The Washington Post can't go out of business fast enough

Not content with publishing George Will's fabrications about the stolen emails (for which, see Carl Zimmer), they now have a piece by climate expert Sarah Palin. The Washington Post simply does not care about the accuracy of the columns it publishes. Let's look at just one paragraph:

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

I didn't add the link to this paragraph. It's a link to the WaPo's own report on the email theft and it directly contradicts Palin. For example, the WaPo's news story says:

Phil Jones, the unit's director, wrote a colleague that he would "hide" a problem with data from Siberian tree rings with more accurate local air temperature measurements.

But Palin says that he tried to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, when in fact he showed the increase in global temperatures since 1960.

The Wapo's report does not support any of the false claims in Palin's paragraph. No they didn't deliberately destroy data, no, they didn't try to stop their critics from publishing. And while the emails show there are many things that the scientists disagree on, they doesn't mean there is no consensus about anything -- they agree that it is getting warmer and that we are causing it.

So what use is the Washington Post? If they are not going to do even the most perfunctory fact checking on the stuff they publish, what value do they add?

More like this

Opinion pieces are allowed to be lacking in factual accuracy; most readers are probably aware of this. This is why I generally never read them. You just particularly notice the errors in this and George Will's writing because you're familiar with the subject.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

The irony is that they publish people like Palin to keep from going out of business... and for that reason only. Brad De Long likes to ask why we don't have a better press corps. But ultimately you get the press corps you deserve. Pride goes before decadence. Decadence before the fall.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Carl Zimmer, 3: Indeed, I just read your articles on the matter. I'm surprised they pretend to do any fact-checking at all; in this case, no checking is as good as what they've done.

In any case, I'll stand by my comment that a sophisticated reader will know there is some difference between the news and the op/ed page.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

How in God's name can she say those libelous and defamatory things without being slapped with a lawsuit? Please someone tell me how the hell one can , in this day and age, lie in public and defame someone and for there to be no consequences?

Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

The Post made the decision that they would have no enemies to the right when the Washington Times opened up. Of course they lost their readership.

This article is highly ironic because when her email was hacked she took the person responsible to court.

Gotta love those scare quotes about 'experts'.

I guess when your state is melting the only defense for someone that far up da Nile is to resign and hit the book tour circuit.

This is an excellent analysis of her autobiography. I'll quote the best part:

Palin draws a clear distinction between âpoliticsâ and âpolicy,â that is, the difference between gaining power and the actions taken while in power. By her account, sheâs not a fan of âpolitics,â but favors âpolicy.âThose instances where Palin âwent rogue,â however, were all singularly political: rejecting the corrupt Alaskan political establishment, speaking her mind on the 2008 campaign trail, her recent resignation as governor of Alaska. When it comes down to policy and ideology, Palin reveals herself to be as narrow-minded and stubborn as they come, utterly devoid of any ideological evolution or development.

No they didn't deliberately destroy data...

But they threatened to...

... no, they didn't try to stop their critics from publishing.

But they threatened to....

A threat made in private to someone else than the threatened, when not acted upon, isn't much of a threat, WW.

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Well, Juliet Eilperin often seems OK, as in Contrarians at the Climate-Gate.

I am afraid, though,that WaPo has gone the way of teh WSJ, as in What do do... here @ Deltoid, i.e., there's OpEd, and there's reporting.

Eli notes the Washington Times, which seems to be auguring in.

See last paragraph of Wikipedia on Washington Times.

2009 layoffs and restructuring

"On November 9, 2009, the Times' chairman and CEO, Dong Moon (Douglas) Joo; its president, Tom McDevitt; and its chief financial officer, Keith Cooperriderâall members of the Unification Churchâwere abruptly fired and Jonathan Slevin, a Times vice president, was appointed Acting Publisher. Thereafter, Solomon resigned as executive editor.[56] Richard Miniter, editorial page editor and vice president of opinion at the Times, was also fired during the shakeup. After his termination, he filed a discrimination complaint against the paper, saying he was coerced into attending a Unification Church religious ceremony that culminated in a mass wedding conducted by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. [57] On November 30, 2009 the New York Times reported that the Washington Times would no longer be receiving funds from the Unification Church and might have to cease publication or go to online publication only.[37] In December 2009 the Times laid off 40% of its 370 employees and stopped subscription service, instead distributing the paper free in some areas of Washington including branches of the government. It said that it would focus on its "core strengths," which it identified as "exclusive reporting and in-depth national political coverage, enterprise and investigative reporting, geo-strategic and national security news and cultural coverage based on traditional values." [58]

By John Mashey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

William, people make idle threats all the time. Especially when provoked or harassed or stressed, and mark my words these scientists were all of those. I'm not sure I understand your point? Please don't try and suggest that the deniers/skeptics are "holier than thou".

Lindzen, was funded by FF industry, and now seems to make a habit of knowingly using incorrect satellite data. Spencer (AGW is an "urban myth"), being paid by the Heartland Institute for some work he is doing-- at least that is my understanding. Pielke Snr. (whom I used to have utmost respect for) has seemingly lost his moral compass and some of the papers the has published of late are questionable (e.g., Klotzbach et al.). Singer...nope, damaged goods. Christy is, to my knowledge, is the cleanest of them all. And that is just some of the prominent scientists on the dark side, not to mention the pseudo wannabe scientists at CA who takes great pleasure in character assassination and obfuscating.

ClimateGate/SwiftHack is a farce, and some very interesting and inconvenient revelations about the denialists are going to come out when the investigation starts in earnest. The plot will thicken even more if they arrest the hacker/s and their alliances become public.

To stay on topic, what do you think about Palin's diatribe?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

ClimateGate/SwiftHack is a farce, and some very interesting and inconvenient revelations about the denialists are going to come out when the investigation starts in earnest. The plot will thicken even more if they arrest the hacker/s and their alliances become public.

Yep. When the more objective and thorough investigations of this affair finally report, I think it will actually backfire badly on the denialists, and shred what little is left of their reputations.

I am pretty sure they have already hit us with the best 'ammo' they can find in those emails, and yet it has proved exactly nothing about their claims, and has not fundamentally altered anything.

If anything, it has shown how dishonest and technically incompetent they are. Smoke and mirrors and heated rhetoric only get you so far in this world. At some point you gotta deliver on the goods, and they have spectacularly failed to deliver, despite every opportunity to do so over a long period of time. It is actually quite pathetic.

If I was a true believing denier, with a paid up subscription, I would be asking for my money back from the leaders of that movement. You guys got sold a complete lemon.

re: #14 MapleLeaf
Christy has written material for George Marshall Institute, as far back as 1990.

Also, he is a Heartland global warming expert.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Palin opines on climate? Of course,why not? It's part of the celebration of ignorance that is politics; all guts,no brains.

Notwithstanding a breathtaking indifference to the illegality of the hack,and a predictably prejudiced interpretation of their content,the main issue here is scientific illiteracy,and how remarkably unfussed the media is about demanding no minimum competence from its opinion writers,and how indifferent much of the electorate is about similar failings in their representatives.

Despite Nick Minchin's sixteen years in the Australian Senate,with staff and a vast information system at his disposal,the best insight he could offer into AGW was no insight at all.

Likewise,the consequences of Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell systematically snubbing Australia's scientific community to promote Ian Plimer's fictions seems to have eluded the MSM. It's no surprise,as even the observation that they did so has escaped them as well...

To stay on topic, what do you think about Palin's diatribe?

I doubt she wrote it, but I like her. Wish there were better politicians, though, e.g., like Ronald Reagan. Sometimes it seems that the only politicians with balls enough to be conservative these days are chicks.

Nick -

Yes, can you imagine what would happen if Steve McI's emails were hacked and published all over the internet? The denialists would be screaming about the criminality of the incident and probably suing or threatening to sue anyone who even referenced the emails.

(No doubt the contents of such an inbox would be whiter than white, of course)

By Andrew Dodds (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Calm down, dear, you are in danger of sounding like a spurned lover! Just because the WaPo, hitherto such a fervent warm supporter, now falls for the cool and delicious Mrs. Palin (who for some reason never replies to my letters) there is no need to throw a hissy fit. Soooo shrill!

William Wallace #20

"Sometimes it seems that the only politicians with balls enough to be conservative these days are chicks."

This is one conservative female with balls, foresight, and a science background - [Margaret Thatcher speaking at the 2nd World Climate Conference](http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=1082…)

The term 'chick' is a bit 1970s, don't you think?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

lord_sidcup: Whoa, that was an interesting speech you linked to. Should be mandatory reading for Reagan/Thatcher-worshipers (although I must admit it increased my respect for the wicked witch a notch or two).

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Well, I for one would not have a problem with the WaPo editorials, if they just changed the label from "Opinions" to "Right Wing Lies".

Truth in advertising, donchaknow.

By Snarki, child … (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

It's obvious why the anti-science and denialist love the opinionated ignorance of Palin, but what did they like best about Reagan?

Did they prefer the way he was such a good sock puppet, easily manipulated with is dimentia? Or the run of proto-feudal deregulation he started, which left the real incomes of middle America stagnant for 30 years, and culminated in a wee crisis of capital?

Was Reagan Marxist? Perhaps he was a Poe Neo-feudalist, undercover to accelerate some Marxist wet dream.

I'm betting William is in the same boat! Rooting for Palin to finsh of the job, and bring down capitalism from within!

Wallace, you dirty Reagan-Palin loving RED!

By Palin's a dill… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

6 MapleLeaf,

It has been a mystery to me for several years now that no litigation has resulted from libels committed by people like Palin (there are many others).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Accusing someone of hiding and (thereby) falsifying global temperature data is libel, unless it can be proven. In the same sense that writing an op/ed accusing someone of plagiarism is libel, unless it can be proven. Opinion columns are not protected from libel actions if they accuse someone of professional misconduct and there is no evidence to support the accusation.

The fact that the WaPo directly links from Palin's column to a refutation by their editorial content staff of Palin's central claim is an admission by the WaPo that they knowingly published an op/ed that makes false accusations of professional misconduct.

This cannot be dismissed as "letting both sides have their say," since the accusation itself is libel unless it can be proven.

Note that it's not libelous to say the data are wrong. It's libelous to accuse someone of manipulating, hiding or falsifying data when there is no evidence they did so. All of these things require deliberate intent rather than say ... incompetence.

carrot eater:
I know that Op-Ed's don't have to be unbiased, strictly-fact reporting, but at the same time, this op-ed doesn't even seem based in reality. One can have an opinion that green is a prettier color than red, but if one writes an op-ed about riding their pet unicorn to pick up plutonium cereal from the local grocery, that's no longer an op-ed, it's pure fiction. So while I see your point completely, I still think this blatantly false "op-ed" by Miss Palin shouldn't be anywhere near an op-ed page.

From your blog feed stats I see you have 1,590 readers. Palin reaches more people than that a book signing in the middle of winter.

The jig is pretty much up isn't it?

Lovely comment from 'Y-town Democrat' by the way, stay classy, Warmers!

By Climategate (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Majorajam said: "... But ultimately you get the press corps you deserve."

You also get the press corps you pay for. It took the industry a long time to figure out that cut and pasting all their copy to a Web site that didn't require a subscription was a bad idea.

Newsflash, Kool Aid drinkers: Sarah got it right. Isn't it curious how the same data used to predict global warming today was the same data used 30 years ago to predict the coming Ice Age? You Palin-bashers are a gullible, naive herd of sheep, being led by the likes of Al Gore, who refuses to openly debate the issue and by scientists who had to redefine "peer review" in order to get a consensus on the "settled science". As for the computer scientist who wrote the article, give me a break... calling a computer scientist a scientist is like calling a Sanitation Engineer an engineer.

Hold on. Palin Climate history sequence...

1. I don't believe humans are responsible, polar bears are not in trouble, I love Alaskan oil.

2. Presidential campaign. I was wrong, I think humans are a bit responsible. I'll shut up because I want a nice job in Washington.

3. Damn, I was right the first time. The scientists are lying, I do really love Alaskan oil.

4. ???

Daniel | December 9, 2009 8:33 AM, 31:

In a guest opinion, I think a basis in reality is optional. One doesn't read Ms. Palin's piece to learn about global warming, one reads it to learn how she processes the available information. The reader can then judge the author's analytical ability. Just as letters to the editors are published to show a range of reader opinions, no matter how unrealistic they might be.

Neil | December 9, 2009 9:24 AM, 35

And there's the ice-age myth again. Perhaps there should be a third button below, besides 'preview' and 'post'. It would read "are you about to claim that scientists were warning us of an impending ice age in the 1970s?" Clicking it would bring up the literature review by Conolley, Fleck and Peterson. It'd save people like Neil from embarrassing themselves, and exposing themselves as the gullible ones.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Palin reaches more people than that a book signing in the middle of winter.

But when a liberal reaches huge numbers of people, it's a dangerous personality cult.

Isn't it curious how the same data used to predict global warming today was the same data used 30 years ago to predict the coming Ice Age?

That WOULD be curious, if it hadn't been proven FALSE.

As for the Post, they started losing me when they brought Bush Jr. speechwriter Michael Gerson onto their op-ed pages, AFTER his lies about Iraqi WMDs had been exposed as pure fabrications. Since then, he's lied about atheists, lied about science, lied about eugenics, and lied about liberals -- and that was only in his first six months at the Post.

They know they're spreading lies, they know it's wrong, and they don't have the guts to stand up and do the right thing. They had a front-page headline implying that those stolen emails said certain things; and the flat admission that the emails didn't really say that was buried in the article underneath.

Fuck 'em. I'm paying for sundays only, and when their free daily service runs out, I'll probably just drop them altogether.

Can anyone here suggest a more reliable alternative daily paper? One that has good national and world news, and isn't trying to compete with the Moonie Times and WorldNutDaily?

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Isn't it curious how the same data used to predict global warming today was the same data used 30 years ago to predict the coming Ice Age?

Do you have any idea how moronic that statement is?

Question: How can you tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times?

Answer: You can't.

I stopped surfing to the WashPo a long time ago when it became clear that its pro-war editorial position had creeped into its reporting. Similarly, the WashPo's support for standardized testing is hardly unrelated to its ownership of Kaplan Test Preparation Courses, (which are about the only profitable division of the company).

The Washington Post already died; now it's just a creepy neocon zombie.

No, explain it to me Einstein. I quote from Time Magazine, June 27th 1974: Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html#ixzz0…

Sorry, you patronizing asshat, but one article in a non-scientific publication does not a scientific concensus make. Show us a sizeable mass of peer-reviewed work arguing for global cooling, and then you'll have a case. All you have now is fake-macho insults and pretend airs of authority that any ten-year-old can ape toward eight-year-olds.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

neil:

I quote from Time Magazine, June 27th 1974

That "Time" article contains the following utter bullshit on page 1:

"Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F."

The temperature drop from 1944 to 1974 was only about 0.3°C.

Since you rely on utter bullshit for your claims, how do we know everything else you say is not also utter bullshit?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

From the secret diary of William Byrd II of Westover :

8 September ... saw two women, a mother and daughter who stayed about two hours and then came Mrs. Johnson with whom I supped and ate some fricasee of rabbit and about ten went to bed with her and lay all night and rogured her twice ...

11 September ... I wrote some English till nine and then came Mrs. S-t-r-d. I drank a glass of wine to our good rest and then went to bed and rogured her three times. However, I could not sleep and neglected my prayers....

14 ... About eight I went to Mrs. Smith's where I met Molly and had some oysters for supper and about eleven we went to bed and I rogured her twice ...

17 ... about seven I went to Mrs. FitzHerbert's where I ate some boiled pork and drank some ale. About nine I walked away and picked up a girl whom I carried to the bagnio and rogured her twice very well. It rained abundance in the night.

6 October.... endeavored to pick up a wh--- but could not. I neglected my prayers, for which God forgive me ...

7 October ... picked up a wh--- and carried her to a tavern where I gave her a supper and we ate a broiled fowl. We did nothing but fool and parted about 11 o'clock and I walked home and neglected my prayers ...

16 October picked up a woman and went to the tavern where we had a broiled fowl and afterwards I committed uncleanness for which God forgive me. About eleven I went home and neglected my prayers.

20 October ... to the play where I saw nobody I liked so went to Will's and stayed about an hour and then went to Mrs. Smith's where I met a very tall woman and rogured her three times ...

11 November, went with Lord Orrery to Mrs B-r-t-n where we found two chambermaids that my Lord had ordered to be got for us and I rogured one of them and about 9 o'clock returned again to Will's where Betty S-t-r-d called on me in a coach and I went with her to a bagnio and rogured her twice, for which God forgive me ...

13 ... took my ways towards Mrs. Southwell's but she was from home. Then I walked in the park and went to Ozinda's ... After we went to Will's ... then ... to Mistress B-r-t and stayed about an hour

14 ... went away to Will's where a woman called on me. .. then went to a bagnio where I rogured my woman but once. Her name was Sally Cook. There was a terrible noise in the night like a woman cryingâ¦

22 ... walked home and by the way picked up a woman and committed uncleanness with her, for which God forgive me ...

28 ... I ate some boiled milk for supper and romped with Molly F-r-s-y and about 9 o'clock retired and kissed the maid so that I committed uncleanness, for which God forgive me.

Seriously - who reads the Post anymore? I've deleted it from my browswer more than a year ago, and haven't missed it since.

This paper is a pale facsimile of its former self. What a joke.

I remember the hysteria of a coming iceage in the 1970's.
I was just a child but saw mutliple documemntaries on tv and it was discussed in my 3rd and 4th grade class.
It scared me until my great grand mother said it was all just propaganda and idiots seeking fame and money.
Climategate does in fact detroy the entire concensus on global warming and expose it as part of a fraud
CRU's data WAS manipulated for the very reason to show more warming post 1960 and less pre-1960.
ALL 4 data sets use 90 percent of the SAME adjusted data, they are not independent of each other at all.
Every climate scientist know this, so later on when the bullcrappy science is fully exposed, remember who kept defending it, remember who kept trying to get the tax payers money.....those are the crooks.

By Shawn Sene (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

neil -- and in the 1960s it was widely predicted in the popular press that nuclear energy would make electricity "too cheap to meter." And in the late 1800s Lord Kelvin declared that all of the fundamental questions of physics had been completely solved. And in 2003, GWBush declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq. And the personal hovercraft that 1950s articles predicted we'd all be flying by the 1970s. And let's not forget the undersea cities !!!

@David Kane: So someone who says we need to adjust for the UHI, but has problems with adjusting all the stations in a city for UHI, and also claims that cities create heat but humanity isn't creating heat is the smartest critic of AGW you can find?

Really? You guys were better off with Sarah Palin. At least she's relatively consistent about her insanity.

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Shorter Neil: Ptolemy was wrong, therefore no science can be trusted. I will now hide my head in sand, which science cannot prove is quartz.

[This is somewhat off, since Neil is citing a popular magazine as his only source, whereas at least Ptolemy was a scientist and was applying the scientific method.]

My mother used to have a term for you global-warming clowns, "educated FOOLS".

By val kraljic (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

I remember the hysteria of a coming iceage in the 1970's. I was just a child but saw mutliple documemntaries on tv and it was discussed in my 3rd and 4th grade class. It scared me until my great grand mother said it was all just propaganda and idiots seeking fame and money.

I was a child then too, Shawn, and guess what -- I never saw such hysteria. Sounds like all you have here is an old childhood memory of a VERY localized phenomenon, which you're now pretending is a life-changing trauma. What probably happened is that a handful of idiots had a freakout, and those idiots just happened to be in your neighborhood, and they started blaming "propaganda and idiots seeking fame and money" rather than admit they'd been wrong.

Climategate does in fact detroy the entire concensus on global warming and expose it as part of a fraud CRU's data WAS manipulated for the very reason to show more warming post 1960 and less pre-1960.

Sounds like that imagination is just as active -- and just as fear-driven -- as it was in your childhood. In other words, you still haven't grown up.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

BTW, Shawn, if the people in your hometown freaked out about something that turned out to be false, why does that undermine the credibility of science, as opposed to, say, the credibility of the people who actually did the freaking out? Seems like you -- like the Jew-bashers, gay-bashers, and other scapegoaters and demagogues throughout history -- are blaming the wrong people for your own ignorance and misunderstandings.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Carrot eater said, Opinion pieces are allowed to be lacking in factual accuracy; most readers are probably aware of this. This is why I generally never read them. You just particularly notice the errors in this and George Will's writing because you're familiar with the subject.

The people who will "make hay" from this and other libelous Palin op-eds are the cynics in the neocon political movement who do know the inaccuracies and don't care.

The rest of the readers who will gobble up Palin's op-eds like so much red meat are her unquestioning, incurious devoted fans who beam with pride that "she's just like us" every time she Tweets some inanity or issues another deliriously faux policy proclamation from her Facebook page.

Just like her book. It's riddled with inaccuracies or outright lies which have been debunked by people who know Palin or who have worked in her administration or who have followed her career.

But her fans LOVE the book -- and if you listen to a recent NPR round table discussion, even non-fans of Palin have accepted what she wrote in her book at face value. -- because protests of Palin's libels and ethical misdemeanors seem to appear only in blogs like this one or in the several Alaska blogs that have been critical of Palin.

Stanley Fish in an opinion piece in the NY Times said, "...autobiographers cannot lie because anything they say will truthfully serve their project, which, again, is not to portray the facts, but to portray themselves...Do I believe any of this? It doesnât matter. What matters is that she does, and that her readers feel they are hearing an authentic voice."

What hogwash. It's no wonder the mainstream media is turning the other way on "outing" Palin's narcissitic cynical self-promotion and tendencies to avoid responsibility, if presumably intelligent law professors say it doesn't matter if nothing in her hagiography, er...autobiography is true.

You "warmers" are so ridiculous and arrogant. Have you no capacity for introspection at all? Have you not been educated on the many fallacies during the course of human history where the "experts" got it wrong?

Science is a living thing. Theories come and go. AGW is not "proven" in any sense of the word. To meet that criteria, it would need to reliably predict outcomes. To date, it has not even come close.

Your constant railing against "deniers" smacks of religion. Your desire to censor dissent smacks of facsism. And your preoccupation with hatred of Sarah Palin smacks of lunacy.

By connertown (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Ah, a HuffPo link. That explains the nutters :D

David Kane:

How about a thread devoted to The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero by Willis Eschenbach?

[See this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php), where it was discussed in the comments from about post 30 onwards (and I realised it was by Eschenbach and not Watts about post 35...). It's junk, and I don't think Tim need waste his time on it any more than we did.

Neil, please actually go and read this:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Volume 89, Issue 9 (September 2008) pp. 1325â1337

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Science is a living thing. Theories come and go. AGW is not "proven" in any sense of the word. To meet that criteria, it would need to reliably predict outcomes. To date, it has not even come close.

Actually, climate scientists have made many predictions that have been confirmed, except in many cases the timeframe's been shorter than predicted.

Finding out what those are is your task, though. You have a choice: educate yourself, or continue to make a fool of yourself by posting lies.

When I suggested that you cover the strongest arguments from the smartest critics, this is, uh, not exactly what I had in mind.

Yeah, when will reality conform to your desires? It's obviously not starting with Tim writing only what you ask him to write. Maybe you should try bending some spoons, or something.

dhogaza - "Finding out what those are is your task, though."

Nice try...but the onus of proof is on the theorist, not the "denialist". You're the one trying to prove something. It is the responsibility of true science to stand up to investigation and criticism. The truth will only win when this is done. Otherwise, you are still pushing religion.

So go ahead - edu-macate me.

You have a choice. Keep calling people "fools" without ever looking in the mirror. Or be a man, show your work, and stand up to the criticism.

By connertown (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

I wonder if Sarah Palin watches the Colbert Report and jumps up and down yellin' "hell, yeah!" not realizin' it's parody.

@connertown: I can see how you're confusing the climate scientists with people pushing religion, since you're expecting them to come to your door to convince you. It's not going to happen. They've spent their time "showing their work" and "standing up to the criticism" in the proper venue for such things: scientific journals.

If you want to understand it enough to effectively criticize it, you'll need to take the time and do the work to figure it out. Expecting someone else to hold your hand and treat you like a baby isn't fair, to them or to you.

You have a choice. Be a man.

As a conservative I booed and hissed at her presence in the WaPo. Space there is very precious, too precious for Miss Pretty Lady's ghost writer. If you're going to crack your pages open to allow dissent, make it valuable dissent. Many scientists could have used that space.

which right wing denial blog is sending people over today?

you could folks please tell us where you come from, so that we know from which dustbin you copy your posts?

I remember the hysteria of a coming iceage in the 1970's.
--

Well, I was born in 1964 and had a subscription to Science News when I was 12, and I don't recall any hysteria. I do recall that a number of popular science periodicals, when writing about the science and evidence for past Ice Ages, would mention that we are now in an interglacial, and if the past pattern in the Pleistocene continued, the interglacial should end several millennia from today.

Occasionally, headline and copy writers, looking for a saucy hook on an otherwise straight science story, liked to juice up the text by solemnly intoning that (eventually) the ice sheets would return, albeit not for at least a few thousand years.

Science teachers also liked to do this to teach kids about Ice Ages, esp. in New England (where I'm from), because so few kids had any clue about Ice Ages and knew nothing about how profoundly the last Ice Age sculpted and created our contemporary topography (like Cape Cod and Long Island) and stuff we saw everyday in town (like glacial erratics and striations).

But hysteria? Only in the imaginations of the hysterics.

Op Eds are opinions. You make it sound like opinons in this country need to be pre-approved before being delivered.

In the USA, citizens have just as much right to be right as they do to be wrong (or some mixture).

Washington Post made the call. The correct response is to counter Palin's opinions with other opinions, not call into question her right to air her opinions.

Deltoid can't go out of business fast enough?

It's regrettable but Palin's current prominence in America's political landscape is undeniable. What the future holds, who knows, but as it is right now she has a strong following because many people do in fact subscribe to her political views, and as a result its important to know about that. That's why opinion pieces like this are important, I for one would rather know what she is thinking, even if it is riddled with incorrect facts, then not know. That way if (heaven forbid) she gets somewhere in national politics, we know what her beliefs are. Having her editorial run in the Washington Post is a good thing for that reason.

Political debate on important issues such as climate change needs to happen in as many channels as possible, including on op-ed pages. The way to move forward is by weighing the value of one person's argument against another and against the facts. The link in her editorial affords readers the easy ability to get the facts, and weigh them against her argument. Her (or George Will's) argument clearly won't stand up against the facts, it gets shot down, and the marketplace of ideas wins again.

It is regrettable also that Tim Lambert's response to a few pieces of writing he doesn't like is to wish the entire outlet he read it in gets shut down. Is that myopic philosophy the level of debate he ascribes to? These objectionable beliefs will have to be confronted head on, not ignored, and by publishing her piece with a link to an article containing actual (and contradictory) facts Is the Washington Post living up to its duty to inform the public of what is going on in the world of politics. It may be ugly, but it's out there and needs to be known.

Ok, here is an idea-- class action suite. There are about 2700 reputable climate scientists out there, see http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

There have to be lawyers out there who would love to take on that class action suite. Just wondering...

Connertown, you fail to understand that in science one cannot definitively prove anything. Read a book or two, might I recommend Giere's "Understanding Scientific Reasoning" as a start.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

David Kane,

again, asking people to address the "good" criticism is hardly reasonable of you, since

1. You, as far as I can see, don't lift a finger against the bloody stupid arguments (like neil's reference to an article in the peer-reviewed journal Newsweek)

2. The stupid arguments are the ones people listen to, believe and reproduce. As poster "Climategate" so triuphantly informs us, "the jig is up" and the stupid has won.

3. In the end, "the sophisticated" arguments are just as vacuous as the stupid ones. Can you blame people for not wasting time trying to convince you, when there is so much stupid that should be dammed up? (especially after what you pulled at the Lancet Iraq papers!)

No, let me give this advice to Tim Lambert: On no account allow David Kane to dictate what bogus arguments you should address, before he can show he has done at least twenty pages of dumb-argument rebuttals on public comment sections at various blogs.

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Wallace, r e a d the A M S p a p e r. Actually r e a d the w h o l e p a p e r.

Are you famiiar with the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius? When was the first computer simulation made which allowed for elevated (doubling) GHGs? The mid seventies,

The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 32, Issue 1 (January 1975) pp. 3â15

PS: Newsweek retracted the comments made in their 1975 article in 2006 concerning 'global cooling' and conceded that they were 'spectacularly wrong'.

Honest to God I and others could spend 24/7, 365 days a year refuting the myths and unsubstantiated crap put forward by the cynics, obstructionists, contrarians and denialists!

And yes, I'm getting rather pissed off with the continual stream of crap being spewed by the denial machine-- it is as if their sewer line has a huge rupture and the spewing of crap cannot be stopped. Not to mention we all know how crap sticks and contaminates everything it comes into contact with.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Who are these "flat-earth" people? How can there be so many of them? Let's buy them all smartphones and teach them to look up facts. Okay, bad idea. Let's just focus on educating the rest of the world not to vote for these kinds of people.

@ MapleLeaf: You fail to understand how to even spell lawsuit. "Suite" is an apartment or office. Even in Canada.

@ quantos: Right on. This is opinion, which is all a politician is qualified to have. Even Mr. Gore. Opinion should not be stifled. The hysteria looks bad for the hysteric, not the object of their hysteria.

@ pough: I will admit that I am not a scientist. I will wager 1 bazillion carbon credits that you are not one either. The fact is that there are many scientists who disagree with AGW.

Before any more flaming, please realize that there are many reasons to support pollution control and the search for renewable energy resources. Personally, I'm very much in favor of these goals. But not at the point of a gun or the threat of AGW.

By connertown (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

William Wallace | December 9, 2009 1:12 PM

"There, I fixed the link, "

You fixed nothing, but continue to expose yourself.. I've read your NSB report (did you, or did you just read what some blog said about it?), and it does NOT say what you are saying. It simply says that both cooling and warming factors are present, and more study is needed on the matter. In other words, no consensus.

Now, just read the lit review of the period.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F…

Unless you really enjoy proving yourself to be a fool, by continuing to repeat easily debunked things.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

If you don't put several years worth of educational material into your blog comments, then the jig is up on this "global warming" hoax. I'm not even sure I believe in this so-called "statistical mechanics." Sounds to me like they just don't know what's going on, so they just guess. That's not science, and neither is this tie. Plus some egghead told me that the universe would end in a "heat death," but if they know that then why can't they tell me what time I'll put my pants on five days from now? You know what my mom would say? "Stop embarrassing yourself on the Internet. I didn't invest all of those resources into you so that you could be proud of being an uneducated boob."

Man, The leftists here are sounding like they have not had their diapers changed in a while. Got a bad diaper rash? At least Sarah palin knows how to change a diaper, unlike all of you genetic dead enders with no kids. With no children You will all wind up in state-run warehouses for the elderly staffed by illiterates who do not speak english. Better learn Brazilian Portuguese or Haitian creole if you want your bedpans changed! at least the illegal immigrants know the value of having a family. unlike all of you creating your own self destructive dead end policies.

By liwwel bunny wabbit (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

quantos: I more or less agree with what you say there. Sarah Palin may be an idiot, unqualified to speak on this or any matter, but she's still a national figure. What she thinks can therefore be of interest - not in its own right, but in what it says about her.

That said, the Post is just trying to sell newspapers. Why Palin, and not Pawlenty, Huckabee, Romney, etc? Because Palin sells papers, and the others don't.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Man, The leftists here are sounding like they have not had their diapers changed in a while. Got a bad diaper rash? At least Sarah palin knows how to change a diaper, unlike all of you genetic dead enders with no kids. With no children You will all wind up in state-run warehouses for the elderly staffed by illiterates who do not speak english. Better learn Brazilian Portuguese or Haitian creole if you want your bedpans changed! at least the illegal immigrants know the value of having a family. unlike all of you creating your own self destructive dead end policies.

By liwwel bunny wabbit (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

"[I]f they know that then why can't they tell me what time I'll put my pants on five days from now?"

Please tell me this is a parody.

By A Lurker. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Yes, A Lurker, I think we can safely say that post was a parody.

Nobody who is seriously capable of making those arguments is also capable of avoiding the usage of RANDOM CAPITALIZATION and other abuses of the English language.

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Connertown, really? I had no idea that there was a difference (sarc). Yes, my typing and at times spelling sucks, so your point is? Oh yes, nothing. Just enjoying the juvenile game of poking holes while adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

Oh dear, and what would an "argument" from a denier be without making reference to Al Gore or using the word "hysteria".

Yes, of course, you are all for pollution control (sarc). That is until it is proclaimed by your ilk that addressing pollution will actually cause the economy to "contract" and "destroy jobs". We have seen that red herring put forth by deniers before. Well, thank you for pretending to care so much about the environment. Would you be willing to pay more money for using renewable energy, or to fund Syngas coal-fired power in Oz? Here you say "yes", but the reality? Not on your life is the government or anyone else taking my "hard earned' money from my grubby little hands.

Oh and Connertown... oh what difference does it make, I'm trying to apply reason and logic with an "omniscient" and truly "enlightened" cynic.

And yes, I am in a most foul mood :p

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Looks like we've got a few testing our Poe radar.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

liwwel bunny rabbit re 81....thanks for providing yet another sterling example of that giant leak in the denialists' sewer line.

OMG, how did we ever put astronauts on the moon with the likes of bunny rabbit bounding about? Oh hang on, or did we? What do you think our little conspiracy theorist trolls?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Have you not been educated on the many fallacies during the course of human history where the "experts" got it wrong?

Have YOU not been educated on the far greater number of times the denialists got it wrong?

Your desire to censor dissent smacks of facsism.

That's what I used to say to my mom every time she told me to clean up my room. That's when I was in grade-school. What's your excuse for acting like you're still in grade-school?

Ever notice how denialists always cry about "censorship" and "fascism" every time they're faced with a reality they can't wish away? These people never grew up enough to face reality on its own terms. This is the sort of infantilism that drives today's Republican Party.

Man, The leftists here are sounding like they have not had their diapers changed in a while. Got a bad diaper rash?

Typical fake-macho Republican behavior: when you can't function as an adult, pretend everyone else is a baby and make diaper jokes.

At least Sarah palin knows how to change a diaper...

Wow, does someone have a mommy-complex about Sarah Palin? Right-wing infantilism gets more obvious every day.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Certainly people that are vain-enough to pontificate on complicated technical subjects using nothing but their folksy intuition deserve little more than parody. Such people, if they exist, would have to be completely unaware of how socially-inept they reveal themselves to be when they interject diarrhea into someone else's field and start making demands. They would have to be buffoons from television sitcoms made flesh, preparing to sabotage a structure doing 'repairs.' Only they'd be less 'lovable' than the television bafoon, because after they had given up and sought aid, they would be giving the contractors the finger the whole time they were repairing the damage.

It's a good thing people like that never comment here at scienceblogs!

carrot eater, clearly there is a difference between news stories and op eds, the difference being that a news story is supposed to present facts and an op ed to offer a particular interpretation of facts. The latter is not the same as making things up.

By Chris Farmer (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Really? Another Poe? I was leaning towards the theory that the recent proliferation of randomly generated crackpot comments were Drudgies doing 4chan-style sarcasm bombing. Either way, seems like a waste of effort.

Then again, the 'pants' line was pure gold.

By A Lurker. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

So, Chris, you can't justify Sarah Palin's drivel except by insisting that editorials like hers are NOT supposed to be factual?

...a news story is supposed to present facts...

Which WaPo has done VERY poorly lately.

...and an op ed to offer a particular interpretation of facts. The latter is not the same as making things up.

In the case of oped writers like George Will, Michael Gerson, Chuck Krauthammer, and Sarah Palin, it is the same.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

@mb

; )

By A Lurker. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Again we are getting upset over what this illiterate queen of airheads propounds. Now she's masquerading as a scientist. What's next? Forget it. I don't want to know. But she presides over the uneducated segment of our society who are desperately trying to understand where they fit into the scheme of things. Life has passed them by and they are angry...and dangerous. They feel the world owes them a living. VERY SAD.

By mme flutterbye (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

As I see it the WaPo's problem is that while it's widely perceived as a last bastion of "teh liberal em ess em" it's functionally nothing of the sort, especially when it comes to the op-ed pages.

The Palin drivel might at a cursory glance seem to offer "balance from the right" but the WaPo op-ed pages are already there (see Broder, David for example). The effect may be to use her lunacy as a lever to elevate their run-of-the-mill right wing writers to the level of centrist. If so, well played, Howie! Maybe they can give us a solid week of Cal Thomas and Newt Gingrich as a chaser.

I assert Palin is the furthest thing from "conservative." Rather, she's the embodiment of today's Republican Party, who lost any notion of the meaning of conservative in the '80s. She desires power and control and the silencing of any criticism. "Grifter" remains the single best description.

By trollhattan (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Chris Farmer | December 9, 2009 2:19 PM

If a guest opinion writer like Palin wants to write that 1+1=3, that's fine by me, if that's what she thinks. The paper will then decide whether that's worth publishing, and in the case of Palin, it will be, because Palin generates sales and controversy.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Palin ignores all science and hold the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. Yet, now we are being asked to believe "her" understanding of science and climage change? Seriously?

climate change, sorry.

Connertown said:

Nice try...but the onus of proof is on the theorist, not the "denialist".

This canard is popping up so frequently, last time [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…), that it deserves its own section in each of the "How to respond to a climate 'sceptic'" FAQs.

Connertown, old chum, even though Mapleleaf has [already responded to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…), I'll repeat it - scientific work either supports or refutes (disproves) a hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever proven; it is merely supported â although some hypotheses are so well supported that they are effectively proven.

Anthropogenically-caused global warming is one such example: there's a mountain of evidence that supports it, and nothing but a tenuous tissue of denialism that claims to refute it, and which falls apart more quickly than wet tissue under even a cursory examination for veracity.

If you want to disprove AGW, fine - have a go. Many have tried, but it's still standing; and rock-solidly so.

The fact is that there are many scientists who disagree with AGW.

I am a scientist. And I challenge you to demonstrate, with even a half-arsed study, that more than a few percent of practising scientists "disagree with AGW". And of those who disagree, I challenge you to demonstrate that they're either not retired and gone 'emeritus', or in the pay of a vested interest or several, or misrepresented, or just plain bonkers.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Tim writes:

Wha? Fumento is agreeing with me??

My head is spinning.

It shouldn't be. I can't speak for Fumento but, even though I disagree with you on many topics, I recognize that you are very smart and detail oriented. You set a standard that many of us aspire to in our own blogging. It is hardly surprising that there would be many topics that we would agree on.

And, on the topics we disagree about, reading you makes me smarter and more informed and, on occasion, even makes me change my mind (as traumatic as that may be). Best example is John Lott, who I used to think highly of before I read your multiple eviscerations of at Deltoid.

That's why my hope is that you devote your energies to the arguments made by folks like Steve McIntyre and not to those made by the Sarah Palin's of the world.

illiterate queen of airheads

That's good. Actually, is that the best, most concise, description of Palin yet? What makes it great is:-

Queen of illiterate airheads

Airhead queen of illiterates

work just as well.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

I got here from Achenbach's blog on the Washington Post. Sorry I haven't read all the comments.

Lambert's original post has some of the shoddiest reasoning I've ever seen. Carrot eater's first comment at the top is unequivocally right -- op/eds from politicians setting forth their political views are, by definition, not something to be fact-checked. Let her state her case and then informed people can see that it's a crock. But to suggest that the Post should edit Palin's piece, and to use the Post's own reporting (think about that for a second) as a source, is simply asinine.

Op-eds and political debates are not excused from the requirement to be reality based.

"Op-eds and political debates are not excused from the requirement to be reality based.

Posted by: WotWot"

I disagree. Lambert's saying it should have been "fact-checked." With all due respect, whether Palin is objectively correct is irrelevant in this instance. The piece is significant for the author, not for the veracity of the message. We're seeing what the basis of her position is (and we see it's baseless). If Palin wrote that global warming was caused by people who barbeque with propane instead of coal, then that's her opinion. You don't censor it - you refute it with reality.

If Lambert wants to show why Palin is wrong, I'm all for it. But it's nonsensical to criticize the Post for running Palin's piece, arguing that the Post is somehow misleading people on the science, by using the Post's own reporting to show that Palin is wrong.

Well, I believe that Sarah Palin knows what she is talking about because she is a holy God-fearing Christian woman! And she has children, and I do also too and that makes two reasons! Because for the future we need more good real Christian Pro-American mothers to help run the world and I really like her hairdo also. Plus if she says the earth isn't getting any warmer and that all this environmental stuff is made up, then I sure do believe her, because the fact is, nobody knows more about makin' stuff up than Sarah.

By E. Van Jellical (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Truther, in a way what you say is correct, but you do have to ask yourself - are they giving equal time to hoax-moon-landing advocates?
Do readers of this paper get the opportunity to read sensible articles about science, as well?
I can't say I know the answer to that as I don't read it, but here we have The Australian, which kindly spoils us with regular humourous articles written by Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, and others, who all seem to share Sarah Palin's genius for intellectual originality and it certainly seems to me that these sorts of papers are
- over-emphasising the denialist nonsense
- not currently pushing crop circles/alien abductions/etc... with the same amount of verve
- only rarely publishing anything so boring as to treat with actual facts on the issue.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Truther.

In the words of Herbert Bayard Swope, the [father of the op-ed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed):

It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America... and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts.

It's one thing to "print opinion, ignoring facts". It's another entirely to print opinion, completely manufacturing one's own 'facts' in the face of global expertise to the contrary, and it's especially pernicious to manufacture such untruthful 'facts' when the subject matter is so profoundly important to the whole of humanity and to the non-human biosphere.

Oh, and because so many of the great unwashed take what they read in a newspaper at face value, the editors surely should have a duty of care to ensure that any printed opinion based in fantasy, lies, or other misrepresentation of truth, is clearly and comprehensively revealed to be such to its readership. When the distortion of truth comes from someone who ran as a US vice-presidential candidate, there should surely be even more care exercised.

It only goes to show you how low are your standards if you believe that an op-ed can say anything the author desires, to a credulous audience.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

It only goes to show you how low are your standards if you believe that an op-ed can say anything the author desires, to a credulous audience.

But enough about scienceblogs.com.

Ba da dum.

E. Van Jellical - I hadn't thought of it that way. You've convinced me!

Vince W-wind - Others may disagree, but I think the WashPost does a fairly good job (for a non-science-focused publication) of providing objective science info on newsworthy subjects, while covering "controversies" fairly well.

As many people on this thread believe that Op Eds need not be fact checked nor even fact based, an important questions arises; how do paprs like WoPo allocate who gets these free swings?

Is anyone aware of an analysis of this allocation of OpEds?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

> "an important questions arises; how do paprs like WoPo allocate who gets these free swings? Is anyone aware of an analysis of this allocation of OpEds?"

Perhaps the next cache of stolen emails will be those of Washington Post management?

By Anna Haynes (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Bernard...

"I am a scientist. And I challenge you to demonstrate, with even a half-arsed study, that more than a few percent of practising scientists "disagree with AGW". And of those who disagree, I challenge you to demonstrate that they're either not retired and gone 'emeritus', or in the pay of a vested interest or several, or misrepresented, or just plain bonkers"

Bernard.

How many practicing scientists are there? And what fields in particular are you talking about? Chemistry?

It is my understanding that the "consensus" which is so often talked about, is the consensus of the IPCC.

Of the 2500 so called scientists on the IPCC, how many are actually scientists, and what percent does this represent worldwide?

How many "skeptical" scientists were invited to join the IPCC?

How many scientists on the IPCC receive government funding while representing their government?

How many scientists on the IPCC are from "poor" nations that wish to receive "compensation" from "rich" nations, not because it is their moral responsibiliy, but because it is their legal responsibility?

By the way, these are rhetorical questions.

On another note...

When Ted Turner said we will all be cannibals in 15 years, was that his opinion or fact?

Truther, understand what you are saying.

But people are not entitled to just make up their own facts, no matter how prominent an individual they may be, and no matter how strong the free speech laws may be in their country.

The right to have and express an opinion does not absolve anybody from the obligation to base their opinion in reality, especially when it is about important public policy issues.

Betula wanders:

When Ted Turner said we will all be cannibals in 15 years, was that his opinion or fact?

Ted Turner, "The Mouth of the South", founder of CNN, and controversialist?

Apparently Betula still has great difficulty discriminating between science and media hype.

Does anyone here have the patience to use lots of little words in order to explain it to him?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Neil: "As for the computer scientist who wrote the article, give me a break... calling a computer scientist a scientist is like calling a Sanitation Engineer an engineer."

Shorter Neil: "I'm an imbecile. Kick me!"

Note to Neil: do not, under any circumstances, attempt to enter the Tiger cage at the zoo, and pet the Tiger.

Palin was at least a decent governor for a year or two. But Fred Hiatt's never been decent, unless you accept that his real job is the equivalent of Minister of Public Relations for the KGB. He wouldn't even have held a job at TASS for very long.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

I was trained undergrad in physical science, went into journalism instead, and now find myself in the computer science world. I'd say it is usually about as scientific as engineering but up at the top levels it's definitely a science. And like in engineering, but moreso, you have to use the scientific method every single day.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

There we all were, at Tim's place. My legs were cramped from the endless flight to New South Wales. We had our balaclavas, black trousers, gloves, and cans of petrol, and we bashed on the door. It was approximately 700 hours.

'We're ready, Commander Lambert. Let's fly to DC and shut down the Washington Post, for good and all!"

"RIGHT!" all the crew yelled!

"Oh," said Tim. "I am just urging people who agree with me about climate change to stop subscribing to it. You know, a voluntary thing. Because it's become a crap paper."

Well, that didn't sit well with us, as you can imagine. Plus, Dr. Lambert did not have any spirits to lift ours with. So unfortunately, he apparently doesn't have the moral courage to urge actual censorship of the Washington Post for its op-eds. Plus, Australia's a little hot for balaclavas and gloves this time of year.

We're not taking this lying down. We've heard that AGW science blogs are filled with thugs and censors, and that's what we're looking to sign up for! We'll find the right blog, you just wait.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Bernard:

"Apparently Betula still has great difficulty discriminating between science and media hype."

Bernard the scientist, do you even know what this post is about? Let me use small words to remind you..

@1 "Opinion pieces are allowed to be lacking in factual accuracy"

@3 "the Post claims to have a multi-layered fact-checking process for their op-ed pieces"

@14 "To stay on topic, what do you think about Palin's diatribe?"

@19 "Palin opines on climate? Of course,why not?"

@26 "I for one would not have a problem with the WaPo editorials, if they just changed the label from "Opinions" to "Right Wing Lies".

@27 "It's obvious why the anti-science and denialist love the opinionated ignorance of Palin"

@28 "It has been a mystery to me for several years now that no litigation has resulted from libels committed by people like Palin"

@30 "I still think this blatantly false "op-ed" by Miss Palin shouldn't be anywhere near an op-ed page."

Are you getting it yet Bernard?

@90 "a news story is supposed to present facts and an op ed to offer a particular interpretation of facts."

@111 "It's one thing to "print opinion, ignoring facts". It's another entirely to print opinion, completely manufacturing one's own 'facts'"

Bernard the scientist, are you beginning to see the correlation between the discussion and my question?....

"When Ted Turner said we will all be cannibals in 15 years, was that his opinion or fact?"

C'mon Bernard the scientist, you can do it. Your a scientist!

There is a difference between opinions ('this is what I think') and lies ('This is what is' when it isn't). Palin lied. Interestingly, the Washington Post is also excerpted in the Guardian, so her lies were published in England, a plaintiff-friendly location for libel suits. Her comments are libel and defamation - I don't know if they are actionable. Her only defense would be that of ignorance, and deciding to write an Op-ed on a topic that you're ignorant of is not a wise decision.

Janet Akerman | December 9, 2009 11:14 PM

"how do paprs like WoPo allocate who gets these free swings?"

I've already told you. Palin gets them page views and paper sales.

Generally speaking, newspapers will from time-to-time allow a person of note to put his/her own views directly. Here is one from then candidate Obama, last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html
Do you think the NYT should go through whatever he had to say, editing for fairness or accuracy? Of course not. If they feel his letter has inaccuracies, they can publish their own editorial reply, but they shouldn't edit his piece.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

Oh, please. What is with these fantasies of defamation lawsuits against various deniers and sceptics? Put them aside, people.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

123 Bernard,

I know you meant "wonders" but "wanders" also works, as in "wanders off-topic". ;)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

""When Ted Turner said we will all be cannibals in 15 years, was that his opinion or fact?""

that is a real dumb question. That's why he didn't answer. Something in the FUTURE can't be a FACT today.

what you mean to ask, I guess, is was TT pulling that PREDICTION out of his butt or did he have a set of FACTS (stuff that has already happened) supported by an explainatory FRAMEWORK (like a theory) to make a high-probability PREDICTION about events in the future?

So, if you meant to ask that, well, I still don't care to find out if he did say it our why, but, maybe he himself was planning on eating people he invites to his ranch or something .. who knows?

By Kevin (NYC) (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

Carrot eater, re #129. Why? Should there be no consequences for poor or even criminal behaviour? No consequences for libel or making defamatory comments? People need to be held accountable, otherwise the world just degenerates into a mud slinging free-for-all. What happened to ethics?

Sorry, but I disagree carrot. Scientists are required to provide measured responses, to provide caveats and to substantiate their arguments with facts. How the hell then does one counter the unsubstantiated and fallacious opines put forth by the denialists? The point is that you can't. The denialsists float these balloons, and may or may not print a correction or retraction. Regardless, once that seed of doubt is sown in people's minds it is damn near impossible to erase. And they (Palin) know that all too well.

It is my experience with media in Canada that they sacrifice truth for "balance", even if that "balanced' opinion is anything but balanced and a pack of lies. Why? Sadly, because those "balanced' diatribes such as Palin's sell papers. Moreover, like it or not having her write in the paper immediately gives her an air of credibility and authority and even legitimacy to the lay person. And that goes for any piece which includes fallacious and libelous statements. Are newspapers in the business of aiding and abetting those who wish to spread of lies? Sure, if it sells papers why not. The newspapers just do not care. God knows what they teach journalism students nowadays when it comes to ethics.

The editors really do need to make a greater effort for the pursuit of truth, rather than disseminating unsubstantiated rhetoric and opinion.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

connertown huffed: "You 'warmers' are so ridiculous and arrogant. Have you no capacity for introspection at all? Have you not been educated on the many fallacies during the course of human history where the "experts" got it wrong?"

So because some experts got some things wrong in the past, every expert who considers climate change real and potentially dangerous must be wrong as well? That's a non sequitur if ever there was one.

"Science is a living thing. Theories come and go. AGW is not 'proven' in any sense of the word. To meet that criteria [sic], it would need to reliably predict outcomes. To date, it has not even come close."

You're right on this point, because the outcomes you refer to are in the future. Fortunately, most people understand the value of taking action now to prevent a future disaster.

By Chris Winter (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

Betula wrote: "How many practicing scientists are there?"

Several million worldwide. It's hard to be more precise. You can do better for the U.S. by checking the Web sites of the various scientific societies, which usually publish their membership totals, and adding up those numbers. I've seen this done in response to just such a question as yours, but I don't recall the number. I think it was over 300,000.

"It is my understanding that the "consensus" which is so often talked about, is the consensus of the IPCC."

Yes, and also of most of the remaining scientists. My evidence for this is that all the U.S. scientific societies are on record as supporting the IPCC consensus, and are not losing members in droves. I think you'll find the same is true around the world.

"Of the 2500 so called scientists on the IPCC, how many are actually scientists?"

All of them. Every single one.

"How many "skeptical" scientists were invited to join the IPCC?"

Irrelevant. Scientists aren't asked their opinion on an investigation before they begin it. They are supposed to arrive at an opinion after investigating.

"How many scientists on the IPCC receive government funding while representing their government?

How many scientists on the IPCC are from "poor" nations that wish to receive "compensation" from "rich" nations, not because it is their moral responsibiliy, but because it is their legal responsibility?"

I'm not sure what these two questions even mean, except to imply that all IPCC scientists have ulterior motives. That's the old, nonsensical "conspiracy" implication.

"By the way, these are rhetorical questions."

Of course they are. And that makes my reasonable answers a waste of time, doesn't it?

Yep — that was rhetorical too.

By Chris Winter (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

You can do better for the U.S. by checking the Web sites of the various scientific societies, which usually publish their membership totals, and adding up those numbers. I've seen this done in response to just such a question as yours, but I don't recall the number. I think it was over 300,000.

To put things into perspective, the denialists in the American Physical Society are bragging over their petition which has been signed by about 250 APS members, including one nobel prize winner and about 13 National Academy members.

The APS has 47,000 members, so the petition represents about 0.7% of the membership. The NAS has about 2100 members, so the petition represents about 0.6%. And there are 200 nobel prize winners in the NAS, so the petition represents 0.5% of these.

Crankdom is a lonely pursuit.

Kevin...

"Something in the FUTURE can't be a FACT today."

Ah Kevin, you're catching on......so when the PREDICTIONS of catastrophe are the basis for imediate action, we know that these predictions are not fact. Don't we Kevin?

And we know that the predictions are exaggerated in order to get people to react to fear. Don't we Kevin?

How do we know this? Because when someone like Ted Turner tells us we will be cannibals, the alarmists never dispute the insanity....their acceptance of such statements is their silence.

Here's a good example...

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," and "we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Kevin, do you feel this is this a ridiculous statement because...."Something in the FUTURE can't be a FACT today."

Does the statement scare you Kevin? It should, that is what it's designed to do......and the statement was made over 4 years ago.

Six more years Kevin. Be afraid, be very afraid.

And don't worry, if worse comes to worse, look at the bright side. You can always eat your neighbor.

Carrot [eater writes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…):

>*Do you think the NYT should go through whatever he had to say, editing for fairness or accuracy? Of course not. If they feel his letter has inaccuracies, they can publish their own editorial reply, but they shouldn't edit his piece.*

Carrot eater is this in response to [this question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…):

>As many people on this thread believe that Op Eds need not be fact checked nor even fact based, an important questions arises; how do paprs like WoPo allocate who gets these free swings?

>Is anyone aware of an analysis of this allocation of OpEds?

I got the first part of your response (sells papers), but this second part seem way off.

Eg. there has been analyis of the opinions reported in the lead up to the Iraq war. Something like 3% were from people who dissented against the surge towards the 2003 invasion. This did not seem representative.

Australia's only national paper, "The Australia" is similarly biased towards anti-AGW OpEds. I think analysis of how power opperates is relevant.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

A [recent study of OpEds](http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3949) in the WoPo and NYT on the Afghan war, shows free hits to the pro-war opinionated is way out of disproportion to public views.

Who has got the power?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 10 Dec 2009 #permalink

Don Wigan @137.

Touching. Looking for tissue....

Um.. where to start with you Don.

I actually feel sorry for you and Christina Ora.

I feel sorry for Chistina because she is 17 and doesn't know any better. She is being led by Gordon Darcy Lilo.....and being fed garbage at a vulnerable age.

But she is doing her job.

She is adding a touch of youth and freshness to the conference and grabbing some media attention, along with the other girls in her group, by tugging on our little heartstrings.

I feel sorry for you Don, because you are so gullible.

MapleLeaf asks

How in God's name can she say those libelous and defamatory things without being slapped with a lawsuit?

I've not read all these comments so I may have been pwned here, but Palin's article was posted on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday, quickly obtained 1100 comments and is now unavailable.
Perhaps the over-protective UK libel law has reared its head.

By dave heasman (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Maple Leaf, 132: It's just not how science generally operates. One doesn't resort to lawsuits when you're called names. Yes, people like Palin don't operate with the same restraint and care; so what? The answer is not a lawsuit; that would just be counterproductive, anyway - you'd only feed the meme that sceptics are being hushed. Besides, I think shopping around the Earth for a country with easy defamation rules is somewhat repulsive. I'm rather happy that it's relatively difficult to make a defamation case in the US.

The only proper response is to continue pointing out how people have erred in their analysis. Not lawsuits. I repeat, put that fantasy away.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Janet Ackerman: The content of the op/ed page is at the discretion of the newspaper. Deal with it.

If the newspaper thinks it's relevant for its readers to read the unfiltered and unedited words of a notable person, like Obama or Palin, then that's that. If the person is running for president, then I think the rationale is obvious. If the person is late 2009 Palin, well, the rationale is partly commercial.

There's no particular reason for the newspaper to do a public poll on an issue, and then divide the opinions and editorials along those lines. Heck, if you did that for global warming, then a newspaper would have to be cranking out opinions from the Moncktons of the world, since a significant proportion of Americans seem to agree with that camp.

I, for one, usually skip over the op/ed pages. I don't find them to be particularly educational.

And back to derivatives: you're still on the level that 'derivatives=bad'. Please move beyond that. There are all manner of derivatives which are appropriately used and regulated; as a whole they are a necessary part of the economy and have been so for a long time.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Carrot thanks, #142: "It's just not how science generally operates." I agree, but we are not necessarily talking about scientists versus scientist here.

Don't get me wrong, the whole genre of "you'll hear from my lawyer" makes me sick. I am not advocating that, but merely trying to think of what will register with these people. For example, in Canada we have the infamous Nation Post. They do not publish a code of ethics, I requested to see it and was refused, and they are not a member of a press council (nor are they required to be). They regularly print nonsensical and libelous content-- not in op eds, but by their very own staff at times. I have tried to ask the editors to print retractions or corrections. Result? Nothing. In the past, people have only managed to force them to print retractions and/or corrections when they have threatened the paper with legal action. It seem that some people only respond to that. Go over to deepclimate.org and see what challenges we are facing in Canada on this front.

The public seeing a denialist found guilty of defamation and/or libel for all the media to see, would perhaps resonate with them and convince them that these guys really are mean-spirited, malicious and have no interest in the science.

Someone else was suggesting shopping around for a country with easy defamation rules, I never suggested that.

Anyhow, I am just thinking out loud how one can deal with this. Smiting them with facts just does not seem to go anywhere, at least as the lay person is involved. Not unless the media turn on them........

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

MapleLeaf: It's the nature of free speech. With the good comes some bad, and some irritating. Accept it for what it is. The onus on you is to make the better case, not to shut the other guy up. Even if the other guy is underhanded, and doesn't retract obvious errors. That is for the reader to judge. If some readers are themselves conspiracy theorists and cranks, oh well. That's life.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

God points carrot, I'll try and keep them in mind the next time I read a diatribe. Have a good weekend.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Its not just surprising, but absolutely frightening to me the amount of people who legitimately believe that the entire scientific community has been involved in a vast conspiracy to trick them.

Seriously people? You seriously consider the scientific wisdom of Sarah Palin to be better than thousands of legitimate experts?

And then accuse me of drinking kool-aid because I believe experts over idiots....

Follow the money folks. The article was an op-ed not a text book. They printed it to make money. That's how they stay in business. Making money is not evil. For someone to be so unimportant Palin sure does draw a crowd.

Follow the money part 2. Even if there is "man made" global warming. How in the hell does taxing businesses and individuals help? Who has something to gain?

Betula @140

Glad you can at least feel sorry. Though I wish it was over the prospect of her losing her home rather than over her "naivity".

She is not alone in being concerned about global warming for a very long time, incidentally. Mrs Thatcher, not renowned as an enemy of big business, expressed concern that something be done about it as far back as 1988.

As for me, I'm flattered that someone can still regard me as gullible at aged 67. I have confidence in scientific research. It was right about the harmful effects of tobacco as far back as the 60s, although the lobby and its paid shills threw up enough doubt to delay public restrictions and warnings for nearly 30 years.

I find it interesting that many of the same 'think tanks' and pr groups are behind the attempts to cast doubt on the scientific findings with the same tactics. I wonder if you can go one better than them and offer a credible explanation for why they've all got it so wrong, and if they have, what's the real explanation?

As someone gullible, I'm probably open to your eloquent explanation if you have one.

By Don Wigan (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Shorter Tony:

Making money in order to sell brainless books is the Highest Expression of Freedom™. Making money in order to switch to renewable energy, invest in research, and wean ourselves off our dependence on oil and coal -- now that is the Spawn of Satan™.

Carrot Eater,

Not everyone thinks the media bias in a non issue. Nor that the the bias toward the powerful is a non-issue. Especially in our current environment of extreme concentration of power.

This has effects on the public perceptions of an issue. Re. global warming report, coverage could be based on the weight of evidence, or the number of scientist with particular views. Currently its "balanced" another way, between the weight of science on one side and the power of front groups who rely on a few contrarians and an army of those that share a particular ideology.

Similarly many and found very dangerous the apparent bias toward aggression as a primary solution, even wrapping it in the cloak of self defence.

Hence your glib "get over it" solution is puts you in one camp, one that I believe is politically and sociologically naive. Unfortunately such naivete make you allied with people who are actively exploiting and reinforcing concentrated structures of power.

I'm happy to discuss derivatives, I'd suggest you pick it up in [the location](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_36.php#comment-2138…) where the context is laid out, rather than here where there is no context is where it is off-topic.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Don.

Did she lose her home? What am I missing here?

She said...."How can I be sure that my home village won't disappear in 10 years' time?"

Answer. She can't.

She also can't be sure it WILL disappear.

Meanwhile, she get's to stomp out a nice carbon footprint on a lovely trip to Copenhagen

Maybe, might, possibly, perhaps, probably, could, if, "I am uncertain", "How can I be sure", "expected to"......

Don, is she stating an opinion or fact?

Hint: It's printed in the opinion section of the paper.

The only thing we are really sure about, is that they want money from rich nations....

Tears on my pillow.

I find it interesting that many of the same 'think tanks' and pr groups are behind the attempts to cast doubt on the scientific findings with the same tactics.

You know who else using those tactics for the same goal? Saudi Arabia, those wonderful folks who gave us Osama bin Laden, the Wahabbi Hate Machine, and the Toon Tantrum. All of it paid for with OUR MONEY. Those are the people whose interests the denialists are supporting.

"Follow the money" you say? Okay, let's follow the greatest wealth transfer in human history, from the oil-consuming West to the terrorist-ridden OPEC, and ask the denialists why they're doing everything they can to prevent us from changing this. They're not just thieve and liars, they're traitors as well.

By Raging bee (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Here is a list of scientists who question or outright disagree with the liberal or media's presentation of AGW:

[description](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream…)

So, try as you facist enablers might to convince that the science is settled, there are many well known and respected scientists who actually question the science. The process of questioning is what makes a scientist a scientist. Anyone else is a fraud.

So going down that list, Derek, I see mostly "geographer", "geologist", "economist", etc.

Only a handful are involved in climate research - Lindzen (who believes that cigarette smoking is not particularly harmful to one's health), Spencer (a creationist), and other assorted cranks.

Why would that list convince me that literally thousands of professionals actively working on climate science are wrong?

Why would that list convince me that arctic sea ice, a cooling stratosphere while the troposphere warms, animals and plants ranges moving northward in latitude, etc are all in on this massive liberal conspiracy?

Oh, wait, Derek thinks we're fascists, not liberals. The WSJ appears to think we're stalinist. It's odd.

Re #154, more unsubstantiated rhetoric. Which respected scientists? Lindzen, nah. Monckton, not even a scientists. Singer, nah. Watts, definitely nah. McIntyre, nah. Continue ad nauseum. I'll give you Spencer, Christy and at a stretch Pielke Snr., they are all three becoming increasingly dubious (Spencer now has strong connections with the Heartland Inst.), but regardless none of these three deny that AGW is real.

Questioning is good, when it is based on solid science and reliable data. That is how the science advances, not by the ignorant tinkering undertaken by Eschenbach et al. If you bothered to read journal papers, you would see a whole lot of questioning going on regarding the nuances of AGW.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Janet: You have to draw a line between the op/ed pages and the actual body of a newspaper. Note that everything I am saying so far only applies to the op/ed page.

I would not be amused if a newspaper had Ms. Palin write her uninformed opinion as actual reporting and analysis in the news section of the paper. But if it appears as opinion in the op/ed section, I couldn't care less.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

carrot eater's declarations of "deal with it" (which are puzzling, and seem ignorant, because there's actual libel law out there, and as someone who had to learn it, I know it also applies to op-eds, in virtually every nation, which you don't seem to), make the similarly arrogant assertions about derivatives the dead opposite of convincing.

Stock sellers pretty much do what they can get away with. In what market fundie comic book is it proven that doing away with the ability to trade derivatives leads to worse results than the derivative trading has led to?

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states

>1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

>2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Both England and the US have actual malice - reckless disregard of the facts and/or ignoring correction - criteria for actionable defamation, for public figures. Mann, Schmidt et al. have made themselves public figures for purposes of the climate controversy by doing RealClimate. Phil Jones is such due to his position.

Whether Palin, et al., have crossed the line to reckless disregard of the truth is a judgment call. There is a little more lattitude for op-eds, but it's not as much as apparently people believe.

Where you actually get away with murder is in parody and satire and other forms of humor. It's one of the defenses that Limbaugh and Coulter often fall back on, even where it makes no sense at all.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

dhogaza:

The John Birch Society sourcebook by Garry Owen, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy," is a very short book and a quick read, and you'll see its influence all over today, 50 years or more after it was written. One passage I remember said, roughly

"We're given a supposed political spectrum that ranges from fascism on the right, to democratic socialism in the middle, to communism on the left. What's wrong with this picture? The entire spectrum is SOCIALIST. A real political spectrum would have lawless anarchy at one end and totalitarianism at the other. What Americans want is a minimal government over towards the unregulated end of the real spectrum, with free markets and enough laws to keep the citizens from having license to do things that harm themselves and others." (paraphrasing from memory).

And it basically says that communism, fascism and social democracy are all different aspect of the same ideology, with the same shadowy people pushing it.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

That's GARY ALLEN. Garry OwenS did Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

I'm not talking about whether anything here is actually actionable under defamation law (though I'm rather sceptical about that, too). I'll simply say that I am very happy that it's relatively difficult to bring such action in the US.

The point I'm making is that scientists don't proceed this way. It just isn't done.

If the people involved want to take legal action, they can sort that out for themselves. Until and unless they decide to take that step, I don't see the point of fantasizing about it. It's only so much noise.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

152 Betula

True, it's in the Opinion section, not in the news, just as Sarah Palin's assertions were.

'In the Solomon Islands, my homeland, communities on low-lying atolls are already being displaced by rising sea levels. Communities have lived on these atolls for generations. Moving from one province to another in the Solomon Islands is not just like moving house. Your land is your identity. It is part of your culture. It is who you are.'

Kinda suggests she knows plenty who have been displaced. The Solomons is not all that big a society. Chances are there are relatives among the displaced. So I think you can reasonably infer some direct knowledge. It seems a small step to ask, 'who's next?' and to hope that it's not me.

On the other hand, you have failed to respond to my challenge to state your theory to account for the changes already occurring, or to explain how the scientists around the world have got it so wrong?

Do you have any credible theory? Or are you content to snipe and sneer from the sidelines?

By Don Wigan (not verified) on 11 Dec 2009 #permalink

@164

"On the other hand, you have failed to respond to my challenge to state your theory to account for the changes already occurring, or to explain how the scientists around the world have got it so wrong?"

Don, is this your way of diverting the topic from little Christina Ora, who is being used to sell your "theory"?

Ok, I get it.

The climate is changing so we need a "theory" in order to feel we can control the climate.
This way, we don't have to live with the worry of something bad happening in the future....like Christina.

Let's all imagine with Christina...

Ah, a worry free climate. One where I can live on an atoll or below sea level in Bangladesh and never worry again! Perhaps I'll buy some land near the levees of New Orleans or build a condo in the flood plains of Missouri!

How about a ski chalet at the base of an avalanche area? Maybe a little cottage amidst the dense Jack pines that rely on fire to spread their seeds?

At last I can get that piece on land in Tornado Alley that I've always wanted!

I for one, cannot wait until we have finally achieved climate consistency! Imagine, worry free without insurance coverage!

Don, here's a theory for you:

It's the Earth.
It's been around 3 billion years, give or take a billion. It will be here when you're gone.

Hey, Betula, are you deliberately being stupid or something?

Nobody thinks the Earth is going to stop existing. (also, 3 billion give or take a billion is a strange number that has little to do with what scientists think the age of the Earth is - try four and a half billion, give or take a half-billion.)

We just, you know, think it's possible that human civilization will collapse if people don't take steps to mitigate forseeable disasters. There is in fact a significant difference.

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 12 Dec 2009 #permalink

>Hey, Betula, are you deliberately being stupid or something?

The something is being intellectually dishonest. Also.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 12 Dec 2009 #permalink

Yeah, Betula... ËI thought you'd squib it when it came down to espousing a credible alternative scientific theory.

No better than Dave Andrews or William Wallace.

By Dpn Wigan (not verified) on 12 Dec 2009 #permalink

Gosh, what is the Wa Post thinking? If only there was more control in the US in how the 1st Amendment is applied we could get buffoons like Will, Kruathammer, and Palin out of print. I mean it's not like Climate Change has any political implications. This is a purely scientific issue. I mean some writers act like trillions of dollars and millions of jobs are at stake. Fools!

It's the Earth. It's been around 3 billion years, give or take a billion. It will be here when you're gone.

I never thought I'd see a denialist in agreement with Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.

the WP further documents its own decline into pathology via the inimitable Charles Krauthammer

I saw that this morning in my local daily, and about fell out of my chair. Quite amazing.

Betula, you are too funny. Who is this cult that you keep referring to ;) There are many treasures embedded in the diatribe, e.g., "The vindicated critics youâve been working to silence will fill the post-Climagate void with publications, and some of them will become best-sellers. "

What, journal papers are now listed on the best-seller's list? Or do you mean more junk and pseudo science like was recently published by Plimer? Seriously, we look forward in eagerness to these seminal works which will represent a paradigm shift in science. Hang on, where have I heard that before and it turned out to be a load of BS? Oh right, Baliunas and Soon. Enough said.

Sorry, but you guys are delusional, and might I recommend you joining a cult in Waco, Texas.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 12 Dec 2009 #permalink

Mapleleaf et al..

MAKING CULT STEW

1.Start with a base: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ne…

2.Combine this type of thinking with such Biblical terms as "catastophe", "apocalypse", "famine", "floods" etc.
I can't exaggerate enough the importance of these ingredients.

3.Throw in a few phrases like "running out of time", "immediate action", "urgent" and "only a few years left".
These ingredients will help to speed up the cooking process.

4.Add in some polititians, government selected representatives, government backed scientists, big egos and a lot of biases. Use liberally according to taste.

5.A pinch of Peace Prize for no reason at all.

6.A dash of compassion for someone who hasn't had anything happen to them, ie: (Christine Ora)

7.(2) cups of endangered polar bear substitute. Note: The substitute is readily available and easier to find than real endangered polar bears.

Mix all the ingredients in a large pot and set on stovetop on high heat. Stir often.

Once the stew has reached a boiling point, immediately serve equal portions at the highest cost possible.

MUST BE SERVED HOT, DO NOT ALLOW TO COOL!

Helpful hint: It is best if there are many cooks in the kitchen, however, we recommend the head cook not have any expertise in cooking, but can talk a good meal.

Betula, I am going to have to start ignoring you (see my post to el gordo on another thread here. First, I have to ask, are you serious? Really, are you really serious when you write what you write?

For example, "2.Combine this type of thinking with such Biblical terms as "catastophe", "apocalypse", "famine", "floods" etc. I can't exaggerate enough the importance of these ingredients."

Please show us a journal paper which uses those words in catastrophic terms in the context of AGW? Flood is of course used often in certain journals, so a journal paper showing how future floods in a warmer world will be "catastrophic", for example.

"A dash of compassion for someone who hasn't had anything happen to them, ie: (Christine Ora)". Nothing has happened to her home, YET. Do you grasp the concept that this problem spans (including sea-level rise) spans many, many decades? Clearly not. But I understand that forward thinking and inter-generational equity is a concept that eludes someone like you who clearly cannot think further than their own wallet and back yard.

Each one of your ludicrous and juvenile claims in #175 can be soundly refuted, but honesty I have better things to do that try and reason with a conspiracy theorist and someone devoid of reason. Again, there is a compound in Waco, Texas which eagerly awaits your arrival. There you can look after what is clearly most important, you and you ego.

Good grief.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

OMG!

Betula, you're so right, I just never realized it before.

My belief that regular exercise of mind and body keeps one mentally and physically fit, i.e. Yoga;

My belief that the Sun and Moon affect the tides, that the Sun warms the Earth, that the gravitational forces of nearby planets produce the Milankovitch Cycles affecting the long term terrestrial climate and biotic environment, i.e. Astrology;

My belief that the universe is governed by cause and effect, i.e. Karma;

And that the psychological consequences of not just one's physical actions but also the non-physical symbolic expression of one's thoughts and feelings may extend beyond the locality of one's personal experience, having ethical social, cultural and political consequences, i.e. Telepathy and PSI;

And persist beyond one's lifespan, having consequences for the as yet unborn, i.e. Re-incarnation;

My belief that hiking through the High Sierras or spending time at an urban park or going to an art exhibit or reading good fiction or poetry or seeing a good film or play has a restorative effect on my psyche, i.e. Pantheism, the belief in spiritual energy located in physical things;

My belief that dreams are psychologically meaningful and appearances of deceased friends and relatives in dreams provide insight into ongoing relationships, i.e. Ghosts and Communicating with the Dead;

(The fact that everyone has the occasional homo-erotic dream and conservatives will almost universally deny they do [excluding, of course, conservative homosexuals {a self-evident oxymoron}], is like-wise proof that most conservatives are repressed homosexuals)

My belief that Betula's irrational spreading of FUD is harmful to the pursuit of truth, i.e. The Evil Eye.

Thank you so much for pulling the scales from my eyes.

Now I'm free to believe that freeing the invisible hand of unregulated free markets to operate freely is the One True Path to Human Happiness, i.e. Bullshit.

Free at last! Free at last! Lord Almighty, I'm free at last!

I'm ever so grateful.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

Luminous, re #178.

:o) Excellent!

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

I forgot to mention my belief in the statistics of poker, psychological tells and a priori selection of marks from both the Liberal Arts and Business Schools that got me through several semesters of college; make me a fortune-teller without peer, and allow me to make the following prognostication:

Time will tell Betula to be a catastrophic loser.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

MapleLeaf, and luminous: Thanks for drawing this out of Betula. Sounds like a fitting fan of Palin. Darn Tootin'!

By Don Wigan (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

Mapleleaf

You ask...

"Please show us a journal paper which uses those words in catastrophic terms in the context of AGW?"

Here's one..

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," and "we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Source....An Inconvenient Truth

Mapleleaf, this is where you tell me Al Gores movie can't be taken seriously because it's not a journal.

And then you responded to this...

"A dash of compassion for someone who hasn't had anything happen to them"

With this...

"Nothing has happened to her home, YET"

Wait, right now I'm feeling compassion for someone I don't know in California whose house may burn in a forest fire next year. Perhaps I should send them some money....it would make me feel better.

Think about it Mapleleaf, you are mad because you don't like the flavor of cult stew.

Try washing it down with some kool aid.

Mapleleaf...

Another thing.

As an Arborist, I must say I think of you as a Norway Maple. In Connecticut they are considered an invasive species, a weed tree. It is illegal to sell them in nurseries and whenever wetland areas are renovated it is required they they be removed.
In addition, my experience is that because they grow fast, they are very brittle and prone to breakage in storms. They are weak. We are constantly cleaning them up.

LB.

I was just trying to send you a message thru telepathy, but there was static on the other end so I decided to type one out instead.

First of all, I'm glad we both agree that the article I linked is accurate. What I don't understand is why you seem incensed if you agree with it, and why you didn't take it up with Bud @176 who finds irony in it:

"I think my irony meter just exploded. Bless them!"

Personally, I'm an atheist with a Baptist wife. I also happen to have a brother who is gay and was a team leader in an elite unit in the United States Marine Corps....he is also one of the toughest men I know.

This was written by my younger brother....
http://sldn.bluestatedigital.com/blog/archives/everyone-should-have-the…

So your perception of people based on their political and AGW viewpoints happens to suck.

On the other hand, my perception of you appears to be completely accurate, and that is why it struck a chord with you.

You are the base for the cult stew.

LB.

If AGW isn't about spreading the wealth, why is it all the alarmists such as yourself, seem to have the common denominator of hating free markets and wanting to spread the wealth?

Coincidence?

No need to respond, It's a rhetorical question. Let's just say I'm clairvoyant.

Betual writes:

>*If AGW isn't about spreading the wealth, why is it all the alarmists such as yourself, seem to have the common denominator of hating free markets and wanting to spread the wealth?*

One reason Betula has this perception, is that he ignore what many of us say. We want to internalize the costs of carbon at let people make choices how they make the cuts. That is the free market solution.

People who want to keep subsidizing carbon with ongoing free pollution rights want the worst type of Nanny state-socialism for the fossil rent seekers. That is lemon socialism, an oligarchy captured state.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

Betula just called AIT a journal paper. That explains ... a lot.

By Michael Ralston (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

Is Betula still posting? Or some nutter? Strange and absurd comments being left by someone going by "Betula".....Wonder if s/he read what I suggested we do with people like her/him? Works wonders for our toddlers.
Hey Betula if you are out there (and you are way out there it seems) I'm not reading or responding your diatribes.

Now where were we?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

Betula pubescens tortuosa ,

Do you want to learn some science or do you just want to simulate fart noises over the computer?

[Catastrophe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory)

What usually happens to strangely chaotic non-linear systems when stressed beyond the bounds of their inherent dynamic equilibrium.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 14 Dec 2009 #permalink

November temperature data is up. 4th warmest November on record:

http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 12/ global-cooling-at-sarah-palins-house.html

Interestingly, thereâs global cooling both at Sarah Palinâs house AND the country she can see from her house. No wonder she was so confused in her WaPo op-ed.

Shorter WAG..

Show me signs of warming, the more excited I get.

Show me signs of cooling, the angrier I get.

::::snicker::::

Betula used a book written by a politician as a peer-reviewed journal article.

:::snicker:::

What a moron.

el gordo writes:

>"luminous uses wiki even after this revelation of history being rewritten."

You really are Orwellian el gordo! Straight out of 1984.

If scientist contributes to wikipedia, you, in the best tradition of double speak propagandise this as "rewriting history".

Instead of your double speak, how about you simply present the evidence of how large the MWP is from its primary source documents to prove what if anything Connelly wrote is in error; or if anything he contributed or corrected in the wiki was in error?

You do realise the edits are traceable, so go back and show where Connolley was misleading.

Your behaviour [continues to be shameful](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th…) el gordo. Its ugly to observe you continue to stoop so low in this way whilst [playing with](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th…) the [lives of others](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th…).

As nobody else will read this besides you, what Connelly did to the MWP was despicable.

Buoyed up by his success the man would have gone on to wipe out the LIA and the Roman Warm Period. As young people rarely read history books and source wiki for convenience, even you would have to agree it would have been an easy con.

el gordo writes:

>*what Connelly did to the MWP was despicable.*

Ok if you insist on behaving [like a creep](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…), What did Connelly do? I've already pointed out how you could gather any evidence to support your case, but as is your preference you instead assert baseless propaganda.

You are an empty propagandist el gordo, and a shameful approximation of what you could be.

Tabletop is distorting Peiser, why am I not surprised? Wiki really is in the hands of zealots.

El gordo, I'll that that as confirmation that you have no evidence to support your smears of Connolley. What a surprise.

And you're employing your Orwellian doublespeak for such an honourable cause, in pursuit of a game, your own entertainment, playing with the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of the most vulnerable.

It would be difficult to think any less of you.

El gullibo,

So you now are believing in a conspiracy?

No loopy. There is no organised conspiracy that I'm aware of, just individual zealots protecting the faith.

el gullibo,

So now that you don't really think there is a wiki conspiracy.

Will you be appolgising to Dr Connolley? Or will you continue your zealous protection of your faith with ill-founded smears?

197 El Gordo,

What are you on about now? More from your fevered imagination?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 28 Dec 2009 #permalink

A smattering of conservative hokum has been a regular feature of the Washington Post for years now, in what seems to be an editorial initiative to prevent the Washington Times from drawing enough of a following to de-marginalise itself.

By vaffangool (not verified) on 15 Aug 2014 #permalink