I'm Getting There, Too!

From Talkingpointsmemo. A reader is running out of patience:

Let's put the blame for this lack of action and acomplishment squarely where it belongs: Obama. He has noble intentions of "changing the tone" in Washington, but sometimes high-mindedness is simply naiveté. Enough with the Gandhi-esque s--t - it's time to pass some bills that will make a positive impact in the lives of millions of Americans.

Especially since the loyal oppositions idea of "compromise" is best described by another TPM reader:

It's been apparent for months that Republicans are unwilling to compromise on legislative initiatives, unless by compromise you mean that they will allow Democrats to agree with their proposals.

"Changing the tone" is all well and good, but the GOP never got that memo. They're still playing by their rules.

The Dems have huge majorities in the House and in the Senate. They have the White House.

WHY CAN'T THEY ACT LIKE IT?

Playing nice is not an option with the birther/tenther/teabag/patriot party.

Jack Kelly Sunday

I'm cracking my knuckles in anticipation of this week's Jack Kelly. Our friend Jack, a columnist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has written a column titled:

Globull warming

Get it? GloBULL Warming. "Bull" as in "bullshit."

Needless to say, we all know from which direction the BS is oozing.

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?

Eve Ensler, writer of the "Vagina Monologues," snickered with Joy Behar on Ms. Behar's talk show Monday about how stupid Sarah Palin is for not regarding earthquakes and tsunamis as proof of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

"I just think the idea that she doesn't believe in global warming is bizarre,"said Ms. Ensler, who was on the show to promote her new book.

"Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn't believe in it," Ms. Behar said.

"We just have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis," Ms. Ensler said.

"Right," agreed Ms. Behar.

Actually, if you watch the clip you'll see that while Ensler does misstep in mentioning earthquakes and tsunamis, she and Behar are not criticizing Palin because she doesn't think global warming causes earthquakes and tsunamis (which they obviously don't), they're criticizing her because she believes in creationism but not global warming. But of course such context is lost on those with different point to make.

Oh, and Jack needs to actually listen to the clip before pasting the transcript from Newsbusters. Behar says "Every scientist of any note..." not "Every scientist at every note..."

Sorry to say this yet again, but this is something his editors at the P-G should have caught. I would think that a newspaper columnist, if he or she is going to quote someone, should probably try to get the words right. Especially if it's on tape.

Take a look and give a listen if you don't trust me.

At this point, I should note that neither Behar or Ensler are climatologists.

Jack then moves onto another climatologist non-climatologist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr:

Recent events have tested the faith of true believers in AGW. In September 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an op-ed lamenting that, thanks to global warming, it would snow no more in Washington, D.C. The blizzard of 2010, which dumped record snow on the nation's capital, must have come as a shock.

It should come as no shock to the readers of this blog that Jack Kelly misquoted Bobby's son.

Take a look at the column. This is all Kennedy said about the weather in DC:

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

He talks of the current "anemic winters" comparing them to the winters he remembers. No where in the oped does he write anything resembling "no more snow for DC." Something else, I am sorry to say, that his editors should have caught.

Next he does a flim (or is that a flam?):

Europe is experiencing its coldest winter in decades. During its winter (our summer), Australia experienced record cold.

Journalists have hastened to remind us that weather is not climate.

Actually it's scientists who remind us that weather is not climate not journalists. By putting the experts' words into inexpert mouths, Jack is hoping to invalidate the reminder. They're only journalists, you know. If he were to have written that climatologists remind us that weather does not equal climate then his previous paragraph would have been rendered moot.

Which brings me to the biggest problem with Jack's column. He touches on polar bears, malaria and Minnesota's moose population. No where does he actually tackle the science of global warming itself, just its effects.

The science, as I told the lovely and talented Heather Heidelbaugh on OffQ a few weeks ago, is solid. The stolen emails in East Anglia do nothing to undermine the science.

The temps are up, that's a fact.

It'll have an effect on the world for decades to come.

Do I need to point out (yet again) that The Pentagon agrees?

The Trib Times TWO

Two, two, two rants in one!

That's what we have today, my friends. Two separate yet equal wingnut climate rants on the editorial pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Both equally wingnutty. Both equally wrong.

Rant the first (from Bob Pellegrino):

To further confound the public's perception of climate-change "science," President Obama wants to create a new ministry of information.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Service, expected to bow by year's end, would provide "one-stop shopping into the world of climate information," says NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco. "Climate change is real, it's happening now."

Just don't pay any attention to the large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary.

Note the nod to George Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Orwell used pre-war Britain's "Ministry of Information" (the organization that ran that country's censorship duties) as the model for Oceania's propaganda ministry. As Orwell's "Minitrue" rewrote history to conform to the current political agenda, it's not surprising that Scaife's braintrust would use that particular literary reference to smear the newly formed NOAA Climate Services.

But it's that third paragraph that's an out and out lie. You'll notice that nowhere does Pellegrino reference any "peer-reviewed scientific evidence" that counters Lubchenco's statement that "Climate change is real, it's happening now."

That's because there isn't any. At least none that can be relied upon.

How do I know?

Historian of Science Naomi Orestes published a study that looked into all the peer-reviewed papers published between 1993 and 2003 found in the ISI Database by using the keyword search "Climate change":

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The consensus position being (roughly) that "Climate change is real, it's happening now." So where is this "large body" of scientific evidence? Is it found in the peer-reviewed journals from 2004?

Well yes, and of course, no. There's a "counter" study from 2007 that purports to show 32 papers (just 6% of the total number of 528) reject "outright" the scientific consensus. Though Schulte's paper is not all that it seems - sloppy, plagarized and, in general, discredited (He reportedly sites non-peer reviewed material, reviews, and counts papers that accept climate science as among those rejecting it.)

So where, again, is this "large body" of evidence? And why hasn't it swayed the:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society

Have they all been duped, too? Or maybe (and these words must only be spoken in hushed tones) they're the dupers. Yea, yea, that's the ticket! It's a vast criminal conspiracy to impose socialism on our children by way of faked temperature data.

Makes complete sense.

Rant the second, from Alan Wallace, takes such a curious religious tone that requires it to be fully quoted:

The Obama administration is about to erase whatever infinitesimal separation still exists between the anti-mankind, anti-growth Church of Climatology and the state.

Already established is climate.gov, a new central Web portal for government climate data -- eco-wackos' holy writ. Next up: a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service office, which NOAA officials say won't adjudicate controversies over that data.

They thereby certify the "inerrancy" of that "sacred" canon -- which of course excludes the Climategate e-mails and the blunders of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Required approvals from congressional appropriations committees amount to an "Amen." Pontificating on Democrat-controlled Capitol Hill's piety is Archbishop of Cap and Trade Edward Markey, the House Democrat of Massachusetts who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:

"This service will be a vital part of our growing body of knowledge on climate change, and will be held to the highest standards of scientific integrity and transparency."

Roll your eyes at that -- as you should -- and you're a heretic. This faith-based initiative, which disdains reason, might as well be an Inquisition.

Um, tiny point here, but Wallace gets his chronology wrong. Climate.gov already is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service.

And who says?

NOAA itself.

If Wallace either can't get such a simple factoid right (or, giving him benefit of the doubt) isn't clear in writing about it, then why should we trust anything else in the editorial? Do I need to point out that Climate.gov probably won't "adjudicate" the "controversies" because (let's all take a deep breath here) there is no controversy.

Of course he presents "climategate" to us conveniently omitting Fact-check.org's debunking:

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded.

And so on.

Other than that, the editorial is profoundly fact-free.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I want my M(cIntire)TV!

Check out "THE JOHN MCINTIRE SHOW" on Comcast On-Demand:

Go to On Demand.
Click Your Town Get Local.
Click Entertainment.
Click McIntire Show.

Any time, day or night!
.

Public Comment Period on Marcellus Waste Treatment Ends TODAY

From Joy:

Reminder: Public Comment Period on Marcellus Waste Treatment Ends February 12th (deadline extended from 2/5). Email your comments to: RegComments@state.pa.us Subject line should read "Chapter 95 Wastewater Treatment Requirements" Include your name and address. There's still time! It's YOUR water!

I'm adding a repost with some background on the issue and some potential talking points. For the Sierra Club's take, http://alleghenysc.org/?p=1513

The EPA is considering changing the code to more explicitly control "dissolved solids" (read: toxic salts from untreated Marcellus Shale gas extraction water) in our rivers and groundwater. We predict there will also be pressure on them to actually weaken the rules instead, so this is not something that should happen on autopilot. For the official text, go here.

You can make public comment by e-mail, but you must follow the right format in the subject line. "Electronic Comments—Comments may be submitted electronically to the Board at RegComments@state.pa.us and must also be received by the Board by February 5, 2010. A subject heading of the proposal and a return name and address must be included in each transmission. If an acknowledgement of electronic comments is not received by the sender within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to ensure receipt."

Talking Points:

Safe drinking water. (I feel mine's already starting to taste funny, and there is already untreated frac water entering the water supply upstream from us. If I can taste the sufates, that suggests the heavy metals are there too).

Do It Now. (No more drilling permits until the protections are in place).

Include the major components that frac water adds or leaches from the soil (heavy metals & arsenic, salts such as chlorides and sulfates and bromides and magnesium, organics such as benzene, and radium in any form).

And above all, No weakening of Total Dissolved Solids discharge standards! (The allowed levels are already high in the Mon, Yough, Conemaugh, and the West Branch of the Susuquehanna, impacting the water quality.)

Complain about shifting the costs to consumers and taxpayers by having to purify a much larger quantity of drinking water, instead of cleaning the frac water at its source.

Finally, ask that the fracwater be recorded and tracked as it comes out of the ground and is sent off for treatment, to prevent illegal dumping or "watering" of the surroundings. I personally would also like to also see a comparison of what goes in vs. what goes out, to know how much is seeping into our groundwater.

Before you hit "send," make sure you include your name and address, and check your subject line to make sure it says something like "Comment on proposal to amend 25 Pa. Code Chapter 95 (relating to Wastewater Treatment Requirements)."

ABC News Notes Ravenstahl's Snow FAIL

From ABC News in an article about mayors and snow removal:

Another East Coast city mayor who is being bombarded with criticism is Pittsburgh's Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who was out of town celebrating his 30th birthday at a mountain resort when a record snow storm hit the city over the weekend. He took even more heat when the street in front of his and his brother's house was salted and cleared while the rest of the city remained buried underneath snow.

On being out of town, Ravenstahl said, "No one could have anticipated this."

He said his street needed to be cleaned because he has to be out and about.

OK, so Pittsburgh is not exactly "East Coast" but someone at ABC News was nice enough to send me an email noting that they had read this post on Lil Mayor Luke's history with snow removal and that they enjoyed following our perspective on politics.

So, I guess that makes the whole blizzard thingy worth it. ;-)
.

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday (2010 Edition)

For your listening pleasure.

A Lincoln Portrait by Aaron Copland

Part 1:

Part II:

This is what Abraham Lincoln said:

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Happy Lincoln's Birthday everyone.

Note: I know I posted this only a few months ago but it's such a great piece that I had to repost. And for you trumpet geeks in the audience, I am pretty sure that's Gerard Schwartz on lead trumpet.

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday

Happy Lincoln's Birthday everybody!

Go read last year's post on this.

Later Today

Also via Twitter:


.

Today

Via Twitter:


.

A Few Notes For My Climate-Skeptical Friends

From Time:

Brace yourselves now — this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

And here's what Masters' blog has to say:

Heavy snow events--a contradiction to global warming theory?

Global warming skeptics regularly have a field day whenever a record snow storm pounds the U.S., claiming that such events are inconsistent with a globe that is warming. If the globe is warming, there should, on average, be fewer days when it snows, and thus fewer snow storms. However, it is possible that if climate change is simultaneously causing an increase in ratio of snowstorms with very heavy snow to storms with ordinary amounts of snow, we could actually see an increase in very heavy snowstorms in some portions of the world. There is evidence that this is happening for winter storms in the Northeast U.S.--the mighty Nor'easters like the "Snowmageddon" storm of February 5-6 and "Snowpocalypse" of December 19, 2009. Let's take a look at the evidence. There are two requirements for a record snow storm:

1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, "The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity."

Hmm. Warmer temps lead to more moisture in the air which intensifies the severity of storms leading to more rain and greater snow. Interesting.

Not that, you know, science will sway the skeptics. Witness the "science" taking place over there at the Washington Times:

Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.

Simple. To the point. And completely wrong.

So why is this such a big issue? Here's why:

We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States will be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change, and may even see a benefit owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests. We assess that climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge that economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to
richer countries.

So who said that? Which left-leaning tree-hugging "let's ruin Amurika's economy" group had the audacity to say that?

It's from Dr Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council in testimony before Congress June of 2008.

Tell me who was President then?

Mayor Ravenstahl: A History of Snow Removal Problems

(Video here)
While I made light of Ravenstahl's snow removal problems here, that post did show that this was not the Mayor's first failure to provide basic city services so I decided to delve a little deeper.

February 2007:
Ravenstahl "asks people to stay home today, tonight." "Crews have been out all day, but Mr. Ravenstahl acknowledged that many city streets are slippery and snow-covered."

February 2008:
- "2/13/08:

Complaints surface of political plowing."

- 2/15/08, Mayor promises changes in snow removal priorities

"Reliance on RouteSmart, a computerized system that can route snow plows to neglected areas, a move Public Works Director Guy Costa foreshadowed in January. An executive order to end the practice among some plow truck drivers of delaying work on primary roads in favor of clearing the streets of elected city officials and Democratic committee members."

- 2/16/08, Mayor declares war on snow, Ravenstahl makes changes, vows 'we will do better'

"With the city fielding more than 1,000 calls about unplowed streets this week, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl intends to pull out all the stops -- and a few more snow plows as well -- to make sure it doesn't happen again."

November 2009:
Mayor/Administration brags to New York Times: "By most measures he has been fairly successful as mayor. He cut the city’s work force by 2 percent, streamlined snow removal..." [Emphasis added]

December 2009:
"Into Sunday morning, even major thoroughfares were snow-covered and residents said other roads remained impassible. [snip] Some neighborhoods registered few complaints with the lion's share of the criticism coming from Squirrel Hill, Shadyside and Greenfield in the East End and Brookline and Beechview in the South Hills. Those complaints come after Mayor Ravenstahl declared war on snow and called for the implementation of a route system to make snow removal more efficient."

February 2010
- 2/5/2010

Mayor leaves town despite a Winter Storm Warning issued, headline stating "Pittsburgh region preparing for the arrival of its largest snowfall in seven years," and KDKA predicting up to 12 inches all by early that morning.

- 2/5/2010 - 2/6/2010

City receives 15 to 23 inches of snow.

- 2/8/2010

'Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said this afternoon that city crews are scrambling to clear snow from all secondary streets today, knowing that a forecast of 6 to 10 inches of new snow expected tomorrow will force them to return to primary roads. The goal for secondary streets is "to at least get them treated in some way before the additional snow starts to fall tomorrow," Mr. Ravenstahl said by phone. "I want to make sure that those roads that haven't been touched are dealt with. "The thought process and rationale is to attempt to get at least the top layer of snow off of all streets" before snow starts again.'

- 2/9/2010

"Mayor Luke Ravenstahl defended the city's snow removal while admitting the city hasn't had enough resources to do a total job. Ravenstahl said during the early stages of the storm Friday night, public works employees, in many cases, had to respond to some public safety issues. The mayor issued a call for outside contractors and private individuals to contact the city by...if they can help in snow plowing and removal. The city already is getting assistance in the form of manpower and vehicles from both the Pa. National Guard and PennDOT."

- 2/10/2010

'Mr. Ravenstahl said that while the city would evaluate its performance and the effectiveness of its routing system, the week's problems were to some degree rooted in numbers: 30 inches, five days, and only so many dollars. "Our fleet is not adequate for the storm that we had this time, with 20 inches of snow," and a follow-up storm of perhaps another 10 inches. "We could very easily purchase more equipment, but of course we have to balance that with our budgetary constraints." Mr. Ravenstahl said a big problem over the weekend was the diversion of salt trucks from routes to assist stuck police cars, fire trucks and ambulances.'

Numerous Pittsburgh streets remain untouched by plow or salt...
.

Colbert Speaks

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Notice Something?

Ok. Found this by way of crooksandliars. It links to this page at Houston Press. The text reads:

The much awaited Perry-Palin rally (with extra special guest Ted Nugent) visited the Rick Berry Center in Cypress on Sunday afternoon, but made sure to wrap things up before the Big Game. Football trumps politics in Texas, of course, even if Sarah Palin comes to town.

And here's what's what:

Texas, Palin, Perry, Homeschooling and The Nuge.

Some days, it's just too easy.

Councilwoman Rudiak to lead task force on City's performance during snow emergency

Via Councilor Rudiak's office:

(Pittsburgh) – Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak today was named to lead a task force convened by Council President Darlene Harris to look into the City's performance during the current snow emergency. The task force will be tasked with investigating, reporting key findings, and making recommendations on how the City can better administer its emergency operation systems in the future, with a specific eye toward snow emergencies.

“Four days after the storm there are still thousands of people across our City who are snowed in,” said Rudiak. “People are angry that it is taking so long to get power restored and streets cleared, and there needs to be accountability.”

The task force will initially convene later this week to begin its review. Until then, City Council will focus on helping the Mayor’s Emergency Operation Center with constituent calls. Once the snow emergency is over, the task force will begin a full review.

“We want to make sure we can dig out of this storm before we start getting too academic. We are in an emergency and we need to be focused on that right now,” Rudiak said.

.

The answer is NO

Real Billboard
.

General Luke Ravenstahl Announces "I have returned" to the War On Snow

Luke Ravenstahl promises to not just fade away.
Two years ago (almost to the day) General Luke Ravenstahl, after suffering heavy losses to the elements, vowed "to pull out all the stops -- and a few more snow plows as well -- to make sure it doesn't happen again." On that day in 2008, he famously declared a "War On Snow."

Last night, General Ravenstahl announced "I have returned" to a snow weary City of Pittsburgh.

Ravenstahl was bogged down in Laurel Highlands when the City was blitzed by the surprise attack (the neighborhoods of Beltzhoover, South Side, and Beechview being the hardest hit).

General Ravenstahl has now brought in reinforcements from the National Guard and has called upon the citizenry to join in the battle to ensure our right to once again move freely throughout our fair City.

Ravenstahl also swore a solemn oath to take on undesirable elements in City Council once order has been restored saying, "I am concerned for the security of our great City; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within."

God Bless and Godspeed, General Ravenstahl!

A grateful City salutes you.
.

Krugman

Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.

And by that he means the right side of the Senate.

RIP John Murtha

John "Jack" Murtha, 1932 - 2010
Rep. John "Jack" Murtha, PA's longest serving Member of Congress passed away today. There are numerous online obituaries for Murtha, but I like this from Think Progress best:

During the Bush administration, Murtha became a forceful, outspoken voice for Iraq redeployment. In November 2005, the former Marine and Iraq war hawk came out and called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal in Iraq. His stance was a turning point in the war debate, clearing the way for more Democrats to speak up. “The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home,” he declared.

Of course, there's already speculation as to who will be elected to serve out his term.
.

Cyclops Snowman Stalks South Side

Or in this case, Kyklops snowman:


South Side streets still snowed-in...
..

The Trib And The IPCC

Selective Sourcing by Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust.

Something we've come to expect.

Take a look. This is from today's editorial page at the Tribune-Review:

When an engine blows blue smoke, it's best to look under the hood. After the IPCC's melting-glaciers claim backfired, deeper investigation by inquiring minds raised more questions.

Among them, the 2007 IPCC assertion that climate change threatens up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest. The Sunday Telegraph of London reports the reference isn't tied to peer-reviewed science but to a report by an environmental advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund, which focused on the detriments from logging. Proponents insist the climate claim is sound.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, under pressure to resign, calls growing skepticism "totally unfounded." If so, then open all the IPCC's findings to an independent peer review -- and stop blowing smoke.

So...

Let's go take a look at that Telegraph article. And here's where we find the selective sourcing from the braintrust. Here's what they left out:

Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.

Not surprising that our friends on Mellon's payroll would conveniently omit that part.

Again, the science is strong enough for the Pentagon (but not, or so it seems, strong enough for the Trib braintrust).

I do love, however, the irony of the Trib criticizing anyone for the use of advocacy research. How often does the Trib rely on the "research" from the Scaife-supported The Heritage Foundation? The Allegheny Institute?

Yea, I thought so.

A Revisit of Sorts

An astute reader mailed this in yesterday:

Between you and me, you’re way off base with your post “A Tale Of Two Papers.”

You must not have read the rest of Mike’s story. It includes an interview that offsets what the Climate Depot guy said. It chalks his words up to nothing more than “character assignation" that seeks to attack the person, not the issue. A very strong point, indeed. That wasn't part of your post. The story is very thorough and quotes Mann quite a bit, along with a Penn State spokeswoman. That's more than I can say for other media sources.

In case you missed it, this is the blogpost my astute reader critiqued.

Perhaps my astute reader is correct about my blog post. However after rereading my post and Cronin's story, I am standing by my piece.

My main point was that Cronin was spinning the story by skimming over the three allegations (including the one that was actually about whether Mann falsified data - he didn't) and quickly jumping onto the one allegation left unresolved. It's the context of the story that makes its spin obvious - it's found on the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a paper let's remember that's no fan of climate science. Were Cronin to point out too stridently that the report found no evidence that Mann falsified data, then the Trib's narrative that "Climategate" undermines climate science would itself be undermined.

After reading Cronin's piece it still seems obvious to me that he spun the story in favor of his paper's bias against climate science.

My astute reader's argument about the skeptic and the interview that "offsets" the skeptic's charge is little more than a he said/he said situation. Is it true that Mann is a "statistical charlatan" as the skeptic asserts? It's not enough to just quote someone to disagree with him. In fact since the report from Penn State declares that there's no credible evidence that Mann falsified data, we can safely assume that he's not a charlatan.

So why include the skeptic's ad hominem attack at all unless Cronin was looking to toss some red meat to the other climate skeptics to be found among the Trib's readership?

As evidence, let's take a look at one of today's editorials:

The inconvenient truth about Penn State University's decision to further investigate only one of four "formal allegations" against Church of Climatology high priest Michael Mann -- one pertaining to the style, not the substance, of his "research" -- is that it's a self-protective blue-and-whitewash.

Professor Mann, a key figure in the Climategate e-mails scandal, created the discredited "hockey stick" temperature graph. The pass Penn State is giving him on allegations of suppressing or falsifying data, deleting or concealing e-mails and misusing privileged or confidential information is the result of "expert" academic parsing that reduced those e-mails' damning evidence to meaningless mush.

Here's how the report gives Mann a pass on the first allegation:

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

But since the Trib's braintrust already knows the truth, no amount of evidence will convince them that the report is anything but a whitewash. Simple, really. No need to think.

And do we really need to go back to the "hockey stick" thing? Do I really need to point out that the National Research Council concluded that:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

There's less confidence the farther back you go, but to assert the hockey stick's "discredited" is just false.

But again this is the Trib. No amount of factual data will convince them. They know the truth. Anything that diverges from the truth is part of the conspiracy.

Funny thing - since The Pentagon seems to accept the reality of climate change here, how long must we wait before Richard Mellon Scaife's brain trust denounces the US Military for spreading socialism?

Snowpocalypse: Photos From Scott Township, PA

Uh-oh! Looks like action is needed:


Shoveling a path:


Someone decides to make a tunnel...


She's actually trying to *eat* her way through:


A well deserved break:


BONUS MD PHOTO:
From Silver Spring, Maryland early this morning.

My sister's car is -- fortunately -- on the right:

Rebuttal To Tim Tebow's Anti Choice Ad

.

Kill Phil

Forget Kill Bill. It's time for Quentin Tarantino to make Kill Phil:


.

Snowpocalypse: Photos from Pittsburgh's South Side

(Notice the woman in the upper left window.)




.

Lotsa Snow Today

In case you hadn't heard.

Senate Hostage Drama

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Democracy
One Senator -- Richard Shelby (R-AL) -- has blocked all of Obama's nominations because he wants pork earmarks for his state. From Talking Points Memo:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

"While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal."

On top of that, one of the earmarks he is fighting for is slated to go to the foreign company Airbus (the contract would go to Boeing if Shelby doesn't get his way).

And, if that wasn't enough, he's defending shutting down the Senate by saying...wait for it...he's fighting the terrorists!

Our government is well and truly broken.
.

Scaredy Cats

Just a reminder that Republicans have a history of using scary animals to try to frighten you into voting for them:


.

Snowpocalypse Now Edition (Updated 2x)

Downtown Pittsburgh
Predictions by the local TV stations for Snowpocalypse 2010! are all over the map (no pun intended):

WPXI: 3 - 6 inches

WTAE: 4 - 7 inches

KDKA: 8 - 12 inches

No idea how much the storm may effect DemFest 2010 -- this year's State Democratic Party meeting -- which is scheduled for today and tomorrow in Lancaster, PA.

But if you're in the mood to both battle the elements and battle the elements lobby on behalf of Single Payer, here's the info you need:

WHERE: Lancaster Host and Resort.
2300 Lincoln Hwy E
Lancaster, PA 17602-1114

WHEN: February 5, 2010, 12:00pm - February 6, 2010, 3:00pm

To Lobby for Single Payer: Go to Lancaster County Democratic Committee’s table. Logistics meeting in the restaurant near the lobby bar Friday evening. Or look for folks with “HealthCare4ALLPA” buttons as well as “Support the Single-Payer Resolution” buttons. Or contact Jerry Policoff @ 717-682-4434.

www.progressives4pennsylvania.com

www.healthcare4ALLPA.org

UPDATE: From my sister who lives in Maryland and works in DC:

The local schools didn't even bother to open this morning. The Arlington County government is warning residents to get ready to "shelter in place" for up to 5 days. Metro has already announced that they'll be closing the above-ground stations tonight or tomorrow...

Not a snowflake to be seen yet!

UPDATE 2:. Official weather report here.

A Tale Of Two Papers

Do you remember Michael E Mann? He's the scientist up at Penn State whose emails were among those in the so-called "Climategate scandal."

Climategate was supposed to show how the world's scientists falsified data, suppressed dissenting views, and covered their tracks by deleting their emails. It all pointed (so the skeptics said) to the unmistakable conclusion that Global Warming is a fraud.

Except they didn't and it's not.

But that's beside the point of this blog post. The point of this blog post is a rather glaring example of how a newspaper's politics sometimes perhaps uh "guides" its reporting.

It should not be a shock to readers of this blog to learn that the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is no fan of climate science (ie global warming). And I am sure Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust will be denouncing the Pentagon as a nest of socialists now that climate change has been accepted as reality by the US Military.

In this case, it's Mike Cronin (and not the editorial board) who's at fault. The outcry for Mann's head after "Climategate" was such that calls were made for investigations into Mann's conduct. The P-G's Susan Manella summarizes:

An academic committee at Penn State looked into Dr. Mann's e-mails for evidence of wrongdoing. Although no formal allegations were filed, the committee synthesized general concerns into four general allegations. In its report Wednesday, it vindicated Dr. Mann on three of them and left one to be further investigated.

So what happens in the coverage? Here's how the P-G's David Templeton reported it:

A Penn State University Inquiry Committee has cleared a noted climatologist of three charges of ethical and research misconduct in connection with hacked e-mails from a British university that cast doubt about his global warming research.

In its report Wednesday, the committee said Michael E. Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, neither falsified nor suppressed research data; did not attempt to delete, conceal or destroy e-mails, information or data; and didn't misuse privileged or confidential information available to him.

But the committee will convene a panel of "faculty peers" to determine whether the purloined e-mails he wrote to colleagues deviated from accepted academic practices and "undermined confidence in Dr. Mann's research and climate science specifically."

And here's Mike Cronin of the Trib:

Fearing erosion of public confidence in research climate-change scientist Michael Mann conducted, Penn State University officials said Wednesday they will formally investigate the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

School officials dismissed three allegations against Mann that questioned whether he suppressed or falsified data, deleted or concealed e-mails, or misused privileged or confidential information.

But three authors of a Penn State internal inquiry could not "make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence" that Mann deviated from accepted research practices, said a report they published yesterday.

Here's the report, by the way, if you want to read it for yourself. Manella again:

Did [Mann] engage in any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? There's no credible evidence. Did he try to delete or conceal e-mails? Again, no credible evidence. Did he engage in any misuse of privileged or confidential information? No credible evidence.

So of course Cronin focused on the fourth allegation - it's left open for further discussion. The report itself says:

In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.

Nothing to do with the science, of course. I guess it was necessary to gloss over the "no credible evidence he falsified data" part in order for Cronin to quote, at length, a climate skeptic:

"There has been more than a whiff of corruption that has followed Mann for years," said Marc Morano, executive editor of Climate Depot, a Web site published in Washington skeptical of global warming. "The fact that even his own university could not clear his name does not bode well for Mann."

Morano said "Mann represents everything that is corrupt and unethical in climate science today. He is one of the prime reasons that the global warming movement lay in tatters. Mann will go down in scientific history as a statistical charlatan."

No point in letting the truth get in the way of a good smear, huh?

Like Clockwork...

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wastes 2 (TWO) of its "Thursday Takes" on the "fraud" that is global warming:

The scandal grows: The same British scientist alleged to have suppressed evidence contrary to the theocracy of global warming now is being accused of fudging data from Chinese climate stations. The Guardian of London says Phil Jones "sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based." The newspaper says some of the data can't even be produced. How many more shoes will drop before the world wakes up to the global warming fraud?

A movement dies: Writing in The American Interest, Walter Russell Mead pronounces the "global warming movement as we have known it is dead." The cause of death? "Bad science and bad politics," says Mr. Mead. "(I)t turns out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all." So, shouldn't a lot of people be prosecuted?

But, as I wrote a few days ago, if it's such a hoax then why is the Pentagon releasing reports that include things like this:

Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.

Note that they used the word "will" there. Not "may" or "possibly if the science turns out to be true" but "will." Climage change will effect the Department of Defense. That's what the Pentagon wrote.

But, as always when dealing with the Trib editorial board (or any other folks infected with teh crazie) when you look at the details you find how much they are spinning.

Let's take a look at that Guardian article. Here it is. Now if you were to actually take a look at the article (and not just skim it for the words you want to read - like the braintrust obviously did) you 'll see that the article is about the data supporting a paper from 1990. Oh, and the Guardian says, about that paper:

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings.

But, wasn't the brain trust using the revelations for exactly that?

Why, yes. Yes, they were.

They're assuming no one will check their "work" and see how badly they're spinning.

Then there's the Walter Russell Mead piece. Again if you read it c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you'll see he's talking about the "movement" and not the "phenomenon" of climate science. He even says so:

The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States

And what does he think of the evidence?

I am glad you asked. While he is not a supporter of "the movement" he does write:

The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources — was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. [emphasis added]

Wait, wait. There's "actual evidence" for global warming? Mead just said so. AYE-und (that's how the lovely wife says "and" when she's emphasizing a point) it's "serious" and "troubling"?? Mead just wrote that also.

And yet Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust...well you know the drill. Spin, distort, omit, lie, whatever it's called. When it comes to Climate Science, it's what they do on the Trib editorial board.

Counting (Demon) Sheep

THE. WORST. POLITICAL. WEB. AD. EVER.
As TPM advises, "Just watch extra closely at the 2:26 mark. And then at 2:38. There are no words."


(h/t to A Spork in the Drawer where I first saw this and h/t to all the folks who made #demonsheep a trending topic.)
.

Republicans: Not Just Birthers, But Forced Birthers

Many of you have probably heard of the recent poll of self-identified Republicans commissioned by Daily Kos (conducted by a non partisan research firm). It's chock full of frightening findings such as 39% of the Republicans polled believe that President Barack Obama should be impeached with another 29% not sure; 63% believing Obama to be a socialist; a total of 58% either not sure if he was born in the US or sure that he wasn't; and 57% either not sure or believing that our President "wants the terrorists to win."

What hasn't got as much play is their thoughts on social issues such as: 73% believe that out gays should not be allowed to be teachers and 77% believe that "public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world."

And then there's this:

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18

Do you consider abortion to be murder?
Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16

That would be a third of Republicans polled who want to outlaw contraceptives and a majority who either aren't sure or who believe that birth control pills equal abortions.

Just more proof that as I've said time and time again, the real goal of the anti choice crowd is not just to end abortion, but to end most forms of birth control and to end women's reproductive rights PERIOD.
.

really lost

.

Rahm Emanuel apologises for calling liberals "retarded"

World Class Douchebag
Note: He apologized to Tim Shriver, Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics -- not to liberals.
.

Oh Please Run! PLEASE!

I think I missed this a few weeks ago.

From CNN in mid-January:

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum confirmed to his supporters Friday what pundits have been speculating for months - the conservative Republican is actively considering a run for president in 2012.

In an e-mail and letter to supporters of his Political Action Committee, America's Foundation, Santorum writes, "After talking it over with my wife Karen and our kids – I am considering putting my name in for the 2012 presidential race."

"I'm convinced that conservatives need a candidate who will not only stand up for our views, but who can articulate a conservative vision for our country's future," Santorum also writes. "And right now, I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate."

"I have no great burning desire to be president, but I have a burning desire to have a different president of the United States," said Santorum, who lost his re-election bid in 2006 after two terms in the Senate.

CNN has a copy of the letter he sent to his supporters. Notice the PAC's name? We've touched on America's Foundation before.

As a reminder here's what The American Prospect wrote about Lil Ricky and America's Foundation back in 2006:

According to one expert, Santorum appears to reap personal benefits from America's Foundation, the so-called leadership PAC controlled by Santorum, which has raised some $5 million from wealthy donors and business PACs over the last five years. The stated purpose of America's Foundation is to support other GOP candidates, but the Prospect found that the committee spends considerably less on direct candidate aid than comparable PACs, and considerably more on operating expenses -- declaring hundreds of small- to medium-sized meals and purchases by Santorum or his political staff to be “campaign-related.”

Since the beginning of Santorum's term in 2001, America's Foundation has paid for some 66 trips to Starbucks -- almost all in Santorum's hometown of Leesburg -- and close to 100 small purchases from another Washington area coffee vendor, along with purchases at Arby's, Burger King, Wendy's, Ben and Jerry's, and a vast array of retail and food outlets. Santorum spokeswoman Davis said that every listed expense was related to the PAC's mission, including “routine expenses such as office supplies including furniture, travel for staff, meals, and grocery items for various functions such as fund-raisers and planning meetings.”

However, a comparison to five other senators' leadership PAC expenses shows that those PACs do not list expenditures on items such as convenience stores or coffee shops, with a couple of exceptions for out-of-state travel. Different leadership PACs maintain records differently, but America's Foundation appeared to spend more heavily on credit-card payments, for example, than similar PACs. The $463,378 spent by Santorum's PAC on credit-card payments from 2001 through 2005 constituted 8.6 percent of all cash taken in, while comparable numbers for Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, his partner in the GOP Senate leadership, were $29,524 and 1.6 percent. All this leads experts to say that those expenditures appear highly unusual.

So please run, Rick, please!

I can't wait to dance the ricky dance again.

Arlen Specter pulls a Kanye West at the Grammys PA Progressive Summit

Sen. Arlen Specter (R D-PA)
At this weekend's PA Progressive Summit, Sen. Arlen Specter couldn't seem to wait his turn and took the stage as his Democratic primary opponent Rep. Joe Sestak was giving his closing remarks.

You can watch his antics here for yourself:


You can read more about Specter's Kayne moment at The Pennsylvania Progressive.
.

OK, I Got A Question

But I thought that "Climate Change" was a "fraud."

But if that's the case then why would the Pentagon (THE PENTAGON) write in its most recent Quadrennial Defense Review:

Climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment. The Department is developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions, and facilities.

Or this:

A series of powerful cross-cutting trends, made more complex by the ongoing economic crisis, threatens to complicate international relations and make the exercise of U.S. statecraft more difficult. The rising demand for resources, rapid urbanization of littoral regions, the effects of climate change, the emergence of new strains of disease, and profound cultural and demographic tensions in several regions are just some of the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future conflicts.

Or finally this:

Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.

Can someone explain to me WHY The Pentagon thinks Climate Change is real when we all know that it's a fraud?

Officers Suspended in Jordan Miles Police Brutality Case

From the Post-Gazette:

Three officers under investigation by the city for allegedly beating a Homewood teen during his arrest last month have been placed on paid administrative leave, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said this afternoon.

Good! I will be blogging more on this later today.
.

PA Gubernatorial Race News

First, PCN-TV (Channel 48 on Comcast) will broadcast yesterday's 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates Forum (pictured above) tonight at 8:00 PM.

Next, Chris Potter blogs at Slag Heap on reports that gubernatorial candidate -- and current Scranton mayor -- Chris Doherty may be dropping out of the race, but taking a run at lieutenant governor while backing Dan Onorato (in a deal being brokered by Gov. Rendell). Potter notes:

Doherty was emphasizing a progressive platform ... his departure from the race would, in theory, help solidify progressive voters behind Joe Hoeffel, the Montgomery County Commissioner who has been the most strident voice on the left so far. Onorato and Auditor General Jack Wagner would be left to fight over moderate-to-conservative Dems in the western part of the state. That said, the stars seem to be aligning in Onorato's favor lately.

Early Returns posts on Dan's stars that Onorato has lots of cash -- double that of likely GOP candidate Tom Corbett.

And, speaking of Corbett, PoliticsPA reports that, "Former Democratic Attorney General candidate John Morganelli said Thursday that Dan Onorato, the party’s gubernatorial front-runner, secretly supported a Republican during the 2008 attorney general’s race."

The undercover bff Republican in question? Tom Corbett.
.

Jon Delano is tweeting the Bonusgate trial

You can follow along at http://twitter.com/JonDelano
.

This is NOT An Anti-Ruth Ann Blogpost

I found Ruth Ann Daily's column today in the Post-Gazette to be most informative.

Unfortunately, since it's still more or less impossible to embed a youtube video in newsprint (though I am sure someone at CMU is working on it - RIGHT?) and all the lovely and talented Ruth Ann could do is link to the video, I feel that it's my duty as a friend of all things Post-Gazettey to pick up the slack, set my nose to the grind stone, and post the video here:

And here's the second song:

And then Dave Carroll's statement:

From the accent, I guess he's canadjian.

And then here's his website.

Good job, Ruth Ann. Kudos for this one.