I get what is meant here, but on this topic precise language matters
"whether it emerged from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident"
As written, these are not mutually exclusive
Biden already has a IC report
Why a new one?
Why now?
"shortly after I became President, in March, I had my National Security Advisor task the Intelligence Community to prepare a report on their most up-to-date analysis of the origins of COVID-19"
Some thoughts...
Possibility 1
There is new information
Perhaps the IC has obtained info we don't have that is cause for reopening the analysis
Perhaps DRASTIC & the media have provided this info
Regardless, given the sensitivities the issue wouldn't be reopened for no reason at all
Possibility 2
Big bluff
There is no new information but Biden Admin wants China to think that there is
The 90 days thus provides a deadline for China to figure how to play this
If there was a lab leak & China thinks the US knows that, then there is a window for spinning a tale
Possibility 3
Pure politics
There is no new information & the US doesn't much believe there was a lab leak
But Biden Admin thinks that there is political value in amping up pressure on China as part of a broader geopolitical conflict
Possibility 4
Complicity
The Biden Admin realizes that if there was a lab leak, then there would be potential USG complicity in the form of research funding, collaboration or lack of oversight
Thus the administration is working to get out ahead of this & control a narrative
Possibility 5
Smoke 'em out
Perhaps there is strong circumstantial evidence of a lab leak
If so that might implicate US & Chinese researchers and officials in a possible cover up
A new IC analysis might motivate a whistleblower to come clean to the USG out of fear
There are surely other possibilities
But one thing is clear
Something has changed in the views at the highest levels of the USG and this is very significant as US president's don't go chasing shadows (at least not so publicly)
Watch this space
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pielke Jr., R. 2000. Policy Responses to El Niño 1997-1998: Implications for Forecast Value and the Future of Climate Services. In S. Changnon (Ed), 2000. El Niño, 1997-1998: The Climate Event of the Century, Oxford University Press. oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o…
An analysis of policy responses to climate forecasts associated w/ 97/98 El Nino in US & argued that the relationship of forecast skill and societal value of the forecast is highly complex, the former did not dictate the latter
In it I discuss Climategate, The Hockey Stick, Grijalva, 538, IPCC, Mann's years of attacks on me and others & the differences between fraud as a catch-all colloquialism and the formal definition of research misconduct in science . . .
Pennsylvania state climate assessment just published
Relies centrally on RCP8.5 as BAU
Prepared by yet another "climate consultancy" that trades in RCP8.5 analyses penncapital-star.com/energy-environ…
The PA report also confuses growth in wealth with climate trends, using the widely misused "billion dollar disaster" metric of @NOAA
I have no idea how much public money across the US is being spend on "climate consultants" to produce dodgy reports based on RCP8.5 and billion$ disasters, but it has to be an awful lot ... It's like spending public health money on homeopathy instead of vaccines