Senator Boxer’s Statement on New IPCC Climate Report

On Mar 30^th, 2014 U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released a statement regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II report that was just released.

Senator Boxer said: "The latest IPCC report adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change's impacts - from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires. This new IPCC report identifies the serious threats to human health, vital infrastructure, and the world's economy that will multiply as temperatures warm. It confirms that we must cut carbon pollution now to avoid lasting changes to our planet" (Senator Boxer’s Statement on New IPCC Climate Report, 2014).

Let me focus your attention on three specific statements: The first is where she said “dangerous carbon pollution;” the second, “In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change's impacts - from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires;” and the third, “This new IPCC report identifies the serious threats to human health, vital infrastructure, and the world's economy that will multiply as temperatures warm” (Senator Boxer’s Statement on New IPCC Climate Report, 2014). Let’s look at each of these statements.

In the first statement Senator Boxer indicates that carbon or CO₂ is a pollutant. There are several problems with this statement. First, even an elementary understanding of science would tell you that all living plants take in CO₂ in order to exist. Basically, all plant life breathes in CO₂ and breathes out Oxygen or O₂ (The Oxygen Cycle). All animal life breathes in the Oxygen produced by plant life and we require this symbiotic relationship; thus, carbon is fundamental to all organic life.

       In fact, work by Vanaja et al. (2010), revealed that higher CO₂ concentrations increased grain yields and total biomass. Specifically, their research found there was “a significant positive increase of harvest index at elevated CO₂ with an increment of 30.7% over ambient values” (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011). This echoes their previous research where they stated, “The indication of higher responses for root and leaf at initial growth stages at the higher elevated level of CO₂ (700 ppm), which leads to better root establishment, achieving early photosynthetic efficiency and also better biomass production, and its improved partitioning can be reckoned as a positive aspect of increasing concentrations of CO₂ in atmosphere” (Vanaja, et al., 2007). This means that more that the more CO₂ in our atmosphere, the more plants grow and the more food crops will yield. Furthermore, citing numerous studies, the 2011 report ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ stated, “In light of Jaramillo et al.’s findings, it is becoming increasingly clear that greater warmth and atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are not ‘twin evils.’ Quite to the contrary, they are just what the Earth‘s ecosystems need in order to make them both more stable and more productive, characteristics essential for sustaining the still - expanding human population of the globe while preserving wildlife habitat” (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011).

       In the second statement Senator Boxer indicates that climate change's impacts are drier environmental conditions in California and increased frequency and intensity of wildfires. Neither of these statements hold up to scientific scrutiny nor are they supported by scientific research. For instance, Denniston et al. (2007) indicated in their research that “neither mean annual temperature nor the seasonality of precipitation changed concomitantly with dryness” (Denniston, DuPree, Dorale, Asmerom, Polyak, & Carpenter, 2007). Furthermore, this is highlighted even more strongly by the 2011 report ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ it states,

Real clarity, however, comes when the turn-of-the-century drought is compared to droughts of the prior millennium. Cook et al. write, “perhaps the most famous example is the ‘Great Drouth’ [sic] of AD 1276–1299 described by A.E. Douglass (1929, 1935). “This 24-year drought was eclipsed by the 38-year drought found by Weakley (1965) to have occurred in Nebraska from AD 1276 to 1313, which Cook et al. say ―may have been a more prolonged northerly extension of the ‘Great Drouth’.” But even these multi-decade droughts pale in comparison with the ―two extraordinary droughts discovered by Stine (1994) in California that lasted more than two centuries before AD 1112 and more than 140 years before AD 1350.” Each of these megadroughts, as Cook et al. describe them, occurred, in their words, “in the so-called Medieval Warm Period.” They add, “all of this happened prior to the strong greenhouse gas warming that began with the Industrial Revolution. (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011)

       This report and the research that it cites clearly shows that the dry conditions in California referenced by Senator Boxer are neither unprecedented nor are they caused by ‘Climate Change.’ Furthermore, citing fifteen different studies this report states that not only does wildfire frequency and intensity “not increase linearly with global temperatures” but the research shows that “a number of studies indicated a decrease in boreal fire activity in the last 150 years or so” (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011).

       In the third statement Senator Boxer states that, “This new IPCC report identifies the serious threats to human health, vital infrastructure, and the world's economy that will multiply as temperatures warm” (Senator Boxer’s Statement on New IPCC Climate Report, 2014). While I will examine the New IPCC Climate Report in more detail in another article, Senator Boxer’s statement is very misleading. First, the report states that “In recent decades, climate change has contributed to levels of ill-health (likely) though the present world-wide burden of ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with other stressors on health and is not well quantified” (Smith, et al., 2014). As stated in previous reports, the degree of certainty in key findings is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). In this case, their statement “climate change has contributed to levels of ill-health” only rates the ‘likely’ probability which is far from the certainty implied by Senator Boxer’s Statement. Secondly, they go on to say that “the present world-wide burden of ill-health from climate change is relatively small” and “is not well quantified” (Smith, et al., 2014). Again, this is far from the certainty implied by Senator Boxer’s Statement. Furthermore, that statement that climate change will have profound impacts on infrastructure rates only a ‘medium’ in the qualitative level of confidence in the report (Revi , et al., 2014). And, the report states that “For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small…” (Arent , et al., 2014). The greater impact to the world’s economy will be to implement policies based on reports and research from one side of any debate.

       As I stated in a previous article,

Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), was asked in an interview with the BBC, "Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?" Mr. Jones stated, "…the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other." Furthermore, he was also asked in the same interview, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" Mr. Jones stated, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level" (Harrabin, 2010).

      This clearly shows that there has been no statistical warming since 1860 which is contrary to the statements made by Senator Boxer and others; yet, these claims continue to be made. In light of contradictory evidence, one would assume that statements would be updated, but this does not seem to be the case. This would lead one to ask, what is the motivation to continue these statements and push for a sense of urgency?

Bibliography

Arent , D., Tol , R. S., Faust , E., Hella , J. P., Kumar , S., Strzepek , K. M., et al. (2014). 10. Key Economic Sectors and Services. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Denniston, R. F., DuPree, M., Dorale, J. A., Asmerom, Y., Polyak, V. J., & Carpenter, S. J. (2007, July). Episodes of late Holocene aridity recorded by stalagmites from Devil's Icebox Cave, central Missouri, USA. Quaternary Research, Volume 68(Issue 1), p. 45-52.

Harrabin, R. (2010, February 13). Q&A: Professor Phil Jones. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, S. F. (2011). Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). (C. D. Idso, R. M. Carter, & S. F. Singer, Eds.) Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC): http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf

Revi , A., Satterthwaite , D., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi , R. B., Pelling , M., et al. (2014). Chapter 8. Urban Areas. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Senator Boxer’s Statement on New IPCC Climate Report. (2014, March 30). Retrieved April 1, 2014, from U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d82d136b-b67b-9999-aca9-190cb4585fa4&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Smith, K. R., Woodward , A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Chadee , D., Honda , Y., Liu , Q., et al. (2014, March 31). Chapter 11. Human Health: Impacts, Adaptation, and Co-Benefits. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Oxygen Cycle. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2014, from Virginia's Community Colleges: http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/oxycycle.html

Vanaja, M., Raghuram Reddy, P., Jyothi Lakshmi, N., Maheswari, M., Vagheera, P., Ratnakumar, P., et al. (2007). Effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on growth and yield of blackgram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper) – a rainfed pulse crop. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from Agricultural Journals: http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/00056.pdf

John Kerry's Remarks on Climate Change

Secretary of State, John Kerry recently gave some remarks on Climate Change in Jakarta, Indonesia. He spoke on the urgency and of the National Security implications of Climate Change by ranking it up there with terrorism, epidemics, poverty, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Kerry, 2014). Is Climate Change really this urgent? Does Climate Change have National Security implications? Mr. Kerry made numerous statements to substantiate these claims. Let us look at some of these statements one at a time and see if they are accurate, and whether they support the claims made by Mr. Kerry.

One of the statements regarding Climate Change made by Mr. Kerry was that “the science is absolutely certain” (Kerry, 2014). Mr. Kerry attempted to confirm this statement by comparing the science of Climate Change with several proven scientific laws like that of gravity, thus implying that Climate Change is a proven law.  His verification for this implication is that “thousands of the world’s leading scientists and five reports over a long period of time with thousands of scientists contributing to those reports” … “tell us over and over again that our climate is changing, that it is happening faster than they ever predicted, ever in recorded history, …”  (Kerry, 2014). Furthermore, Mr. Kerry states that 97 percent of the scientists agree on this, but is that really true? Even if it is true, there was a time when a majority of scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the center of the universe, but that did not make it so. What Mr. Kerry fails to mention is that thousands of scientists and over 1,350 peer-reviewed reports contradict the statements and claims he has made and most importantly the science is not settled (1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm, 2014). In fact, a survey of climate scientists was undertaken on 2010 that shows there really is no clear consensus regarding the statements made by Mr. Kerry (Bray & von Storch, 2010), (Bray, The Scientific Consensus of Climate Change Revisited, 2010).

Another statement that Mr. Kerry makes is that, “they tell us that we humans are the significant cause” of global climate change (Kerry, 2014). However, the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPC) “concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs” (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011). And the NIPCC is not the only organization or individual that has come to this conclusion. In fact, “Mike Hulme (2009), a professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2009 a book that contained admissions of uncertainty.” and Hulme also stated “Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate” (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011).

Mr. Kerry then goes on to say that “If you ranked all the years in recorded history by average temperature, you’d see that 8 of the 10 hottest years have all happened within the last 10 years. Think about it this way: all 10 of the hottest years on record have actually happened since Google went online in 1998” (Kerry, 2014). Is that true? Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), was asked in an interview with the BBC, "Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?" Mr. Jones stated, "…the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other." Furthermore, he was also asked in the same interview, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" Mr. Jones stated, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level" (Harrabin, 2010).

Mr. Kerry also states that “the earth is getting hotter at such an alarming speed, glaciers in places like the Arctic are melting into the sea faster than we expected. And the sea is rising – slowly, but rising – and will rise to dangerous levels” (Kerry, 2014). Is that true? The first part of this statement has been shown to be untrue in the paragraph above so let’s focus on the comment about glaciers melting. It has been shown that “Antarctic September sea ice has been increasing at 1.1 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average” (Watts, 2013) and this year's maximum wintertime extent of Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record (Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent, 2013). Furthermore, the Arctic ice cap grew by 29% in 2013 (Rose, 2013) and this same growing trend has been seen in the Himalayas (Hoffman, 2012), (Carrington, 2012).

Another statement that Mr. Kerry made is that there is a thin layer of gas in our atmosphere that “for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going” and he calls this “the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse“ (Kerry, 2014). Is that true? He goes on further to state that “This is what’s causing climate change” (Kerry, 2014). Is that true? This has been proven to be patently false. While CO₂ levels have climbed in recent years (Tans & Keeling, 2014) the average temperature has not climbed as evidenced from Mr. Jones’ statements above (Harrabin, 2010).

Mr. Kerry states that “Climate change also means water shortages. And if you have these enormous water shortages, then you have a change in the weather – because of the weather patterns, you’re going to wind up with droughts, the lack of water. And the droughts can become longer and more intense. In fact, this isn’t something around the corner – this is happening now (Kerry, 2014). Is that true? Mr. Kerry also states that, “scientists further predict that climate change also means longer, more unpredictable monsoon seasons and more extreme weather events. Now, I’ll tell you, I can’t tell you – no weatherman on TV or anybody is going to be able to look at you and tell you – that one particular storm was absolutely the result of climate change. But scientists do predict that many more of these disastrous storms will occur if we continue down the current path (Kerry, 2014). Is that true?

First, how can Mr. Kerry claim that there will be water shortages in one part of his speech and then claim that there will be longer monsoon rain seasons? These two statements contradict one another. Secondly, if one reviews the scientific literature that is available, it is clear that droughts are not becoming more prevalent or more severe and that storm activity has been on a decline (Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2011).

He calls those who disagree, a “tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science” (Kerry, 2014). Is this accurate or is this an attempt to marginalize those who are in disagreement? He goes on to further marginalize those who disagree by saying “this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people” and “those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.” (Kerry, 2014). As cited above there are numerous scientists who are peer-reviewed and well respected in their fields who disagree with the Alarmist statements that have been made by Mr. Kerry and others (1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm, 2014). Mr. Kerry’s statements are inaccurate at best and slanderous at their worst.

The bottom line is that the science of Climate Change is neither decided nor is there a consensus, not that a consensus really means all that much. Do we need to push governments, businesses, and individuals to spend billions on possibly needless policy and grandiose changes to our infrastructure and how we live? Perhaps it would be better to look at the topic of Climate Change with politically unbiased eyes and the scientific rigor that it deserves.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm. (2014, February 12). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Popular Technology.Net: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent. (2013, October 1). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Earth Observatory: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

Borenstein, S. (2014, March 24 ). Climate Report: Warming Is a Big Risk for People. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from NBC News: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-report-warming-big-risk-people-n60611

Bray, D. (2010). The Scientific Consensus of Climate Change Revisited. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu/3077313/The_Scientific_Consensus_of_Climate_Change_Revisited

Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2010, September 15). CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht - Centre for Materials and Coastal Research: http://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf

Carrington, D. (2012, April 15). Karakoram glaciers have grown over last decade, new research shows. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/15/karakoram-glaciers-grown-research

Harrabin, R. (2010, February 13). Q&A: Professor Phil Jones. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Hoffman, D. L. (2012, March 9). NASA Satellite Debunks Melting Glacier Myth. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from The Resilient Earth: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth

Idso, C. D., Carter, R. M., & Singer, S. F. (2011). Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). (C. D. Idso, R. M. Carter, & S. F. Singer, Eds.) Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC): http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf

Kerry, J. (2014, February 16). Remarks on Climate Change. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from U.S. State Department: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change . (2014). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Pratt, B. R. (2009, March). Global Warming: An Alternative View. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from http://icecap.us/: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Pratt-TheProfessionalEdge119.pdf

Rose, D. (2013, September 28). And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Tans, P., & Keeling, R. (2014). Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

van der Lingen, G. J. (2014, February 27). Global Cooling. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://nzclimatescience.net/: http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_cooling.pdf

Watts, A. (2013, October 22). NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Watts Up With That?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

Libya Attack: Spontaneous or Planned?

One of the most prevalent stories this past week, and mostly likely for several weeks to come, is that concerning the attack on the American consulate (embassy) in Libya.

Key points:

1. Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif has told reporters he believes militants used an anti-US protest as cover for the attack, and may have had help from inside the country's security services.

  - BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19587068

2. American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning.

...a Libyan politician who had breakfast with Mr. Stevens at the mission the morning before he was killed described security, mainly four video cameras and as few as four Libyan guards, as sorely inadequate for an American ambassador in such a tumultuous environment.

Col. Wolfgang Pusztai, who until early August was Austria’s defense attaché to Libya and visited the country every month, said in an e-mail that he believed the attack was “deliberately planned and executed” by about a core group of 30 to 40 assailants who were “well trained and organized.”

  - NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=all

3.  UN Ambassador Susan Rice said Sunday she doubts the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a pre-planned Al Qaeda operation that could have been detected.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday,” Ambassador Rice asserted that the US had no “actionable intelligence” that might have alerted officials to the attack in Benghazi,...

  - The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0916/Libya-attack-US-doubts-that-Al-Qaeda-planned-ahead-video

4. Sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say that a pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the consulate – called the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades - is a chief suspect in the attack.

The sources also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the June death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.

Noman Benotman,  president of the counter-extremist group Quilliam Foundation in London, told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

"According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault; it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest," Benotman said.

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday that the strike "has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation or an al Qaeda affiliate."

"One of the things that we've noticed over the last six or seven months is that al Qaeda in the Maghreb, northern Africa, have said they're really eager to strike northeastern targets. We've seen cells in Libya and Egypt starting to develop," U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, told CNN's "Starting Point."

Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said Wednesday that a group of heavily armed militants "infiltrated the march to start chaos.” Libya’s government blamed remnants of the Gadhafi regime, which was overthrown last year.

Wednesday night, U.S. officials told CNN's Suzanne Kelly that there were no actionable intelligence that this attack was being planned. But there appear to be some conflicting reports on the matter. Earlier Wednesday, sources said they believed the attack was planned, and that the protest of an obscure film that mocks Muslim faith was used as a diversion.

State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, during a briefing to Capitol Hill staff, offered his opinion that the attack was planned because of the extensive nature of the attack and the "proliferation" of small and medium weapons.

  - CNN, http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/libya-consulate-attack-the-big-unanswered-questions/

5. Sharef, who was in charge of the Interior Ministry’s security forces in Benghazi during the attack, has been critical of the security level at the consulate and of the Americans for keeping U.S. personnel in Benghazi. A series of attacks in the city over the last few months have targeted Westerners, in particular the British ambassador. In addition, Sharef has been the Libyan official most eager to suggest that the assault on the consulate involved considerable forward planning and was timed to coincide with 9/11, providing him with a partial defense for why government security forces were incapable of repelling the attack...

Feeling like he was “one of the rebels” may have lulled Stevens into a false sense of safety. A British security expert who advises foreign companies working in Benghazi says he was surprised that Stevens spent two days in the city. “The British ambassador was nearly killed a few weeks ago and the U.N. envoy Ian Martin had a grenade hurled at his car,” the security expert said. “Most high-profile diplomats spend as little time as possible in Benghazi.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they knew Chris was there and I wouldn’t discount some kind of al Qaeda involvement,” said Mazin Ramadan, a former Libyan government adviser and a friend of the slain ambassador. “We know there were some al Qaeda people before in Derna. And clearly there has been thinking and planning for attacks. We have had a series of them in Benghazi.”

U.S. officials have other questions. Why did the consulate have no U.S. Marine security present, unlike the Tripoli embassy? And why was the consulate, housed in a villa in an upscale district of the eastern Libyan city, not in compliance with State Department security rules for foreign missions? When the dust clears, State Department officials are likely to face the same questions from congressional panels citing, no doubt, a 2009 General Accounting Office report warning of a lack of strategic planning on diplomatic security.

  - The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/14/libya-attack-mystery-premeditated-by-al-qaeda-or-spontaneous.html

So what does all this mean? As with any incident of this nature and magnitude, information flow can be sporadic, incomplete, inconsistent, and highly speculative. A thorough investigation is warranted and necessary to expose the truth.