by JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, February 1, 2007 3:17 P.M. EST

They Call This Science?
Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform "took on the Bush administration's handling of climate change science" in a Tuesday hearing, the New York Times reports:

The fourth witness was Francesca Grifo, who directs the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group that researches environmental, arms control and other issues.

Dr. Grifo's testimony drew largely from a report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, a private group that defends whistle-blowers. The report, made public yesterday, is based on a Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal climate scientists and interviews and document searches by the Government Accountability Project. It says it is common for scientists to be pressured to eliminate references to climate change, for their work to be changed to misrepresent their findings, and for climate-related materials to disappear from Web sites.

Almost 60 percent of the scientists who responded to the survey said they had personally experienced such an incident in the last five years, the report says, and those who said their work was most closely related to climate change experienced the most interference.

The survey is here (PDF), and a closer look at it ought to raise some doubts.

The relevant questions, 19-33, appear on pages 4-5. Questions 19-30 list 12 "types of activities affecting climate science" and ask the respondent if he has "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" them. (Question 31, a catch-all "other" category, can be ignored, since few bothered even responding to it.)

One problem is that of these 12 questions, only three--Nos. 20, 24 and 25--clearly indicate that the scientist responding agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists on climate issues. A scientist who reports "self-induced pressure to change research or reporting in order to align findings with agency policy or to avoid controversy" (No. 23), for example, could feel such pressure to avoid raising doubts about global warming.

Note, too, the wording of that question: "self-induced pressure." The scientists who answered "yes" to this question are reporting on their own state of mind, not any objective facts that may bear on it. The same is true of questions 24 and 25, which refer to "fear of retaliation," and 27, which refers to "implicit expectation."

Many of these questions, too, simply reflect the realities of working in any bureaucracy, public or private. No. 19 asks if the scientists have perceived of experienced "changes/edits during review that change the meaning of scientific findings." Some have, but we have no basis on which to judge the merits of the disagreements between the scientists and their editors.

The biggest problem with the survey, though, is its basic methodology, explained on the first page of the PDF:

Following is the text of the survey UCS mailed to 1,630 federal climate scientists at seven federal agencies and departments, along with response data for the 279 scientists who completed and returned surveys.

That is, only about 17% of the scientists who received the survey actually filled it out and returned it. There is no reason to think this is a representative sample of the total population, and it seems reasonable to surmise that people who would go to the trouble of completing such a survey are more likely than those who wouldn't to perceive themselves as under political pressure--i.e., to agree with the UCS.

To put it much more simply, this was an unscientific survey. If this is how these guys do social science, how can we trust them with the hard stuff?

Who's the Lucky Guy?
"113 Nations Blame Man for Climate Change"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 1

Thank Me for Not Spitting
This is just breathtaking. William Arkin, who writes an online column for the Washington Post "on National and Homeland Security," takes soldiers to task for expressing "frustration with opposition to war in the United States":

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people. . . .

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society? . . .

The recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary--oops sorry, volunteer--force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

In a defensive follow-up, Arkin acknowledges that mercenary was an ill-chosen word. Still, we're hard-pressed to do justice to just how appalling this is, though James Lileks comes pretty close.

Botched Joke Watch
"An Iraqi-born Dutch citizen is facing terror charges in what the Justice Department calls the United States' first criminal prosecution of attacks targeting Americans in Iraq," the Associated Press reports from Washington:

Wesam al-Delaema, 33, is scheduled Monday to be in federal court in Washington to face terrorism conspiracy charges, Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said. . . .

In a 2003 interview broadcast on Dutch television, al-Delaema accused the U.S. and its allies of waging war in Iraq to control its oil reserves.

"The Americans and British are coming to our country to steal oil and everyone knows it," he said.

"I don't care if I myself die or not. I want to offer myself up for my land, for my people. I'm not more or less important than the women and children who you see on television dying because of America."

His family said the interview was intended as a joke.

Aw man, he blew the punch line! It was supposed to be: "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

MAD Mullahs?
"President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran," the New York Times reports.

Chirac later retracted his statements, saying "that he had spoken casually and quickly . . . because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record." Oh, well, that's a relief. The Times also notes that Chirac, "who is 74. . ., is said by French officials to have become much less precise in conversation" since a "neurological episode in 2005."

Still, let's think this through, shall we? There would seem to be a contradiction between the assertion that Iran's possession of nukes "would not pose a big danger" and the expectation that if Iran blew up, say, Tel Aviv, what's left of Israel would vaporize Tehran. That sounds like a huge danger to us.

What Chirac meant, of course, was that the danger is unlikely to materialize:

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Mr. Chirac asked. "It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Chirac is implicitly raising the specter of "mutual assured destruction," which kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from blowing up the world during the Cold War (though it did not eliminate the danger that they might one day do so). But can we count on Iran to follow the logic of deterrence? We're not so sure. Soviet communism was a utopian and inhumane ideology, but it did not share Shiite fundamentalism's apocalyptic streak.

It could be, too, that the Iranians are crazy like a fox: that they wouldn't actually use nukes but would succeed in cowing the world by persuading us that they're crazy enough to use it.

'Blogger in Chief'
"Left-wing blogger Amanda Marcotte of the vociferously anti-war web site Pandagon has been named by the John Edwards campaign as their new blogmaster," reports the Blogger News Network:

The extent of Ms. Marcotte's responsibilities at the Edwards site, and the nature of the political operations she will be undertaking as a member of the Edwards campaign, have not yet been detailed publicly.

Here is a Marcotte blog entry from just last week:

Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let's hope it takes off when they say it will so I don't miss my connecting flight home.

In the meantime, I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good [obscene progressive participle] god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and [obscene past-tense verb] her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

At the very least, this is potentially libelous, given that the lacrosse players--although still charged with sexual assault (but not rape)--haven't actually been convicted of anything. It is also, shall we say, rather intemperate in tone, and one wonders if Edwards knew just what kind of blogger he was hiring here.

Police Academy, Accelerated Program
"One of the three pregnant teens who authorities say attacked the caretaker of a maternity home with a frying pan turned herself into police after two weeks on the run."--Associated Press, Jan. 30

Things Every Hippie Already Knows
" 'Smokable' Pain Drugs Promise Faster Action"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 31

'Keep It Down, Sir, or They'll All Be Wanting One'
"Young Harp Seal Found Shot in Sandwich"--headline, WBZ-TV Web site (Boston), Jan. 31

At Least This Won't Happen When They're at the Lakers

• "Nets Get Spanked at Home"--headline, Record (Bergen County, N.J.), Feb. 1
  
  
• "California Lawmaker Plans Ban on Spanking"--headline, WWLIA.org, Jan. 22

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Firefighters Revive Dog Injured in House Fire; Dog Later Dies"--headline, Journal Times (Racine, Wis.), Jan. 31
  
  
• "Cats' Prospects Improving"--headline, Herald Times (Manitowoc, Wis.), Feb. 1
  
  
• "Bush, Dems Have Different Economic Views"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 1
  
  
• "Dodd's Showing in Polls Laughable"--headline, Hartford Courant, Jan. 31
  
  
• "Pataki Isn't Ready to Join the Race"--headline, Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.), Jan. 31

The Trouble Started When He Was Admitted to the Bar
From the Capital Times of Madison, Wis.:

The moral of the story: If you're busted for drunken driving, call your lawyer--but first make sure he's sober.

Former County Supervisor Patrick DePula, 34, apparently didn't follow that maxim this morning, and now his lawyer, Rick Petri, also faces a charge of drunken driving. . . .

DePula was stopped about 11:45 p.m. in downtown Madison by Madison police. He was given a field sobriety test and was arrested at 12:07 a.m. today.

Petri was arrested at 2:46 a.m., when, Hanson said, "he came to pick (DePula) up."

"They were released to a responsible party," Hanson said.

The defendant knew his trial wasn't going well when the judge said, "Order in the court," and his lawyer shouted, "Make mine a double!"

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Frank Varnavas, Michael Segal, Ed Lasky, Evan Slatis, Terry Hinshaw, Ethel Fenig, Stuart Creque, Michael Morley, Sam Alexander, Todd Clemens, Daniel Freedman, Dan O'Shea, Thomas Dillon, John Hartness, Matt Murphy, John Williamson, Andrew Robinson, Brendan Conway, Rhonda Cisneros, David Reed, Jim Trager, Michael Marz, Jim Orheim, Greg Martine, Nadine Ernst and Steve Prestegard. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The president visits with the Journal editorial board (plus excerpts from the conversation).
• Mark Lasswell: Chuck Hagel courageously takes on footwear salesmen.
• Skip Rozin: Colts vs. Bears, who cares?