Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Americans Hindering British Investigation

Kevin Drum links an an Observer article drawing attention to the fact that British authorities are quite annoyed by the sloppy approach of the Americans in dealing with the latest terrorism plot. Basically, they are calling on the American authorities to "stop leaking details of this month's suspected bomb plot over fears that it could jeopardise the chances of a successful prosecution and hamper the gathering of evidence." Why are we not surprised? The Bushites have always been more concerned with using terrorism for political purposes, instead of actually doing something that would curb terrorism. We already know that the Americans persuaded their British counterparts to move prematurely.

Drum also shows that the British are more comfortable living in the reality-based community, as 72 percent believe Bush-Blair policies have increased the risk of terrorism. Americans seem more stuck in the Bush bubble, as the Decider still achieves a solid 55 percent approval rating on terrorism.

1 comment:

kitab said...

MM,

Good post, but I'm not sure I buy it. A human role in global warming is certainly gaining more and more adherents in the scientific community, but it still isn't a slam dunk in the same sense as, say, Darwinian natural selection.

Consider the following editorial in the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597). It's by an MIT professor, Richard Lindzen. No wild-eyed reactionary he, no member of the "flat earth brigade" as you would have it. In fact he's prominent enough in the field to have been the lead writer for one of the chapters in the IPCC study (which, he argues, was a textbook case of a rich, complex academic study marred by an overly simplistic "summary" which is all that policy makers and journalists read).

Money quote: "More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."