The global warming zealots have invested so much of their time, energy, emotion, ego and reputations in the climate con that to relinquish it would be to relinquish themselves; to call it a lie is to call their lives a lie.
"I was born with a chronic anxiety about the weather," said John Burroughs in 1877. Today, anxiety about the weather is more common than ever, although it's not inborn but cultivated in schoolrooms, through television sets and by lying, rapacious ex-vice presidents. And I have anxiety about the weather, too – especially when it's being used to promote a destructive agenda.
This brings us to Climategate, the scandal everyone is talking about and that inspired British journalist James Delingpole to write "it's [the climate con is] all unravelling now." I only wish I could be so optimistic. Sure, we have the smoking gun of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia, which provide evidence that we "deniers" were only denying a lie. And the erstwhile head of its Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones – a con man with a science degree if ever there were one – had to resign in disgrace. But don't for a moment confuse a smoking gun with a coup de grace, or being sacrificed for the team with waving the white flag. I say this because I long ago realized something about man's nature, something that may sound like a gross exaggeration: If a person has a strong enough vested interest in believing 2+2=5, he will surely insist it is so – in the face of all evidence to the contrary. But before I talk about who the real deniers are and what is being denied, let's discuss the ugly reality reaffirmed by Climategate.
Here is the lowdown in a nutshell: Governments have used billions of dollars of our money to fund fraudulent science, which, in turn, is used to justify policy that would steal untold billions more from us through taxation and the handicapping of the private sector. This will, of course, stifle the creation of wealth, but it will also be a transfer of it. But this would not be so much from the rich to the poor; it would be from the poor and middle class to the rich and well-connected. Carbon-credit con men such as Al Gore will add to their many millions, while subtracting from the many millions some of the latter's few dollars. It would move us toward a situation in which we'd have two Americas, as John Edwards might say. One would be a lying, covetous ruling class of John Edwardses. The other would be the masses, who would be perpetually mired in serfdom.
Yet defeating the climate con won't be easy, because it isn't just money that drives the con men. In fact, many of them are so married to the climate con that they have become one with their misguided notions. Call it the Zen of Being Wrong.
One reason not to do wrong is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Obviously, Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Tiger Woods would never have felt the urge to lie about their affairs if they had never had affairs. Of course, the lying was immoral, but this is how one sin leads to another. A transgression leads to a lie, which leads to a full-blown cover-up, etc. And the deeper you dig that hole, the harder and more painful it is to climb out of it.
In the case of the climate con artists, the pain would be great and the price steep. Their creed has been likened to a religion, and in many ways it is. They aren't global-warming theorists.
They are global-warming fundamentalists.
They have invested so much of their time, energy, emotion, ego and reputations in the climate con that to relinquish it would be to relinquish themselves; to call it a lie is to call their lives a lie. It's just a bit like asking a Jihadist to give up Islam. These are not people who subscribe to AGW theory; they have submitted to it.
Then you have those who are using this religion to make money – and they and the true believers are often one and the same. These are the carbon-credit capitalists, the green-technology givers and greenback grabbers.
And we have to add to this the fact that all these people have become science's Torquemadas, inquisitors bent on stifling inquisitiveness. Al Gore told us "The debate is over" as he and his co-religionists strove to root out heresy and sought to destroy the "deniers." Thus, they have no reason to expect mercy. Surrender is simply not an option.
So forget about icebergs; the meltdown the climate con artists fear is that of their reputations, egos, finances and faith. Scientists or not, to admit error is not merely the alteration of a hypothesis to them; it is the loss of religion and meaning, the end of empire, the fall of Rome. It is complete and utter personal destruction.
Yet destruction is precisely what the climate-change con men would visit on the economies of nations in their delusional grip. Other lands, such as China and India, will never yield to such insanity. They may pay lip service to it, though, especially if doing so will encourage us to more thoroughly handicap ourselves. Then they can laugh and rise to prominence while we become the most recent great civilization to descend into backwater status.
As I write this, the climate-change con artists have just met in Copenhagen, where useful-idiot communists are protesting in the streets while their standard bearers, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe and Bolivian President Evo Morales are railing against free markets and beating the red drum. Do you really think these folks care about the environment? The green that really concerns them is your money – and I do mean your money. Because if there is an "international" agreement to fight the phantom of climate change, you can bet your depreciating bottom dollar that we Americans will pay the freight. We are, after all, the world's biggest energy suckers.
The question is, are we just the world's biggest suckers?
Chavez, Mugabe and China are betting yes. And if we want to make fools out of them, we'll cause radical climate change – to the political climate in Washington in 2010. It's probably our last chance to prove who the fools really are.
It is always about “follow the money”.
As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in Cap and Trade Practice, Tata will generate a possible $375,000,000 in carbon tax credits by shutting down Corus, Europe’s 2nd largest steel producer (and laying off 1700 British workers).
They will also profit by moving the production to India where they can recieve hundreds of millions from the Clean Development Fund (even though it will no cleaner than the plant just shout down in UK).
And lastly (no surprise here), “the world’s top climate scientist” Dr. Pachauri, former railway engineer and current chaiman of the UN’s IPCC has “an astonishing portfolio of business interests” including Tata Energy Institute in Delhi. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
First, your assumption that “Climategate” proves anything but the sheep like stupidity of climate change deniers is and has been proven wrong. Misinterpretation of a “scandal” does not refute science. But this is no surprise coming from you… pretty much everything you’ve ever written is nothing more than a series ad-hominum attacks, misrepresentation of facts and straw men. This article is clearly no exception.
It’s amusing, if dangerous, to see conservatives constantly railing against people like Al Gore who put their money where their mouths are, ie, invest their own money in new technologies in an effort to make money. Isn’t that the free market at work?
For you, or any other denier, to be taken seriously in a discussion you are first going to have to explain how the laws of chemistry are somehow overturned when it comes to the climate. It’s a chemical fact that CO2 is one (among several) greenhouse gasses – that is, adding this gas to an atmosphere traps heat – so tell me how it’s possible to pump tons of this stuff per day into our atmosphere over 160 years and NOT cause warming? It’s such an easy concept to grasp that even a conservative should be able to do the logic.
And how is it that, after examining the physical evidence that the earth is warming – temperature charts, side-by-side pictures of glacial recession, loss of arctic ice and the disintegration of massive antarctic ice shelves – deniers will sheepishly admit that, well, ok, maybe the atmosphere is warming, but then insist that it isn’t caused by man? Why the heck couldn’t we have caused this? Why do I have to listen to Sarah Palin talk about “good stewardship of the Earth God gave us” in the breath before she goes off with “drill baby, drill?” Doesn’t the evidence point to the latter not being subjective to the former?
Next, how is it that lab scientists, who are not known for their extravagant pay packages and lifestyles, are the heads of some ‘global conspiracy’ to get rich off this ‘scheme,’ while the CEO’s of gas, oil and coal industries (and their lackeys like you) – people with a definite self interest in status quo denialism, and who for the past 30 years have funded all the anti-science denialism – somehow get a pass on the conspiracy charge?
This is slightly off topic but I’d really love an answer to this one even if I doubt your ability to provide one, why is it that when conservatives do agree to do something about better sources of energy, they always insist on nuclear power? Now, I’m not ideologically against nuclear power – I think it’s a pretty neat use of the technology – but the fact is, it’s WAY damn expensive: so expensive that no (free market) bank in the world will fund one due to the odds of massive budget overruns and financial default. The only way to get one built is through massive, MASSIVE government subsidies and loan guarantees – things that should be anathema to conservatives, but somehow aren’t. Is this because they only support nuclear because they think it upsets liberals, or are they just stupid?
Why don’t you start writing some substantive articles instead of just trashing liberals… you might learn something.
Chasm,
Maybe before you start spouting off with your own ad hominems you should actually read some substantial amount of the emails in question http://sweetness-light.com/FOI2009.zip.
Why don’t you have a look at the code:
;
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!‘
;
loadct,39
def_1color,20,color=’red’
plot,[0,1]
multi_plot,nrow=4,layout=’large’
if !d.name eq ‘X’ then begin
window, ysize=800
!p.font=-1
endif else begin
!p.font=0
device,/helvetica,/bold,font_size=18
endelse
;
; Get regional tree lists and rbar
;
restore,filename=’reglists.idlsave’
harryfn=['nwcan','wnam','cecan','nweur','sweur','nsib','csib','tib',$
'esib','allsites']
;
rawdat=fltarr(4,2000)
for i = nreg-1 , nreg-1 do begin
fn=’mxd.’+harryfn(i)+’.pa.mean.dat’
print,fn
openr,1,fn
readf,1,rawdat
close,1
;
densadj=reform(rawdat(2:3,*))
ml=where(densadj eq -99.999,nmiss)
densadj(ml)=!values.f_nan
;
x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
kl=where((x ge 1400) and (x le 1992))
x=x(kl)
densall=densadj(1,kl) ; all bands
densadj=densadj(0,kl) ; 2-6 bands
;
; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
;
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot them
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densall,title=’Age-banded MXD from all sites’,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle=’Year’,/xstyle,$
zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
endfor
;
; Restore the Hugershoff NHD1 (see Nature paper 2)
;
xband=x
restore,filename=’../tree5/densadj_MEAN.idlsave’
; gets: x,densadj,n,neff
;
; Extract the post 1600 part
;
kl=where(x ge 1400)
x=x(kl)
densadj=densadj(kl)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot it too
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densadj,title=’Hugershoff-standardised MXD from all sites’,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle=’Year’,/xstyle,$
zeroline=tshug,yrange=[-7,3],bar_color=20
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their bidecadal components
;
plot,xband,tslow,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle=’Year’,/xstyle,$
yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title=’Low-pass (20-yr) filtered comparison’
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their 50-yr components
;
filter_cru,50,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
filter_cru,50,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
plot,xband,tslow,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle=’Year’,/xstyle,$
yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title=’Low-pass (50-yr) filtered comparison’
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now compute the full, high and low pass correlations between the two
; series
;
perst=1400.
peren=1992.
;
openw,1,’corr_age2hug.out’
thalf=[10.,30.,50.,100.]
ntry=n_elements(thalf)
printf,1,’Correlations between timeseries’
printf,1,’Age-banded vs. Hugershoff-standardised’
printf,1,’ Region Full 10 >30 >50 >100′
;
kla=where((xband ge perst) and (xband le peren))
klh=where((x ge perst) and (x le peren))
ts1=densadj(klh)
ts2=densall(kla)
;
r1=correlate(ts1,ts2)
rall=fltarr(ntry)
for i = 0 , ntry-1 do begin
filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts1,tslow=tslow1,tshigh=tshi1,/nan
filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts2,tslow=tslow2,tshigh=tshi2,/nan
if i eq 0 then r2=correlate(tshi1,tshi2)
rall(i)=correlate(tslow1,tslow2)
endfor
;
printf,1,’ALL SITES’,r1,r2,rall,$
format=’(A11,2X,6F6.2)’
;
printf,1,’ ‘
printf,1,’Correlations carried out over the period ‘,perst,peren
;
close,1
;
end
Would you care to speculate what “artificial correction” might be?
Maybe you have missed the point of the entire controversy. Climate change science is based on a hoax, with falsified research, manipulated statistics, cherry-picked data, and unsubtantiated conclusions. There is no “science” here. You have been lied to.
You are naive if you think that government grants and research funding tied to the perpetuation of this hoax doesn’t impact the thinking of the receipents.
Liberals deserve to be trashed. Every one of them who has any sort of power at all will lie, cheat and steal to keep that power and increase it. These liberals are despicable.
This isn’t about the climate. Never has been. It is about wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Now go do some real research that isn’t dredged up at some leftist website. That is, if you have the slightest amount of integrity left.
Neener neener neener. I know you are but what am I?
What are you talking about, I didn’t make any ad hominum arguments, except perhaps question the motives of denialists – all I did was ask some questions.
Second… I am not a climate scientist and neither are you. You have no ability to judge what that data says nor what it means.
Third… oh yea, scientists are just doing this to get rich – not at all like the oil, gas and coal company executives who are so altruistic that they routinely give away all their record profits to those more needy. Right.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
And here’s the DOD:
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=55327
http://search.dma.mil/search?access=p&entqr=0&entsp=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&client=DEFENSE_frontend&q=climate%20change&filter=0&ud=1&site=DEFENSE_all&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=DEFENSE_frontend&ip=206.57.28.21&
Ad hominem 1: “…stupidity of climate change deniers…”
Ad hominem 2: “It’s amusing, if dangerous, to see conservatives constantly railing against people like Al Gore…”
Ad hominem 3: “Is this because they only support nuclear because they think it upsets liberals, or are they just stupid…”
Ad hominem 4: “Why don’t you start writing some substantive articles…”
Ad hominem 5: “You have no ability to judge what that data says nor what it means.”
Non sequitur: “…oh yea, scientists are just doing this to get rich – not at all like the oil, gas and coal company executives who are so altruistic that they routinely give away all their record profits to those more needy.”
Begging the question: “And how is it that, after examining the physical evidence that the earth is warming…”
Red herring: “Next, how is it that lab scientists, who are not known for their extravagant pay packages and lifestyles…”
Are comments closed? Why is this page filtering me?
Frugaldowneaster:
Good comment, and an angle we could only hope the mainstream media would emulate in their investigations. The underlying problem seems clear to many; we simply have too many scientists to gainfully employ in useful projects, so the alternative is to turn to governments, or rather their taxpayers, for funding and to gain a lifestyle which scientists and their investment partners would like to come to expect.
But the professional media is lazy and more than willing to forego in-depth investigation while playing the emotion angle by feeding the public simplistic issues that endlessly reiterate long established themes like “all scientific research pays dividends”, “the answers to important questions can only be found through science”, “settled science can’t be questioned” and other similar nonsense which a moment’s reflection would dispel. Even scientists can’t harness the scientific method to prove such absurd statements are “true”. And no one claims scientists aren’t in it for the money – why wouldn’t they be?
We, the public, have even come to expect similar rhetorical patterns regarding the question of government funding of science. In California, we’re the butt of national jokes mocking our impoverished state government. Yet, we’re still paying off a $3 billion voter approved handout to embryonic stem cell research scientists and their friends in the private bio-tech industry. And, although the scam somewhat preceded Global Warming, the pattern is distinctly similar. First, the Menace to Human Existence was revealed – in this case, various “diseases” affecting millions. Then came the “Solution”, embryonic stem cells. Then came the price – billions needed for research.
Like Global Warming, the embryonic stem cell scam had its “Cellgate” – turns out the researchers knew all along embryonic stem cells wouldn’t cure Alzheimer’s – but no lab coat informed Nancy Reagan – Oops. And Michael J. Fox and his fellow sufferers from Parkinson’s disease will probably not see a cure based on embryonic stem cells within their lifetimes. And those suffering from various rare genetic disorders can also forget it – there aren’t enough of them to generate the revenue, and profits, needed to make it worth the effort.
Even the mechanics of the scam followed a similar pattern. The money was to be provided by government through the sale of bonds and then handed over to a select group of folks who would dole it out. In California’s case, the politicians got to pick the select group but it had to include University of California scientists and professors – apparently a healthy fraction of the money was always intended to solve the university system’s chronic shortage of research funds. The remainder of the select group was chosen by politicians – not their political supporters or business allies of course – that would be wrong. The Governing Committee holds its meetings behind closed doors, the public doesn’t need to know exactly how they determine the funds will be distributed. Yes, there is a public press release, we’re told what the Committee decides we need to know.
When it comes to patents and who gets to benefit from commercial uses of taxpayer funded research, the average person would assume the taxpayers will benefit, they paid for the research, the public treasury should reap all the profits. Whoa there masked stranger, not so fast. The public gets only a portion of the profits and the Committee determines what portion and whether the patent was actually based on publicly funded research. Other independent investigators have wondered all along whether the goal was ever actually a therapeutic cure from embryonic stem cells or simply ‘free money” research that supported genetic engineering applications and other bio-tech uses that would flow from the research. The cat leaped from the bag when politicians let slip a secondary goal which was building a healthy bio-tech industry in California, sort of a “Stem Cell Valley” type collection of “clean industry” firms.
And like Global Warming, facts can’t alter “inconvenient truths”. Yes, adult stem cells have proven more promising relative to actual therapeutic cures. But scientists who have invested years in embryonic stem cell research will simply not shrug off their life’s work by consoling themselves with “better luck next time”. They are still receiving the money, they’ve said it, they’re not ashamed to take it and, besides, it’s California law – the voters approved the money and no “take backs” allowed.
In the end, “all scientific research pays dividends”, but dividends to whom?
Weak. Who is screening out my comments? I thought we were past all that.
You have no ability to judge what that data says nor what it means.
Projecting your ignorance or intellectual deficiency onto others isn’t an argument, but it certainly explains an awful lot about the position from you which are arguing and approaching the subject. One needn’t be a professional accountant to recognize fraud and manipulation of financial data – one need only understand the principles. One needn’t be a professional attorney to recognize when the law has been broken – one need only read and understand the law. And one needn’t be a professional scientist to recognize fraudulent or improper use of data in support of a scientific theory – one need only understand the scientific method and evidentiary principles. If one is incapable of understanding the evidence used to support a conclusion, then his support or lack thereof for the conclusion is of no consequence whatsoever. Do not assume that because you do not understand these things and must rely on the word of any self-professed expert that others suffer the same lack of understanding.
As in the past, your comments aren’t being “screened out” unless they contain profanity or some other language that gets them flagged for moderation before they are posted. If they don’t contain anything objectionable or profane, they’ll get posted once they have been reviewed. Just be patient – you can take the lag time for the rare opportunity to think before you craft a response.
“APPLY ARTIFICAL CORRECTION” isn’t just part of the computer code, it’s the AGW battle cry.
Folks like Chasm are unable to understand the “science,” and suggest that the rest of us non-scientists are just as ignorant.
I would suggest he try relying on his grasp of English. What might “apply,” “artificial,” and “correction,” when presented in that order as a phrase, mean?
It strikes me that AGW fans are a bit like the now-exposed fraudulent computer models used to make the golbal warming case. You can feed them whatever data you like, but it always is intercepted and diverted by the internal command to “Apply artificial correction.”
Post #13 is the same content as post #12.
ruminator:
Mr. Mulligan suggested that all one needs is a basic understanding of “scientific method and evidentiary principles.”
I ffered that something far less is needed – just a basic understanding of English, which I thought I stated in plain English.
I also wanted to note the irony on how AGW fans behave robotically in ignoring data, much like the software.
Stop, why am I having to explain this…?
Merry Christmas all
Mr. Adams,
I am too cryptic/subtle. Bottom line is, Mulligan says that it is possible to conclude that there is monkey business going on in the compilation of data without scientific training. You agree.
However, it’s mute because the argument has been neither won, nor lost, but terminated, if Chasm may not respond.
ruminator
I did not agree with Mr. Mulligan. He argues that “one need only understand the scientific method and evidentiary principles.”
I disagreed, noting that one only need understand English.
One may choose to agree with Mr. Mulligan or one may choose to agree with me. One may agree with both or neither.
That is all.
It is very important in this scandal to head off the “I’m no expert,” defense, which is typical when someone’s back is against the wall.
If an understanding of scientific method is required to see this mess for what it is , then we excuse hundreds of thousands of people from understanding what’s going on, and provide yet another excuse for all the Chasms out there to dodge it.
A basic understanding of scientific method and evidentiary principles is not required, in my opinion, and lacking same should not be a dodge.
I do hope Chasm works out his posting problem.
My intent in post #14 was to gently dissuade anyone from making further comments about Chasm’s comments, figuring that if he does not have the opportunity to respond, the fair thing to do is let the discussion roll to stop. Of course, it’s not my site, so this was presumptuous.
On the other hand, it would be equally persumptuous to lure a reader onto a site under the pretext of a debate, and then cancel his log-in privilege, then continue discussing his remarks.
Having had my comments deleted on two occasions without using profanity or obscenity, I am aware that Patrick Mulligan’s version of IC’s policy in post #12 is not correct (although he probably believes it is). We have heard from Chasm before and I would be amazed if he is using profanity to a degree beyond that which is occasionally seen herein.
It may be that several people do the screening process and do it differently. It may be that comments get dropped through technical malfuntion, though I doubt it.
In any case, even if you seem to be winning an argument, it looks bad if it appears that you intend to win it by shutting off your opponent’s microphone.
… it would be equally persumptuous to lure a reader onto a site under the pretext of a debate, and then cancel his log-in privilege …
First of all, no one “lured” Chasm to the debate. He studiously avoided commenting on a similar article I recently wrote about the Man-Made Global Warming Hoax http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/Phillip%20Ellis%20Jackson/. He did this because he embarrassed himself 3 years ago when I first wrote about this subject by not being truthful about his positions. [See the comment section to my first article in the IC archives].
Chasm deliberately chose his forum, and like MM’s comment #5 pointed out, resorted to his typical BS under the guise of actual debate. To suggest that he’s somehow an innocent victim of a malicious policy to deny the solid, well-reasoned voice of the Left a forum to debate us igno-runt con-servatives is hogwash.
Which leads to the second question. Exactly how have you come to the concrete conclusion that his “log-in privilege” has been “cancelled”.
As someone who actually knows how the IC system works, in addition to being blocked for racist bilge and excessive profanity, the filter automatically stops people who insert multiple links into their comments. This prevents spamming us with the occasional idiocy that passes as attempted commentary. Sometimes, it catches people who are not trying to misuse the system.
I found this out when one of my posts was hung up a few months ago because I put in too many links. Normally, this would be corrected when the IC editors manually review the entries. But there’s this little thing called the “Christmas Holiday” that has diverted a lot of people’s attention, so I’m guessing that the IC editors may actually be taking some time off.
Of course, despite actually speaking from an advantage of true knowledge instead of pull-it-out-of-your-butt angst as ruminator has done with his ‘conclusions’, I will concede that it could all be a conspiracy to deny Chasm an opportunity to respond with another “Neener neener neener” to a perfectly legitimate question about what an “artificial correction” might be.
So, instead of offering my own rock-solid ‘conclusion’ that he [ruminator] may actually not know what he’s talking about when he concludes that the evil old IC is deliberately blocking poor old Chasm from imparting his well reasoned wisdom on us all, I’ll just state the obvious. In true form ruminator both levels a baseless charge, and compounds that absurdity by suggesting that it’s somehow unfair to correct the stupidity of a person’s comments because that person is no longer participating in the conversation (for whatever reason).
I always enjoy self-proclaimed moderates who in their desire to be perceived as caring, “fair” and even handed nevertheless jump to conclusions that criticism of leftist stupidity is being silenced, and then suggest that it’s somehow not right to keep discussing the stupidity of a foolish person’s arguments. I had this same exchange with ruminator a while back who was critical of me calling an obnoxious commentator who used repeated homosexual slurs an unkind name, while complementing the man on his civility in smearing gay people while making his remarks.
For people like ruminator, the issue is never the truth or falsity of an issue. It’s whether we’re being fair to a person who offers his crazy left-wing insanity. This same sense of fairness does not extend to someone who “trashes” people on the right. Go back and re-read Chasm’s comment #2, and then see that the only things ruminator is concerned enough to comment about are (a) too many people are saying that Chasm is wrong using similar sounding (to ruminator) words and logic, and (b) ruminator’s fantasy that Chasm’s log-in “privileges” have somehow been “cancelled” so he can’t say neener neeener neener any longer to avoid actually having a real debate and answering the questions put to him.
[This is why the only difference between self-professed moderates like ruminator and liberals is that liberals say they are Progressives, while moderates deny any ideological affiliation while always viewing the world through a liberal/progressive prism.]
By all appearances, IC does a very good job most of the time in posting whatever is sent along; the poster speaks his mind at this own peril. This is a pretty decent record when you consider that the sponsor of the forum is not neutral on the issues.
None of my comments have been altered. That’s more than I can say for the Boston Globe. However, two were deleted, while not containing profanity. I have heard the “only instance of deletion is profanity or inappropriate language” policy twice now, once from you, and once from Mulligan, and I merely conveyed, in post #18, that this does not appear to be the whole story. I purposely avoided accusing Mulligan of disingenuousness.
“I had this same exchange with ruminator a while back who was critical of me calling an obnoxious commentator who used repeated homosexual slurs an unkind name, while complimenting the man on his civility in smearing gay people while making his remarks.”
It is true I wasn’t fair to you on that occasion. I apologize. However, what I actually did was I ignored his slurs against gay folks but I noted that he declined to return your insults. Nevertheless, you are correct: I couldn’t resist weighing in, and it wasn’t even-handed.
Actually I enjoy your bluntness though sometimes it’s a bit much. But as with everything in life, one must take the good with the bad. An honest, blunt person is a better companion than a sneaky one.
Not that you asked.
If Chasm is continuing to make arguments that, in the judgment of the screeners, are baseless, then including them would only clarify that MM’s position was the correct one. Why not do that? That way, there would be no speculation about why some of his remarks are deleted.
Another option is to include the policy somewhere more conspicuous.
>I merely conveyed, in post #18, that this does not appear to be the whole story.
What you said was “… it would be equally persumptuous to lure a reader onto a site under the pretext of a debate, and then cancel his log-in privilege …”.
You used the words “presumptuous”, “lure”, “pretext”, and “cancel”. These are not neutral words that “merely convey” that the “whole story” is not being told.
>I had this same exchange with ruminator a while back … “It is true I wasn’t fair to you on that occasion. I apologize.”
Ruminator — no apology is necessary. My point in referring back to the issue was to point out a consistently annoying trend in your commentary. As your moniker suggests, you “ruminate” about things. You rarely take a stand that offers an opinion of your own. Rather, you comment on what other people do, and how they do it.
When faced with an egregious wrong, you politely demure (“I ignored his slurs against gay folks”) and then search for some morally equivalent ground (“I noted that he declined to return your insults”). I find this to be the intellectual equivalent of saying Yeah Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but he was kind to little children with blond hair and blue eyes.
Moreover, when you feel called upon to ruminate about some morally equivalent issue, it is invariably to criticize the Right while ignoring or excusing the bad behavior of the Left. It speaks volumes about you that you think it’s appropriate to ignore a gay bashing bigot or Chasm’s ad hominem attacks in Comment #2, but feel compelled to offer your two cents about whether poor ole Chasm is being “lured” under “false pretexts” to offer comments and then conclude that his responses have been singled out and unfairly “blocked.”
I don’t know whether Chasm’s phantom comments were held up because of bigotry or profanity, or whether it was the fact that he used too many links. Or something else entirely. Neither do you. But that didn’t stop you from offering a concrete conclusion about the matter, and then lecturing us about how unfair it is to continue to point out the stupidity of a stupid idea.
If this issue is such a pressing matter to you or Chasm, I suggest that either of you contact the IC editors to discuss it. I personally couldn’t care less. My comment is only about your assertions of fact where no such facts actually exist — just idle speculation on your part. [By the way, if a person’s comments are “blocked”, they won’t be able to comment that their comments aren’t appearing; which leads reasonable people to conclude that the hang-up is content driven regarding the comment in question; the content being the language used, or plethora of links].
And now for my gratuitous closing comment about you. What differentiates you from many others who comment without saying anything of real substance is that you never seem to have a position. You only have questions about what other people say and do. Thus, you personally avoid anyone saying anything unkind about your actual political judgments ,because you never really offer any.
Instead, you’ve set yourself up as the unofficial nanny-superior who points out the perceived excesses of those who actually have something of substance to say. It’s annoying. Personally, like I’ve said before, you seem to be a nice guy. But after a year of reading your commentary, you appear to stand for absolutely nothing of any practical substance. [Lecturing others to be nice, or refusing to confront bigots, are not examples of substance. They’re mechanisms designed to make you appear to be thoughtful and contemplative when in reality you never really say anything of any substance.]
Unfortunately, this “ruminating” dodge for offering real opinions/analysis only works if you avoid sticking your nose into how other people choose to treat bigots and fools. While you won’t offer any real judgments about substantive political matters, you open yourself up to criticism for commenting on how actually analysts form their conclusions, or by making definitive statements about matters which are only speculative — and in which you’ve speculated incorrectly to boot.
So instead of appealing to us/me to be more like Rodney King, why don’t you actually join the debate and state your analysis of positions, instead of just pondering the imponderable. That is, when not offering etiquette lessons in your spare time.
I have more respect for someone who actually joins a debate than one who merely critiques it. And I suspect many other people do too.
ruminator
For a guy who believes an “honest, blunt person is a better companion than a sneaky one,” it sure does take a while for you to get around to saying what you really mean.
I’ve had a comment withheld due to being flagged as spam for over 2 weeks in the past until I contacted the editor and pointed it out. I’ve also had the editor contact me asking for permission to substitute a less crude word for the more crude original in my post at the risk of the comment being deleted. So I suppose I lied – there are a few possible reasons besides the most likely ones that I mentioned for posts not coming through. The editors censoring well-reasoned arguments from leftist posters because they might embarrass the conservative posters or shatter some carefully-maintained group delusion held by the maintainers and contributors of this website is not one of them. Even if such a top-level conspiracy were afoot, Chasm shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
Can you recall a recent example of a well-reasoned argument from a leftist poster? Thank you.
>Can you recall a recent example of a well-reasoned argument from a leftist poster?
The closest I’ve seen is “Neener neener neener. I know you are but what am I?” (Comment #4).
That’s the point. The Left has never debated the conclusion that AGW exists. Rather, they attack the unbelievers for raising the issue.
ruminator,
I beleive this article is about AGW, but after all this talk, I still don’t know what your stance on this topic is. Can you enlighten me please?
Regards,
Paul,
I haven’t read all the stuff Mountain Man has sent along. There’s a lot of it. I certainly am not blind, and the words “apply artificial correction” suggest tampering with data.
What the author says is pretty simple. It’s either another case of “oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” or whatever it is Shakespeare said, or it’s something equally harmful but less dastardly: just rationalization.
I was talking with a professor recently who was proud of his university’s new satellite that studies cosmic rays that (you know this is coming) JUST MIGHT be having an effect on global warming. As usual I blew it by asking about the political and financial motives being alleged. (It may amuse IC readers to know that I have a talent for annoying people on both the left and the right, without ever taking a position.) The answer I got though was that “no one knows exactly what causes these things, or to what extent they are a problem. That is why we study.” Rationalization, perhaps?
Pat Skurka had it right when he said we have too many scientists for the work that urgently needs to be done, so they have to hustle government money.
The conservatives make too much of this though. Remember the cigarette companies who got doctors to do ads saying that such-and-such brand of cigarette did not cause sore throats? Did these tobacco tycoons believe they were lying, or selling death? I doubt it. Rationalization. The people wanted the product.
This was excusable though, because it was capitalism, and was not aggrandizing people like Obama and their socialist agenda.
No the “tangled web” doesn’t apply. Just that when people have enough invested in a position, they can’t back down.
>Just that when people have enough invested in a position, they can’t back down.
Unless, of course, they are either intellectually honest enough to seek the truth regardless of where it takes them, and/or are willing to change their positions when confronted with evidence and facts that contradict their position.
Like many other people who actually think instead of emote, I’m willing to accept new facts/evidence when new facts and evidence actually exist. [Note to file: "Neener Neener Neener is neither a fact nor new evidence]. I’ve changed my beliefs about the Catholic religion over the years, my position on supporting a third party in a presidential election, went from a strong defender of Richard Nixon to acknowledging that he was indeed a crook, my ideas about parenting as my own child grew into adulthood, and on and on.
Only a fool refuses to accept new ideas or rejects all facts and evidence that runs contrary to their positions.
Of course, it helps to actually have a position in the first place to measure reality against.
Actually I don’t mean that lying to the public about the dangers of tobacco is OK with conservatives. What I mean is that the AGW thing, if indeed it becomes generally accepted as a hoax, or at the very least, irresponsible behavior and cover-up, then it is useful to the conservatives in discrediting Obama, Gore and others whom they want out of power for a variety of reasons. So it may be fair to point out, just to keep things in perspective, that people often lie or delude themselves and others in order to make a living, protect their image, or for some selfish motive.
“Unless, of course, they are either intellectually honest enough to seek the truth regardless of where it takes them, and/or are willing to change their positions when confronted with evidence and facts that contradict their position.”
Indeed it is a sign of good character to admit one is wrong, and a sign of poorer character not to be able to. These questions are then raised:
1. Did the tobacco company executives decide on their own, in the face of increased evidence, that the truth about the lethal effects of smoking needed to be told, not just by the surgeon general, but also by anyone who knew (which especially includes tobacco manufacturers?) Or did they acquiesce after the tide turned against them, when it became in their best interest to do so?
Answer: some did the former, some the latter.
It is not news to anyone that dishonesty pays. I just think it would be going a bit too far to say dishonesty is a specialty of the left, or of atheists, or some other group. I could be wrong. I’m not a statistician.
2. If, as it appears, some of the climate change gurus are selling us a bunch of lies, deliberately, for their own profit, then will any of them ever admit they have done something they should never have done?
Answer: Maybe, some of them. But it may take a long time. Remember George Wallace? Some of them probably never will. Rationalization is easy and that’s why it’s widely practiced.
Some types of intellectual dishonesty are practiced jointly by private sector, government,and consumer. How about the ads for 86 proof liquor that say “please drink responsibly.”
Any sensible person ought to be able to see that, over many centuries, alcohol consumption by humans has brought nothing but degraded health, damaged relationships, incompetent parenting, poor decision making, premature death, unwanted pregnancy, accidents, injury, and decreased productivity.
Who’s talking about this?
>Did the tobacco company executives decide on their own, in the face of increased evidence, that the truth about the lethal effects of smoking needed to be told, not just by the surgeon general, but also by anyone who knew (which especially includes tobacco manufacturers?) Or did they acquiesce after the tide turned against them, when it became in their best interest to do so? Answer: some did the former, some the latter.
*** Your original quote was “Did these tobacco tycoons believe they were lying, or selling death? I doubt it.” Now, when challenged, you say “did they acquiesce after the tide turned against them, when it became in their best interest to do so? Answer: some did the former, some the latter.”
So, you doubt they did, except for those who didn’t. Once again, when pressed to take an actual stand on an issue, you defer.
All this, of course, misses the entire point that the AGW debate involves not just scientists (the equivalent to the “tobacco company tycoons”), but the media, university administrators, politicians, and liberals in the general population who want to believe that man is responsible for AGW to promote a green agenda. The point of the analogy is that even if tobacco tycoons were reticent to admit the obvious, the media, scientists, and the general public (conservatives as well as liberals) had no trouble acknowledging that BS is BS.
But the same desire for the truth that put the lie to the tobacco studies is missing from the mainstream media, agenda-driven liberals, moderates who think asking questions while never taking an actual stand makes them appear thoughtful and intelligent, and a number of scientists who as I and others have repeatedly observed, have a vested interest in continuing the AGW myth. But not all scientists have maintained their support for AGW in the face of contrary evidence and facts. However, instead of welcoming them to the debate, the Keepers of the Truth demean and diminish them along with us ordinary folks.
This is the point of the article, and the subject under discussion. Your studious attempts to condemn the unfairness of Chasm’s being “blocked”, and draw a morally equivalent parallel with tobacco company executives is once again entirely beside the point.
>If, as it appears, some of the climate change gurus are selling us a bunch of lies, deliberately, for their own profit, then will any of them ever admit they have done something they should never have done? Answer: Maybe, some of them. But it may take a long time. Remember George Wallace? Some of them probably never will. Rationalization is easy and that’s why it’s widely practiced.
*** This is a second grade analysis of a current political issue that pretends to be a thoughtful observation. If the fraud can no longer be denied, then maybe some of the people who participated in the fraud will admit it is a fraud — while some will not — but in any case it will take a long time for this to happen … if it ever does.
That’s it. That’s your contribution to this issue — except to once again draw a morally equivalent parallel that liquor companies today are doing intellectually dishonest things by saying “please drink responsibly.”
Ruminator, by acclimation you have earned the “Captain Obvious” award. The only thing you didn’t do is point out that winter coat sales are more prominent in the North East during the fall and winter months than during the spring and summer months.
One day, maybe, you’ll actually offer an analytical judgment about an issue rather than a banal observation. Something like going beyond what I and others have written about for the past several years that “It is not news to anyone that dishonesty pays.”
The question is, how does this dishonesty affect the institutions and practices of our scientific community, political institutions, media lapdogs, etc. in such a way that it works to promote agenda-driven programs under the guise of objective Truth? Are there any groups or individuals who have been practicing this type of behavior on a grand scale that can substantially impact all our lives (cap and trade proposals, pushing “green” energy over conventional energy sources based on flawed assumptions that all current energy — clean coal, nuclear, etc. — is bad, and only government approved technology is good … even if it is more expensive, and will personally benefit certain people like Al Gore and Goldman Sachs who stand to profit from the carbon credit trade scam, etc. You know, minor little questions like this).
Then maybe you’ll be able to actually say something about whether “dishonesty is a specialty of the left, or of atheists, or some other group”, even if you’re not a “statistician.”
ruminator
Thanks for that enlightening discussion on the tobacco industry. However, you have still not answered my original question. What is your stance on AGW? I mean, I know I’m being awfully naive to think I can get a straight answer from you, but please entertain me just this once. My views can be found in Phillip’s last AGW article.
Regards,
It is worth pointing out the obvious. Chasm has posted twice since my responses to him.
He claims he was being blocked, in two posts that have not been blocked.
I believe him.
ruminator
In your comment #27 you revealed a bit about your position and your lack of understanding about the outrage over AGW science and “consensus.”
You note that you believe scientists are hustling the government for money, but add that conservatives “make too much of this.”
To put it scientifically, excrement deposited at the apex of a sufficiently steep geological outcropping, will by the force of gravity travel downward along the incline.
The money scientist are hustling is ours. It is just phase one. Phase two is to hustle it from corporations and business (that interestingly enough, just happen to be the longtime enemies of the anti capitalists and social justice crusaders leading the AGW parade).
Those corporations, and virtually every supplier of everything we use in life, will be forced to cover the extortion payments by hitting us, the public, in the pocketbook. The power that “new” money will buy then corrupts and further commits scientists and threatends the integrity of science for years to come, ensures the futures of liberal and socialist politicians supported by the new captains of (green) industries, the unions, new government agencies and departments, and in the end, we don’t move the average temperature of the earth (whatever the hell that’s supposed to be) one way or the other.
We are paying for the research to justify policy that will take more of our money and is guaranteed to shift more power to a class of human beings who desperately desire more say in what we should be allowed to keep and how we should live our lives. It can only be characterized as a return to serfdom.
This backward step to a dismal future all hinges on what is shaping up to be the biggest swindle in the history of science. And even if you allow that it isn’t a giant scam, the jury tampering is clear and we have to start over. I’m willing to go along with your professor friend that the matter is unsettled and in need of more study, though it isn’t clear anymore how we ensure ethical scientific study of the climate when the leftist ideologues paying the research bills are expecting a return on their investment. Too many scientists have demonstrated, as you say, their willingness to “rationalize.”
Bottom line, is when saving mankind and the planet from destruction also happens to achieve virtually every agenda item on the anti-capitalist socialist check list for achieving utopia, you damn well better start using whatever common sense you’ve got left – that is unless serfdom appeals to you.
We can wrangle on the health issues surrounding liquor, tobacco, and Viagra, and we can deal with it and will weather the give and take.
But the slice of liberty cap and trade schemes carve away is unthinkable for some of us. I won’t get to decide how much fuel, cars, electricity, food and virtually everything that travels by plane, train or truck costs me once the new green power structure gets its way – and when the U.N. members I don’t choose have more to say about how my family and I live than the representatives I elect.
There should be hell to pay for anyone in the scientific or political community applying “ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONS” that lead to policies that impact so deeply on our liberty, sovereignty and our pockets – and that also happen to transfer so much wealth and power to the left and their world bodies in the process.
Nick: Ruminator cannot possibly offer a judgment as to what an “artificial correction” means. But he can state with certainty that Chasm was “blocked” by the IC editors.
I think that tells you everything you need to know.