HMM: UK ‘Climategate’ inquiry largely clears scientists. “Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, said of the e-mails that ‘there’s no denying that some of them were pretty appalling.’ But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond ‘a blunt refusal to share data,’ adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.” So, is this right, or is it a whitewash? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Reader Robert Lederman writes:

From the body of the article to which you linked (emphasis mine):

“Lawmakers stressed that their report—which was written after only a single day of oral testimony—did not cover all the issues.”

“Report” is not the word that springs immediately to (my) mind to describe an effort such as this.

Well, stay tuned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark emails:

Bear in mind that this committee does not speak for two pending investigations. It is not clear from the story what this committee’s relationship is to those two investigations that remain ongoing. Moreover, the issue isn’t whether “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity” versus the implied “global warming isn’t happening or isn’t caused by human activity”. The question has been primarily the extent to which it is, and it is, with respect to the former proposition, and most importantly the following: Was the data treated properly? Was the data analyzed properly? Is the existing data significant in supporting any of the existing mathematical models, and to what extent?

More important than any judgment of Jones and his collaborators in this matter is whether all of the data and associated documentation is made public and available for independent analysis, and that this should be so for all similar work going forward. If policy prescriptions involving potentially trillions of dollars over many years are to rest on matters of science then there should be absolutely no secret with regard to the science or the scientists involved: absolute transparency should be the standard.

Well, stay tuned.

L.A. TIMES: Two presidents visit U.S. troops: The styles of Barack Obama and George W. Bush in photos.

FROM CAM EDWARDS, A PROTEST VIDEO: All These Things That They’ve Done. I like the CBGB t-shirt.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: We Are All Pods Now.

VERONIQUE DE RUGY: United States’ Net Position Deteriorates.

MICHAEL BARONE: The Show Me State Shows Us Something. “We are looking at something other than an ordinary political year.”

RON BAILEY: President Obama takes significant steps toward global nuclear disarmament.

BILL QUICK on democracy and freedom.

PETER SUDERMAN: Mitt Romney vs. ObamaCare.

Romney’s line should be Hey, states are “laboratories of democracy.” We tried this, and it flopped. Lesson learned. Plus a point on the advisability of testing out new national approaches that way in general. . .

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR: VOTING FOR OBAMACARE WAS “POLITICAL FOLLY.” Allahpundit: I told you so!

UH OH: CNN lost “almost half” of their viewers in the last year.

Coincidentally, viewership is way up at PJTV.

THE MOST OVERPRICED PRODUCT you could possibly buy.

MICHAEL GRAHAM: Follow the money. Have I mentioned he’s got a book out?

LOOKING INSIDE Taser’s electified shotgun slug.

ORNL’S radioactive Stonehenge.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG? An Elementary School Production of “Scarface.”

UPDATE: It’s a hoax? Say it ain’t so!

POLICING FOR PROFIT: The Institute For Justice takes on asset forfeiture.

TENSION: Among weathercasters, doubt on warming.

FIGHT THE POWER — buy a Ford! Or a Toyota, I guess.

IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP ADVICE FOR TODAY’S ECONOMY: Why You Should Date A Guy Who Lives With His Parents.

COMBINING TWO OF MY INTERESTS: How to cook bacon with a machine gun. Thanks to reader Michael Stajduhar for the link.

THIS SEEMS LIKE NEWS: Google Buzz Privacy Flaw Snags Another Victim: White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin. “The exceptionally close relationship between Google and the Obama Administration is no secret. But it does raise questions when Google’s former top lobbyist, now serving in the executive office of the president, is using his former employer’s private email and social networking tools (Gmail and Buzz) to communicate privately with bunches of Google lobbyists and lawyers.” It’s also amusing when a tech guy gets nailed by a privacy bug.

TIM PAWLENTY on stopping runaway spending, one seat at a time.

MEGAN MCARDLE: Henry Waxman’s war on accounting.

Accounting basics: when a company experiences what accountants call “a material adverse impact” on its expected future earnings, and those changes affect an item that is already on the balance sheet, the company is required to record the negative impact–“to take the charge against earnings”–as soon as it knows that the change is reasonably likely to occur.

This makes good accounting sense. The asset on the balance sheet is now less valuable, so you should record a charge. Otherwise, you’d be misleading investors.

The Democrats, however, seem to believe that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are some sort of conspiracy against Obamacare, and all that is good and right in America.

I think when they planned for ObamaCare’s costs to come online post-election, they didn’t know enough to realize that accounting rules (and SEC regulations) would require companies to act now. Just another example of the “knowledge problem” confronting economic planners and regulators . . . .

UPDATE: Reader Bill Hesson emails: “Would somebody please explain to the gentleman from California that the incessant prosecution of business executives for nothing more than excessive optimism is likely to have consequences that include pessimistic accounting?”

And reader Brant Hadaway writes:

I’m not usually this petty, but every time I see a link to another piece by Megan McArdle in which she (correctly) calls out the Dems on deficits, accounting rules, Obamacare, etc., I have to grit my teeth to prevent myself from yelling at the screen, “But you voted for him! You and every other sentient being on the planet should have seen this coming!”

I can respect the true believers in Obama. After all, they have their agenda.

But I cannot abide those who act like they were duped. The only people who were duped by Obama were those who wanted to be duped.

Well, everyone can be fooled by somebody. If you think you’re immune then you’re fooling yourself. But it’s true that in Obama’s case there was a strong will to believe, pushed by the hope — apparently false, based on current race-baiting aimed at Tea Party protesters — that Obama’s election would lead us to a post-racial America. Not so much, as it turns out. But better to point this out now than to remain silent, even though it would have been better still if more people had noticed it before the election.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Brad Garton writes: “What’s really funny is that among other things Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to make the impacts public, and Waxman voted for that. Apparently he didn’t read that bill either.”

RAND SIMBERG notes that the Space Access Conference is next week, and likely to be particularly interesting this year.