Another Senate candidate.

Word from a credible source has David Nolan, a co-founder of the Libertarian Party, running for the U.S. Senate as that organization's candidate.

Nolan is underwhelming in person, to put it politely, and generally opposed to the sort of libertarianism that admits ideas and solutions instead of reflexive "principles". He's also been a destructive force within the Libertarian Party. At the 2008 convention at what was supposed to be an "elder statesman" dinner he called for the Reform Caucus, the single best hope for reviving that moribund 3rd party, to "go reform the GOP", and supported the restoration of a dippy, ideological platform that does the opposite of showing off the best of modern libertarianism. For as long as he's been around, he's said to have been a supporter of the Sarah Palinization of the Libertarian Party, and Brian Doherty's book has him as a driver of the "Never again Clark!" movement that destroyed the LP's shot at UK Liberal Party or German Free Democrats-style credibility. It's worse: later in 2008, he backstabbed the Bob Barr campaign when it was at its fundraising and earned-media peak. I have the e-mails if anyone is interested.

Given that he has never held public office or served in government, the public would be right in having zero confidence in his ability to represent Arizona. Perhaps he's capable of understanding the issues, but I don't know the man to take advice from anyone. That having been said, he's almost as "qualified" as Rodney Glassman. Nobody is ever ready for the Senate.

Back in 2006, Nolan called global warming a "hoax", as though hundreds of scientific papers--of which I have read dozens--were simply made-up by their authors. That was a reckless and idiotic position, of the sort that totally undermined my confidence in the man's ability to have an honest opinion of anything, and a slander of many good people. There isn't a chance in hell he'll receive either my vote or my personal endorsement, unless he vocally comes clean on environmental issues and shows some respect for science. That is to say, unless I see a different Nolan, I'm not voting for Nolan. Jeff Flake, a good modern classical liberal around whom there was a Senatorial "buzz" before it became clear that McCain wouldn't retire, supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but in the Libertarian Party, it's exceedingly rare that the grown folks are in charge. I'd love for Nolan to show the seriousness and command of the issues of Flake, but I've learned not to expect to be impressed by 3rd Party candidates.

Glassman aims for the Senate.

Back when Rodney Glassman was first seeking public office, I remarked that he was an overgrown fratboy, a trustafarian dandy with a sense of entitlement big enough to get him kicked out of Carol West's office, and doubted his capability to be an effective City Councilman. (Follow the keyword link at the bottom of the page for some colorful information, or just search Tucsonweekly.com for "Glassman" and "get out of town".) To my surprise--and pleasantly, as I don't like seeing people screw up--he grew in to the position quickly. Those who pay attention to the City Council know that he's actually been the voice of good sense more often than not.

By now, his resignation from office in order to run for the U.S. Senate is old news. Do I think he's ready? Is anybody ready for the Senate? Is this an endorsement? No, but it's an update. And for the record, I think Lori Oien would make a great Councilwoman, the same as I did when she first ran for the seat.

My unsolicited advice for Glassman:

1. Lose the smirk. Learn to smile like a man.
   
2. Don't do it. Resignation is irrevocable, but it gives you the chance to go do something with your life. "(1) Trustafarian Grijalva flunky and (2) City Councilman" is a shoddy resumé. Add a science or engineering degree to that list of credentials and actually make or build something. Or go into business for yourself in something nontechnical and find out how the private sector works for those who create and don't merely inherit wealth. Before his stint on the Phoenix City Council, Barry Goldwater had experience as a military officer and with the day-to-day direction of a private firm. One that he inherited a stake in, yes, but that did not prevent him from learning how wealth is created, how free-market capitalism benefits the little guy, and how to sympathize meaningfully with those who are trying to get a leg up in this world. If the Democratic Party has a serious cultural shortcoming beyond its willful ignorance of free-market solutions to modern problems such as what is (not was, still is) wrong with health care and health insurance, it is this lack of appreciation for the entrepreneur. One cannot divide the U.S.A. almost literally into classes, into "haves" and "have nots", into "the rich" and "the poor", each with de facto different legal status, one as the permanent recipient of transfers and the end in himself and the other as the permanent source of transfers and a means to an end, and at the same time respect the entrepreneur. Come out and scramble like the rest of us, and it'll make you better than the average Democrat.
   
3. Krugman's popular work, especially for the New York Times, is shameful trash. Krugman the scholar is worthwhile reading. Dive in. And read some Hayek while you're at it for background. I'm serious.
   
4. Attend a few Tea Party rallies. Just hold your nose and do it. Get outside your comfort zone and learn something about Americans' values.
   
5. Let yourself be photographed with a shouldered AR-15. It'll save you a lot of trouble.
   

"Climategate" comes to Arizona

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has sent intimidating-sounding but somewhat vacuous letters to University of Arizona dendrochronologist Malcolm Hughes and paleoclimatologist Jon "Peck" Overpeck. Something a bit more substantial was directed to U of A General Counsel Lynne Wood.

To Wood:

Recently a large number of alleged CRU documents and e-mails were released to the public. These documents and e-mails outline disturbing trend of actions, which, at the least, imply activity to create a false impression of the certainty of climate change science. I will be conducting an investigation into these matters.

I am requesting that you secure, as soon as possible, all documents and records related to the communications or other interactions with CRU. This would include materials directly and reasonably related to CRU documents, e-mails, and its subject matter. Should you discover that other employees in your agency/organization have interacted with CRU or have furnished information which may be used in communications with CRU, please secure those documents as well.

Very interesting doublespeak there: "Released to the public." Meaning "somebody committed a computer crime, downloaded information from a mailserver, and then released the stolen information to the public."

And the e-mails don't really "imply activity to create a false impression of anything", at least not to a reasonable person familiar with academic science, when put in their proper context. The stolen e-mails may contain evidence that U.K. scientists ran afoul of that country's Freedom of Information laws, at least enough to merit investigation. There's nothing in the e-mails pointing to wrongdoing by any U.S. researcher. Claims to the contrary have all fallen apart upon critical inspection.

But to the point: Inhofe is requesting communications between U of A scientists and those at the CRU--and the "and its subject matter" bit can only mean that he is requesting all documents and records pertaining to climatology done at the U of A, from all labs!

The letters sent to Overpeck and Hughes were clearly both showboating and a smear. The stolen e-mails not imply a single act of wrongdoing by either man, but Inhofe's letters serve a way to imply that their activities are suspect without making an accusation.

The request for all information, however, is clearly nothing but an harassment tactic, designed to prevent scientists from spending their time doing science. Can the "legal eagles" clarify to what extent this request must actually be met?

Overpeck and Hughes are both holding their own in the Daily Star. Those who bother to read can confirm: no wrongdoing here.

If you stop at "We need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", yes, it looks bad, but stopping there is simply lazy. When reputations are at stake due diligence is a moral obligation. That's something Inhofe doesn't understand. (And I'd love to see him cross the line to libel, so Overpeck can sue him off the planet!) Overpeck makes due diligence easy:

Overpeck said last week that he had searched through his e-mails dating back a decade, and could find none like Deming referred to. Overpeck pointed out that he has written papers dating to the late 1990s saying that various records, including tree rings, stretching back 1,200 years, confirm earlier assertions that the Medieval period was warmer than today in the North Atlantic and northern Europe — but not globally.
"My papers are the record of fact, and in this case, I obviously did not try to get rid of the MWP," Overpeck said. "Instead, I have tried hard to be clear what it likely was and was not."

As I said: no scandal here, just a mal fide twisting of a scientist's words, a treatment of informal private communications as though they trump what Overpeck actually contributed to the scientific record.

If any Arizona scientist ought to be investigated regarding climate it's probably ASU's Robert Balling. Funding sources do not necessarily or even usually control scientific outcomes, but there are clear tail-wags-dog cases, like Fred Singer and the late Fred Seitz, who went from tobacco denialism to ozone hole denialism to global warming denialism. Balling doesn't publish his arguments against the scientific consensus (meaning, consensus of those with current scientific arguments) in the meaningful sense of "publish" but spends an awful lot of time directing them at a noncritical public. Just what is it that the Western Fuels Association pays him to do?

Balling, of course, will never be investigated by Inhofe, because he's a "skeptic". "Skeptic" in Oklahoman must mean "one who disagrees", without the implications of reason, caution, and modesty that the word usually carries. A skeptic, and most scientists are skeptics, who agrees with the only position compatible with what we know now--as Overpeck does--doesn't count. Being a real skeptic, that gets your research interrupted by a showboating Senator who has an ideological or psychopathological beef with the implications of your work.

No word yet on whether Inhofe's request for anything and everything pertaining to climatology has yet hampered research at the U of A. But Arizona taxpayers and donors to the U should be mad as hell. Being a U.S. Senator shouldn't mean that your peculiar form of crazy be nursed, in the form of a frivolous investigation, at the expense of a university.

Have questions? Readers should follow the instructions in Inhofe's letters and direct them to (202) 224-6176.