A certainty?

Recently the U.S.'s top intelligence chiefs (CIA Director Leon Panetta, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DIA Director Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess) reported to the House and Senate intelligence committees...

During the session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) asked Blair: "What is the likelihood of another terrorist attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months, high or low? Director Blair?" To which Blair replied: "An attempted attack the priority is certain, I would say." Feinstein then asked the other chiefs the same question and they all responded similarly...

OK, so ignoring Blair's mangled phraseology, this seems like a silly response. Obviously al-Qaeda's leaders think about this a lot, in fact they probably have wet dreams comtemplating an attack on the U.S. However, for the chiefs to say that it was "certain" that there would be an attempted attack on the U.S. homeland within a defined, and indeed fairly short, time period clearly is rather speculative... Note: there remains a possibility that they were being very literal and saying that it was certain that there is "a likelihood of another terrorist attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months", as opposed to certain that there will be "another terrorist attempted attack...." (because there is always a likelihood, though it may be lower or higher depending on the circumstances!)

No matter, even if they were more categorical in their statements than perhaps they might have been, the news media took and ran even further with the story. A few outlets were sober and ran headlines such as those in the first group below. However, most others "sexed" up the story with headlines such as those in the second group below...

In news reporting the exchange above somehow became "America's top intelligence official told lawmakers on Tuesday that Al Qaeda and its affiliates had made it a high priority to attempt a large-scale attack on American soil within the next six months...". Hmm, "likelihood" and "attempted attack" became "high priority" and "large-scale attack." Fear-mongering at its best...

CIA Chief Warns Terror Attack Is Likely
Attempted Terror Attack Likely, Intelligence Chiefs Warn
US Intelligence Officials Warn of Persistent Threat from al-Qaida

Terror attack on America is "imminent"
Terror attack on U.S. 'certain,' Senate told
CIA Chief: Al Qaeda Poised To Attack U.S.
Senators Warned of Terrorist Attack on U.S. by July
Senate warned of another Al Qaeda strike within next six months
Al Qaeda attack on U.S. months away, CIA director tells Congress
Intelligence Chiefs Tell Senate Panel Al Qaeda Attack In Next 6 Months Is Certain

During the Q&A Leon Panetta said "My greatest concern and what keeps me awake at night is that al-=Qaeda and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States in our homeland."

Mental health break

Random charts

Source: An Analysis of Multiple Polls of the Iranian Public = "... Our primary goal here is to determine whether the available data support the widely-stated hypothesis that the election was stolen, i.e., that Ahmadinehad did not have a majority of the votes in the June 12th election. This involves not only looking at the topline responses to questions about for whom respondents planned to or did vote, but also if the patterns of responses on various questions tell a consistent and coherent story within and across various data sets..."

Random picture

Source: After the wall: Traces of the Soviet empire. Some great pictures of the detritus of empire... Puts one in mind of Ozymandias...

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
- Percy Bryce Shelley.


In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand." The City's gone,
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.
We wonder, and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragments huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
- Horace Smith

More on climate

The previous blog entry 'Climate change and doubt' touched on two reasons why there are some who doubt the consensus view on climate change, namely that the subject and science is so complex that to get an understanding of the general idea across to the lay public :

a) Experts have had to greatly "simplify" an incredibly complex set of phenomena e.g. very roughly reducing the issue to "man's use of fossil fuels has added such great quantities of greenhouse gasses, mostly carbon dioxide, to the planet's atmosphere that the globe is warming; that this is causing multiple negative changes; and that unless the concentration of carbon dioxide and the temperature rise are held below a certain level, there will be catastrophic consequences", and,

b) The complexity is such that its "proof" has to rely on a heavy dose of "an appeal to authority."

The problem with the first is that occasionally new information is developed that may seem at odds with the "simplified story," leading to weakening it in the eyes of the lay public (even if/when the new information actually still fits within the experts' more complex models). The previous blog entry had provided a couple of examples (i.e. the "Bering Straits effect" and the effect of solar radiation on the Alps)... Recently 'New Study Turns Up Heat On Soot's Role In Himalayan Warming' suggested that black carbon (i.e. soot) may be as much, if not more responsible for the melt rate of the Himalayan glaciers than greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. Note that this does not vitiate the warming argument, or necessarily change the model. However it also does not fit neatly with the simplified narrative - it puts forward black carbon as a big issue rather than mostly blaming greenhouse gas, and it also thereby shifts responsibility somewhat from the developed nations (who historically have been larger consumers of fossil fuels, and bigger emitters of carbon dioxide) to the developing nations (more responsible for soot emissions)!

The problem with the second (i.e. the "appeal to authority" issue) occurs when issues or facts come up that prove negative to the credibility of the authority in question... Note, the issue is that in this case a weakening of credibility results in a weakening of the acceptance of the argument that rests upon it. This does not mean that the negative issue has to completely disprove the authority, it simply needs to raise doubts about the authority's competence or probity... Thus the "Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035" kerfuffle has proven very negative, to the consternation of the scientists and others who, fixated on the science, don't understand why their protestations that a simple error in one report on the issue does not detract from the solidity of the underlying science! Well, get ready for more! UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article reports that other parts of the seminal IPCC report are also problematic and include assertions that are not based upon peer-reviewed science! A huge issue, since when additional doubts of this kind are raised, the effects are not simply additive but probably exponential... Ditto for 'UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim.' Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought' reports that although research "confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2..." the effect is less than recently thought and at the low end of IPCC assumptions (where they are included...). Again, a blow to authority even though it does not run counter to the models and actually agrees with them re process, if not with projected outcome!

The bottom line is that perhaps these two efforts (excessive simplification and an appeal to authority) need to be revisited, and perhaps jettisoned...

On a slightly different tack, one effect of the mounting criticisms is that the scientists and those who accept the consensus view are feeling justifiably beleaguered, and thus inclined to 'circle the wagons" in defense! This would be a mistake on their part, and counterproductive. They need to develop a new narrative and explanation as mentioned above, and also jettison the IPCC chair. There already were sufficient grounds to question his fitness for the position (e.g. see here) and now things are getting worse, with additional questions being raised regarding his credibility and actions and activities, see Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen and UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'

Previous related blog entries:
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010

Misc update

The February 2nd, 2009 blog entry 'King of Kings' noted that Muammar Gaddafi (fresh from a meeting during which 200 plus African kings and traditional tribal rulers had named him "king of kings") had assumed the chair of the African Union... which he pledged to turn into a "United Staters of Africa." Well his one-year term is up and he has been replaced by the president of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika.

However, apparently not before he tried (and failed) to get his term extended!

Gaddafi thwarted over African Union presidency

Random charts...

Source: Economic Policy Institute's Economy Track - "an interactive look at the U.S. labor market."