Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Thursday. There was I, cooking tea. There was the radio, playing Radio 4’s PM. So much so normal. Then, at about 25 mins into the programme, came a feature about life working in a Cambodian brick kiln. Not fun, you might imagine. You would be right.
The story is that Cambodian farmers got into debt thanks to increasing droughts, and were forced into some sort of indentured service for the brick kiln owners.
Partial transcript follows. My interjections are in italic.
LAURA BICKER: How hot is too hot? And what effect is our warming climate having on some of our most vulnerable workers? That was what we hoped to examine in Cambodia’s brick kilns.
…
It’s horribly hot in the brick kiln. UK researchers monitoring the workers’ body temperatures found that most were heat stressed and two had heat stroke.
LAURIE PARSONS (Royal Holloway): We are not all equal under the climate… the people who are most vulnerable socially, economically, will tend to be the people who are also most vulnerable to climate change. So we need to consider how climate change impacts people through the lens of labour and inequality. And recognise that labour, exploitation, is a major factor in the worst impacts of climate change.
The textile industry is big in Cambodia, and they burn off cuts in the kilns as cheap fuel. Various brands were implicated by the presence of garments with their labels on. An emotive contrast is made between a barefoot Cambodian girl and the Disney PJs that are about to go up in smoke that she will subsequently breathe.
BICKER: The majority of Cambodia’s brick workers were farmers. As Cambodia’s climate changes and droughts become more common [sic], they took on debt to try to keep their farms going. When that failed, they migrated to the city. But they earn so little, that the debt will never be paid.
What do we know about Cambodia? Apart from the obvious tragedies of its history, I mean. Well, we know that it is still a highly corrupt state, and that although it badges itself as a democracy, any party that threatens the ruling party ends up getting taken off the ballot somehow. According to Wiki, peasants are being driven off their land:
Forced land evictions by senior officials, security forces, and government-connected business leaders are commonplace in Cambodia. Land has been confiscated from hundreds of thousands of Cambodians over more than a decade for the purpose of self-enrichment and maintaining power of various groups of special interests. Credible non-governmental organisations estimate that “770,000 people have been adversely affected by land grabbing covering at least four million hectares (nearly 10 million acres) of land that have been confiscated”, says Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia
I don’t know the facts of this, but I would be interested to hear about it on PM, instead of hearing climate change blamed. Has there ever been a country that developed and where peasant farmers did not migrate to the cities and end up working in squalid conditions?
And what about that assertion about increased droughts? Looking at KNMI’s climate explorer, I could not find precipitation data for any long stretch in Cambodia itself, so there was no way to tell. (Weather data frequently ended in 1970, for reasons that you may guess.) The nearest long data series I found was from over the border in Thailand:
There is a story here. It’s a shame that the spectre of climate change has to be dragged in from offstage to enable the manipulation of the narrative.
Your author shouted rather less polite words at the radio, but it didn’t answer. It just kept on rabbiting away as if I wasn’t there.
You can listen to the relevant PM episode here. (From 25 min 30 secs ish.)
Featured image
From Pexels. I’ve no idea where this kiln is, and the workers may well have never stacked a brick in their lives. I’m not sure how to access the metadata.
Readers seem to be enjoying my posts on the Mann v. Steyn trial, so I’m going to continue with one more today. Meanwhile, the court does not hold trials on Fridays, so the proceeding has recessed for the weekend, to resume Monday morning.
Readers seem to be enjoying my posts on the Mann v. Steyn trial, so I’m going to continue with one more today. Meanwhile, the court does not hold trials on Fridays, so the proceeding has recessed for the weekend, to resume Monday morning. It’s likely that the trial will get very interesting next week, as the defendants present the heart of their case and as things wrap up. In the interim, I’ll provide some comments on the events yesterday, which was the 11th day of the trial.
My previous post on Wednesday, January 31, was devoted mostly to the issue of plaintiff Mann’s claimed damages in the case. The post described what I found to be an extremely odd back and forth during Mann’s own testimony, where it emerged that Mann during the discovery process had provided three different, inconsistent and contradictory interrogatory answers on the topic of his main theory of damages, namely that he had lost grant funding due to the defamation. After initially being confronted on cross-examination with an interrogatory answer where he had refused to provide any list of allegedly lost grants and said the whole subject was “irrelevant,” Mann then on re-direct (highly unusual) attempted to use a second interrogatory answer as a basis for quantifying his damages from lost grants; only then to be confronted with a third interrogatory answer, which he had never mentioned under questioning by his own lawyer, where he had changed most of the numbers in the second answer, in the most notable case reducing the claimed loss from over $9 million to only about $100,000.
Well, it turns out that that oddity became the subject of extensive argument before the judge, in parts of the trial that were not broadcast to the public viewers. Yesterday, in connection with Mann resting his case, Steyn filed with the court something called a “Motion for Sanctions for Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct” against Mann, addressing many issues about the claimed damages and Mann’s proof of same. Steyn made a copy of that document available via a link on his website. The document gives much history of the subject of Mann’s damages claim in the case, including events that occurred at parts of the trial that have not been broadcast publicly. The document, only 11 pages long, makes for very entertaining reading if you have the time.
But first, some background. The law of defamation is one of the more complex subjects of American law. It arises under state rather than federal law (with D.C. defamation law arising out of D.C.’s role as a state/local governing entity, rather than out of federal law), and differs substantially from state to state. And then there is an overlay of Supreme Court case law interpreting the First Amendment to the federal Constitution, thus impacting the law in every state.
One of the truly odd quirks of defamation law is that some defamation cases require proof of what are called “special damages,” while others permit juries to make arbitrary awards of “general damages.” “Special damages,” are particular items of monetary harm that can be traced to the defendant’s defamation. These could include, for example, lost wages, or expenses of publicizing true statements to counter the libel, or maybe even the cost of mental health treatment or therapy. Mann’s lost grants, if he could prove that that occurred and resulted from the defamation, would be an example of “special damages.” “General damages,” sometimes also called “presumed damages” in the defamation context, are rather some number that a jury can pluck out of the air to compensate a plaintiff for alleged loss of the inchoate value of reputation. They are analogous to damages in a personal injury case, where a jury can select an arbitrary figure to compensate a plaintiff, for example, for loss of a limb, or even for just general “pain and suffering.” Of the $83 million that E. Jean Carroll just got awarded in her case against Trump, about $18 million was in the category of “general” or “presumed” damages, while the rest were punitive damages. Apparently, the court in the Carroll/Trump case determined that proof of “special” damages was not required. An appeals court may not agree with that.
I strongly suspect, without being sure, that Mann’s case against Steyn is within the category that requires a finding of at least some “special” damages. This is a subject that is difficult to research, and even if you research it you can’t necessarily get a definitive answer. There may well be quirks of D.C. defamation law that bear on this. In any event, it is likely that the court has made some ruling on this subject in the course of the 12 years that the case has been kicking around, because such a ruling would be important to guide the parties in what evidence to present at trial. If there is such a ruling, it may or may not stick on appeal. I have tried to find out if there is such a ruling, but unfortunately, even though I subscribe to the online document access system of the federal courts, the D.C. Superior Court for some reason apparently does not participate in that system. However, from the fact that Mann felt under an obligation to present evidence as to lost grants, I think it is highly likely that he has reason to believe — whether from D.C. case law or a prior ruling from this court or both — that he has an obligation to prove at least some “special” damages.
So here is the introduction to Steyn’s latest brief:
“Stunning.” That is the word this Court used to describe the conduct of Plaintiff Michael E. Mann’s counsel at trial on Monday, January 29, 2024. Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 41. On that day, Plaintiff’s counsel presented to the jury evidence concerning Dr. Mann’s claimed loss of grant funding—evidence counsel knew was not true. Plaintiff’s counsel published to the jury an exhibit and elicited testimony from their client concerning Dr. Mann’s alleged grant loss. But, as Plaintiff’s counsel knew, most of the information on the exhibit was wrong, including information about the dollar amounts of the allegedly lost grants.
Plaintiff’s counsel knew that the evidence they offered to the jury was false because it was based on a 2020 discovery response concerning Dr. Mann’s grant-loss claim that counsel had been obliged to revise very dramatically just last year (2023). At trial on the 29th, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to present the wildly misleading and deceptive 2020 data, which counsel for Defendant Rand Simberg had to correct on cross-examination. The difference between the incorrect 2020 data and the corrected 2023 data was striking. This Court noted that “One entry was for nine million, and then it was significantly reduced to something a little over a hundred thousand.” Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 45. On the tenth day of this jury trial, January 31, 2024, this Court asked the parties to address Plaintiff’s falsification of key damages testimony. . . .
As this Court stated, “clearly, the plaintiff was aware that the jury was being presented with an exhibit that contained incorrect information.” Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 42. “And you wanted the jury to take that back to the jury room and deliberate on those figures.”
The portions of those excerpts that reflect the judge’s remarks had not been broadcast to the members of the public watching the trial online.
In his submission, Steyn argues that the court should impose sanctions on Mann and his counsel for his bad faith submission of false evidence, with potential sanctions ranging up to and including complete dismissal of the claims and award of attorneys’ fees to Steyn:
What Dr. Mann and his counsel did amounts to bad-faith misconduct. . . . Rule 3.3 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Responsibility provides that “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly … (4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false ….” See Tibbs v. United States, 628 A.2d 638, 640 (D.C. 2010) (“In the District of Columbia, as in every other jurisdiction of which we are aware, an attorney has a duty not to present false testimony to a court.”). . . . Dr. Mann is also responsible for the admission of the false evidence. He knew the 2020 information was false but did not say so on the stand when his counsel questioned him. The truth came out only on cross-examination.
I have no idea what Mann’s or his counsel’s response to these matters may be. Experience teaches me that no matter how completely cornered your adversaries may appear to be, they always come up with something that at least sounds plausible. However, in this brief Steyn quotes Mann’s lawyers when confronted by the judge himself on this very issue (again, in a portion of the trial that was not broadcast to the public viewers):
[W]hen the Court confronted counsel with their presentation of false and misleading evidence to the jury, counsel was unrepentant. Instead of owning what they did, lead counsel John Williams doubled down and asserted that they did not present false evidence to the jury. See, e.g., Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 43–44 (“Mr. Williams: No, Your Honor. Please. The numbers on the board were accurate. There had been earlier mistakes that were corrected, and that’s why we gave them the correct numbers.”). Counsel claimed that he was right and the Court was confused. See id. at 45 (Mr. Williams: “So I am sorry that there was confusion on your part, and we will certainly correct it.”) (emphasis added).
Meanwhile, in the part of the trial actually shown to the viewers at home, the main show on Thursday was the testimony of the defense expert witness Abraham Wyner, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania — the same university where Mann teaches.
The key opinions offered by Wyner — that Mann had “manipulated” the data in creating his Hockey Stick graph, and that the graph was “misleading” — had already come out on Wednesday. The direct testimony on Thursday was devoted to going into the details of the basis for those opinions. There was much technical detail in the presentation; however, the gist was that the uncertainties inherent in the data were far greater than what Mann had presented. As a result, Wyner testified, the error range shown on Mann’s Hockey Stick graphs from several papers was much too narrow. And thus, contrary to Mann’s graph, it was not possible to say from the data that time periods hundreds of years ago definitively were cooler than the present.
One of the last questions put to Wyner on direct was whether any statistician on behalf of Mann had offered an opinion contrary to his. Wyner said he was not aware of that. (And indeed, Mann had not offered an expert witness on these statistical issues during his direct case.)
I found the cross of Wyner to be singularly ineffective, although perhaps the jury might find otherwise. The heart of the cross was to confront Wyner with criticisms of his Hockey Stick-related work expressed by other authors in published papers. It emerged that Wyner had published his criticism of Mann’s Hockey Stick papers in a journal article in 2011; and the editor of the journal had decided that this would be a good subject for an entire issue of the journal. So Wyner’s article became the first piece in this issue of the journal, followed by multiple pieces discussing or criticizing Wyner’s article, and followed finally by an article called the “Rejoinder,” where Wyner responded to all the criticisms. One by one, Mann’s lawyer confronted Wyner with the various criticisms from this journal. As to some, Wyner said that the criticism was wrong, and explained why. As to others, he said that the criticism did not go to the heart of his opinion as to why Mann’s work was misleading. And as to still others, Wyner said he did not recall that criticism. In each case, Mann’s lawyer simply read the criticism of Wyner from the article, took whatever Wyner said in response, and moved on to the next item. He never went deeply enough into any issue for an intelligent listener to form any view as to who might be right or wrong on this issue.
Expect more on this trial next week. Meanwhile, I’ll post on something else over this weekend.
When a species mass die off occurs, climate change is blamed, but when benign conditions cause populations to boom, scientists warn about the imminent climate change mass die off.
Polyamorous little penguins living on Phillip Island, off Australia’s southern coast, are having so much sex there are now more than 40,000 of them — and it is all thanks to climate change.
Key points:
Phillip Island’s little penguin colony is growing as rising sea temperatures lead to more fish
With more energy, the animals are mating twice each season, often with different partners
Climate scientists warn it is important to look at the full picture of events in the ecosystem
As sea surface temperatures have increased, so too has the number of fish swimming in the surrounding coastal waters.
Phillip Island Nature Parks marine scientist and Monash University associate professor Andre Chiaradia said the influx of food meant the “opportunistic” little penguins had more time, and energy, to mate.
…
A false sense of hope?
…
Professor Brendan Wintle, the director of the Melbourne Biodiversity Institute and lead councillor at the Biodiversity Council, said shifts in one part of an ecosystem had impacts elsewhere.
“Ecosystems are big connections, big webs of interactions between animals and plants,” he said.
“If you’re seeing changes in one animal or plant species, you can be absolutely sure that’s going to be having an impact on hundreds of other species that we may not be studying so closely.”
I think I understand this climate thing now. When a species mass die off occurs, climate change is blamed, but when benign conditions cause populations to boom, scientists warn about the imminent climate change mass die off.
So what are the long term prospects for the penguins?
I don’t expect record populations to continue uninterrupted, really big concentrations of a single species are a disease magnet. No doubt any disease driven die back will be blamed on global warming.
France’s President Macron had a plan to make millions of electric vehicles a year. Chancellor Scholz planned to put 15 million on Germany’s roads by 2030. President Biden trumped the lot with a $174bn (£138bn) plan to make the US the world leader. Even Boris Johnson – remember him – had a £1bn plan to beef up our charging network.
Ambitious plans for an electrification-led industrial revolution are in full-scale retreat.
France’s President Macron had a plan to make millions of electric vehicles a year. Chancellor Scholz planned to put 15 million on Germany’s roads by 2030. President Biden trumped the lot with a $174bn (£138bn) plan to make the US the world leader. Even Boris Johnson – remember him – had a £1bn plan to beef up our charging network.
Rewind only a couple of years, and almost every president or prime minister was making electric vehicles the cornerstone of an industrial strategy. And yet, this week we have learned that Renault is abandoning plans to separately list its electric vehicle (EV) and software business, while Volvo is winding down its Polestar electric sports car subsidiary.
In reality, amid an onslaught of Chinese competition, and falling sales, the West’s electric vehicle dream is quickly unravelling – and we need to relearn all the lessons in why grand, state-led industrial strategies never work.
It was not so long ago that countries were competing furiously to launch battery-powered visions of the future. With Tesla riding the wave of green demand to become the world’s largest car manufacturer, measured by market value if not volume, and with ambitious net zero targets to meet, they all wanted to make sure they could compete in electric vehicles.
We would reduce carbon emissions, create many jobs, and shore up our industrial base. Sure, governments would have to commit a few billions – or tens of billions – to make it happen. But it would pay for itself many times over.
Renault, despite the programme of state support, has this week scrapped the separate listing of its EV unit Ampere, which has been scheduled for the first half of the year. It was a “pragmatic decision” according to the company’s chief executive Luca de Meo, arguing that falling sales for EVs across Europe meant the market was more challenging than forecast.
Likewise, Volvo announced that it would stop funding its EV unit, Polestar, and might even offload its 48pc stake on other shareholders, including China’s Geely. Last September, Volkswagen said it was cutting production of two of its flagship EV models, while in November, Ford said it was scaling back its battery plant in Michigan.
It looks like all those “well-paid green jobs” are going to take a little longer to arrive than anyone anticipated. As for the payback on huge sums various governments have “invested” in the industry, it looks like the returns on that money will take a while to come through as well.
There is nothing wrong with EVs themselves. They are often great as run-arounds for dense urban environments, and as long as the raw materials are sourced correctly, and the chargers are not powered by coal-burning generators, they are probably a little better for the environment than the petrol version.
If people want them, then that’s great. The trouble with the industry right now is that demand is falling because the vehicles cost far more than anyone expected, and what market there is will be captured by Chinese manufacturers such as BYD that can make vehicles far more cheaply than anyone in the West can. The result? A lot of government money will be wasted.
There is a lesson in the humiliating climbdown. State-led industrial strategies never work. Indeed, the failure of the drive into EV is a textbook example of everything that goes wrong.
It was a little past 1 AM on February 3rd, 1959 when American musicians Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson were killed in a plane crash near Clear Lake, Iowa along with pilot Roger Peterson.
A large steel structure of Wayfarer-style glasses similar to those worn by Buddy Holly can be seen at the access point to the crash site in Iowa. The original Mexican-made heavy plastic Faiosa-framed glasses were thrown yards away from the crash site and buried in the snow only to re-appear in the spring when the snow melted along with a watch of “The Big Bopper”. Though the glasses were handed in immediately to the Cerro Gordo County Sherriff’s office, they sat filed away for the next 21 years in a sealed manila envelope marked “rec’d April 7, 1959”. The glasses were eventually returned to Holly’s widow and can now be seen in the exhibit at the Buddy Holly Center in Lubbock, Texas. Photo courtesy Roadside America.
Overview
It was a little past 1 AM on February 3rd, 1959 when American musicians Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson were killed in a plane crash near Clear Lake, Iowa along with pilot Roger Peterson. Weather conditions were certainly contributing factors in the plane crash as there was poor visibility on that cold night with snow blowing across the runway. Hours before, Holly and his tour mates were on the eleventh night of their “Winter Dance Party” tour through the snow-covered Midwest. It was a Monday and a school night, but 1,100 teenagers crammed into the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa for two sold out shows with the second one ending around midnight. The event later became known as “The Day the Music Died” after singer-songwriter Don McLean referred to it as such in his 1971 song “American Pie”.
An ambitious tour referred to as the “Winter Dance Party” included 24 stops in 24 days across the Upper Midwest during January and February of 1959.
Background/”Winter Dance Party” Tour
Buddy Holly terminated his association with his band the Crickets in November 1958 and started a tour called the “Winter Dance Party” in January of 1959 with his new band consisting of Waylon Jennings, Tommy Allsup and Carl Bunch. In addition to Buddy Holly and his new band, rising stars Richie Valens, J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson and Dion and the Belmonts had joined the tour as well. The tour began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and was scheduled to hit 24 Midwestern towns in twenty-four days. The performance at Clear Lake, Iowa on Monday, February 2nd was the 11th of the 24 scheduled locations. Travel between destinations was an issue as the venues were randomly separated in a “zig-zag” fashion and the winter weather was more or less just an after-thought in the original planning of the tour. The long journeys between venues on board the cold, uncomfortable tour buses adversely affected the performers, with cases of flu and even frostbite.
For the first part of the tour the musicians traveled together in one bus, but the buses began to break down and had to be replaced frequently. One estimate had five separate buses required for the first eleven days of the tour and the musicians had no road crew to assist them in the loading and unloading of equipment at each stop. The weather was often a major factor in the travel problems as temperatures varied from 20 degrees (F) to as low as 36 degrees (F) below zero and there was waist-deep snow in several areas.
By the time the Buddy Holly band arrived in Clear Lake, Iowa they were very frustrated with the ongoing bus problems and did not want to take another chance for the next tour destination in Moorhead, Minnesota – some 365 miles away. As a result, Holly decided to charter a plane for himself and his band to fly to Fargo, North Dakota which is adjacent to Moorhead, Minnesota. The plane was a red and white single-engine Beechcraft Bonanza and only able to carry three passengers plus the pilot, Roger Peterson who was a local boy and just 21-one years old. Peterson had agreed to the flight despite being fatigued from a 17-hour workday because he would be flying Buddy Holly. The rest of the musicians on the tour were expected to take the bus to the next venue.
There are some disputes as to how the final arrangements were made for the flight from Clear Lake to Fargo. The most widely accepted version of events was that J.P. Richardson had contracted the flu during the tour and asked band member Waylon Jennings for his seat on the plane. When Holly learned that Jennings was not going to fly, he said in jest: “Well, I hope your ol’ bus freezes up.” Jennings responded: “Well, I hope your ol’ plane crashes”, a humorous but ill-fated response that haunted him for the rest of his life (Source: Jennings, Waylon; Kaye, Lenny (1996). Waylon: An Autobiography. Warner Books. ISBN978-0-446-51865-9). Valens, who once had a fear of flying, asked band member Tommy Allsup for his seat on the plane. The two agreed to toss a coin to decide (source: Everitt, Rich (2004). Falling Stars: Air Crashes That Filled Rock and Roll Heaven. Harbor House. ISBN978-1-891799-04-4). Bob Hale, a disc jockey with Mason City’s KRIB-AM, was working the concert that night and flipped the coin in the ballroom’s side-stage room shortly before the musicians departed for the airport. Valens won the coin toss for the seat on the flight.
Low-level relative humidity climbed noticeably across Iowa between February 2nd (left) and the 3rd (right) as southerly winds ahead of an advancing cold front intensified and pumped moisture northward from the southern US into the Upper Midwest. Map courtesy NOAA/NCAR reanalysis
Weather conditions
A cold front was moving quickly from the Rockies into the Plains on Monday, February 2nd and an area of high pressure that had been over the Plains for several days prior left plenty of cold air over the region. On the back side of the departing high pressure and ahead of the advancing cold front, southerly winds were on the increase across Iowa and Minnesota and these winds were pumping more humid air into the region. In addition, the bitter cold was beginning to ease in the region; however, it was still plenty cold enough for snow to form in the increasingly humid air. Temperatures on the evening of the 2nd were in the teens and 20s as far south as Texas and numerous bands of heavy snow formed late in the evening from southern Minnesota to northern Texas.
Temperatures climbed across Iowa between February 2nd (left) and the 3rd (right) as southerly winds ahead of an advancing cold front pumped in milder air; however, it was still well below freezing and plenty cold enough for snow to form in the increasingly humid air mass; Map courtesy NOAA/NCAR reanalysis
Although deteriorating weather was reported along the planned route, the weather briefings that pilot Roger Peterson received failed to relay the information. Specifically, he was never told of two weather advisories that warned of an incoming snowstorm. One flash report that failed to reach the pilot came from Minneapolis, Minnesota and warned of areas of snow with visibilities less than 2 miles, which would be marginal Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. A second report came from Kansas City, Missouri and warned of freezing drizzle and icing over much of Iowa. Peterson had over four years of flying experience; however, he was not qualified to operate in weather that required flying solely by reference to instruments. He and the Dwyer Flying Service that was used for the plane that night were certified to operate only under visual flight rules, which required the pilot to be able to see where he is going. However, on the night of the accident, visibility was very poor with low clouds, light snow falling and blowing snow on the runway, and there were no ground lights.
The plane took off around 1AM on Tuesday, February 3rd from the Mason City Municipal Airport in northern Iowa with a planned destination of Fargo, North Dakota. Map courtesy Google
The take-off and crash
The weather conditions at the time of departure from the Mason City Municipal Airport in Iowa were reported as poor visibility due to light snow/blowing snow and winds from 20 to 30 mph. The plane took off normally from runway 17 (today’s runway 18) at 12:55 AM (CT) on Tuesday, February 3rd. The owner of the flying service, Hubert Dwyer, witnessed the take-off from a platform outside the control tower. He was able to see clearly the aircraft’s tail light for most of the brief flight, which started with an initial left turn onto a northwesterly heading and a climb to 800 feet. The tail light was then observed gradually descending until it disappeared out of view. Around 1:00 AM, when Peterson failed to make the expected radio contact, repeated attempts to establish communication were made, at Dwyer’s request, by the radio operator, but they were all unsuccessful (source Wikipedia).
Low-level winds intensified across Iowa between February 2nd (left) and the 3rd (right) as high pressure departed to the east and a cold front approached from the west. Map courtesy NOAA/NCAR reanalysis
Later that morning, Dwyer, having heard no word from pilot Peterson since his departure, took off in another airplane to retrace his planned route. Within minutes, at around 9:35 AM, he spotted the wreckage less than 8 miles northwest of the airport (Source: Durfee, James R.; Gurney, Chan; Denny, Harmar D.; Minetti, G. Joseph; Hector, Louis J. (September 23, 1959). Aircraft Accident Report (PDF) (Report). Civil Aeronautics Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 26, 2009. Retrieved February 4, 2009.). The sheriff’s office, alerted by Dwyer, dispatched Deputy Bill McGill, who drove to the crash site, a cornfield belonging to Albert Juhl. No one is quite sure as to what went wrong, but the best guess is that snow quickly picked up in intensity after departure, the plane took a nosedive at over 170 mph and flipped over on itself on the ground with no survivors. The snow had continued through that night and 7 inches of snow was recorded near the crash site by the next morning.
The wreckage of the plane crash discovered the next morning was scattered across nearly 300 yards in an Iowa cornfield just miles away from the airport.
Aftermath
Holly’s pregnant wife, María Elena, learned of his death via a television news report. A widow after only six months of marriage, she suffered a miscarriage the following day, reportedly due to “psychological trauma”. Holly’s mother, on hearing the news on the radio at home in Lubbock, Texas, screamed and collapsed. In the months following the crash, authorities would adopt a policy against releasing victims’ names until after the families had been notified.
Despite the tragedy, the “Winter Dance Party” tour did not stop. Fifteen year old Bobby Vee was given the task of filling in for Holly at the next scheduled performance in Moorhead, Minnesota in part because he “knew all the words to all the songs” (Source: “Bobby Vee Biography”. bobbyvee.net. Paragraph 3. Retrieved February 3, 2019). Jennings and Allsup carried on for two more weeks, with Jennings taking Holly’s place as lead singer (Source: Carr, Joseph; Munde, Alan (1997). Prairie Nights to Neon Lights: The Story of Country Music in West Texas. Texas Tech University Press. ISBN978-0-89672-365-8). Other teen sensations were added to the tour including 18-year-old Frankie Avalon.
Meanwhile, funerals for the victims were held individually. Holly and Richardson were buried in Texas, Valens in California, and Peterson in Iowa. Holly’s widow, María Elena, did not attend the funeral and has reportedly never visited his gravesite. She later said in an interview: “In a way, I blame myself. I was not feeling well when he left. I was two weeks pregnant, and I wanted Buddy to stay with me, but he had scheduled that tour. It was the only time I wasn’t with him. And I blame myself because I know that, if only I had gone along, Buddy never would have gotten into that airplane” (Source: Kerns, William (August 15, 2008). “Buddy and Maria Elena Holly married 50 years ago”. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Archived from the original on March 23, 2016. Retrieved April 29, 2015).
Final Notes
Charles Hardin Holley, known professionally as Buddy Holly, was 22 years old when he died in the plane crash and was a main pioneer of rock and roll in the 1950’s despite a career which lasted just a year and a half. Along with his band The Crickets, he had many hits including ‘Peggy Sue’, ‘That’ll Be the Day’ and ‘Everyday’. Despite the short career, Holly’s influence on early rock ‘n’ roll was almost unmatched. He was barely out of high school when he opened for Elvis Presley in 1955 and influenced such big artists as The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Additionally, the first Rolling Stones single released in the U.S. was cover of Buddy Holly’s ‘Not Fade Away’. Buddy Holly was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986.
Jiles Perry “J.P.” Richardson who became better known as “The Big Bopper” was notorious for his “rockabilly” style. His 1958 song ‘Chantilly Lace’ went to number six on the pop charts and he wrote the song called ‘White Lightning” recorded by singer George Jones and it climbed to number one on the country charts in early 1959. He was 28 years old at the time of the crash. In 2007, the body of Richardson was exhumed for reburial in a different part of the cemetery. This was due to the State of Texas Historical Sign being awarded to the “The Big Bopper”, and a bronze statue would subsequently be erected at his grave. The Forest Lawn cemetery (Beaumont, TX) did not allow above-ground monuments at that specific site; therefore, his body was to be moved to another area that was better suited. Richardson’s son, Jay Perry, took this opportunity to have his father’s body re-examined to verify the original coroner’s findings. There were rumors surrounding the accident that there had been an accidental gunshot on board the aircraft, causing the crash, after a farmer discovered a .22 caliber pistol at the crash site which allegedly belonged to Buddy Holly. Another rumor claimed Richardson survived the initial impact of the crash, and crawled out in search for help, as his body was found a greater distance from the wreckage. Several X-rays of Richardson’s body concluded that the musician died instantly, no traces of lead were found from any bullet, nor any indication that any shot was fired.
Richard Steven Valenzuela, known professionally as Ritchie Valens, was a Mexican American singer and guitarist and despite a very short career of only eight months had several big hits including ‘Donna’ and most notably “La Bamba’ which he had adapted from a Mexican folk song. Valens was just 17 years old when he died on that fateful February 3rd of 1959 and was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.
The song “American Pie” written by American singer and songwriter Don McLean was released on the “American” Pie album in 1971. It reached number one on the charts in the US during 1972 and stayed there at number one for four weeks. Ultimately, it would be listed as the number 5 song on the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)’s “Song of the Century” project. In 2017, McLean’s original recording was selected for preservation in the National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or artistically significant”. The repeatedly mentioned phrase “the day the music died” refers to the plane crash on February 3rd, 1959 that killed Buddy Holly, “The Big Bopper”, Ritchie Valens and pilot Roger Peterson. The crash was not known by that name until after McLean’s song became a hit, but, from here on out, February 3rd, 1959 will be remembered as “The Day the Music Died”.
Video (courtesy YouTube) of “American Pie” by Don McLean (with lyrics).
President Joe Biden will pick a Democratic Party insider to replace the outgoing Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, according to The Washington Post.
President Joe Biden will pick a Democratic Party insider to replace the outgoing Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, according to The Washington Post.
John Podesta, who currently works in the White House as a senior adviser to the president, will take the reins from Kerry as the face of the Biden administration’s international climate diplomacy efforts when Kerry walks away from his role later this spring, the Post reported Wednesday. Podesta, who maintained ties with a Chinese government influence operative for more than a decade, has wielded significant influence within the Democratic Party apparatus since the Clinton administration. (RELATED: White House Rewards Eco-Activists That Harassed Biden Admin Officials, Dems For Months With Podesta Meeting)
Negotiating with China — the world’s second-largest economy and by far its leading emitter — will be a key aspect of Podesta’s work, as it was for Kerry. Notably, Podesta has cooperated in the past with known Chinese influence operative Tung Chee-hwa and his Chinese Communist Party-backed organization, the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), sitting on the CUSEF’s 2022 steering committee and writing three articles for CUSEF’s website since 2011, a 2022 Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.
Moreover, John Podesta’s brother Tony previously lobbied for blacklisted Chinese tech giant Huawei in 2021, earning $1 million in the process. The Trump administration blacklisted in May 2019 over concerns that its technology was being used for economic espionage.
Reports surfaced earlier in January stating that Kerry will give up his role as the administration’s top climate diplomat to assist Biden’s reelection efforts. When Podesta takes over under the official title of “senior adviser to the president for international climate policy,” he will operate out of the White House instead of the State Department, which was home to Kerry and his staff, according to the Post.
That arrangement may be deliberate, as the 2022 defense policy bill required special envoys representing the State Department to go through the confirmation process, according to the Post. That particular provision did not apply to Kerry when he took the job, and White House lawyers reportedly think that Podesta will not have to navigate the confirmation process, either.
Before working for Biden to implement many billions of dollars of climate spending from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Podesta served former President Bill Clinton’s administration as White House chief of staff, worked as a counselor to former President Barack Obama and chaired Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign. Podesta also founded the Center for American Progress, a major liberal think tank in Washington, D.C.
Podesta will reportedly continue working on domestic green energy implementation in addition to the new role, according to the Post.
White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients credited Kerry for “tirelessly [trekking] around the world” and “bringing American climate leadership back from the brink and marshalling countries around the world to take historic action to confront the climate crisis” in a statement, according to the Post. “We need to keep meeting the gravity of this moment, and there is no one better than John Podesta to make sure we do … Having served the three most recent Democratic Presidents over three decades, he is an American statesman, a fierce champion for bold climate action, and a leader who without a doubt the world will know has the trust of and speaks for the President of the United States.”
The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
This article has been updated to include additional information about Podesta’s relationship with Chinese entities.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
When I play football I feel free from the worries of day-to-day life. But as a young person living in a climate and environmental crisis, these worries have become increasingly hard to ignore. This has been made even harder by the fact that the climate crisis is killing my sport, and one of the companies most responsible is plastering its name all over football in England to distract from what it is doing.
As a professional footballer, I’ve had the privilege of representing my country, New Zealand, 15 times. From being a champion of Italy with Juventus to playing most recently for Hearts in the Scottish Women’s Premier League, I have been lucky enough to experience football in a variety of settings. The goal was always to use football as a means to experience the world, but it turns out the world I’ve been experiencing isn’t what I thought it would be.
For this reason I am using my career to fight for the defining issue of our generation: tackling climate change. Call me a hypocrite if you like – I would accept another call-up from New Zealand with all the travel involved – but nobody is perfect and that charge won’t stop me from using my platform to encourage positive change. If my New Zealand upbringing taught me anything, it’s that we have to do everything in our power to protect our precious ecosystems.
Climate change will have a devastating impact on women’s football. Last year I supported Football For Future’s evidence to the Future of Women’s Football Review, which laid bare this impact. Even at a professional level, women’s football does not have the infrastructure to protect players from severe weather events, frozen pitches and extreme heat. Many women’s teams do not play in their club’s main stadium, affording them less control over facilities.
And her evidence that climate change is destroying the beautiful game?
“In the 2022 Euros, the Lionesses were forced to train inside before their quarter-final against Spain owing to high temperatures. Last season, Chelsea’s fixture against Liverpool was abandoned after six minutes because of a frozen pitch. Scientists agree climate change makes extreme weather more likely. We are already seeing how the climate crisis is threatening the beautiful game.”
She evidently really does believe that frozen pitches are due to global warming! You really could not make it up (though the Guardian can!).
As for the 2022 Euros, guess what – it tends to get hot in Spain in July!
Poor Katie is clearly an intelligent girl, but this shows just how badly the younger generation have been brainwashed.
ExxonMobil set the climate alarm lobby afire last week when it filed a lawsuit against a pair of activist investor groups challenging manifestly frivolous shareholder initiatives which they hope to bring up at the company’s impending annual meeting in May. The suit was filed in a Texas court January 21 against Massachusetts-based investment firm Arjuna Capital and Amsterdam-based investor group Follow This.
ExxonMobil set the climate alarm lobby afire last week when it filed a lawsuit against a pair of activist investor groups challenging manifestly frivolous shareholder initiatives which they hope to bring up at the company’s impending annual meeting in May. The suit was filed in a Texas court January 21 against Massachusetts-based investment firm Arjuna Capital and Amsterdam-based investor group Follow This.
Reports filed by the AP, Reuters, CNBC and other legacy media sites warned that a win by Exxon in the lawsuit could have a “chilling effect” on the bringing of other climate alarm and ESG-related initiatives in the future. The reasoning supporting that claim seems somewhat specious, given that Exxon’s complaint is based on the fact that initiatives virtually identical to the ones sought by Arjuna and Follow This have been brought repeatedly in prior years and were resoundingly rejected in shareholder votes. Raising them again this year is an obvious waste of time and resources and amounts to little more than harassment.
These specific questions, in other words, have been asked and answered several times, leaving little point in raising them again just for the sake of raising them. That hardly would mean that a favorable decision for ExxonMobil in this lawsuit would chill activist investors from raising other, valid questions in the future, but that is the narrative the alarmist lobby and their supportive media have settled on. (RELATED: DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy)
Readers may wonder why the company decided to file suit against these two activist investors rather than pursue the more regular appeals process governed by the Biden SEC. The answer is pretty simple: President Biden’s appointees to the SEC decided to change up a decision process that had worked well for decades in order to make it far more difficult and bias the expected outcome in favor of the activist investors. Thus, as Reuters and other outlets note, fewer and fewer companies have pursued their appeals with the SEC over the past few years.
Here is what ExxonMobil said about it in an email to CNBC: “The breakdown of the shareholder proposal process, one that allows proponents to advance their agendas through a flood of proposals, does not serve the interests of investors. We are simply asking the court to apply the SEC’s proxy rules as written to stop this abuse and eliminate the significant resources required to address them.”
Reuters quotes one of the SEC’s own commissioners, Mark Uyeda, as saying, “Companies could always go to court on shareholder proposals, but historically viewed the SEC as a fair arbiter. This perception may have changed due to recent policy changes.” Oh. You don’t say.
So, here’s the moral of this story: When a radical president brings in appointees who destroy a system that was seen as fair by all stakeholders for decades on end and render it a basic kangaroo court, stakeholders are going to seek ways to work around the system.
There is nothing at all wrong with ExxonMobil’s decision to file a lawsuit to block these frivolous proposed resolutions that serve no one’s interests and waste everyone’s time. The company has an absolute right to pursue all remedies available to it, including within the federal courts, even if it upsets the virtue signaling gentry in the climate alarm lobby.
This is neatly analogous to the situation at the Texas border with Mexico, where Biden came into office and immediately issued a series of executive orders that blew up a system of securing the border that had been working quite well and replaced it with a system that basically and intentionally opened the country up to unchecked mass illegal immigration. Now, the administration bemoans the fact that Texas and other states are finding ways to work around his refusal to do anything constructive to slow the flow.
When any presidential administration destroys a system that work and replace them with systems intentionally designed to fail, stakeholders are going to exercise their rights to seek other remedies. That’s all ExxonMobil is doing here, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The tumult in US offshore wind development has taken several steps lately, some forward, some not so much. Here is a quick overview of three serious events that are worth careful consideration.
The tumult in US offshore wind development has taken several steps lately, some forward, some not so much. Here is a quick overview of three serious events that are worth careful consideration.
First is the question of whether the developers will be able to bring forward their cost crisis and stick it to the ratepayers. As regular readers know, a lot of offshore wind project contracts with the client States have been pulled by the developers. They hope to come back with a higher price to cover their suddenly increased costs. The big Danish developer Orsted just pulled another contract in Maryland.
Well, the first of these new high-cost offers has indeed been accepted, in this case, by New Jersey. After all, the governor says, they want to go the impossible 100% renewables route as quickly as they can, making costs politically irrelevant. New Jersey ratepayers be damned.
There is a good chance that the other North Atlantic states will follow New Jersey, especially New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, which have huge offshore wind construction targets.
This suit alleges something that is obviously true, having been widely discussed here at CFACT. The Federal agencies that have quickly issued the offshore wind permits have simply ignored the destructive environmental effects. This is especially true for the collective impact of combinations of nearby projects.
Thus, the argument is procedural rather than substantive. Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to rule on the environmental science, which Courts are reluctant to do. They just want the Feds to do the proper job as mandated by the applicable environmental protection laws, of which there are several.
The complaint has two dimensions of consideration. One is the adverse impact of wind development on fish and, therefore, on the fishing industry. Thus, one of the complainants is a fishing trade association. One of my favorite legal maxims is “Never argue substance when you can argue procedure.”
The other dimension is the adverse impact on endangered species, especially whales. One of the plaintiffs is the Save the Right Whale Coalition. Here, the narrow issue is the threat posed by enormous offshore wind development to the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.
The noise of this pile driving is extremely loud, disrupting the lives of whales and other endangered species. This disruption is not only recognized by the Feds, it is specifically authorized by NOAA. The disruption is called harassment, and every offshore project has a pile driving harassment authorization, which typically includes thousands of hapless marine mammals.
That this systematic harassment can cause deadly behavior on the part of the thousands of harassed critters is one of the top ongoing complaints against offshore wind development. For example, scaring whales into heavy ship traffic where they can be struck and killed.
Which brings us to our third big event. The Feds have just released the final version of their so-called “North Atlantic Right Whale and Offshore Wind Strategy”. I say so-called because there is no strategy.
The Federal plan is to drive the thousands of piles on a bunch of big projects, many at the same time, and see what happens to the whales. The word “harassment” does not even occur in the document. Deadly harassment is simply ignored.
If the Right Whales go extinct, there is no way to bring them back, so watching and waiting is not a protection strategy. This is the kind of systematic denial that the lawsuit calls out.
So there it is. The price of offshore wind may be going way up, but a lawsuit is asking for a more complete look at the adverse impacts. Meanwhile, the impact of offshore wind on severely endangered whales continues to be ignored by the development agencies.
The times they are a changing. Stay tuned to CFACT.
You must be logged in to post a comment.