COTD: Fake But Accurate (AGW Edition)

clipped from www.americanthinker.com This is similar to RatherGate. While Dan Rather had to admit the letters he promoted on the CBS Evening News to prove President George W. Bush's father used his influence as a Senator to allow "W" to escape the Vietnam War were complete fakes Dan Rather still insisted that the story was true. So called “experts” were found who "proved" that back in the 60’s word processors existed that could kern letters and produce the exact Times Roman font found in today's Microsoft Word. ClimateGate will be no different. So called “scientists” will eventually admit the data was faked but with the caveat that global warming is still true. Like fine wine ClimateGate will only get better as it ages. No doubt Galileo would be smiling if he were alive today!

The Rewrite II

clipped from www.theregister.co.uk Wegman also criticised their workmanship: [...]the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Over four years later the 'Climategate' archive provides evidence to support this. We find Jones discussing how to avoid FOIA requests, advising the deletion of email and telling his own information officers not to release data to critics. Earlier this summer, CRU said that it had failed to maintain the raw station data it had gathered, citing lack of storage space. But to what purpose were these networks acting?

The Rewrite

clipped from www.theregister.co.uk Although Lamb's version is supported by historical accounts, archaeology, geology and even contemporary literature, two key differences are the decreased significance of the Medieval Warming Period (CRU and its allies prefer the term 'MCA', or "Medieval Climate Anomaly") and a radically warmer modern period. Jones and his team began to produce work that contradicted the established picture in 1990 - and CRU was able to do so from both ends. By creating new temperature recreations, it could create a new account of history. By issuing a monthly gridded temperature set while making raw station data unavailable for inspection, it defined contemporary data. So CRU controlled two important narratives: the "then", and the "now". In the FOIA.ZIP archive, we find Jones unambiguous in an email: "We will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium," he wrote.

RTWT.

Innumerate Fools

clipped from www.americanthinker.com As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than thirty models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course, this is an issue only if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that any of the global warming predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view.

Lysenko Again

clipped from www.americanthinker.com Perhaps the most egregious ghost is Trofim Lysenko, the man who ruled the life sciences of Soviet Russia from the late 1920s until the early 1960s. He had a theory which fit Marxism perfectly: acquired characteristics can be inherited. This is not true, of course, but Lysenko had the Politburo and Stalin behind him. It was science that fit the political needs of the Bolsheviks, and so it was science backed by the awful power of the party and the state.  Lysenko's experiments were heralded, although the experiments were never replicated. The Soviet Union was full of botanists, biologists, geneticists, and other life scientists, and it was obvious to anyone with a free mind that Lysenko was propounding nonsense. But it was not until 1962 that the Soviet government allowed a real critique of his cartoon science. Why? Because in the Soviet Union, as in Nazi Germany, truth was never "objective."

Severe

clipped from www.moonbattery.com The Green Movement is currently at Condition Red because of the Climategate emails. Since we're on the topic, let me summarize Climategate in four basic easy-to-understand elements that are indisputably proven by the East Anglie CRU emails. 1. Climate scienticians conspired to exclude temperature data that contradicted Global Warming from their "climate models." 2. The computer models were set up with a bias to show Global Warming regardless of the data that were put in. 3. Climate scienticians conspired to circumvent the peer review process by steering papers toward friendly reviewers, and plotting to remove skeptics from the peer review process. 4. Climate scienticians conspired to destroy data rather than share it with potential skeptics. These so-called scientists behaved more like Scientology lawyers shredding incriminating documents than dispassionate, objective observers simply going where the facts led them.

Thirty Years

clipped from pajamasmedia.com The IAEA drools on, announcing (surprise!) that Iran hasn’t really complied with the tough demands of the Great Powers.  Nobel Prize Winner al Baradei, at long last headed for retirement, proclaims that the investigation is at a “dead end.” The Great Powers sternly demand that Iran be nice.  The mullahs give them the finger, announcing ten more enrichment facilities and warning they mightwalk away from the negotiations on which President Obama had based his “new policy.” ML:  And so?  Is war inevitable? JJA:  It’s not only inevitable, it’s on.  It’s been on for thirty years.  But no president has been willing to say so.  Somebody needs to shift the focus from the nukes–where they have great opportunities to deceive us–to the war, where we already know a lot and could know a lot more if opponents of the regime saw we were fighting back. ML:  How? JJA:  Most Iranians, including officials at very high levels of the regime itself, would believe that  we cannot be defeated once we decide to fight back.

A Disturbance In The Memory Hole

clipped from gatewaypundit.firstthings.com Czech officials confirmed on Sunday that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons, including Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers, for a terrorist attack on the Radio Free Europe Headquarters in Prague in 2003. Radio CZ reported, via Islam in Europe: On Sunday, TV Nova aired an exclusive report with information that in 1999, Saddam Hussein ordered a terrorist attack that was to strike the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe, located at the time on Wenceslas square, in the heart of the city. In 2003, Czech intelligence officers discovered the plot and confiscated the weapons that Iraqi secret agents had stockpiled. Jan Šubert is the spokesman for BIS – the Czech counter-intelligence service. “The weapons that we secured included 11 pistols, 4 Kalashnikovs, two Heckler-Koch submachine guns with silencers, some 2,000 rounds with magazines, and the most important thing, a portable, anti-tank rocket propelled grenade weapon also known as an RPG-7.”

Worse Than Inflation

clipped from www.newsweek.com So here's another scenario—which in many ways is worse than the inflation scenario. What happens is that we get a rise in the real interest rate, which is the actual interest rate minus inflation. According to a substantial amount of empirical research by economists, including Peter Orszag (now at the Office of Management and Budget), significant increases in the debt-to-GDP ratio tend to increase the real interest rate. One recent study concluded that "a 20 percentage point increase in the U.S. government-debt-to-GDP ratio should lead to a 20–120 basis points [0.2–1.2 percent] increase in real interest rates." This can happen in one of three ways: the nominal interest rate rises and inflation stays the same; the nominal rate stays the same and inflation falls; or—the nightmare case—the nominal interest rate rises and inflation falls. Today's Keynesians deny that this can happen. But the historical evidence is against them.

The Peer-Reviewed Label IV: Tree-Ring Circus

clipped from article.nationalreview.com “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask “Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is “the first year of global governance.” Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office. Hey, but don’t worry, it’ll all be “peer-reviewed.”

D*mn, Steyn is good.

The Peer-Reviewed Label III

clipped from article.nationalreview.com When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

Steyn nails it as always. RTWT.

The Peer-Reviewed Label II

clipped from article.nationalreview.com Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.” So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.”

The Peer-Reviewed Label

clipped from article.nationalreview.com Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you! The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The “science” of the CRU dominates the “science” behind the UN’s IPCC, which dominates the “science” behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

Fun And Hate

clipped from ace.mu.nu Christopher Hitchens had a great point about Clinton's impeachment, why he would never be removed from office. "The American people," he said approximately, "wish to believe they are open and broad-minded about sex," and so Clinton would skate. People's brains -- primitive, predictable things, really -- find "The Narrative" in every story, as simple and as emotion-based as possible. Pretty much all of liberalism works this way -- that's why it persists in the face of so much contrary information. Here are some fun, smart, rational guys and here are some uptight, bigoted, ignorant haters; which side do you want to be on? Nevermind reason or evidence; which crowd do you most wish to associate with? (And, fyi, for the young: Our girls put out more in college, in case that matters to ya. Wink.) Politics, it has to be kept in mind, is mostly emotional and mostly aspirational.

I Take That Back

clipped from clivecrook.theatlantic.com In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process. One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence.

RTWT.

That Bad

clipped from chicagoboyz.net No, the real shocking revelation lies in the computer code and data that were dumped along with the emails. The dumped files revealed that those critical programs are complete and utter train wrecks. It’s hard to explain to non-programmers just how bad the code is but I will try. Suppose the code was a motorcycle. Based on the repeated statements that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was “settled science” you would expect that the computer code that helped settle the science would look like this… …when in reality it looks like this: Yes, it’s that bad. As far as I can tell, none of the software on which the entire concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is based has been examined, reviewed or tested by anyone save the people who wrote the code in the first place. This is a staggering omission of scientific oversight and correction. Nothing like it has happened in the history of science.

Why He Didn't Know They Were Crashers

clipped from gatewaypundit.firstthings.com From the Polo Contacts Website– “America’s Cup Polo Pre-Event with President-Elect Barack Obama” American Power discovered this on the White House party crashers- They belong to a radical anti-Israeli group: Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas.

Friedman's Syllogism Redux

clipped from pajamasmedia.com AMERICAN LEYLAND: Claire Berlinski: America should learn from Britain’s disastrous takeover of its biggest auto company. “British taxpayers invested 11 billion pounds—the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $22 billion today—in a company whose only sign of life was a willingness to spend that money. Though the British economy recovered, British Leyland did not. If this story sounds troublingly familiar to you, you appear to be nearly alone. Few of the policymakers currently nationalizing the American auto industry seem to remember the British experience, and fewer still seem to have learned anything from it.”

Which brings us back to Friedman's syllogism on socialism:

1. Socialism has been a failure everywhere it has been tried;

2. Everyone knows this; and

3. Therefore, we need more socialism.

Czar Update

clipped from pajamasmedia.com

Hijacked

clipped from reason.com Eduardo Zorita, a researcher on past temperature trends at the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, is calling for prominent Climategate reseachers, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf, to be banned from any future work on the Intergrovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports. But Zorita makes an even more interesting and very disturbing observation: By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'.... I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

Payback

clipped from www.frumforum.com According to a source of mine — a retired SEAL who like myself still serves in other capacities — the feeling going around the Special Operations community at Fort Bragg is that this latest development is a kneejerk reaction to the situation a couple months ago when SEAL operators rescued Captain Phillips – Captain of the Maersk Alabama – off the coast of Somalia So the word on the street is that this latest development is payback for the SEALs violating the ROE in rescuing the captain of the Maersk Alabama. The Chain of Command is asserting itself, letting everybody know what’s going to happen to you if you don’t follow orders. As this was expressed to me, this opinion is based on very good, solid inside information. In my personal experience with Navy brass I have found they are very political and very politically correct. The Naval Command’s reaction to the prisoner situation was so overblown and out of proportion that I somehow find this latest angle quite believable. Unfortunately

Heh

clipped from www.moonbattery.com The Daily Telegraph has been doing some research and found out that the New York Waste of Times has been panicking about polar ice melt since James Garfield was president. 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …” 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents” 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer” 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.” 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.” 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting” 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

Did I forget to mention that the average temperature in the Antarctic plateau is -50F? About 80F of warming and you'll be approaching the range where it will think about melting. LOL!

The Bride At Every Wedding

clipped from www.moonbattery.com Chairman Zero's character flaws are beginning, ever so slowly, to be noticed. John F. Harris of Politico lists "seven stories Barack Obama doesn't want told": 1. He thinks he's playing with Monopoly money: No fiscal responsibility whatsoever. 2. He's a dithering intellectual poseur. He would rather study a problem, and impress his clique by holding forth on its nuances, than actually solve it. 3. He governs like a Chicago thug. He buys off corrupt pols ($300 million for Mary Landrieu's vote on health care) and bullies opponents like FoxNews and certain Inspectors General who dare to investigate his cronies. 4. He's a wuss. All of his bowing to foreign leaders conveys weakness. He comes back from China with nothing. 5. He doesn't believe the USA is a great country: At best, the USA is just one country in the community of nations, no more special than Ecuador or Finland. I would add a number 8. He's not as smart as advertised.

A Pretty Good Photo Op

clipped from www.moonbattery.com

COTD #N: Another Thing

clipped from chicagoboyz.net Here’s another thing. The mathematics of dynamic systems, particularly the stocastic element, is surprisingly complicated, and most climate researchers are largely ignorant of it. I read a paper by James Hansen in which he used a variety of data sources to show that positive derivative (sensitivity) of global temperature to increased CO2. The implication, he seemed to assert, was that the asymptotic temperature would therefore be higher. This, from a dynamical system point of view, is demonstrably wrong. Even a type of relatively simple linear system – the so-called non-minimum phase system – can show an instantaneous positive derivative to an input, but have an overall decrease in that variable. Unfortunately, no one knows enough about the dynamic nature of the earth’s climate system to be able to definitively assert what the asymptotics will be. In fact, my impression is that most of the models are static energy-balance types of models – yet another factor in my skepticism.

RTWT.

COTD: Undisciplined (At Best)

clipped from chicagoboyz.net You hit the nail squarely on the head this time. I wrote complex simulation and signal processing/world modelling software early in my career and can absolutely verify what you write here. I spent a couple of hours over the break going through the comments left behind by the unfortunate programmer who had to deal with the CRU’s climate modelling software. Many of the comments struck a real chord of recognition. However, what *really* struck me is how horribly organized and undisciplined these people are. No one was betting trillions of dollars on the software that I was writing (although millions *were* involved) but I guarantee you that we had a far clearer path from our signal data to the models that ultimately emerged.

The Amazing Wozzlescope

clipped from chicagoboyz.net Effective peer review requires that the reviewers have a deep familiarity with the instruments, protocols and procedures used by the experimenters. A chemist familiar with the use of a gas-chromatograph can tell from a description whether the instrument was properly calibrated, configured and used in a particular circumstance. Today, each instance of custom-written scientific software is like an unknown, novel piece of scientific hardware. Each piece of software might as well be an “amazing wozzlescope” for all that anyone has experience with its accuracy and precision. No one can even tell if it has subtly malfunctioned. As a result, the peer review of scientific software does not indicate even a whisper of the same level of external objective scrutiny that the peer review of scientific hardware indicates. How did we let this problem develop? I think it was simply a matter of creeping normalcy.

Crichton On DDT

clipped from www.youtube.com

PDOOMA

clipped from esr.ibiblio.org It just keeps getting better and better. Now we learn that the CRU has admitted to throwing away the primary data on which their climate models were based. I quote: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” This means that even the CRU itself has no idea how accidentally corrupt or fraudulently altered its data might be. And the IPCC reports used the CRU’s temperature reconstructions as a gold standard. So did other climatologists all over the world. And now they can’t be verified! Without a chain of provenance tieing them back to actual measurements, every single figure and trendline in the CRU reconstructions might as well be PDOOMA, a fine old engineering acronym expanding to “Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass”.

AAAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!

clipped from www.di2.nu Another detail that becomes blindingly obvious (see the chapter 20 digression above) is that this is nothing like a turnkey process. Data comes in in various forms and formats and is munged into a common one with lots of operator intervention to ask what to do. Actually I'm going to stop here. I've examined two files in some depth and found (OK so Harry found some of this) Inappropriate programming language usage Totally nuts shell tricks Hard coded constant files Incoherent file naming conventions Use of program libray subroutines that appear to be far from ideal in how they do things when the work do not produce an answer consistent with other way to calculate the same thing but which fail at undefined times and where when the function fails the the program silently continues without reporting the error AAAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! PS IMO someone should buy the CRU a few hundred of these, because  they really really need them.

I Can Read

clipped from jimtreacher.com Do you really think you know more than scientists? They're scientists. Yes, and science is a wonderful thing. It's improved our lives in countless ways. It also has nothing to do with what these frauds, and the useful idiots who believed them, have been pulling. How would you know? I can read. "Hide the decline" and "Quick, delete these files before somebody catches on" and "HOLY CRAP WHY CAN'T I GET THIS DATA TO SAY WHAT WE NEED IT TO SAY IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR JOBS" aren't exactly complex scientific concepts. It's just the normal peer-review process. You wouldn't understand. I understand that when they say things like "We need to keep these guys out of peer-reviewed journals" and "Let's get this editor fired for publishing an article that disagrees with us," it goes beyond the regular process. It's thuggery. It's a disgrace. F*** you, denier. I'll get right on that, just as soon as I buy an SUV big enough to carry all the incandescent bulbs I'll need to light my new coal plant.

Botch After Botch After Botch

clipped from www.torontosun.com I've been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the "climategate" scandal. It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling. As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says. - "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17) - "It's botch after botch after botch." (18) - "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37) - "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45) - "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47) - "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

The Servile State

clipped from wattsupwiththat.com Many here in the USA got their first inkling of the extraordinary events going on in Australia with the vote that was supposed to happen in parliament on Friday over “ETS” or Emissions Trading Scheme, with this WUWT post: On Friday, 12 Liberal members of parliament resigned their frontbench positions rather than be forced into a party line vote for ETS. That is quite a statement. The MP’s are hearing from their constituents in large numbers. From ABC news in Australia, this snippet: “The phone lines have been in meltdown with people saying that the Liberal Party would not be doing its job as an Opposition simply to pass this thing without the scrutiny that people calling my office think it demands,” he [MP Tony Abbott] said. Here’s a YouTube video being circulated in Australia:

But Faith They Have

clipped from www.metanexus.net Many scientists would argue that even though they cannot completely (or partially) explain the origin of the universe – or the origin of life, or the nature of consciousness, or the nature of time – the answers would certainly not involve God. They submit to those authorities; but faith they have, nonetheless. If we define faith as “belief based on the authority of the information source,” be it Scripture, scientists, a friend, a teacher, a digital picture, a DNA test, our own cognition and experiences, or even politicians (for the really insane), we will realize that faith plays an essential role in the development (or destruction) of knowledge. Why is it acceptable in science and mathematics to have faith, not only in the axioms or laws of nature, but also in the peer-review process and the causality principle, while faith in the religious realm is viewed as superstitious at best? As Gödel states, “Religions are, for the most part, bad, but religion is not” (Wang, 1996: 316).

Rogers On Giethner

clipped from www.businessweek.com What's your outlook for commodities in 2010? I'm not smart enough to know. But I will say that if the world economy gets better, then commodities will be one of the best places to be because of the shortages that are developing. If the world economy does not get better, commodities will still be the place to be because governments are printing all this money. Tim Geithner has been under attack lately. How's he doing? Listen, I have been a critic for years. Geithner should never have been appointed to anything. He's been wrong about just about everything for 15 years. Do you think he'll lose his job? Of course he's going to lose his job, because as Mr. Obama realizes that Geithner doesn't know what he's doing, he's going to look for somebody else because he doesn't want to take the heat himself. So he's going to look to blame somebody, and the obvious person is Geithner.