Jesus Rules
October 27th, 2009 by Sonja

Or why I’ve changed my comment policy after 4 years.

Since the last election cycle I’ve picked up a couple of readers from the right side of the spectrum.  At first, I was glad because I enjoy a little political sparring every now and again.  And having been a member of my highschool debate team, I enjoy logical riposte with the best of them.  It can be fun … and funny.  But these folks weren’t in it for fun … or profit.   Nor do the rules of ordinary logic appear to apply to them.  I’m not certain what rules they do follow, but I can’t find logic in any of what they write.

I’ve tried over and over and over again to be polite.  I’ve tried ignoring the snark.  I’ve tried engaging with these commenters using the logic, grace and dignity that I am accustomed to.  None of which has helped anything.  It has only served to further inflame their sensibilities and incur greater ridicule heaped upon me.  So I’ve discovered that in an attempt to not censor them,  I’ve been censoring myself in a pathetic attempt to avoid confrontation.  I’m not going to do that anymore.

From now on, all comments will be moderated.

I will delete out of hand any comments which are intended to engender fear and/or use fear to manipulate the reader.

I will delete out of hand any comments which do not respect the dignity and grace of other readers (to include but is not limited to … me).

I will delete out of hand any comments which violate the rules of logic – see this.

So, I’m done.  I’m going to write and post as I see fit.  If you want to comment, you’re going to have to abide by some rules.  The first one  … Jesus rules here – Love God, Love yourself, love your neighbor … no fear.  Those are Jesus rules.


104 Responses  
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20092:09 amat

    Actually, while you’re at it, check out whether these kinds of claims from John Stockwell are true or not… because the more I’m searching the net about the CIA, the angrier I’m getting:

    http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20092:49 amat

    Holy cow this is depressing… guess who allegedly helped Saddam Hussein come to power too… hadn’t heard of this before…

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36419.html (and connected background papers)

    What was that question about which wars were unavoidable? Sheesh…

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20092:51 amat

    Oh, and please do actually read the links, don’t just “skim”… they will explain why the US armed the Taliban… according to the writer anyway.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20092:57 amat

    Sorry Janet,

    I’m not buying any of it. The more I look through even the stuff on Alex Jones’ site, the more it’s all looking to be single-sourced from the Socialst guy. AND it jumps to totally illogical conclusions: The Taliban is pictured with CAPTURED US ammunition and all of the sudden the CIA is SUPPLYING ammo to the Taliban to use against US troops? How do you make THAT jump logically?

    As far as where the Taliban came from, it seems they emerged out of the mujahadeen who were fighting the Russians. It’s well documented that the US backed the mujahadeen, so technically, the US did help create the Taliban. However….not like Mr. Socialist Review man paints it. For a history of the Taliban…

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

    Again Janet, this is an example of realpolitick. The Russians invaded Afghanistan in the 80s. The West was actively fighting the Cold War against the Soviets. The West (mostly the US) provided arms, cash and training to the forces (such as they were) that opposed the Soviets. EXACTLY like the US did in the late 1930s and early 1940s to the forces opposing Hitler’s Germany. It happens all the time, all over the world. Like I said before, sometimes the group you ally yourself will today will turn and shoot you in the face tomorrow.

    So to answer your question…did the US train and arm nasty mysogynist terrorist groups in Afghanistan or not? NO! Since neither the Taliban, nor al-queada existed back then…we couldn’t have trained and armed them. We DID train and arm a native resistance force to opposed the USSR’s invasion; elements of that force later morphed into nasty mysogynist terrorist groups.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20093:14 amat

    A couple things about the Stockwell info…

    First, it’s dated. He’s talking about the Contra’s…again 70s and 80s stuff.

    Second…You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt. IF Stockwellis who he claims to be, and has done the stuff he claims to have done, then he signed a non-disclosure agreement. Such a document would impose SEVERE legal and financial penalties for disclosing these kinds of things….if they were true. The fact that he wasn’t arrested and locked in a deep dark hole should make you wonder about the veracity of his tales. There is another “author” who has done something similar. Richard Marcinko was a Navy SEAL and the first CO of Seal Team 6 (the counter-terrorist squad). He has made quite a lucrative second career writng “psuedo-biographical” memoirs of his exploits. Except he had to change the names, places, and details to: a) protect real live feild operatives and SEALs, b) stay within the boundaries of his non-disclosure agreements and c) make his books interesting. If Mr. Stockwell’s tales are true, then he has put lives at risk by telling, and is a traitor.

    Third….the overall scheme of what he’s describing is the Truman Doctrine, or the Marshall Plan. Both are long-standing American doctrines that were formulated as a response to the USSR’s program of exporting Communism throughout the world. Basically the Truman Doctrine said that, as the leader of the free world, the US would ACTIVELY seek to contain the spread of communism. The Marshall Plan was the plan to provide aid to the countries of Western Europe to fight the spread of communism there. As part of the Truman Doctrine, the US did train and equip anti-communist forces is countries all over the globe. Did we have to choose poor bedfellows at times..sure. Could the folks we backed have been ruthless swine? Absolutely. BUT…and it’s a big but….the alternative was to let the USSR spread their totalitarian utopia all over the globe unopposed. Or risk global thermonuclear war to stop them. Again..realpolitick.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20093:25 amat

    In regards to #52…don’t forget…we also backed Saddam’s Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war too! Don’t you remember the hay the anti-war crowd made of those old pitures of Dick Cheney all palsy with Saddam back in the 80s?

    And why does your source (The EVER so unbiased Global Policy Forum)say that the US backed Saddam…

    “In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as “a horrible orgy of bloodshed.”

    According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

    Little attention was paid to Qasim’s bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that “freaked everybody out” according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

    Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of “real power,” according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was “the most dangerous spot in the world.”

    Qasim overthrows the legitimate Iraqi monarch in an “orgy of blood”, joins the regional pact opposing the USSR, then pulls out of the pact, cozy’s up to Moscow and begins tranforming his government into a communist one. Again..the Truman Doctrine.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20093:31 amat

    There is a massive moral difference between assisting an allied nation whose army acts in a disciplined fashion under a legitimate government (say the US to the UK in the first part of WWII), than there is arming a rabble of guerrillas (say in Afghanistan) don’t you think?

    And teaching others how to conduct torture??? Or does the end justify the means?

    Your link focuses on the later period of the Taliban… have you read Phil Gasper’s article explaining how various extremetist mujahideen were recruited even prior to the USSR invasion? (Precursors to the Taliban).

    Incidentally, I’m not claiming that either Phil Gasper or Stockwell have good motives or that they are good people. I’m asking whether their claims can be proved or disproved. It’s not the end of the argument to say: “Oh, I don’t need to take any notice of what they say because their motives are bad.” (I was reading CS Lewis about that the other day in fact…)

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20093:37 amat

    And I did read the links (even the odious socialist one..holding my nose the entire time). And still see no logical correlation between the US’s support for the mujahadeen, or even the Taliban in the early to mid-1990s, and the conclusion that the CIA is somehow secretly arming the Taliban today.

    AND….all the “skullduggery” the Socialist site gets all up in arms over with regards to Carter “secretly” aiding the mujahadeen BEFORE the Soviet invasion is poppycock. A US president, authorizing aid to an anti-communist resistance movement is in perfect keeping with long standing American doctrine. The Afghan government was leaning heavily toward communism, in fact was VERY cozy with Moscow….I’d be more upset if Carter had NOT authorized the aid. Though I can’t beleive that sanctimonious pansy gussied up the stones to do it…..

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20093:49 amat

    There is a massive moral difference between assisting an allied nation whose army acts in a disciplined fashion under a legitimate government (say the US to the UK in the first part of WWII), than there is arming a rabble of guerrillas (say in Afghanistan) don’t you think?

    Not in practice, no. And not when you’re arming EITHER party to oppose evil ideologies (Nazi facism and Communism)

    “And teaching others how to conduct torture??? Or does the end justify the means?”

    Do you buy that? That the Nicarauguans were such bumbling, backwards dolts that they had to be TAUGHT how to torture people?

    “Incidentally, I’m not claiming that either Phil Gasper or Stockwell have good motives or that they are good people. I’m asking whether their claims can be proved or disproved.

    Thats the crux of the biscuit isn’t it? Both are making all kinds of wild accusations that can only be dis-proven by divulging classified information. Although in Vassar’s case, slightly less so. Vassar’s not telling unprovable facts so much as he drawing unwarranted and difficult to disprove conclusions. His whole ideological bent is skewed towards the USSR, so ANYTHING the US did to slow the march of communist world domination was evil, imperialistic and unwarranted. Stockwell’s assertations would require declassifying methods and sources, which tends to get real people killed.

    It’s not the end of the argument to say: “Oh, I don’t need to take any notice of what they say because their motives are bad.”

    No, but I shouldn’t blindly believe they’re being totally forthright either. It’s not enough to say, case closed because this professor and that ex-spy says this is how it all happened.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20094:53 amat

    No, I do agree with you on that… further investigation definitely warranted.

    I do wish to add that I didn’t set out with this agenda, and I’m not anti-US myself at all… the US is our closest military (and politcal) ally, and there is still much gratitude here that the US saved our skins in WWII.

    But I started Googling CIA because it IS pretty well accepted (as you’ve admitted) that the US supplied weapons and training to various groups in Afghanistan… and started finding more and more horrifying allegations.

    They may be just a load of rubbish, and I hope that to be true. I will do some research myself and discipline myself to look for reputable journalists and university research OK? Need some time to think.

    But I say as a friend not a foe… the “means” really DO matter… because when you are the leader of the free world encouraging other countries to improve their human rights, their governance, and their civil liberties, one’s moral authority makes the world of difference. Do as I say, not as I do, breeds hostility and resentment… not Shalom.

    I probably should also pause here and wait to hear from Sonja, who is no doubt sleeping missing out on the explosion of posting on her blog space….

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 17th, 20094:59 amat

    I’m gonna have to take a break and do a bit of work myself. I’m off work for the next couple days, and not too sure when I’ll get back here (I always seem to be too busy on the honey-do list to keep up with blogs…and now with the Lil’ Missie playing Middle School Basketball..I’ve even less time!), but I will return by the weekend at the latest! I’ve enjoyed our conversation and hope it continues! If Sonja kicks us off we can take it up on my blog!

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 17th, 20095:19 amat

    Sure… try to get some sleep too eh? You do post at funny times for someone from the US of A!

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 18th, 200911:45 pmat

    Just been looking at this:

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationcyclone

    One of the good things about this site is the extensive linking to other references, so you can do a lot of cross-checking. Like Wikipedia it has a lot of contributors, but it has a more academic slant to it.

    There seems to be quite a swag of evidence the CIA trained a lot of “freedom fighters”, including Osama Bin Laden ironically enough.

    Happy to keep looking for other academically skewed sources that are acceptable to you.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 20th, 20091:25 amat

    One of the links from this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

    Preventable war? I think so, if you go back far enough.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 21st, 200911:17 amat

    Janet,

    Since Sonja hasn’t booted us, I assume we’re good to go. Just read the MSNBC peice (which I would normally dismiss as MSLSD is the same “news” organization that employs Olberman, Madow and Matthews….each of whom have 100% sold out ANY journalistic integrity they may have once possessed.) Moran makes several good points, most of which are right in line with what I’ve been saying. The whole “making a deal with the devil” bit. Since none of us can know the future, it’s hard to know which former “ally” will turn out to be Public Enemy #1 down the road.

    Orrin Hatch is kind of a moron, if he is being quoted correctly and in context here. I see the overall point….providing funding and other support to hasten the downfall of the USSR, with it’s huge nuclear arsenal that threatened, literally, ALL of the world’s people, is of greater OVERALL value than the damage Bin Laden’s follower did on 9-11. I just can’t believe he’d be so politically inept as to say that in public! Even if it IS the ugly truth (weighing the potential for global nuclear annihilation against the loss of life on 9-11…what several BILLION vs a couple thousand?), it’s definately not something you’d think an American Senator would voice!

    I still fail to see how the war in Afghanistan could have been prevented here. True, the US could have chosen NOT to fund the mujahadeen, via the ISI. However, everything I’ve ever read on the subject credits that support, especially the Stinger missles, with at least hastening the Soviet defeat. So, it’s likely that without US intervention, the war would have turned out differently. Sure, Bin Laden might not have created al-quaeda and the Taliban might not have gained control of Afghanistan, but it would likely have been under Soviet control, or at least occupation. Not an allowable scenario either, is it?

    And this is the first place I’ve ever heard the accusation made that the CIA KNEW FOR A FACT that the USSR was doomed as early as the mid 80’s, but chose to keep it a secret. I can’t imagine, given the amount of public abuse they took over the failure to predict the collapse of the USSR, that they would have bitten the bullet on that one. What IS plausible, given the political nature of Mr. Gates (for whom I’ve lost a fair amount of respect for his actions since the Ft Hood terrorist attack) is that a minority faction of analysts were RIGHT in predicting the USSR’s instabilty back in the day, and this is their way of “paying back” the system that didn’t believe them. I’ve simply NEVER seen any assertation that the CIA was anything but caught flat-footed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. So I can’t buy the conclusion Mr. Moran would have us reach in his peice, that the CIA willingly and deliberately withheld information they were CERTAIN of in order to somehow prolong the Cold War; thus thye are to blame for modern islamist terrorism. I know what you’re going to say…that the CIA would have had a vested interest in prolonging the Cold War, and I agree…it’s just that NOTHING in the historical record hints that, had he been given the “facts” (as claimed by Mr. Gates), Reagan would have EVER turned down the heat. IF the CIA was sure the USSR was collapsing, logical minds would have concluded that being RIGHT on that collapse would have proven better for the instituion’s continued relevance that looking like idiots.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 21st, 200911:23 amat

    Oh and I’m enjoying the history commons site!

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 21st, 20091:05 pmat

    Well maybe I spoke too soon about your source…

    I was poking around historycommons website and got into the nuts and bolts of how it works. Like you said, sorta like wikkipedia, but “with a more scholarly bent”….or something like that. True, according to the website, anyone can become a contributor simply by registering. BUT…..each contribution is then edited for content. Still not a big issue….fact-checking and all, right?

    So I went looking a bit farther to see who can become a content editor. According to the site: “Any qualified individual—an experienced contributor, professional editor, academic, journalist, graduate student, etc.—can become a content editor.” Ok, with the exception of “experienced contributor”, the rest of these appear to be legit, right. I mean, on some sites, I would be an “experienced (long-standing) contributor…..even if I have nothing more than an OPINION about the subject at hand. But the rest seem harmless enough….

    Until you track back to the parent organization to see what they are all about. HistoryCommons is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight (“CGO”), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The Global Center’s webpage tells you all about their causes and beliefs….and clues you in on their political leanings. Since one of their missions is to “To develop television and radio programming with an international and educational perspective that is socially responsible, informative and entertaining, dealing with such topics as worldwide human rights, EARTH RIGHTS and environmental issues.” (Capitilaization for dramatic effect mine!) Uh….”Earth rights?!?!” Ooooooo-kaaaaay! So their “leaning” is definately left-ward. So what you say?

    Well, part of the job of the content editors is to ” reject, approve, or edit and approve, submissions.” Are ya starting to see the problem? The content editors are free to “modify” and print, or reject out of hand, ANY submission made. That might not be a very unbiased source of info.

    I’m running an experiment to see. I’ve registered and posted some “contrarian” studies in the Global Warming section…well documented and sourced, but making the case for the opposition to global warming alarmism. We shall see if my posts make it through the process unscathed! I’ll let you know.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 21st, 20092:06 pmat

    It’s a useful site isn’t it?

    I’ve found another rich vein of resources… many universities have huge online libaries. Here’s one REALLY long link from the Australian National University.

    http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/pubs/keynotes/documents/Keynotes-1.PDF

    This is set in a bit of a time capsule (papers written shortly after 9/11) but I think their point of interest is the reflections on not just using a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail… but developing the idea that international law, assistance in policing, economic justice that doesn’t breed dependency, well managed aid and development (modelled on the Marshall plan for Europe:the program would be directed ‘not against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos’.) and broad-based cooperation involving Muslim countries… ie, a whole swag of tools in the kit-bag… would be likely to be less counter-productive in dealing with terrorism than lobbing in missiles.

    Only to be read if you’re REALLY keen, but I’m happy to cut/paste/summarise.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 21st, 20092:16 pmat

    I remember reading (believe it or not) a Reader’s Digest article from 1980 that stated the collapse of the Soviet Union was ultimately inevitable because the population growth of its Southern provinces (all the “stans” etc!) would lead to internal instability.

    Anyway, my thought is not so much that everyone “should have known” this… my argument is more that arming militia crosses a moral line. There’s little moral difference between arming muslim guerrillas in the grand fight against Communism, and arming muslim terrorists in the grand fight against western imperialism. You might think there is a big difference, I don’t see it.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 21st, 20092:48 pmat

    Oh, do give me the link. I’d be interested in the research you have uncovered.

    My first degree was in science, and to me the argument is fairly simple… carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. However complex climate may be (and it is VERY complex) an increase in average global temperatures would be expected as a result of higher proportions of greenhouse gas.

    The effect of this is not uniform… ie you would expect some places to cool and some places to heat as global weather patterns/prevailing winds/ocean currents shift. Lots of other factors are interacting too… the ozone hole in the Antarctic, clouds cover, solar activity, etc. etc.

    New Scientist is a really good source for summaries of the research, and it presents both sides… the fact is the overwhelming weight of research is supporting the overall global warming, with interesting localised effects.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 21st, 20093:08 pmat

    Oh, and one more note… there is no such thing as an unbiased source. To me, whether someone is an apologist for the right, an apologist for the left, or is centrist in approach is less important than whether they check sources, cross-reference and have journalistic integrity.

    It’s simply not possible to find sources that don’t have some kind of perspective, or newspapers/magazines that don’t have an editorial policy. Good luck finding one!

    However, having confessed I initially just linked to the first articles that came up in Google, how about we use the following criteria:

    Preference university sites over personal blogs
    Preference newspapers that stake their reputation on investigative journalism (eg the Times, the New York Times) rather than the tabloid press.
    Preference scientific journals (New Scientist, Scientific American, Sciencedirect.com) over some lone researcher on the payroll of an oil company, or a far right columnist etc.

    Sound fair enough?

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 21st, 20095:47 pmat

    Janet,

    LOL..we’re NEVER going to agree on “acceptable” sources! The source list you suggested has been proven to have a decidedly leftist agenda; conversely, my sources could be said to have a decidedly “rightist” agenda! Most major universities are bastions of liberal idealism, the Old Grey Lady long ago gave up any semblance of journalistic integrety in favor of liberal propaganda. Science journals are not SOOO biased, but in the area of AGW, I’m afraid they’ve either been corrupted, coerced or threatened to uphold the global warming alarmism. Here’s the link to the Lindzen/Choi article

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml

    Ok..so it’s just the abstract..I’m too cheap to pony up the $$ when I can go to the local library and get it for free!

    Incidentally, have you ever heard of the Viscount Christopher Monkton? He was the Iron Lady’s scientific advisor (or some such title). He has put together several very interesting peices rufuting Global Warming. Well worth the read.

    My basic problem with the whole man-made “threat” is simply the ARROGANCE of it. As if the fossil fuels burned in the last century or so could have ANY effect on a planet that has survived for all the preceeding millenia. For instance, the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man! And what was the result…..the planet absorbed them with no noticable change in the climate, temperature, sea levels etc.

    For the likes of Al Gore to drone on and on about the “imminent” threat and need for drastic action, while jetting all over the world, owning three palatial mansions (one of which uses more energy than 20 regular folks homes), etc is ludicrous! Think about this…the global warming alarmists say we must act NOW or the planet is doomed, yet they are doing SQUAT personally to curb GHG emissions. They convoy around in SUVs, fly across the globe to attend conferences, and basically muck about with their perfectly hee-yooge carbon footprint, lecturing the rest of us on the danger we present. The upcoming Copenhagen conference, designed to complete a new, binding global GHG treaty (more on THAT rot later…) is a perfect example. If they wanted to truly “put their money where there mouth is”, how about a teleconference…Heck they could’ve signed up for “Go TO MY PC” and held the whole dang thing for FREE! Why fly all over the globe? The real agenda behind the climate alarmiism is simply POWER and CONTROL. Oh and wealth redistribution from the developed nations to the undeveloped ones! Not to mention the big fat Gore-acle is soon to become a BILLIONAIRE from his investment in the “green” sector…investments helped in NO SMALL PART by the alarmism HE FOSTERS!!!!

    Anyhoo, more tomorrow. I’ll leave you with one final pair of links..so you can see if just maybe the “scientists” are in on the scam:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 21st, 200910:22 pmat

    Sigh… Reuters for news?

    Andrew Bolt’s a local boy from Melbourne… tabloid journo, far right on everything, walking headline. Happy to wait and see on the outcome of this… but even the worst case scenario doesn’t disprove man-made global warming.

    ‘the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man!’

    Citation please? I’ll eat my hat if that’s not a pile of nonsense. Large volcanic eruptions have a well-known cooling effect.

    New Scientist did a huge review of all the literature a few years back and found the overwhelming body of evidence was average global temperatures are on the rise. The Lindzen/Choi article is precisely what you expect when thousands of scientists are conducting research around the globe… diversity. Investigate any area of research and you’ll find this is the case. This doesn’t change what I’d call the “weight of evidence”.

    The whole business of what to do about climate change is highly politicized on all sides… the conservative party (Liberal opposition) here is in complete disarray publicly squabbling between the climate skeptics and the climate change believers. Leaves the government on easy street!

    Regardless of the politics… try sciencedirect or New Scientist for extensive research results. I truly have trouble believing there’s this enormous cover-up of the overwhelming evidence that climate change is not occuring. Look for yourself.

    I do agree with you on hypocrisy… gets up my nose too.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 22nd, 20094:35 amat

    How about Time magazine?

    The Herald-Sun (where Andrew Bolt is a columnist) ran a series about a close girlfriend of my own best friend… the sheer volume of factual errors we knew about confirmed all my worst opinions of this particular tabloid… it’s one of those pretty girls on page 3, celebrity gossip, football and various beat-ups kind of paper in my opinion… I’m sure you know the sort. Truth is of less interest than a good headline.

    These aren’t usually the kinds of papers that win awards for journalistic excellence. It’s not the editorial policy (bias if you like) so much as journalistic standards that interest me.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20098:39 amat

    “Regardless of the politics… try sciencedirect or New Scientist for extensive research results. I truly have trouble believing there’s this enormous cover-up of the overwhelming evidence that climate change is not occuring. Look for yourself.”

    Actually, the story I linked yesterday is gaining legs as it gets fleshed out. After dinner yesterday, I staggered off to claim my “take” in Mafia Wars. For some unfathomable reason, my blushing bride insists on using AOL as her home page. Care to guess what was the top story on AOL last night? Now, when even AOL/Time/Warner is reporting it as news….. Additionally the AOL page had two interactive polls. The first asked if you thought man had any impact on climate change. You could either pick “None at all”, “Some” or “Yes, a great deal”. The second asked if climate change worried you personally. As of 9pm (EST, with over 20,000 respondents to each poll, the numbers were significantly leaning towards “No man has nothing to do with climate change”, and “No…I personally don’t give a rip about it”. Admittedly, the first question was a bit tighter, with about a 10 to 12 point spread, but on the personal impact climate change had on people, something like 54% were saying they didn’t care at all! This on top of the recent Pew Research Center poll which found that only 57% of Americans believe that the Earth is warming, down from 71% last year. As well, only 36% think man is causing the warming, down from 47% from last year. So the “commoner” is beginning to look at the data he or she can observe and concluding that the Earth really isn’t getting hotter like ALGORE was ranting about.

    American Thinker today is carrying a very good piece by Marc Sheppard: “CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists’ Funding Hypocrisy”. I’ll link it, but to summarize…..

    The AGW alarmists minimize Lindzen and other “Climate Change deniers” as bought and paid for stooges of Big Oil (or Big Coal..or whatever), yet documents show that the alarmists have recieved, or have made plans to “solicit”, funding from companies heavily invested in doing away with fossil fuels. AND the UN IPCC’s CHEIF CLIMATOLOGIST is in it up to his beady little eyeballs!!

    Mr. Sheppard also makes a VERY good point about the apparant “overwhelming” body of evidence supporting the alarmists position. I’ll quote him: ” And that climate realists are out-funded by alarmists by several orders of magnitude, which leads to the artificial expansion of the number of scientists who appear to support alarmist views. ” As I beleive I at least alluded to, scientists need funding, and when the VAST majority of the cash is being given to research (and the scientists doing such research) supporting a certain point of view…..it’s pretty easy to see where the “overwhelming” numbers of scientists signing on to AGW come from.

    And now to find out that the group who has, by virtue of it’s director being the UN’s head honcho on the subject, assured itself of continued prominence in the fight against “climate change” has been engaged in cooking the books and hiding the truth, so as to keep the coffers full….

    Maybe now we can put aside the ideological considerations, and fund actual unbiased science regarding the climate. I rather doubt that the statists pushing for international control of GHG emitters will be thwarted THIS easily. You can already see the spin….they are trying to downplay the CONTENT of the stolen files and drum up outrage at the horrible crimes committed by those that stole the files…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20098:40 amat

    And TIME magazine…same as my objections above. Sorry but pretty much ALL of the legacy media is biased leftward to an extent that I don’t trust them to have ANY Journalistic integrety at all.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20099:13 amat

    Besides….didn’t God promise to NEVER AGAIN destroy the world by flood? And isn’t flooding the biggest doom-n-gloom mechanism of the Climate Change Chicken Littles?

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20099:19 amat

    “New Scientist did a huge review of all the literature a few years back and found the overwhelming body of evidence was average global temperatures are on the rise. The Lindzen/Choi article is precisely what you expect when thousands of scientists are conducting research around the globe… diversity. Investigate any area of research and you’ll find this is the case. This doesn’t change what I’d call the “weight of evidence”. ”

    At the risk of redundancy…

    New Scientists findings you cite above were CAUSED in no small part by the collusion and cover-up that has been exposed. If the SCIENTISTS are involved in fudging the numbers to prove their thoery, can it be any surprise that ANY exhaustive review of the literature (published by the scientists) WOULD find “overwhelming” evidence of global temperature rise (Since the publishing scientists used numbers they KNEW to be false in “documenting” global temperatures!)?

    And if Lindzen and Choi, and others of their ilk, are simply what you suggest…examples of expected diversity in anyscientific community, why do the scientists with whom they disagree revile them so much? Why are they damned, marginalized, and ridiculed? That alone should give you pause.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20093:00 pmat

    Not getting any better for the AGW crowd….

    It would appear that as the purloined data is sifted, much of it is being confirmed as authentic (recipients of the emails vouching for them, etc)…and that isn’t good news for them. Not only have the scientists acted unethically and committed what amounts to scientific fraud, but it also appears as though some of them (namely the IPCC’s top dog climatologist Dr. Phil Jones) just MAY have “bent” the FOIA laws. In one email, he opines that he will “delete” certain information rather than handing it over in response to a FOIA request….and wouldn’t you know it, the CRU (Dr. Jones’ Organization) “accidently” deleted some files that were requested under the FOIA some years after the date of the email.

    It’s all ..disturbing..to say the least. Check it out….

    Oh and a thought just occurred to me about the so-called “tabloid” journalism…..you do realize the it was the National Enquirer (perhaps the ORIGINAL sleazy supermarket rag) that broke the story about John Edwards tawdry afair (and the illegitimate child it spawned), carried out while his wife was fighting cancer. All the “respectable” news outlets (notably the NY Slimes)ignored it, or actively tried to bury it, until it got too big (and proved too true) to ignore!

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 22nd, 20093:00 pmat

    shoot..forgot the latest linkage…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 22nd, 20094:36 pmat

    Sigh… is Reuters part of the left-wing conspiracy too? Do the only journalists that check their basic facts belong to right wing papers? Just interested.

    Getting back to several posts ago, you didn’t “buy” anything written by a French academic because he was a socialist… but you haven’t yet shown me anything that suggests his facts were wrong about the CIA funding muslim extremists via the Pakistan secret service in Afghanistan. I have verified this from other sources.

    Editorial bias is one thing, and every paper has editorial bias… including the ones you are linking to. In my opinion when you are trying to establish matters of fact, journalistic excellence (reputation for thorough checking of facts and sources) is the more important criteria than whether a journalist swings to the left or the right.

    No disrespect intended, but if I were trying to establish the weight of scientific evidence, I wouldn’t be polling the general public.

    Anyway, I’ll respond to the rest of your comments after I’ve read all the leaked emails. Enough to say for now if this group of scientists is found guilty of scientific fraud they have just ruined their careers… I don’t (yet) believe the conspiracy is as widespread as you suggest… that the New Scientist reviewers were also in on the conspiracy… that government funded bureau’s of meteorology all over the world are also in on the conspiracy when they record their average temperature data. In short, I’m always suspicious of major conspiracy theories.

    The hypothetical up to one metre rise in sea level isn’t going to cover the earth is it? Growing enough food from change of rainfall patterns, and increased frequency of damaging cyclones/hurricanes etc will have much more human impact if GW does follow the worst predictions. Unless of course you live on a coral atoll or a coastal delta.

    More later…

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 23rd, 20092:16 amat

    I’ve changed my mind on “reading all the emails”… partly because I realised it would take me at least a couple of hours, partly because after 20 minutes or so I started to feel a bit creepy reading other people’s private correspondence. So what I intend to do is give the whole saga some time to play out… as I have said, if they have committed scientific fraud their career is over, and I’m sure the whole affair will be picked over with a fine tooth comb. The truth will come out when all is done and dusted.

    I have been following climate research since the 80’s… long before it became highly politicized. There has always been a range of predictions as to the extent of the effect of man-made global warming, though as I have stated, there’s a weight of evidence behind some impact (FYI… A quick topic search on “global warming” from Science Direct came up with 41 235 articles, so there is quite a body of research out there!!!!)

    The whole business has become heightened because now the issue has become politicized there’s a lot of money involved… some people stand to gain wealth from green energies, and there are massive vested interests promoting the “climate skeptic” message on the other side. I guess there’s temptation to exaggerate one viewpoint or the other whenever big money is involved.

    Is there WIDESPREAD collusion and scientific fraud? I’m very skeptical of that.

    What IS pretty widespread is lobbying by the carbon producing industries:

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/global_climate_change_lobby/overview/

    If the public is unaware, more than 1,150 companies and advocacy groups are very tuned in, and they have deployed about 2,810 climate lobbyists to Capitol Hill, an increase of more than 400 percent from six years earlier, according to an analysis of disclosures filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. Spending on the lobbying this year so far in the United States is at least $47 million. Senate advocates aim to build support much as it was achieved in the legislation that narrowly passed the House this summer — by giving a boost to businesses that fear they’ll be hurt by measures raising the cost of the coal that supplies half the nation’s electricity. But the concessions have not won over opponents like Don Blankenship, chief executive of Massey Energy, the largest coal producer in central Appalachia, who forcefully disputes the science of global warming. Although that makes him an outlier in the public debate, his argument that the bill will cost jobs at the same time “it will increase global pollution by moving production to unregulated countries like China” causes worry on Capitol Hill.

    I’ll keep an open mind and see how it all plays out.

    I’d like to question you however on another comment:

    “pretty much ALL of the legacy media is biased leftward to an extent that I don’t trust them to have ANY Journalistic integrity at all.”

    Do you truly believe that the legacy media no longer check their facts, but that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?

    Wisdom is more likely to be found by reading widely, not feeding oneself undiluted propaganda of the left or the right. This practice leads not only to a closed mind, but often breeds a lack of humility in my experience.

    (I’m not accusing you of that by the way… more reflecting on a recent web dialogue with a Christian whose moniker meant “Humble Servant”… but was in fact not only one-sided but arrogant, patronising and abusive. It’s not an uncommon pairing… arrogance and a very limited literary diet! I’m always in favour of expanding one’s mind and reading repetoire).

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 23rd, 20093:02 amat

    Left out the quotation marks in the “if the public is unaware…” etc quote… this is from the link.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 24th, 20099:31 pmat

    Getting back to several posts ago, you didn’t “buy” anything written by a French academic because he was a socialist… but you haven’t yet shown me anything that suggests his facts were wrong about the CIA funding muslim extremists via the Pakistan secret service in Afghanistan. I have verified this from other sources.

    Becuase I never disputed the FACTS he asserted, just the conclusions that he drew. In fact, if you read over my posts, I’m sure I said that the US, through the ISI, most likely DID end up helping to train al-quaeda (and Lord knows how many other groups). But to jump from the FACT that the US backed muslim extremeists in their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, to the CONCLUSION that this means the US is STILL supplying the muslim extremists, is a stretch to say the least. And before you go all..”He never said that!” You’re right…not in so many words…BUT he did attempt to link some captured munitions from the present day through the ISI-US-Muslim Extremeist link from the past to the conclusion that the CIA is RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE providing muslim extremists with the bullets they are using to kill US troops. THAT’S what I can’t/don’t/won’t buy from the evidence presented.

    In my opinion when you are trying to establish matters of fact, journalistic excellence (reputation for thorough checking of facts and sources) is the more important criteria than whether a journalist swings to the left or the right.

    I agree totally. IMO the legacy media HAS abdicated their duty to bring the public the truth in favor of “shaping” public opinion.

    “Do you truly believe that the legacy media no longer check their facts, but that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?”

    The legacy media has been PROVEN to have serious lapses in ability when the fact-checking does not support their case, cause or editorial stance. Want some examples? “Rathergate”, Jason Blair at the NYT, the fact that nary a word was mentioned during the last presidential election over here about candidate Obama’s ties with radical “black-theology” espousing clergy, “ex”-domestic terrorists, shady slumlords, middle eastern “educators” who just happened to support charitable organizations like Hamas, et al. No…we were treated to a non-stop barrage of how incredibly STUPID a) George Bush (who wasn’t running..but whatever), b) Sarah Palin or c) Conservatives in General were! Oh and throw in the ON-GOING deranged “Womb-gate” saga from the poofty little pot-head, the kerfluffle over $100K wardrobe (which was DONATED TO CHARITY after the campaign)..while dead silence greeted the MILLIONS our Glorious Leader spent on the faux greek temple stage for his coronation, while we were told about the “tingling’ leg of one “newsman”…I could go on and on and on. I will say that, for the most part, when the legacy media DOES decided to do a “fact check” on somebody…they leave no stone unturned. Poor Joe the Plumber! OOPs the “Great Communicator” misspoke in an ungaurded (read UNSCRIPTED) moment, and let slip his goal of “spreading the wealth around”, and it the guy he was talking to that gets the microscope jabbed up his rear on the national stage. None of the legacy media even batted an eye, or said “hold on there Sen. O….that doesn’t sound like the American way to me.” Nope, they dug into Joe Wurzlbacher (the fact that I even KNOW this guy’s name is ludicrous!!!) like Oprah and an ungaurded box of Ho-Hos! Oh and Wolf Blitzer can do a VERY thorough job “fact checking” a Saturday Night Live sketch! Only as it turns out…his fact checking wasn’t so “checked”…..LOL!

    If it wasn’t for the “new” media, NONE of those things would have seen the light of day. Does the new media scupulously check EVERY fact? Doubtful…but given the fact that the legacy media are constantly trying to discredit the blogosphere (especially the right side), they DO tend to at least TRY a little harder. When you know the other side will lambast you for even the slightest punctuation error, you tend to want to NOT screw up the big stuff, so as to not look like the idiots you are trying to replace!

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 24th, 200910:13 pmat

    “What IS pretty widespread is lobbying by the carbon producing industries:”

    As a proud member of a “carbon producing industry” I’d just like to point out that the “Green” industries have lobbyists also, BUT they have another GIGUNDOUS lobbyist…..(Two if you count Al Gore….seriously..I don’t know how big MY carbon footprint is…but his BUTT-PRINT is freakin huge!)…the UN IPCC. So MOST of the greenies lobbying is done by fiat through the UN and it’s “experts”. So you have all of that $$$ and pressure being exerted on behalf of the greenies to pass planet-saving legislation NOW and damn the consequences ffor individual economies…or even INDIVIDUALS!

    Now your local power company (or gas company, or gasoline company..what have you) is looking at this and saying, the science isn’t “settled” no matter what Al says between bites, and the proposed “solution” will DRASTICALLY alter the way my customers live their life, not to mention take TONS of cash out of my customers pockets….it might be a good idea for us to get some of those lobbyist things of our own to stick up for us and the customer!

    (In the interest of full disclosure…I wish I could say that that’s how most company’s think..but sadly, my company, and most like it, will NOT speak out against the “consensus” of opinion on GW….they hire lobbyists to do two things: try and massage any legislation to minimize its negative impact on the company (and by extension the consumer), and ensure the company is ahead of the curve as far as compliance with the new legislation.)

    And maybe my point is getting lost here. There doesn’t have to be a vast conspiracy at work in the scientific community. Think of it this way..What organization is the “big Dog” as far as the push for fighting Global Warming? The UN and it’s IPCC, right? So, the UN’s political position on Global Warming (and globalization in general) is going to drive it’s focus. The UN determined to fight Global Warming, and further determined that it was man, ESPECIALLY the carbon-pig citizens of industrialized nations, that was the cause. So they funded a study of the causes of Global Warming. The UN FUNDED THE STUDY!!! Is there any surprise that the results proved the UN’s hypothesis? So now we have the IPCC report hich, though it keeps getting ammended to “downgrade” some of the more catastrophic effects of GW, is touted as the “settled science” on the matter, demanding URGENT IMMEDIATE action! Now who was the IPCC’s Cheif Climatologist again? Dr. Phil Jones…he of the incriminating emails. So how does that explain the ‘overwhelming” weight of research proving that man is causing GW? Well let’s say you were a climatologist, looking for $$$ for research. Where do you go to get it? The government? Well here in the US, the government is so keen on collecting as much money in taxation as they can, that they’ll GLADLY fund research that will help them prove the need for “Cap and Tax”; research that is not helpful…uh not so much. How about private enterprise? Again, the “green” industries are ok to take money from, as long as you prove the point they are paying you to prove. If you take money from a “carbon” industry…OBVIOUSLY you have prostituted yourself and therefore the results are not to be trusted. (For proof of this, I’d refer you back to the American Thinker article linked before and their observation that Lindzen recieved something like $20,000 YEARS ago from Big Oil to pay for his services as a consultant. This has been used to TOTALLY NEGATE anything he does, forget the fact that it was a one time consulting gig that happened decades past!) So you can get funding from the government or business…as long as your results prove what they’re paying you to prove. Or you can get money from the UN..same rules apply. So where does the scientist who is skeptical on the whole issue get the funding to conduct research to prove or disprove his hypothesis? Are you starting to see the problem here?

    Let’s just image for a minute, that our skeptical scientist DOES manage to secure “un-tainted” funding. He conducts his research, and, lo and behold, his research bears out his hypothesis. Let’s say his research even PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT that ALL THE OTHER SCIENTISTS were wrong. What’s the next step? Well, he has to have his paper peer-reviewed and then published, right? OOOPs….he’s just disproved all the other scientists who’ve been riding the GW bandwagon! What’s his chance of getting ANYONE to perform a peer-review and NOT trash his work? Not good, I’d say. But let’s say he finds a handful of honest men who do the review, no to get published. ALL of the scientific journals have been touting GW for years….which will be the first to admit that they were wrong, print his article and suffer the back-lash of the rest of the scientific community (who have staked their PROFESSIONAL reputations on the FACT of AGW)who will promptly boycott said magazine? What journal is going to commit suicide like that?

    Don’t tell me it can’t happen…..if the UN’s leading climatologist, and however many of his peers can engage in doctoring results, violating law and the kinds of behaviors the “data-theft” uncovered, I really don’t think my scenario is all that big a stretch. These men and women have put their PROFESSIONAL REPUTATIONS on the line supporting man-caused global warming…..do you really think they’re all that keen to admit they were wrong?

    I’d normally agree that we should just let this play out….but I’m sure that would play into the hands of those who just want these revelations to go away. “Nothing to see here…keep moving!”

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 24th, 200911:20 pmat

    For clarification… the socialist wrote his article in 2001… it was the conspiracy theory guy who had the silly video of the captured weapons!

    Even if we ignore everything coming out of the UN as hopelessly corrupt, a lot of climate research was done before the issue became politicized, and continues to be done by meteorology departments around the world. New Scientist has good reviews accessible to non-scientists. See:

    http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change

    This site keeps on being updated, and has a huge amount of background material.

    As for your answer to the media question… you seem to be pointing out “sins of omission” not factual errors… they are not the same thing. I don’t follow US politics, so much of what you say is unfamiliar to me, and not of great interest. (eg although I’m sure it’s very sad for his wife, I’m some senator having an affair on the other side of the world doesn’t strike me as terribly big news.)

    Greater criticism, and higher standards, are not necessarily the same thing. For example, ‘the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man!’… mmm… well you can say anything on the blogosphere, it doesn’t make it reliable.

    Where I live we keep on having new record-breaking heat waves, the Murray-Darling- Goulbourne systems (pretty much the foodbowl of Australia) are drying up, areas of WA that were farmland 30 years ago are arid, Victoria is setting up a desalination plant because there’s a growing consensus that the prolonged drought we are experiencing is just one more symptom of climate change… etc. etc. Our Pacific island neighbors are reeling from an increase in frequency of hurricanes/cyclones. All coincidence? I certainly hope so, but I’m not convinced it is.

    Australia is a wealthy country and we can import food if need be, much as this might drain the economy. But Africa… if some of the climate change predictions are right the increased frequency of drought there will lead to starvation. As for SouthEast Asia… increased severity of cyclones/typhoons is catastrophic for the poorest of the poor… all the hard work of development washed into the sea.

    All this is important… it will impact billions of people. I really don’t give a damn about people Barak Obama knows or who’s having an affair with whom.

    So I hope to God you’re right and New Scientist is wrong.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 200912:38 amat

    http://theshiftyreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-cuz-i-think-its-funny.html

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20091:06 amat

    The whole point about the legacy media, at least here in the States, is that it is a bought and paid for hussy for the liberal kookdom. Like you, I could give two craps about “The Breck Girl” and his affair. I could also give LESS than two craps about his poor, sainted wife, standing by her man a-la Hillary circa ’92. If you don’t have the self-respect to dump the lech when he has PUBLICLY clowned you….don’t show your mug on TV trying to gin up sympathy from the Oprah crowd! The point is that, especially with the two examples (Rathergate and the Jayson Blair saga) so-called “respected” journalistic institutions were caught elevating ideology over integrity (journalistic or otherwise). The “sins of ommission” you alluded to were simply illustrations of how DEEPLY the “lame-stream” media is in bed with the left.

    Are you willfully ignoring the logic of the fact that the “vast mountain” of data supporting the global warming myth, regardless of it’s origin, has been TAINTED by the mere fact that those who CONTROLLED the funding for research DETERMINED the research that got done? Or do you maintain that all of this research occurred in an environment hermetically sealed from the grubby shennanigans surrounding the funding of it?

    Its pretty simple…the MONEY was in doing research proving a link between man’s behaviors and “global warming”, as was the accolades. To persist in trying to disprove this thesis, meant a dearth of funding, ridicule as Big Oil’s stooge, and professional banishment. Which would YOU pick if you were a scientist trying to make tenure and feed a family?

    As far as droughts causing famine in Africa…..uhhhhh..hasn’t that been going on for EVER? ‘Cuz it’s, like, a desert and stuff? And wasn’t there some kind of prolonged drought in US during the earlier part of the 20th century? I think Steinbeck wrote a book about it or something. All snideness aside….my point is that droughts happen. Famine happens. It has since the beginning of recorded history. What makes you think it would be any diffferent today?

    I agree that it’s easy to write totally unsubstantiated crap on a blog and try and pass it off as gospel truth. Or even stuff the writer heard at one time back when the interwebz were in their infancy and was too dang lazy to check (and thanks the opposition for calling him on!) But I’m not linking to other bloggers unfounded accusations. And I sure in the heck haven’t banded together with a few of my right-wing cronies to leak FALSE info about the hijinxs being carried out by the Warmists and then make sure that ONLY blogs supporting our meme get published! American Thinker, PJTV and such may be right of center, but they are definately NOT some dude sitting around in Mom’s basement blogging in his tightie-whities!

    But again….to keep linking to the same SCIENTIFIC WEBSITE to prove that the SCIENCE is there isn’t helpful…especially if you actually consider that maybe ease of funding/greater positive recognition for your work might have had SOME impact on the “overwhelming” research proving the Warmist’s position, not to mention an active campaign to PREVENT dissenting data from being presented.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20091:34 amat

    I’m going to quote extensively here from a piece by Robert Tracinski over at RealClear Politics on this whole “Climategate”. He puts what I’ve been laboring to say very succinctly!

    “….For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

    This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

    The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.”

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 25th, 20093:09 amat

    I did begin by asking whether you thought the “legacy media” failed to check their facts, and you have illustrated how they have not reported certain stories. It’s not really the same thing, is it? If you asked me to write a biography of myself and I failed to highlight my age, you could accuse me of being biased and withholding certain facts (true)… but that is a different thing than accusing me of being dishonest.

    I’m not saying the legacy media are unbiased… all magazines have an editorial bent or another. I’m suggesting however they have journalistic standards on matters of fact and around plagiarism, and anyone who violates these standards is putting their job at risk.

    On the world wide web, anyone can write anything. This is why I regard such sources with greater suspicion and do more cross-checking of facts. Do you think that is reasonable?

    Back to my original question: Do you believe that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?

    “Are you willfully ignoring the logic of the fact that the “vast mountain” of data supporting the global warming myth, regardless of it’s origin, has been TAINTED by the mere fact that those who CONTROLLED the funding for research DETERMINED the research that got done?”

    No, I don’t believe it’s fatally tainted, because of the nature of science and the scientific process. Just because a particular government agency pays scientists to do research on an aspect of climate change, doesn’t mean that will guarantee a particular result. In the end, science relies on data.

    Is prejudice a possibility? Certainly. But the scientific process also involves a world community of scientists reviewing one another’s work. In this respect it has more rigor to it than most other areas of human endeavour. Scientists are generally not paid more personally for developing one stance or another.

    Anyone who fudges results deliberately destroys their reputation and their career. This is taken very seriously as a result.

    Climatology is one of the most complex of the sciences and global warming cannot be simply “proved”… although the core idea is quite simple (greenhouse gases trap heat and an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be expected to increase global temperatures). The rate at which glaciers, permafrost and ice sheets are melting in many places and an increase in average global air temperatures suggests this is indeed what is happening. But the complexity of climatology means it’s not like “proving” a mathematical formula. It’s about probability and it’s about data.

    Yes, there have always been hurricanes in the tropics and droughts in places like Africa and Australia. The global warming hypothesis suggests these will increase in frequency and intensity… but it does not “cause” a single event.

    Global warming skeptics are paid too… I don’t believe this means they are necessarily wrong (and as stated, I hope to God they are right). But they are a minority.

    Here’s the conspiracy theory of the other side of the debate!!!!:

    http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/who-is-funding-climate-change-skeptics.html

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:21 amat

    “I did begin by asking whether you thought the “legacy media” failed to check their facts, and you have illustrated how they have not reported certain stories. ”

    I gave you two glaring examples of legacy media FAILING their journalistic standards in exactly those areas you keep saying are most important. Dan Rather WILLFULLY going to air with the un-verified George Bush National Gaurd documents, and the NYT having to retract EVERYTHING it published under the Jayson Blair byline due to his “factual” errors and flat out plagarism!

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:24 amat

    “On the world wide web, anyone can write anything. This is why I regard such sources with greater suspicion and do more cross-checking of facts. Do you think that is reasonable?”

    I do. But the same standard SHOULD apply to the legacy media; rigourous cross-checking of reported facts. Do you view the “facts” told you by the legacy (or left) media/blogosphere with the same healthy skepticism? I’d hope so.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:28 amat

    “No, I don’t believe it’s fatally tainted, because of the nature of science and the scientific process. Just because a particular government agency pays scientists to do research on an aspect of climate change, doesn’t mean that will guarantee a particular result. In the end, science relies on data.”

    How about when that “data” is PROVEN to be deliberately skewed? How about when the very modeling programs used to prove global warming are PROVEN to have cheats, or “fudge factors” or whatever they want to call them, BUILT into the code to ENSURE the result? What does that do to scientific integrity?

    And what then of the data (and conclusions) developed from the original TAINTED data? All the research which used the results of the CRU climate modelling programs now has to be considered faulty.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:31 amat

    “But the scientific process also involves a world community of scientists reviewing one another’s work. In this respect it has more rigor to it than most other areas of human endeavour. Scientists are generally not paid more personally for developing one stance or another.”

    I think I’ve already laid out a fairly robust case for why a scientist would undertake to MAKE SURE his/her research proves out Global Warming….and yes Janet….money does talk and, for Dr. Jones at least, scientific method walks! If you choose not to even acknowledge this real world scenario……

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:37 amat

    “Climatology is one of the most complex of the sciences and global warming cannot be simply “proved”…”

    Whoa there…..I’ve been hearing for years that global warming was “established science” and therefore “proved”. Remember…the debate is over? Are you now telling me that it CAN’T be proven?

    “It’s about probability and it’s about data.”

    And when the data collected doesn’t support the expected outcome….is it kosher to just “massage” the data to make it fit? Because that is EXACTLY what Mann (the guy who came up with the “Hockey stick” graph), Jones, and all the rest of these guys did when the data showed a “decline” in temperatures.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:43 amat

    “Global warming skeptics are paid too… I don’t believe this means they are necessarily wrong (and as stated, I hope to God they are right). But they are a minority.”

    First, they are a minority BECAUSE there was a concerted effort to promote the opposite viewpoint, and supress the skeptics view.

    Second, I’ve already explained why “carbon-emitters” hire lobbyists and their own experts. However, compare the huge disparity in funding for the Warmists vs the Skeptics…which will help explain my first point! Scientists are no more altruistic than anyone else…they are going to go where the money is.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20093:51 amat

    Regardless of whether you believe the Warmists, or the Skeptics..or something in between, the question really is…what are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of “planet saving”? Are you willing to part with your freedoms, treasure and comfort? Willing to trash the whole industrialized world? Go back to a truly local, sustainable agrarian existence? Willing to give up your A/C in the summer and heat in the winter? Shall we trash all of our fossil-fueled power plants in favor of “renewable” energy? Are you willing to pay a “carbon-tax” on ALL goods and services, so that Australians (and Americans) can send “blood money” to the third world countries?

    My point is….THOSE are all the ramifications of the policies the Warmists want enacted! If you just blindly accept the “settled” science, you have to be prepared to accept the “cure”.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 25th, 20094:11 amat

    SIMPLY proved is not the same thing as “well established”.

    Yes I do check the legacy media, but I find the new media less accurate. Not familiar with Jayson Blair… is it interesting enough to bother with?

    “How about when that “data” is PROVEN to be deliberately skewed? How about when the very modeling programs used to prove global warming are PROVEN to have cheats, or “fudge factors” or whatever they want to call them, BUILT into the code to ENSURE the result?”

    Well, that would be scientific fraud. I don’t think anything of the sort has been unequivocally “proved” yet. Let us wait and see what the results of the leaked emails proves to be.

    “And when the data collected doesn’t support the expected outcome….is it kosher to just “massage” the data to make it fit?”

    Absolutely not. This is scientific fraud also.

    Are you accusing New Scientist of “massaging” all its reports? I think it does try to present a variety of perspectives, and I trust its record more than some of the commentators you are linking to. I’d recommend you take the time to engage with this if you’re interested in the issue.

    Having said all of that, I feel you have absolutely made up your mind that man-made impacts on global warming is a total lie and that nothing will change this viewpoint. It doesn’t seem very productive to discuss this if you don’t acknowledge any possibility that this might have some veracity.

    However, I will endeavour to (finally!) relate back to Sonja’s original post.

    As I noted a little while back, there are some dangers in developing a solid diet of one source of news… I don’t care whether it’s New Internationalist on the left or some opinion magazine of the right. When you limit your reading diet, it’s like eating too much chocolate… enjoyable, but unbalanced and ultimately unhealthy. It short circuits critical thinking, and is a form of indoctrination.

    If you keep feeding the brain with a limited diet, after a time one possible perspective becomes the only reasonable perspective. After a time, you can begin to believe that anyone who things differently is a certifiable idiot for failing to see such a self-evident truth. And then you’re a whisker away from the behaviour Sonja wearied of, where she felt that engagement produced a response of “greater ridicule heaped upon me.” It must be hard to resist ridiculing someone not thoroughly indoctrinated with a particular viewpoint when the one view has become the “only reasonable view”.

    I’m not saying one should not have biases… everyone has them. We all need to be careful of only feeding our biases and not challenging our thinking with different perspectives.

    I’m not having a go at you over this… you are obviously engaging with me! However, you seem to have indicated a couple of times that the legacy media is hopelessly flawed and the new right is the source of truth. Well I say bunkum to that… you will never grow in intellectual dexterity (and dare I say intellectual humility) without engaging with a variety of views.

           
  • Janet writes:
    November 25th, 20094:19 amat

    Actually, we are hooked up to a green power electricity supplier. But I am a hypocrite in that I drive a car… it’s completely impractical to get to my work by public transport. Guilty as charged.

    I’m not sure that developing sources of renewable energy will be as catatrophic as you suggest though. And in fact, sooner or later it will be essential (oil reserves actually WILL run out eventually) so I think it would be smart to invest in new technologies sooner than later. One of the wonderful things about Americans is they are so “can-do”… if there were a will to develop renewable energies, if anyone can, you guys can.

           
  • Shifty1 writes:
    November 25th, 20098:10 pmat

    Ok..let me clear something up….while I do distrust the vast majority of the legacy media, at least herre in the US, and do find them to be hopelessly flawed as you suggest, neither do I trust the “new” media (right or left) to be 100% accurate. I do try and vary my sources of information, because I do agree that to limit the sources of information one is exposed to will stunt one’s intellectual growth. The problem I run into, here in the States, is that I find more and more the legacy media (NYT, ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN…)lets their leftward bias slant their reporting. Many studies (by non-partisan groups like PEW) over the past couple of years bear this out. FOXNews, while still biased, will at LEAST attempt to show the story and let you make up your own mind. (Please not..I said FOXNews…not the commentary shows…Hannity/O’Reilly etc….those are COMMENTARY shows not pure NEWS…I do understand the difference.) I am, by nature, a conservative. I believe in America’s founding principles, as laid out in our founding documents. I believe very strongly in God. I believe in the sanctity of life. I am for a government that stays within the bounds laid out by the framers of our Constitution. I think that the Federal government (through actions of all three branches) has been on an unconstitutional power grab for the past 150 odd years. So when presented with two differing editorial biases, at two competing news outlets, I’m naturally going to drift toward the one that leans to the right over the one that leans toward the left. It doesn’t mean I swear blind allegience to ANY media source as the gospel truth.

    As far as Global Warming goes….I’ve long felt that the “science” of it was somehow off. It seemed incomprehesible and incredibly arrogant to me to think that this planet, which has lasted for however many mellenia you want to believe, is being threatened with destruction by the last 150 or so years of humans. As I’ve mentioned before, I trust God’s creation, so wondorously and fearfully wrought, is a tad more hearty than that! And it’s not that I’ve decided to disbelieve EVERY BIT of sceince ever done in this area.

    Instead, I’m even more skeptical that I was, given the recent revelations. Especially damning in these revelations is the source code for the Hadley CRU’s climate modelling program. That code (and especially the FORTRAN programmers notes) is “troubling” to say the least. I asked before if massaging the data was kosher, and you said it would be fraud…by that definition, using the words of the programmers themselves, the ENTIRE Hadley CRU climate model is fraudulent…and ANY subsequent research that made use of that model, or data from it, is flawed because of that fraud!

    Instead of the science being “settled” as the climate alarmists have been telling us; these revelations should dictate a screeching halt to any and all “climate change” policy unless and until a THOROUGH and complete re-analysis is performed. Preferrably one done under conditions more ammenable to true scientific efforts, and less susceptable to political influence.

    My biggest issue with the whole climate change/global warming alarmism is that I DO beleive there is at least a component of it that combines the absolute worst desires of several leftist fringe elements. First there are the extreme “tree-huggers” (I’ve coined the term Knot-hole rapists for these folks who have gone well beyond merely hugging the trees to…..well you get the idea) who see human beings not as created in the image of God, but rather just another creature here on Mother Gaia, no more, nor less, important than a snail darter. They’ve long held the desire for “population control”. Part of the alarmists overarching scheme is the rolling-back of civilizations industrial progress (especially in the west) to pre-industrial revolution times….with the attendent decimation of the human population.

    Another element I see at work is those who desire a massive transfer of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third-world. They are hand-in-glove with the statists espousing one-world governance. The outlines of the proposed Copenhagen treaty bear this out: creation of a world-wide governing body to implement and oversee the GHG reduction protocols enacted by the treaty, including transfer of wealth in the form of Carbon Penalties from large carbon emitting member-states to the lesser states. I’ll throw in here that the current legislation making it’s way through the US congress has very little to do with saving the planet fromthe depradations of man, and very much to do with a massive expansion of the Federal Governmant’s scope and reach. I know my Biblical prophecy well enough to be VERY intrigued by this. Having kids, though, I have a parent’s natural inclination to want them to not have to live through the bad parts…

    So it’s not so much that I dismiss the possiblity that there might be a component of climate change, IF it exists aside from what is natural cyclical change, that is influenced by man. It’s that I don’t trust that the “settled” science has been obtained through the rigorous pursuit of truth; instead we’ve been presented with a political, ideological position, varnished with the respectability of “science” to give it urgency. I don’t see where it is prudent to enact the various forms of Climate Change legislation and protocols being pushed, condemning humanity to regression, suffering and misery, if the verdict is still out on what if anything NEEDS to be done. As to my ideas on what can/should be done….

           

« previousnext »
»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa