" being productive.

Worse, apparently a proof of concept isn't enough. The TSA is busy trying to presecute the messenger, but they still haven't fixed the core problem. I'd sadly forced to conclude that the TSA will not fix a real threat to airline security until terrorists successfully exploit that threat. While honest people are stuck measuring their shampoo out of fear of a deeply implausible liquid-bomb threat, anyone with access to a printer and a reasonably plausible state ID can get into the "sterile" area of the airport. (I find it darkly humorous that the boarding pass vulnerability makes the cost of getting 30 ounces of liquid explosives onto a plane just 10 fake boarding passes for almost no cost and 10 evil conspirators.)

He crossed the line from researcher to (potentially) criminal when he published a tool on the web that had no other purpose than to make it possible for others to circumvent security.

The purpose was to shame the TAA into fixing a problem which was widely known and publicized: August 2003 by security expert Bruce Schneier, February 2005 in Slate , February 2005 press release by a US Senator, February 2006 article in CSO Online . The TSA has been ignoring the problem for over three years. Bad guys have known about the attack for at least three years, possibly longer. For all we know bad guys are using it right now; we have no way of knowing. Even without Soghoian's program, it was really, really trivial to exploit; all you need is a very basic understanding of HTML, enough to change one name to another, to execute the attack Schneier described in 2003. The media has been letting the TSA continue to ignore this. If Soghoian had simply published a "I can make fake boarding passes and get into the "sterile" area of an airport he would have gotten an article or two and nothing would have changed. By providing a working exploit things just became that much harder for the TSA. News coverage exploded. Finally something will happen.

The TSA has proven itself grossly incompetant. There is little to no oversight and zero public accountability. Drastic measures were necessary, as rational measures have clearly failed. The really sad thing is even in the face of such a drastic failure, they're not fixing the core problem.

The 2nd Amendment is the GUARANTOR of all the other rights.

And the Democrats don't actually do anything about it. It's an invented wedge issue. Some Democrats want to limit access to certain guns in certain places. The party as a whole doesn't do anything about them, and almost no such legislation actually gets passed.

You might also note that the Democrats seem to be just fine selling us out to big businesses, and taxing us to death.

And they last taxed us to death...when, exactly? When did these horribly crippling taxes happen?

One thing for sure, they'll happen in the future, and probably under Democratic control. It won't be the Democrat's fault, though, it will be to pay off the drunk-sailor-in-a-whorehouse Republicans debts.

As far as 2), I know of zero candidates who have even MENTIONED advocacy of modern, equitable, accurate voting mechanisms. That's because the Republicans and Democrats aren't interested in reflecting their constituency, they're interested in maintaining their duopoly.

Well, that's an interesting theory you have there. That was in 2004, BTW. The Republicans ignored it. (Despite some of them cosponsoring it!) In 2007, thanks to the Democratic majority, she's taking over the 'Senate Rules and Administration Committee', which, of course, is in charge of rule making for elections. So, to recap: An important Democrat has been yelling about electronic voting machines for at least two years, with the support of, at least, Harry Reid, and now that the Democrats are in power she's immediately being appointed to, you know, run the elections, and the Democrats are vowing to hold hearings on it. Yeah, damn, it's like the Democrats don't care about voting machines at all.

Of course, you don't 'know' this because the media doesn't think it's even vaguely important to present Democratic ideas, and you're bought the lie that both parties are the same. We'll see how much you're paying attention over the next years as the Democrats actually attempt to solve problems, instead of shoveling money as fast as possible to their friends and pulling stunts to pander to the religious right.

I'd have to agree that it may be premature to judge the issue closed. Clearly, the scientific debate has only ended for some people. For others http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/alle gre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 (see http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 for the English translation), and http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s tory.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 it hasn't.

Of course, pointing out that evidence either for or against catastrophic, human-induced warming is not as conclusive as many would have us believe is not at all a popular position, and tends to draw heated and irrational responses such as ad-hominem attacks. Which, as most fans of intelligent, rational debate will recognize, usually serve as evidence of a weak argument.

As a side issue (and I mean this sincerely, and not as a troll), can anyone explain how climate models can predict global temperatures to within a degree or two years from now, but manifestly can't accurately predict tomorrow's temperature?