Link to the Times article.

“Experts” are quoted. Which experts? This is the first question that springs to mind. You guessed it… Environmentalists and Carbon-Capitalists (those invested in the Carbon trade). So we are hearing, once again, only one side of a highly politicised debate in which by use of the word “experts” we are assured of the neutrality of those views.
This is a con.

Has anyone thought about the pattern of warfare waged by Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah against Israel in comparison with the War of Attrition?
The objective is not the same, the current objective remains the destruction of Israel but the method is to wear out Israel.

How does a diplomat get to be a judge? And what does this say about the processes within the ICC?
See Joshua Rozenberg at Standpoint (God, I love that mag!)

More to  the point – when we were signed up to this international venture, why did no one in the UK government pick up on this serious weakness?

It seems from what I’ve been following via climateaudit.org and via a rival group of pro-AGW bloggers that the reaction to Steve McIntyre’s criticism of the Briffa work is quite hysterical and unfair. Ad hominem attacks have been made and serious questions unanswered.
See this comment at Deep Climate. Then read the comments at climateaudit. The substance of the accusation against SM does not seem to be borne out.
What a shock…AGW activists accusing critics of being “unscientific” or “in the pay of oil corporations”?

Is it just me or does LGF have a need to appear on the mainstream of every argument? The issue for me is the relentless way in which CJ et al demonise climate change skeptics. “Those tricksy scientists are just lying to you again. You know how they are. You can’t trust ‘em.” is a good example of the rhetoric being used.
1. The scholarly sceptics are often scientists of high repute. I wondered how they would tackle the opposition to the thesis within the scientific community, especially as I’m awaiting a copy of Heaven and Earth: The Missing Science, by Professor Ian Plimer. The answer appears to be…don’t answer the question. Ignore it. So we have resort to scientists who support the theory and the acceptance of their statements as gospel.  No counter-critiques are published or debated. No mention of groups like climateaudit or wattsupwiththat, who provide criticism based in science of the CC approach to climate.
This is indictative of the LGF approach to all controversies at present – scramble for the middle ground and stay there rather than risk credibility.

For the record, I think that LGF’s position on most issues has been the correct one in the circumstances and I can see why they’ve adopted these positions as the US conservative political grouping has disintergrated (and the middle gone loony!) but there are weaknesses here. What actually distinguishes LGF from other political positions on the centre left?

Update:
I notice that the illustrious LGF has not picked up on the latest government advert, here in Britain, warning children of the dangers of CO2. Hmm. Is my thesis of desperate respectability correct? Even Nature criticises this advert – on scientific and moral grounds. AGW is a religious movement whose pyschology is rather reminscent of the old grim Protestant evangelical movement.

Incidently it wasn’t so long ago that Charles Johnson hosted Penn & Teller’s Bullshit series, which also included an attack on AGW theory. Also he supported The Great Global Warming Swindle, then changed his mind recently. In the same post he hosted support for Michael Creighton. This is a little flighty to my mind. From one to the other, hurry!

It seems that the MOD and the Government have decided (as in Iraq) that news should be censored or rather that as little news as possible should be distributed from Afghanistan. It is obvious to anyone of a military bent of mind that the war is being lost. We are failing to control the ground through lack of troops, suffering needless casualties through a shortage of helicopters and having to endure a complacent military establishment.
I think I might be looking into a book entitled Ministry of Defeat after all.

Try this entry from a lovely lady. As we all knew the “Hockey Stick” thesis was created by the manipulation of data to suit a politicised agenda.
Her Majesty’s Government has a bit of explaining to do…

On a seperate note, I’m starting to think about a nice dish of humble pie over Sarah Palin. Maybe she’s not as moderately conservative as I thought. See the link here from Little Green Footballs. This may just be a part of the Republican Party’s collaspe as the internal dynamics of the party, unbuffered by the realities of power continue to tear it apart.

Which is how a recent LGF article finishes on severing links with Powerline.
It seems to me that a large section of the right has taken leave of its senses. What the fuck is going on with protesters comparing Obama to Hitler? He’s not even close to being an autocrat – these are dangerous stupidities that are going to keep the Republicans out of power for the next twenty years…

Perhaps this is stupid but I’ve had a number of thoughts lately and thought I should write them down.

The reason that the First World War lasted so long was not the generals or the other classic reasons. The problem was the German Army. If the Germans had not been as determined to win the war on their terms and the German Army had not been so capable, then the war would not have been as long nor as terrible.

The other thought that struck me was that the volunteer and conscript infantry units received very little battle training. Taught to shoot, obey orders, dig etc but nothing of the sort we routinely expect today. Perhaps the obvious aspect of this conclusion is to recognize that the experience of the war was central to the creation of modern infantry tactics.
It is probable that these tactics did not enter their definitive form until the Reichswehr work on formalizing the lessons of the war.

Read his article here. The release of the Libyan bomber was a disgrace.
Personally, I suspect that this has more to do with the SNP sucking up to the likes of Libya, Iran and China. “Look, we hate the Americans too!”

Update: Harry’s Place, read this. Very interesting. Tempted by his book.