Monday, January 31, 2011

Right-Wing Media Claim Obama "Lost Egypt," But Can't Agree On Why

From Media Matters:
Right-wing media outlets have begun claiming that President Obama has "lost Egypt" due to his reaction to the unrest in that country. But they do not agree on whether Obama lost Egypt because he is too supportive of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, is not supportive enough, or is doing something else wrong. Right-Wing Media Rush To Attack Obama For Supposedly Losing Egypt Dick Morris: Obama Should Be Standing With Mubarak. From Dick Morris' January 30 syndicated column: In the 1950s, the accusation "who lost China" resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Barack Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt? The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led former President Jimmy Carter to fail to support the shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran. The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt -- far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt "under review" to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to "preventing the loss of human life." Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Anwar Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Hosni Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally. [Newsmax, 1/30/11] Fox's Ralph Peters: Obama Risks Being On the Wrong Side Of History By Standing By Mubarak. In contrast with Morris, Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) attacked Obama for not supporting anti-Mubarak protestors sufficiently. Peters urged Obama to get "on the right side of history": PETERS: As far as empowering the Islamists, it's not Al Jazeera. They are just rebel rousers and opportunists. By continuing to support dictatorships in the Middle East, for short -- short-term stability, we -- we -- we will -- we kill ourselves long term because to talk -- to talk about yesteryear, the Shah always falls. The dictator always comes down. And you want to be on the right side of history. Right now we're not. O'REILLY: Yes but sometimes, Colonel, sometimes there is no right side. And -- and I think back to the El Salvador war that I covered in the early `80s. There were no good guys. Both sides were bad. In Iran there were no good guys. You had the Ayatollah who has turned that country into -- probably the worst country on earth and you had the Shah, who is a human rights abuser. So sometimes there isn't anybody to support. And I think that's what all the presidents from Richard Nixon on up have thought about Egypt after Sadat was killed. And Sadat, you know, he was a nut crazy guy, Mubarak took over and every president, liberal Jimmy Carter, liberal Barack Obama, ok, they have to play ball with them because the alternative is Islamists, that's who is in the wings. PETERS: No, no that's who is in the wings, but whether or not the Islamists get the center stage depends on, partly on our actions. And Obama needs to get out front and center on this. He can't let his henchman Hillary Clinton or Robert Gibbs state it. The Arab world and the Egyptians are listening. And Obama can't split the difference. This guy always wants to split the difference. There is a right side; that's the winning side. (CROSS TALK) O'REILLY: Ok but - PETERS: And the winning side of history is the people. And we need to get on it. [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 1/28/11, accessed via Nexis] Washington Times Attacks Obama For Not Taking "Action" On Egypt Situation. From a Washington Times editorial: The Obama team clearly was not ready for the events of the last few weeks and has abrogated any leadership role in resolving the turmoil in Egypt. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton summed up the feckless administration stance when she said Sunday, "We're not advocating a specific outcome." This is a lose-lose position for Mr. Obama. If the opposition takes over, it is no thanks to him, and America will have no legitimacy dealing with the new government. If Mubarak stays in power, his regime might rethink its ties to a faithless ally in Washington. Apparently incapable of shaping events, the White House is making a virtue of necessity. When the time calls for action, Mr. Obama sits on his hands. Islamic extremists are giddy over the possibility of the region's largest pro-American domino falling. Liberal oppositionists are calling for a united front government with the Muslim Brotherhood, a compromise measure that will surely prove fatal when the current regime collapses and the moderates are left to face off with the extremists. Given the precedent set in Iran - as well as in the Russian and French Revolutions - the liberals will not last long. At that point, Mr. Obama will be even less capable of dictating a "specific outcome," even if he cared to try. The future could witness al Qaeda No. 2 and former Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood stalwart Ayman al Zawahiri making a triumphant return to Cairo. The administration should immediately draw down the number of personnel in the U.S. embassy in Cairo. A hostage crisis may be the only part of this Carteresque rerun Mr. Obama can avoid. [Washington Times, 1/30/11] Weekly Standard's Hayes: Obama Could Be "On The Wrong Side Of History" If He Backs Mubarak. On Special Report with Bret Baier, Weekly Standard senior writer Steve Hayes stated: HAYES: It's a tough line the White House has to walk because the prospect of Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt is certainly discouraging. There is a risk the White House could end up being on the wrong side of history here with President Obama's remarks seeming to get the back of Mubarak even with his word about the protesters. And just yesterday as the region is turning toward a messy democracy, you have the United States ambassador to sierra presenting his credentials to Basher Assad. [Fox News' Special Report, 1/28/11, accessed via Nexis] Fox Nation: "Obama Will Go Down In History As The President Who Lost Egypt." Fox Nation posted a headline stating "Obama Will Go Down in History as the President Who Lost Egypt": [Fox Nation, 1/31/11] Fox Nation linked to a Haaretz article with the same headline. From the article: Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled. The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara. [...] The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail. [Haaretz, 1/30/11] Fox's Kelly: "There Is Concern" That Obama "Could Go Down In History As The President Who Lost Egypt." Introducing a panel discussion on the situation in Egypt, Fox News host Megyn Kelly stated: KELLY: Well the chaos in Egypt is creating a diplomatic dilemma for the United States. There is concern today that Mr. Obama could go down in history as the president who lost Egypt, a critical ally of ours in the Middle East, some comparing him to President Jimmy Carter who saw a pro-Western government in Iran fall to radical Islamists on his watch. Joining me now: K.T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst; Walid Phares, Middle East expert and author of The Coming Revolution: The Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East; and Bernard Whitman, former Bill Clinton pollster and a Democratic strategist. Panel, thank you so much for being here with me. BERNARD WHITMAN (Democratic strategist): Thank you. KELLY: So that -- I want to start with that, Walid, the question of could President Obama go down in history as the man, the president who lost Egypt, and what does that mean? [Fox News' America Live, 1/31/11] Investor's Business Daily: "Obama Sure Picked A Foolish Place To Give A Community-Organizing Speech." From an Investor's Business Daily editorial headlined "Will Obama Lose Egypt?": In 2009, the Egyptian daily Almasry Alyoum reported that President Obama secretly met in Washington that year with representatives of Egypt's jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas ally that, while banned, dominates the opposition in the country. Obama also chose Egypt as the locale for his ill-conceived Muslim outreach speech in June 2009. As Newsweek's Jonathan Alter points out in his White House-friendly book on the president's first year, "The Promise," "Obama never said the words 'terrorism,' 'terrorist,' or 'war on terror'" in the speech, because "the t-word had become inflammatory to Muslims" and the "faster way to the hearts and minds of a Muslim audience was to talk about the tensions between Islam and the West in a different key." Bet the president didn't think he was planting the seeds of today's protests in Egypt. But what does he expect when he goes to a country in a decades-long police-enforced state of emergency, with tens of thousands of political prisoners, and announces that "you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion"? [...] Embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was as afraid of real capitalism as of political dissent. The Heritage Foundation's latest Index of Economic Freedom gives Egypt poor marks despite recent "incremental reforms to liberalize the socialist economy." Egypt's GDP growth fell markedly in the wake of the global financial crisis, and government corruption and the lack of a dependable rule of law in the economic sphere are factors that have kept poverty and unemployment painfully high -- poisonously mixed with political repression. Even so, should Mubarak fall, there is real danger of the Islamic Brotherhood imperiling this U.S. ally. Barack Obama sure picked a foolish place to give a community-organizing speech. [Investor's Business Daily, 1/28/11] Other Conservative Figures Praise Obama's Handling Of Egypt Politico: Boehner And McConnell "Are Backing Obama's Cautious Approach." From a January 30 Politico article: After months of pounding President Barack Obama on every front, Republican congressional leaders finally have found a reason to praise him -- his handling of the fast-moving crisis in Egypt. But while House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are backing Obama's cautious approach, rank-and-file lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the U.S.'s stance. [...] "The administration, our administration, so far has handled this tense situation pretty well," Boehner said. "Clearly, reforms need to occur in Egypt." While Boehner was not asked directly about whether he would support Mubarak's replacement, an aide said he would have repeated the White House line -- now is not the time for American officials to be calling for a new leader. [Politico, 1/30/11] John Bolton: Obama Administration Officials "Have Stated The Correct Position." John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration and a possible candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination stated on Fox News that the Obama administration has "stated the correct position" on Egypt. From the January 31 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom: BILL HEMMER (co-host): How did you think the administration handled this over the weekend? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on all the talk shows on Sunday. How did she do? BOLTON: Well, I think they've stated the correct position. It is a real mistake to believe we can toss aside a long-term ally that has brought peace and stability with Israel, a cornerstone of our strategic policy in the Middle East and not pay the consequences for it. By and large, I'd say the less said the better at this point. It's a very uncertain situation. I think the real work is going on behind the scenes. [Fox News' America's Newsroom, 1/31/11] M.C.L Comment: There should be a contest to see who's the dumber news model on Fox News Megyn Kelly or Gretchen Carlson.

Nearly half of Palin backers may flee GOP if she isn’t nominated

By Daniel Tencer

A new poll from Rasmussen released Monday reported that Sarah Palin's divisiveness as a candidate may pose a serious electoral problem for the Republicans in 2012.

According to the poll, nearly half of likely GOP voters who support Palin said they would switch to a third party candidate if the former Alaska governor and current Fox News personality didn't secure the presidential nomination in 2012. Fully 46 percent of Palin backers said they were likely to vote third party if Palin lost, with 22 percent saying it's "very likely."

This devotion among Palin fans is especially problematic for the GOP because, as an earlier Rasmussen poll showed, Palin is the GOP front-runner with the largest opposition among Republican voters. Thirty-three percent of likely GOP voters said Palin was the candidate they least want to see win the presidential nomination.

Other candidates' support bases aren't as quick to abandon the party should their candidate not win. Thirty-five percent of Mike Huckabee backers said they would consider a third party if the former Arkansas governor lost, while 31 percent of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's supporters said the same.

But Palin voters abandoning the GOP likely won't be much help to the Democrats, who stand to gain little from disillusioned Republican voters. Rasmussen reported that 90 percent of likely GOP voters said they were unlikely to vote for President Barack Obama, under any circumstance.

Rasmussen noted that the commitment of Palin backers appeared to have grown in recent months. In a survey taken last November, only 31 percent of Palin backers said they would consider a third party.

But Rasmussen suggests that, at least for some respondents, the third party option is an empty threat.

"During the 2008 Democratic Primary season, a fairly sizable number of Hillary Clinton supporters said they wouldn’t support Barack Obama if he won the nomination," Rasmussen noted. "But, given a choice between Obama and McCain, those voters came around and supported the Democratic nominee."

Palin's overall popularity declined in recent weeks, after a series of perceived blunders following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson earlier this month.

After taking criticism for having placed Giffords' name on a "hit list" of targeted Democratic districts, Palin accused her critics of "blood libel," a move she later defended despite anger from many groups upset at her apparent comparison of her own critics to anti-Semites.

Recent presidential race poll numbers have swung wildly for Palin. In a poll taken earlier this month, Palin ranked in second place with 19 percent support among likely GOP primary voters, behind only Huckabee at 21 percent. But a poll released Friday had Palin at 10 percent, with Romney in the lead at 28 percent and Huckabee at 15 percent.

After Lobbying To Kill The Stimulus, Koch Meeting Attendees Guarded By Police Saved By Stimulus

By Lee Fang

This weekend, ThinkProgress reported from the ground at Rancho Mirage, California for the conservative fundraising meeting convened by Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. The event — disclosed by a ThinkProgress report last October detailing the twice annual gathering of wealthy business executives, Republican politicians, conservative “journalists,” and political operatives — was met by a protest organized by the good government advocacy group Common Cause. A coalition of progressive and California-based groups assembled about 1,500 people for a demonstration yesterday outside the gate of the resort where the Koch meeting was occurring. Activists from Code Pink and the Ruckus Society staged a civil disobedience action resulting in the arrest of 25 individuals, who were charged with trespassing.

The Koch gathering was highly guarded by a phalanx of police officers, a helicopter, and even a no-fly zone around the resort. David Dayen, who chronicled much of the demonstration, reported that the city of Rancho Mirage contracts its police force from Riverside County sheriffs. Ironically, Koch’s front groups lobbied aggressively to kill some of the funding for the very sheriffs who worked tirelessly to ensure safety at the event. In 2009, Koch’s Americans for Prosperity (AFP) front group started a website “” to defeat President Obama’s stimulus plan. AFP also held Tea Partyrallies denouncing the stimulus, and during the midterm campaign even ran adsattacking candidates for voting for the “failed” stimulus. Watch it:

Despite the Koch claim that the stimulus “failed,” it helped save dozens of jobs for Riverside County sheriffs. In recent years, the Riverside County sheriff’s department faced massive budget shortfalls, according to Melissa Nieburger, a spokeswoman for the department who spoke to ThinkProgress. President Obama’s Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus, provided $13 million in emergency funding and helped maintain about 50 sheriff jobs in the county. The stimulus-supported sheriffs weren’t only guarding the Koch brothers, but also Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), a Koch meeting attendee whose party is now seeking to defund the unused money from the stimulus.

Although the Koch’s mask their right-wing, dangerous business agenda with rhetoric about the virtues of the “free market,” Koch Industries is notoriously dependent on government services, taxpayer money, and special carve-outs. Yasha Levine, writing for the Observer, notes a number of examples of Koch exploiting government programs to pad their bottom line. Koch Industries also leveraged its relationship with Republican administrations to squash millions of dollars in penalties for leaking cancer-causing chemicals in Texas and to win lucrative oil contracts with the government on both the state and federal level. There is even a line in the federal tax code, written by Koch lobbyists, specifically benefiting one of Koch Industries’ refineries in Minnesota. In reality, Koch Industries takes advantage of government money for the same reason it funds climate change-denying journalists, academics, front groups, and think tanks: its goal is to maximize profit, even if it comes at the expense of the American public.

Income Inequality In The U.S. Is Worse Than In Egypt

By Pat Garofalo

Protests in Egypt continued for a seventh day today, and pro-democracy demonstrators are organizing a “march of millions” to take place tomorrow. As financial markets dip across the Middle East, financial prognosticators are trying to divine what continued unrest will mean for the economies of the Middle Eastand the price of oil.

One of the driving factors behind the protests is the decades-long stagnation of the Egyptian economy and a growing sense of inequality. “They’re all protesting about growing inequalities, they’re all protesting against growing nepotism. The top of the pyramid was getting richer and richer,” said Emile Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in the Middle East.

As Yasser El-Shimy, former diplomatic attaché at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote in Foreign Policy, “income inequality has reached levels not before seenin Egypt’s modern history.” But Egypt still bests quite a few countries when it comes to income inequality, including the United States:

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the U.S. is ranked as the 42nd most unequal country in the world, with a Gini Coefficient of 45.

In contrast:

– Tunisia is ranked the 62nd most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of 40.

– Yemen is ranked 76th most unequal, with a Gini Coefficient of 37.7.

And Egypt is ranked as the 90th most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of around 34.4.

The Gini coefficient is used to measure inequality: the lower a country’s score, the more equal it is. Obviously, there are many things about the U.S. economy that make it far preferable to that in Egypt, including lower poverty rates, higher incomes, significantly better infrastructure, and a much higher standard of living overall. But income inequality in the U.S. is the worst it has been since the 1920′s, which is a real problem.

Currently, the top one percent of households make nearly 25 percent of the total income in the country, after they made less than 10 percent in the 1970′s. Between 1980 and 2005, “more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent.”

According to the latest data, “the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.” And there’s even a stark divide within that one percent. “The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households increased from 7.3 percent of the total income in the nation in 2002 to 12.3 percent in 2007,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted.

Yale economist Robert Shiller has said that income inequality “is potentially the big problem, which is bigger than this whole financial crisis.” “If these trends that we’ve seen for 30 years now in inequality continue for another 30 years…it’s going to create resentment and hostility,” he said. But tax and spending policies that provide adequate services and allow for economic mobility — along with a robust social safety net — can head off trouble that may come down the road.

Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law

The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,’ as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “[o]ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

Here is how Vinson lifts FRC’s argument:

Vinson’s opinion:

Severability is a doctrine of judicial restraint, and the Supreme Court has applied and reaffirmed that doctrine just this past year: “‘Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, [courts] try to limit the solution to the problem,’ severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.’” [...]

The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared unconstitutional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

Family Research Council:

Severability is fundamentally a doctrine of judicial restraint. “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem.” [...]

The question of severability is a judicial inquiry of two alternatives regarding the nature of a statute. One possibility is that Congress intended a given statute as a bundle of separate legislative embodiments, which for the sake of convenience, avoiding redundancy, and contextual application, are bundled together in a single legislative enactment. This makes a statute a series of short laws, every one of which is designed to stand alone, if needs be. The second possibility is that a given statute embodies a carefully-balanced legislative deal, in which Congress weighs competing policy priorities, and through negotiations and deliberation crafts a package codifying this delicate balance. Congress is thus not voting for separate and discrete provisions. Instead, Congress is voting on a package as a whole, any modification of which could result in the bill failing to achieve passage in Congress. As both Plaintiffs‟ briefs and the following argument shows, the Individual Mandate falls within the latter category, not the former.

Vinson’s conclusion is peculiar because Congress usually defers to Congress on questions of severability. In fact, even Judge Henry Hudson — the Virginia Judge who also found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional — left the whole of the law intact noting, “It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care, without Section 1501…Therefore, this Court will hew closely to the time-honored rule to sever with circumspection, severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.’”

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Free Enterprise Fund et al. v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, “Because ‘[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,’ Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla. , 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932) , the ‘normal rule’ is ‘that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course.’”

M.C.L Comment: This is what I've been telling liberals for the past couple of years, the whole game of taking your ball and going home has greater impact than who's running the country for 2 to 8 years, Bush stacked federal courts with right wing ideologies and this judgement is another example of that.

It's going to take another term of Obama, his successor two terms and his or her's successor two terms to clean the court of this radical right wing judicial activism.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Random Friday:Resident Evil: Damnation Teaser Trailer

AP: Boycott Over Limbaugh's Mockery Of Chinese Language Gains Steam

by Media Matters staff

Rush Limbaugh has become the subject of increasing criticism from the Chinese-American community following his mockery of Chinese language and culture. California state Sen. Leland Yee has launcheda petition calling on Limbaugh to apologize for his remarks and asking his advertisers to drop their commercials from his radio program. Today, the Associated Press reported that Yee's efforts are picking up steam as Asian-American leaders nationwide denounce Limbaugh's remarks:

Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.

California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.

In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.

"The comments that he made - the mimicking of the Chinese language - harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days," Yee said in an interview Thursday. "You think you've arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you're a second-class citizen."


Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh's comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh's program.

An online petition has been created on Yee's website.

"I want an apology at the very least," said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. "Making fun of any country's leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American."

She added: "He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that's his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City's population."

For more on the growing backlash against Limbaugh's statements, as well as information on recent threats received by Yee following his call for a boycott, check out the full AP article.

Republicans look to privatize Medicare

By Sahil Kapur

Medicare, Social Security 'a cruel Ponzi scheme': GOP conference chairman

WASHINGTON – House Republicans would support a plan to privatize Medicare in their annual budget, a member of the GOP leadership said.

Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the House Republican Conference Chairman and second-ranked GOP member of the budget committee, made the revelation during a panel discussion, according to the National Journal.

"Unless you deal with Medicare, unless you go into Medicaid, unless you deal with Social Security for future generations—programs that were a great comfort to my grandparents and parents are morphing into a cruel Ponzi scheme for my 8-year-old daughter and my 7-year-old son," Hensarling said.

Social Security and Medicare are self-financed retirement security programs that taxpayers are required to pay into throughout their working lives.

The to-be-proposed GOP budget measure closely mirrors a provision in the high-profile "roadmap" put forth by budget committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would turn Medicare into a program of vouchers whose value gradually diminishes over time, and largely privatize Social Security.

"You can’t get there from here without those kinds of reforms," Hensarling said, "so I expect it to be in the budget, I hope it’ll be in the budget, and I would certainly support it."

A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 61 percent of the public opposes cutting Medicare, as opposed to just 38 percent in favor.

After regaining control of the House this month, top Republicans championed Ryan's "roadmap," which would end Social Security and Medicare in their present forms and eventually turn them over to the private sector.

Democratic leaders shot back with a forceful posture on the popular safety-net programs.

“Republicans are trying to carry out their plan to end Social Security and Medicare," said Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "In public, Republicans are trying to distance themselves from this extreme plan because they know hard-working Americans don’t want to see Social Security and Medicare ended. But they should stop trying to hide the ball, and just come out and say what has become perfectly clear: that ending Social Security and Medicare is now the official position of the Republican Party."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the third-ranking Democrat in the chamber, also chimed in.

"Anyone who doesn't think privatization will mean severe cuts to Medicare benefits, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them," he said, according to The Associated Press. "Privatization will make the cuts previously proposed by either party look tame."

Gov. Kasich To Black Lawmaker: ‘I Don’t Need Your People’

By Tanya Somanader

Delivering on his vision for a “new way,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) “is on pace to be the first governor since 1962 to have an entire Cabinet without any racial diversity.” Every one of his 22 full-time agency head appointments has been a white person. Only five are women. Dubbing diversity as “metrics that people tend to focus on,” Kasich said, “I can’t say I need to find somebody to fit this metric” because “it’s not the way I look at those things. I want the best possible team I can get.”

Yesterday, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus held a press conference to express their waning patience with his dismissive attitude and “implore[] Kasich to make better strides to diversify his Cabinet.” But according to State Senator Nina Turner (D-OH), this time Kasich’s response was a bit more blunt. According to Turner, when the caucus offered him help in finding qualified minority applicants, Kasich told Turner, “I don’t need your people“:

TURNER: Today, in 2001, it feels more like 1811 in the state of Ohio under a governor who just does not get it. I want to read some of [Kasich's] quotes. He said, ‘I don’t look at things from that standpoint. It’s not the way I look at things. I want the best possible team I can get and hopefully we will be in a position that we are fully diverse as we go forward.” As we go forward, as we go along, by and by, someday. I remember Martin Luther King saying so eloquently that wait almost always means never. Through his actions and deeds, Governor Kasich has declared that Ohio is open for business, but if you are African-American you need not apply. If you are hispanic, you need not apply. If you are Asian-Indian, you need not apply. And Oh My God I have a few women but we don’t need many more, so for women, you need not apply.

And then to have the pure unadulterated gall to say that he can’t find anyone. In that same caucus meeting when I said to the governor “if you need help, we can help you” and he said, and I quote, “I don’t need your people.” Now as an African-American, I was kind of perplexed about “I don’t need your people.” I wasn’t quite sure whether or not he was referring to my ethnic group people or my people as in the 350,000 constituents I serve in this state that represent all ethnic groups, all religious groups. I didn’t understand what “I’m not going to hire your people” means.

Watch it:

Kasich is certainly not angling for an all-white cabinet. He did make offers to two African-Americans who declined to accept two separate Cabinet posts. And as Turner points out, it is not entirely clear who “your people” was referring to. Kasich’s spokesman confirmed that he made the comment but “insisted that he meant he was referring to Turner’s political party, not race.” But almost 20 percent of Ohio’s population is minority, and such a brazen dismissal of diversity — be it racial, gender, or political — betrays a worrisome disregard for a broad range of ideas, insight, and understanding in policy development which such diversity cultivates.

Unfortunately, Kasich’s ignorance is not limited to his cabinet. On top of likening cabinet diversity to “chasing quotas,” Kasich refused to attend the Cleveland Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s 10th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Gala despite being in Cleveland the same day. He also eliminated “gender identity” in his extension of former Gov. Ted Strickland’s (D) executive order to protect state employees from discrimination based on “race, color, gender, national origin, military status, disability, age, genetic information, or sexual orientation.” And as for gender equality, Kasich offered the fact that he’s married to a woman and has two daughters as sufficient evidence of his commitment to diversity.

Should Kasich’s abysmal diversity standard continue to direct his decisions, his “new way” might lead Ohioans all the way back before the civil rights era. (HT: Plunderbund,Ohio Capitol Blog)

Senate Republicans Place Big Bank Apologist On Banking Committee

ThinkProgress’ Ian Milhiser noted yesterday that Senate Republicans put Sen. Mike “noun, verb, unconstitutional” Lee (R-UT) on the Judiciary Committee, despite his radical ignorance regarding constitutional matters. But that wasn’t the only committee assignment for which the GOP decided that fealty to ideology was more important that acknowledging reality.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was one of the financial industry’s biggest apologists during November’s campaign, opposing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law while claiming that derivative deals were “non-risky,” even as they cost schools and cities all across the country (including many in Pennsylvania) millions of dollars. And Toomey has been totally unrepentant about his personal role in deregulating the financial industry.

In 2000, former Sen. Phil “mental recession” Gramm (R-TX) attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to an unrelated, 11,000 appropriations bill. The CFMA ensured that the growing market in over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, stayed entirely unregulated. Toomey — then a member of the House of Representatives — voted for that bill, and said that he would do it again, inaccurately claiming that the legislation “did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis.”

So, naturally, Republicans have seen fit to name Toomey to the Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the nation’s financial regulatory laws. The committee was instrumental in crafting Dodd-Frank.

Here’s what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — which released its final report yesterday — had to say about the bill Toomey claims did nothing to bring about the financial crisis:

The CFMA effectively shielded OTC derivatives from virtually all regulation or oversight. Subsequently, other laws enabled the expansion of the market…The OTC derivatives market boomed. At year-end 2000, when the CFMA was passed, the notional amount of OTC derivatives outstanding globally was $95.2 trillion, and the gross market value was $3.2 trillion. In the seven and a half years from then until June 2008, when the market peaked, outstanding OTC derivatives increased more than sevenfold to a notional amount of $672.6 trillion; their gross market value was $20.3 trillion.

Ultimately, the FCIC concluded, derivatives “were at the center of the storm.” And yet, Republicans put someone on the Banking Committee who has said that he would go back and deregulate those instruments all over again if he could.

In the course of his career, Toomey’s collected almost $2.5 million from the finance industry. He was also the the president of the Wall Street front group Club for Growthfrom 2005-2009.

Veterans Slam Rep. Bachmann’s Plan To Cut Vet Benefits: ‘Heartless,’ ‘Shows Contempt’ For Troops’ Sacrifice

By Alex Seitz-Wald

In her tea party-fueled quest to cut government spending and social programs, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has unveiled a plan to cut $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing the Veterans Affairs Department’s health care spending and cuts veterans’ disability benefits. The Air Force Times reportsher plan would slice $4.5 billion from the VA, including reducing 150,000 veterans’ disability compensation and the amount they receive in Social Security Disability Income.

A host of veterans groups slammed Bachmann’s plan:

–Veterans of Foreign War national commander Richard L. Eubank said, “The only discussion the VFW wants is to tell the congresswoman that her plan is totally out of step with America’s commitment to our veterans.” “No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress,” said Eubank. “There are certain things you do not do when our nation is at war, and at the top of that list is not caring for our wounded and disabled servicemen and women when they return home,” he said. “I want her to look those disabled veterans in the eye and tell them their service and sacrifice is too expensive for the nation to bear.”

–The National Veterans Foundation’s Rich Rudnick told ThinkProgress that Bachmann’s plan is “terribly misguided,” saying, “veterans benefits are minimal to begin with” and that Bachmann’s scheme would be a “real step backwards.” “Cutting back on the VA right now would be showing contempt for American servicemembers’ sacrifices,” Rudnick said in a phone interview this afternoon.

–Disabled American Veterans Washington Headquarters Executive Director David Gorman said Bachmann’s plan is “[s]uch an ill-advised proposal [it] is nothing short of heartless.” “It is unconscionable that while our nation is at war someone would even think of forcing our wounded warriors to sacrifice even more than they already have,” Gorman said. “Their injuries and disabilities were the result of their service to the nation, and our nation must not shirk its responsibilities toward them. How do you tell a veteran who has lost a limb that he or she has not sacrificed enough? Yet Rep. Bachmann wants to do just that.”

–Veterans for Common Sense executive director Paul Sullivan “said cutting veterans’ health care spending is an ill-advised move at a time when the number of veterans continues to grow as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan.” “It is really astonishing to see this,” he said.

– Chairman Ashwin Madia said, “Michelle Bachmann’s plan would turn veterans away from the care they’ve earned and deserve. Congress voted for two wars that have created many veterans that now need help, and we cannot – and will not – turn our backs to them. That’s bad policy that I think even a majority of Republican voters will stand squarely against.”

In a statement to the Air Force Times, Bachmann “said her plan is intended for discussion purposes as an example of ways to cut federal spending.”

Obama Ridicules Conservative Disinformation On Health Reform: ‘Granny Is Safe!’

By Alex Seitz-Wald

The conservative campaign against President Obama’s health care reform law hasbeen built around baseless distortions and fabrications about the policy, such as its mythical “death panels” that would “pull the plug on grandma,” the false claim that the law is “job killing,” and the equally false claim that the law will “explode the deficit.” President Obama has largely avoided taking on this disinformation directly, but in a speech today sponsored by the pro-reform Families USA, the president lambasted these conservative falsehoods, saying the fear mongering “just doesn’t match up to reality.” And noting that conservatives tried to claim the law is “granny-threatening,” Obama joked, “I can report that granny is safe!”:

OBAMA: Now as important as what is happening right now, is what isn’t happening right now. You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That’s how it’s been portrayed by opponents. But that just doesn’t match up toreality. [...]

And I can report that granny is safe! In fact, grandma’s Medicare is stronger than ever. And if she was one of the millions who fell into the donut hole last year, she’ll received a $250 check, or soon will, to help her afford her medicine, and a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs, as part of the affordable care act.

Watch it:

Conservatives are forced to resort to deception on health care because Americansoverwhelming don’t want the Affordable Care Act repealed and favor most of its components. Meanwhile, Republicans have no clear plan to address health care on their own, should their doomed repeal bid actually succeed.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Fox Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miseably

From Media Matters:

In an article titled, "Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever," sought to debunk the fact that Earth has warmed over the past 30 years, as well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming. But Fox largely ignored climate science and botched basic facts in the article, portions of which "are utter nonsense" and "do not make sense" according to climatologists consulted by Media Matters, including one of the skeptics cited by Fox.


fox news screengrab

Fox Reports That Climatologist Roy Spencer "Takes Issue" With Data Adjustments Roy Spencer "Takes Issue With The Way That Data Is Normalized And Adjusted." The article did not provide any information about Spencer's concerns but reported in a section sowing doubts about the temperature data: "Satellite data is arguably the most accurate way to measure temperature. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, takes issue with the way that data is normalized and adjusted, instead presenting raw, unadjusted data on his website. The WMO does not use this data." [, 1/24/11]

Spencer Says Fox's Reporting On Him "Does Not Make Sense"

Spencer: The Part That Mentions Me ... Does Not Make Sense." Media Matters asked Spencer via email to explain the "issue" Fox claimed he had with "the way that data is normalized and adjusted." In response, Spencer wrote that he "wasn't aware" of the report. He further stated that he "read the part that mentions me, and it does not make sense." [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]

Spencer: "No One I Know Seriously Debates That Warming Has Actually Occurred." Spencer, who contends that the warming trend is natural rather than manmade, further told Media Matters via email, "I love FoxNews, but this was a little sloppy." He added: "We have differing opinions on the cause of one I know seriously debates that warming has actually ....I think whether 2010 was a record or not is not terrible relevant to the debate" [Ellipses in original]. [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]

Spencer's Data Is Not "Unadjusted." Spencer's website reports the "UAH [University of Alabama in Huntsville] Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere" and states that the datasets "represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years." [, accessed 1/25/11]

  • Contrary to Fox's claim that Spencer presents "raw, unadjusted data on his website," Spencer explained via email that "[t]he raw satellite data DO need to be adjusted, and I post on my website ( monthly updates AFTER John Christy and I have performed those adjustments. [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]
  • Spencer's website also explains how UAH adjusts and corrects the raw satellite data. [, 1/6/10]

Spencer Himself Reported That 2010 Was Tied As Warmest Year On Record. Spencer and John Christy, both of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, reported that according to their data, "2010 finished in a photo finish with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record." They further noted that "[b]oth 1998 and 2010 were years in which an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event raised temperatures around the globe." [, 1/18/11]

  • USA Today also reported:

In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH).

Unlike the climate center's surface-based temperatures, UAH's data are based on instruments aboard satellites from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about 5 miles above sea level.

The satellite data show that the globe continues to warm unevenly. Warming increases as you go north: The Arctic Ocean has warmed an average of almost 3 degrees in the past 32 years. [USA Today, 1/13/11]

Fox Pushes Claim That El Nino Is Causing Global Warming Joe Bastardi Says El Nino Caused Warming Of Past 30 Years. From the article:

Of course temperatures are up, said Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist with Accuweather: It's El Niño, stupid.

"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down," Bastardi told "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool." [, 1/24/11]

Scientists Say El Nino Can't Explain The Long-Term Warming Trend

Kevin Trenberth Of NCAR: "The Statements Are Utter Nonsense." Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), told Media Matters via email:

The heat has to come from somewhere. In El Nino: or really the ENSO cycle of El Nino and then La Nina, the heat builds up during La Nina, and then is redistributed and comes out of the ocean during and following El Nino.

This is well documented (I can point you to papers). So there is a mini global warming (increase in temperature) in the latter part of El Nino.

The heat has to come from somewhere and so if the climate is warming because of a warm cycle in the Pacific, where did the heat come from? If it just comes from the ocean then the ocean must be cooling down. It isn't. Of course it is global warming from increased greenhouse gases that warms the ocean!

The statements are utter nonsense. [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]

David Pierce Of Scripps Institution Of Oceanography: "The Up-And-Down Temperature Sequence" Of El Ninos "Does Not Match" The Long-Term Warming Trend. David Pierce, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography responded to the question, "How do climate scientists know that the warming in the past 30 years is not due to El Ninos?" by writing:

This question reminds me of when I was young, and my grandfather took me and my 5-year old cousin on an elevator ride. My grandfather told her that if she jumped up and down, she could jump to the top of the building. So she energetically jumped up and down, and after a minute the elevator doors opened, and there we were at the top of the building! My cousin was mighty impressed.

Of course, she was only 5, so we can forgive her for not understanding that it's perfectly possible for two things to be happening at the same time. She was jumping up and down, but the elevator car was going up at the same time. El Nino and the warming we have seen over the last 30 years are like that. We have had El Ninos (warm events) and La Ninas (cold events), which push the Earth up and down in temperature. (By the National Center for Environmental Predictions's count -- they are part of NOAA, who also runs the National Weather Service -- we have had about 11 El Nino (warm) events since 1970, and about 10 La Nina (cold) events). At the same time, there has been a long-term, systematic warming of the planet. So the main way we know that El Nino is not responsible for the "global warming" in recent decades is that the up-and-down temperature sequence of the El Ninos and La Ninas does not match the long-term, secular rise in temperatures.

Another way you can check if El Nino/La Nina are responsible for he planetary warming is by examining the regions that they tend to influence, and see if there is a match. The planetary warming can be seen across broad swaths of the globe, but is concentrated in the polar regions. El Nino warming is concentrated in the tropics. So the spatial signature of El Nino warming does not match the spatial pattern of global warming either. [Email to Media Matters, 1/26/11]

RealClimate: Scientists Have "Known For Decades" That El Nino Correlates With Global Temperatures. From a July 2009 post on Real Climate, a science blog written by working climate scientists:

First, there is an atrocious paper that has just been published in JGR by McLean, de Freitas and Carter that is doing the rounds of the denialosphere. These authors make the completely unsurprising point that that there is a correlation between ENSO indices and global mean temperature - something that has been well known for decades - and then go on to claim that that all trends are explained by this correlation as well. This is somewhat surprising since their method of analysis (which involves taking the first derivative of any changes) eliminates the influence of any trends in the correlation. [, 7/24/09]

Scientists Seek To Account For El Nino Effects When Evaluating Climate Change. Physicist John Cook wrote on his website that "[t]here have been various attempts to filter out the ENSO signal from the temperature record," adding that analyses have confirmed that El Ninos have a "strong short term effect on global temperature but cannot explain the long term trend." From the post:

An examination of the temperature record from 1880 to 2007 finds internal variability such as El Nino has relatively small impact on the long term trend (Hoerling 2008). Instead, they find long term trends in sea surface temperatures are driven predominantly by the planet's energy imbalance.

There have been various attempts to filter out the ENSO signal from the temperature record. We've examined one such paper by Fawcett 2007 when addressing the global warming stopped in 1998 argument. Similarly, Thompson 2008 filters out the ENSO signal from the temperature record. What remains is a warming trend with less variability. [, 9/3/10]

Climate Scientist Jim Hurrell: La Nina Had Cooling Influence In 2007 And 2008 -- Years That Were "Still Much Warmer Than The Long-Term Average." From an October 2009 PolitiFact article:

Jim Hurrell, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says these natural temperature variations are expected. "In the same way that El Nino made 1998 warm, in 2007 and 2008, La Nina made global temperatures a bit cooler than they have been running, but still much warmer than the long-term average," Hurrell said referring to El Nino's cooler counterpart. [,10/27/09]

NOAA Oceanographer: El Nino Events Occur "On Top Of" Warmer "Baseline Temperatures." The New York Times reported in September 2010:

Drastic die-offs of coral were seen for the first time in 1983 in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean, during a large-scale weather event known as El Niño. During an El Niño, warm waters normally confined to the western Pacific flow to the east; 2010 is also an El Niño year.

Serious regional bleaching has occurred intermittently since the 1983 disaster. It is clear that natural weather variability plays a role in overheating the reefs, but scientists say it cannot, by itself, explain what has become a recurring phenomenon.

"It is a lot easier for oceans to heat up above the corals' thresholds for bleaching when climate change is warming the baseline temperatures," said C. Mark Eakin, who runs a program called Coral Reef Watch for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "If you get an event like El Niño or you just get a hot summer, it's going to be on top of the warmest temperatures we've ever seen." [The New York Times, 9/20/10]

Fox Cites Claim That December 2010 "Was The Second-Coldest December" On Record Cites Claim That "December 2010" Was Second-Coldest On Record. From the article:

4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.

"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency.

It's an odd fact, one Bastardi thinks is telling. He said that the transition from the El Niño warming period into the La Niña cooling period will herald a crash of global temperatures, normalizing world heat levels -- especially when analyzed via Spencer's satellite data charts. [, 1/24/11]

But Fox Pointed To Data For The UK, Not For The Entire Globe

McIntyre Reported December Values For "CET - Central England." links to a January 4 blog post by Steve McIntyre which states:

December values of the longest instrumental record in the world (CET - Central England) are just in.

December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659 (including the Little Ice Age.) Only Dec 1890 was colder (by a slim 0.1 deg C). [, 1/4/11]

  • Data Represent Part Of United Kingdom, Not The Entire Globe. The Met Office states that the CET dataset is "representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol." [, accessed 1/26/11]

December 2010 Was Colder Than Normal In Some Regions But Warmer Than Normal For The Planet. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported: "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for December 2010 was 0.37°C (0.67°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F). This tied with 1982 and 1994 as the 17th warmest December on record." NCDC further stated:

Regionally, a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation brought cooler-than-average temperatures to large portions of the Northern Hemispere land areas. The United Kingdom's temperatures were, on average, about 5°C (9°F) below the 1971-2000 average during the month of December, making it the coldest December in more than 100 years, according to the UK Met Office. [NOAA, January 2011]

Met Office: 2010 Was "Second Warmest Year On Record." From a Met Office news release:

The Met Office and the University of East Anglia have today released provisional global temperature figures for 2010, which show the year to be the second warmest on record.

With a mean temperature of 14.50 °C, 2010 becomes the second warmest year on record, after 1998. The record is maintained by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit at UEA.

Earlier this month, in the US, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center announced that the past year is either warmest or equal-warmest on their respective records.

Events in the Pacific Ocean have heavily influenced the global temperature in 2010. The year began in El Niño conditions, which have a warming effect. But the El Niño was replaced by a very strong La Niña - the strongest for more than 30 years - which acts to cool the climate. [Met Office, 1/20/11]

Barry Grommett Of Met Office: "The Important Picture Is Global." The Telegraph reported on January 21:

Barry Grommett, of the Met Office, said a freezing start to the year in January and February and then the coldest December ever recorded brought down the temperature in the UK.

Both weather patterns were caused by a blocking pattern of high pressure in the mid atlantic that cut off mild westerly wind and made the UK and most of the rest of western Europe colder than usual.

However at the same time the rest of the world was having heatwaves. In particular it was a warm winter in Canada and Siberia and eastern mediterraean.

Greenland lost more ice than any other year while the capital of Greenland, Nuuk, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873.

Mr Grommett said despite the cold year in the UK the world is warming.

"It is a natural perception to look out window and see snow and think the world cannot be possibly be warming but the UK is a small dot on the world surface and the important picture is global and in that 2010 has been a very warm year." [Telegraph, 1/21/11]

Fox Falsely Suggests Meteorologist Anthony Watts Has Shown That Temperature Data Exaggerate Warming "The Land Data Is Being Challenged Extensively By Anthony Watt [sic]." From the January 24 article:

But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

1. Where does the data come from? Average temperatures globally last year were 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit (0.53 Celsius) higher than the 1961-90 mean that is used for comparison purposes, according to the WMO -- a statement based on three climate data sets from U.K. and U.S. weather agencies. They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites -- and they've come under dramatic scrutiny in recent years.

The land data is being challenged extensively by Anthony Watt on his website. Watts recently graded 61% of the stations used to measure temperature with a D -- for being located less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source. Many climate skeptics also take issue with NASA and NOAA, the U.S. agencies that gather U.S. climate data, but also manipulate and "normalize" it. [, 1/24/11]

In Fact, Watts' Claims Are Based On Photographs Of Weather Stations, Not Actual Analysis of Temps

Jeff Masters: "Watts Did Not Actually Analyze The Data To See" If The Observed Global Temperatures Were Biased. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for Weather Underground, a commercial weather service, wrote on January 25, 2010:

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs the popular global warming contrarian website, "Watts Up With That", was convinced that many of the U.S. network of surface weather stations had serious flaws in their siting that was causing an artificial warm bias in the observed increase in U.S. temperatures of 1.1°F over the past century. To address this concern, Watts established the website in 2007, which enlisted an army of volunteers to travel the U.S. to obtain photographic evidence of poor siting of weather stations. The goal was to document cases where "microclimate" influence was important, and could be contaminating temperature measurements. (Note that this is a separate issue from the Urban Heat Island, the phenomenon where a metropolitan area in general is warmer than surrounding rural areas). Watts' volunteers--650 strong--documented the siting of 865 of the 1,218 stations used in the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for tracking climate change. As reported in Watt's 2009 publication put out by the Heartland Institute, the volunteers "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." Watts surmised that these poorly-sited stations were responsible for much of the increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century, due to "a bias trend that likely results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc." Watts concluded, "the U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be the best in the world, it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable".

While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. [, 1/25/10]

Chip Knappenberger: Watts Has Not Shown "That There Is A Warm Bias In the Adjusted U.S. Temperature Record As A Result" Of Any Bias In The Stations. Andrew Revkin reported that Chip Knappenberger, "a frequent critic of climate overstatement," stated of Watts' work:

I've seen a lot of Anthony Watts' presentations and pictures of poorly sited thermometers, but never an analysis to conclusively show that there is a warm bias in the adjusted U.S. temperature record as a result. Yes, many sites are poorly situated and the temperature they read is impacted by things other than the larger-scale weather -- but also, such things are being corrected for (or at least an attempt is being made to correct for them) by the various producers of a U.S. temperature history (i.e. Menne et al. at NCDC). So, while the raw data are undoubtedly a mixture of climate and non-climatic influences, the adjusted data presumably have more of a climate signal. The recent paper by Menne et al., seems to bear this out. Anthony Watts and colleagues, no doubt have an analysis of their own in the works. It'll be interesting to see what their results show. The results from Menne et al. suggest that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, it is the data which actually tells the story. I await a formal analysis from Watts et al. and the story that it may tell. [, Dot Earth, 1/28/19]

Peer-Reviewed Study Found Slight "Cool" Bias, Not Warm Bias, From Poorly Placed Stations. A peer-reviewed study by NOAA scientists and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research addressed Watts' research and found "no evidence" that the temperature trends "are inflated due to poor station siting":

Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative ("cool") bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting. [Journal of Geophysical Research, 6/8/10]

  • Watts Plans To Publish His Own Analysis. Watts wrote in May 2010 that the study in the Journal of Geophysical Research "'borrowed' my incomplete surfacestations rating data against my protests." He added, "Assuming we aren't blocked by journal politics, we'll have the surfacestations analysis results in public view soon. If we are blocked by journal politics, we'll have other ways." [, 5/19/10]

New Network Of U.S. Climate Stations Meets Higher Standards. According to NOAA, the Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a new network of weather stations that "adhere to all of the Global Climate Monitoring Principles and are located are located in areas free local human influences and have excellent site location characteristics. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change." [NOAA, 7/6/09]

  • Study Found Adjusted Temperature Data Are "Well Aligned" With Results From New Stations. The study in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that "the USHCN adjusted data averaged over the CONUS are well aligned with the averages derived from the USCRN for the past five years." [Journal of Geophysical Research, 6/8/10]

Temperature Measurements Aren't The Only Reason Scientists Say The Globe Is Warming. NOAA explains that in addition to temperature measurements, "other independent observations" confirm the warming trend:

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels. [NOAA, accessed 1/26/11]

Fox Cites Lord Monckton's Claim That Antarctic Ice Undermines The Case For Global Warming

Fox Trumpets Lord Monckton's Claim That Loss Of Arctic Sea Ice Has Been Matched "By A Near-Equally Rapid Gain of Antarctic Sea Ice." From the article:

2. There's less ice is in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometers, 1.35 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average for December. The agency called it the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September.

In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, argued Lord Monckton, a British politician, journalist, and noted skeptic of global warming. He points out that "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice."

When the summer Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high, Monckton said. [, 1/24/11]

Climate Scientists Note Antarctic Sea Ice Trend Does Not Disprove Global Climate Change

Arctic Sea Ice Is Declining Faster Than Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing. Contrary to Monkton's claim, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) states: "Although Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2009, Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase. The Antarctic ice extent increases were smaller in magnitude than the Arctic increases, and some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent."

sea ice chart[, accessed 1/25/10]

Scientists Note That Arctic And Antarctic Sea Ice Aren't Expected To Act The Same Way. The Christian Science Monitor reported in January 2008:

For some commentators, the out-of-sync trends in sea ice at the two poles is evidence that warming isn't global and doesn't deserve the international angst it triggers.

Not so fast, many researchers respond. Northern and southern sea ice shouldn't necessarily act in lock-step. "Antarctic sea ice is such a different animal," says Douglas Martinson, another polar-ice specialist at Lamont-Doherty. Geographic and oceanographic differences - a virtually landlocked ocean in the north versus an open ocean in the south - encourage the buildup of thick, long-lasting, multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean. Antarctica's sea ice, by contrast, is largely thin and seasonal. In winter, Antarctic sea ice covers an area nearly twice the size of Europe. By the end of summer, it shrinks to one-sixth of its winter extent. These wide swings make it difficult to tease out long-term trends in ice cover there. [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/08]

NSIDC: "Loss Of Ozone" And "Increases In Greenhouse Gases" Affect Winds And Ice. From NSIDC:

Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability. Specifically, the months of May, June, July, September and October show trends of increasing sea ice extent that are just slightly above the mean year-to-year variability (for example, the October trend is 0.8% per decade ± 0.7% as of 2010). In more technical terms, the trends are statistically significant at the 95% level, although small.

Climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. The dominant change in the climate pattern of Antarctica has been a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds. Models suggest that both the loss of ozone (the ozone hole that occurs in September/October every year) and increases in greenhouse gases lead to an increase in this climate pattern.

When winds push on sea ice, they tend to move it in the direction they are blowing, but the Coriolis effect adds an apparent push to the left. In the unconfined system of Antarctic sea ice, this pushes the ice northward away from the continent. By spreading sea ice westward and a little northward (and since we measure extent with a 15% cut-off) the gradual trend towards faster mean winds means a gradual trend toward spreading of the ice cover.

Moreover, this trend towards stronger circumpolar winds appears to be causing the sea ice decline near the Antarctic Peninsula. In general the winds tend to dive slightly southward as they approach the Peninsula, an effect of the mountain ridges of the Andes and other circulation features in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea. A stronger wind from the northwest brings warmer conditions and therefore less ice to the region. Lastly, the El Nino and La Nina cycle also appear to influence sea ice in the Pacific sector. El Nino patterns (a warm eastern tropical Pacific) are associated with warmer winds and less ice; the opposite is true for La Nina.

Even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun's energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet's temperature. [, December 2010]

Recent Study Shines Light On Why Antarctic Sea Ice Has Been Increasing. Discovery News reported in August 2010:

For years scientists have puzzled over how the sea surface temperature around Antarctica has risen, but sea ice there has been increasing at the same time.

"We just want to understand this paradox," said Jiping Liu of Georgia Institute of Technology. "For the past 30 years, the Arctic sea ice has been decreasing while Antarctic sea ice has been increasing. We've been trying to explain this."

To do that, Liu and veteran climate modeler Judith Curry analyzed Southern Ocean temperature records and the best simulations of sea surface temperature.

They found that higher sea surface temperatures during the last half of the 20th century probably revved up the hydrological cycle above the Southern Ocean, creating a situation in which more sea ice can grow. In other words, higher sea surface temperatures increased evaporation in more temperate zones, which ramped up precipitation closer to Antarctica.

That additional precipitation has yet another effect that helps increase sea ice: It lowers the salinity of the surface water, which slows the melting of sea ice, Liu explained. The result is that the growth of sea ice has outpaced melting.

But the ice building and preserving effects are only temporary, Liu told Discovery News, who with Curry published their findings in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If the sea and air warm even more in the 21st century, as projected, much of that extra snowfall could turn into rainfall, which would rapidly melt ice all around the southernmost continent. [Discovery News, 8/16/10]

Monckton Believes Climate Treaty Will "Impose A Communist World Government On The World." During an October 2009 presentation in Minnesota, Moncton stated:

MONCKTON: How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they'd captured it, now the apotheosis is at hand.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace laureate -- of course he'll sign. And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution. And you can't resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other states' parties. [Media Matters, 10/14/09]

Monckton Previously Advocated Quarantining AIDS Patients "For Life." In a 1987 American Spectator article, Moncton advocated requiring the entire population to undergo monthly HIV tests and forcibly quarantining "for life" those who test positive. [Media Matters, 12/11/09]

Fox Falsely Claims Japan's Meteorological Agency "Agrees" That El Nino Caused The Warming Of Past 30 Years "Japan's Meteorological Agency Agrees With Bastardi's Conclusion." From the article:

Of course temperatures are up, said Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist with Accuweather: It's El Niño, stupid.

"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down," Bastardi told "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."

Japan's Meteorological Agency agrees with Bastardi's conclusion, stating recently that "it can be presumed that the high temperatures in recent years have been influenced by natural climate fluctuations with the periods ranging from several years to several decades," as well as by greenhouse gases including CO2.

"This year's warming can also be attributable to an El Niño event which lasted from summer 2009 to spring 2010," the agency said. [, 1/24/11]

The Article Itself Contradicts This Claim. As the article itself notes, the Japan Meteorological Agency stated that natural variations and human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to recent warming, meaning that natural causes alone cannot account for all of the increase. The agency's news release reported that the global average temperature in 2010 is "most likely to become the second warmest record since 1891." [Japanese Meteorological Agency, 12/21/10]

  • Japan Meteorological Agency Is Reportedly Concerned About "Heat-Trapping Gases." Kyodo News Service reported on December 19, 2010, that the Japan Meteorological Agency "requested 330 million yen in its fiscal 2011 budget request for strengthening countermeasures against global warming, with officials saying it is crucial to monitor the heat-trapping gases to come up with effective measures to prevent global warming." [Kyodo News Service via BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 12/19/10, accessed via Nexis]

Fox Baselessly Claims 2011 "May Be Among The Coldest In Decades"

Without Providing Any Sources, Claims 2011 "May Be Among The Coldest In Decades." From the article:

4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades. [, 1/24/11]

Met Office: La Nina Expected To Push Down Global Temperature In 2011. The climate research centers have not released any temperature data for 2011. However, the Met Office wrote on December 2, 2010, that 2011 is "unlikely to be a record year" due to the cooling effect of La Nina, but did not predict, as does, that it will be "among the coldest in decades." From the Met Office news release:

The Met Office annual global temperature forecast for 2010, Climate could warm to record levels in 2010, issued at the COP15 talks in Copenhagen, predicted that the year was "more likely than not" to be the warmest year. Dr Adam Scaife, head of long range forecasting at the Met Office said, "The three leading global temperature datasets show that, so far, 2010 is clearly warmer than 2009 despite El Niño declining and being replaced by a very strong La Niña, which has a cooling effect."

Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely -- with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record. [Met Office,12/2/10]

Met Office: Cooling Influences Of La Nina "Can Strongly Influence Individual Years," But Are "Quite Small" Compared To Long-Term Warming. The Met Office further stated:

Interannual variations of global surface temperature are strongly affected by the warming influences of El Niño and the cooling influences of La Niña in the Pacific Ocean. These are quite small when compared to the total global warming since 1900 of about 0.8 °C but nevertheless typically reach about ±0.10 °C, and can strongly influence individual years. [Met Office, 12/2/10]

Fox Misleadingly Cites 1970s Prediction Of Global Cooling In 1970, "One Researcher Predicted That The Planet Would Be 11 Degrees Colder" By 2000. From the article:

5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event."

And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. [, 1/24/11]

Prediction Attributed To Kenneth E.F. Watt. In an article from December 30, 2010, attributes to Kenneth E.F. Watt the statement: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." [, 12/30/10]

Kenneth Watt Is Not A Climate Scientist. According to a July 23, 1985, Washington Post report, Kenneth E.F. Watt was "a zoologist at the University of California, Davis." [The Washington Post, 7/23/85]

Watt Worked With Group That Claims Increased Greenhouse Emissions Are A Good Thing. Watt is listed in as an advisor to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. [Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, accessed 1/26/11]

  • Group Received FUnding From Exxon Mobil. The New York Times reported in September 2005 that the British scientific group the Royal Society "contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading "inaccurate and misleading" information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue." The article further reported that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was among the groups funded by Exxon Mobil in 2005 according to the Royal Society. [The New York Times, 8/21/06]
  • The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reportedly pushes the notion that "putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet." [Mother Jones, 12/4/09]

There Was No Consensus Among Climate Scientists On Global Cooling In The 1970s. A September 2008 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, a peer-reviewed publication, investigated the "pervasive myth" that "there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent." The article found:

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. [Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008]

Survey: 97% of 77 Active Climate Scientists Said "Human Activity Is A Significant Contributing Factor" In Changing Global Temperatures. A survey conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois asked Earth scientists:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys.


Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered "risen" to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. [Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 1/20/09]

Study: 97-98% Of The Most Active Climate Researchers Support Tenets Of Human-Caused Climate Change. From a study led by William Anderegg of Stanford University:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 6/21/10]