catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

ClimateGate heading for the courts

with 98 comments

If this goes to court it’ll get very ugly and I can’t see it ending well.

This is why I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research.

It turns out the US has a False Claims Act whereby whistleblowers get to keep a portion of any money recovered from individuals who get public money by making false statements. So it looks like ‘hide the decline’ will be tested in court. A clear explanation of the legislation and process can be found here.

The False Claims Act permits whistleblowers to sue in the name of the government as a “qui tam” plaintiff. Qui tam whistleblowers have used the FCA for decades to police (some would say hound) government contractors accused of obtaining government money by means of false statements. What’s the non-altruistic incentive for exposing fraud on the government? Successful whistleblowers can keep a share of the money that a federal judge or jury says should be paid back to the government, sometimes up to 30% of the recovery. Indeed, whistleblowers have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in these suits over the last 20 years.

There is no reason this legal tool can’t be used against unscrupulous professors, scientists, and “green jobs” hucksters who knowingly submit false statements to get government grants that fund their research, fuel their green-tech start-ups, and underwrite their proselytizing about supposed man-made climate change.

Importantly, false statements necessary to justify a False Claims Act suit don’t have to involve the same type of data-manipulation exposed in the current ClimateGate scandal. A climate-fraud FCA case could be made out of any type of false statement made in order to get or keep government money. Government grants and contracts typically involve a significant amount of ongoing certification of compliance with bureaucratic restrictions – think of a government contractor’s progress reports or a hospital’s never-ending stream of paperwork assuring that all is in order – and false statements in this paperwork may open the door to a lawsuit.

I had thought that people would first start suing the alt.energy firms looking at statements they had made in their prospectuses, but the first move I am aware of is going after the scientists themselves. As best I can see Michael Mann is in their targets, but Phil Jones should be worried too.

I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years.

What is going to make this particularly interesting is that Mann will be sued in his personal capacity – his employer is a state-based organisation and can’t be sued under this federal legislation. I’m wondering if their litigation insurance would apply in this situation?

At the core of the case will be a whistleblower (one of Mann’s former trusted colleagues) v Mann (and perhaps others). On trial will be their working relationship, work practices and academic procedures. As I said above, this will be ugly and involve a lot of ‘he-said, she-said’ type argument. So overall I do have mixed feeling on this; the AGW lobby did bring it upon themselves, they played very hard with little regard for playing the man or the ball. But the collateral damage these actions will do to their home institutions and disciplines is also very high. Part of the problem is that the AGW lobby corrupted the governance mechanisms of their home institutions and disciplines in pursuit of their narrow self-interested objectives as opposed to playing within the governance mechanisms.

Advertisements

Written by Sinclair Davidson

January 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

98 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What is going to make this particularly interesting is that Mann will be sued in his personal capacity – his employer is a state-based organisation and can’t be sued under this federal legislation. I’m wondering if their litigation insurance would apply in this situation?

    Even so, I honestly couldn’t imagine the senior management of the university would be at all pleased seeing their insurance rates going up by multiples if this happens. In fact it will send a chill wind right through the academic community as all insurance premiums will go up.

    Like Houston, Mick has a problem here whether or not the insurance carrier covers the legal fees. You can also be sure that the firm would be doing its best to avoid the call.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:12 pm

  2. It will be interesting to see whether going to law will clarify the situation or just make thinks more messy.

    In retrospect, the corruption of the scientists was first apparent from the scandalous treatment of Lomborg’s book which indicated that things were getting better on many indicators of the status of the environment.

    Rafe

    January 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  3. At the core of the case will be a whistleblower (one of Mann’s former trusted colleagues) v Mann (and perhaps others).

    So you are you assuming that someone will come forward, or is there something there that I missed? As I all I can see on this that they’ve made a request for whistleblowers.

    Steve Edney

    January 6, 2010 at 2:01 pm

  4. Yea they have Steve, the deal is that they get a % of the grant money if it turns out to be deemed as fraudulent activity by the courts.

    It’s not a lousy amount either as it could be in the many millions.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  5. Steve – yes that is the assumption. I started off by saying ‘If this goes to court…’.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm

  6. Low odds this results in anything. Couldn’t any climate defector have earned similar rewards from the big bad oil companies had they defected earlier? I’m not sure the game has changed much.

    Eric Crampton

    January 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm

  7. Nah, betcha it comes to very little.
    Firstly the facts are probably too wobbly to result in success at law and secondly anyone who acts will have his or her name written on an oyster shell.

    Would be good to watch, though.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm

  8. I don’t think it will go anywhere either but it might make them pull their heads in.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm

  9. Sound familiar?

    The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

    Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.

    Extraordinary and, frankly, weird. Climate scientists are naturally upset, exasperated, and sometimes goaded into intemperate responses… but that was already easy to see in their blogs and other writings.

    Spencer Weart

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 4:10 pm

  10. “we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.”

    That is because no one not engaging in hyperbole is actually making such a bold claim against a whole community.

    “Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.”

    Yes, it is “extraordinary and, frankly, weird” that otherwise intelligent people are avoiding the particular malfeasance of specified individuals by pretending that these claims are conspiratorial and directed at an entire community.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  11. we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
    .
    we’ve never before had evidence of it.
    .
    anyway, this might be a first for scientists per se, but this is not history’s first instance of “deliberate deception”. Scientists are not gods, they’re just guys with jobs in research.

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 4:48 pm

  12. So called climate sceptics thrive on hyperbole eg Plimer “the biggest scientific fraud in history.”

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 4:54 pm

  13. we’ve never before had evidence of it.
    .
    And still don’t. 🙂

    Adrien

    January 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm

  14. “So called climate sceptics thrive on hyperbole eg Plimer “the biggest scientific fraud in history.””

    Rog, you’re like a WW2 Russian general boasting about your division but only ever taking the field when opposed by the Romanians. You either focus on Plimer or Bolt but ignore the criticisms made by the likes of Lindzen, Pielke Snr, McIntyre, Spencer, Christy, and the like. This betrays a lack of confidence in your own position.

    And so far as hyperbole is concerned, alarmists have exhibited a peculiar mastery themselves.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 5:10 pm

  15. Seriously, Adrien, do you imagine the following narrative doesn’t at the least intimate professional malfeasance?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm

  16. Lindzen? he is another lunatic denying the link between smoking and cancer

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 5:19 pm

  17. SO DB is or is not Plimer correct?

    Should be easy enough to answer, just a “Yes” or a “No” would suffice.

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  18. yes

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 5:23 pm

  19. “Lindzen? he is another lunatic denying the link between smoking and cancer”

    Who cares? You didn’t seem to care about Romm’s weird ideas, but Linzden got one weird idea so his views on something he is a Professor of are invalid?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 5:26 pm

  20. “Lindzen? he is another lunatic denying the link between smoking and cancer”

    Breathtaking; he is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT but Rog thinks he’s a lunatic.

    “SO DB is or is not Plimer correct?

    Should be easy enough to answer, just a “Yes” or a “No” would suffice.”

    Is Plimer correct about what? I criticised his recent performance on Lateline and in the time I’ve criticized AGW on Catallaxy hardly brought him up. This must be another of your strawmen.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 5:36 pm

  21. SRL,

    I do believe you should read Fromm again and then understand what the word irony means.

    IT has happened before on this blog only last time it involved Sinkers criticising Krugman.

    Any person who denies a link between smoking and cancer is a lunatic

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 6, 2010 at 6:59 pm

  22. DB – Seriously, Adrien, do you imagine the following narrative doesn’t at the least intimate professional malfeasance?
    .
    No. It appears that there’s some kind of politically motivated bias amongst the editors of a scientific journal. I’m not sure what the full story is nor does it seem too Earth shattering. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that this indicates a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists to fuck up the global economy however.
    .
    It also must be said that the will to distort the facts of this issue is ubiquitous. It’s actually very difficult to get information untainted by ideological defaults which have nothing to do with the science.
    .
    I know that the Left do it of course. An LP contributor lost his temper with me when I asked him what his views would be if we were suddenly able to see that solar irradiation levels had been rising since 1850. This is grounded in the deep human need to be right about everything. But that need is not exclusive to the Left is it?

    Adrien

    January 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm

  23. So what are you saying Butters? An AGW alarmist several stupid ideas is merely “ironic”, but a sceptic with one stupid idea is clearly a “lunatic”?

    Look up “double standards” in your thesaurus.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 7:48 pm

  24. No it is not Adrien.

    Remember the trigammon, GMB?

    On the issue of solar forcings/sunspots, look here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TwentiethCenturyTemperatureCorrelationupdate.pdf

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 7:51 pm

  25. Now you are pretending to be stupid DB and doing a very good job of it – a simple yes or no is too much to ask for

    “the biggest scientific fraud in history.”

    SRL, if we are to keep the discussion to technical matters not personality traits there wouldnt be much to say on catallaxy?

    This so called libertarianism seems to be a stalking horse for Liberals

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  26. Mrs Edelsten now hates Liberals.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm

  27. Any person who denies a link between smoking and cancer is a lunatic.

    Anti-lunatic campaigner Homer backed Mark Latham for the prime ministership in 2004.

    Mark Latham.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 8:39 pm

  28. Question: is Plimer correct about “the biggest scientific fraud in history.”
    .
    Answer: yes.
    .
    But it doesn’t involve “thousands” of scientists as so many say with their eyes popping out and a high pitched inflection to emphasise their incredulousness. Most scientists in the area are relying on the core findings of a few.

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 8:42 pm

  29. This is grounded in the deep human need to be right about everything. But that need is not exclusive to the Left is it?
    .
    no, but I can truthfully claim to have changed my mind on almost every important political, ideological and epistemological issue of our time at least once. some, more than once.

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 8:45 pm

  30. SRL, that document at climaterealists.com is drivel.

    The key phrases are

    * “…. Correlation with no CO2 influence.” – How? How did they remove the CO2 influence? They don’t say.

    * “sunspot time integral” – unexplained and no bounds given on the ‘integration’

    * “Calculated, using PDO and sunspot time integral” – no explanation for how these two are combined.

    * “The influence of the sunspots is determined by an energy balance on the planet” – unexplained and given that solar irradiance, a basic input to energy balance calculations, isn’t mentioned this is a likely a ‘determination’ completely void of physical reality. They’re just making it up and playing with numbers.

    * “The
    extension of this line [their calculation] beyond the present [out to 2040] assumes that future sunspot count is zero [until 2040]” – that is a ludicrous assumption.

    * “The energy
    difference is divided by a constant, 4000, to get a value close to the temperature
    anomalies”

    This last one is beyond stupid and is pure numerology. Energy is not temperature, it does not have the same dimensions (and dimensional analysis is taught in 4th Form science – at least it was when I was at school).

    Now here’s the real deal:- solar irradiance varies 0.1% over the sunspot cycle. From cycle to cycle over the 20th Century it varied … 0%

    There is no change in solar irradiance, the sun is not getting brighter and is not responsible for the change in temperature.

    JM

    January 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm

  31. Energy is not temperature
    .
    Heat is a form of energy, and temperature measures heat.
    .
    Would you agree with that, oh patronising one?
    Was that in your fourth form science class?

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 9:40 pm

  32. Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.

    You receive that sort of comment from MIT graduate students. Homer and Mrs Edelsten say you’re a loon.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 10:32 pm

  33. Energy is not temperature, it does not have the same dimensions
    .
    Here’s a fourth grade science question for you, JM. How many dimensions does energy have?

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm

  34. JM,

    Irradience is not the whole story of solar variation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

    I think we know more about anthropogenic greenhouse gases than we do solar forcing.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 10:45 pm

  35. SRL, JM doesn’t actually understand physics, so I wouldn’t get too deep into that discussion. Just warning you before you invest a lot of energy

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 11:04 pm

  36. Semi Regular Libertarian.

    Whoops! – Wikipedia sources totally unreliable as recent censorship has proved.
    Try this for Solar Effects – Henrik Svensmark.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/what_do_we_really_know_about_the_sun-climate_connection_.html

    Nick Mabbs

    January 6, 2010 at 11:39 pm

  37. From Bishop hill Blog:

    Doc. Pach Lifestyle guru

    How to live life, by RK Pachauri

    Interviewed on the BBC, lifestyle guru RK Pachauri had this to say:

    I think my vision of a good life is one where you spend enough time on friendship, on time with family, on exercising a certain level of restraint, by which you don’t consume for the sake of consuming. Before the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, I was interviewed by Kevin Spacey and he asked me a whole lot of questions about whether I had done my holiday shopping and I said, well, I have no plans because I only buy what I need. But that’s exactly what I do – I never buy something unless I feel I need it.

    Like the house in India’s millionaires row for example.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:46 pm

  38. DD: ” How many dimensions does energy have?”

    I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant.

    Dimensional analysis just checks the quantities on the left hand side of an equation to make sure they are the same as those on the right.

    Simple example: my height in cm + my weight in kilo = x

    What is x measured in? Nothing, because you can’t add length to mass and get a meaningful number. It’s gibberish.

    But to answer your question.

    For energy: dimensions = ML^2T^-2, units = joules
    For temperature: dimensions = (none), units = Kelvin
    For sunspot numbers: dimensions = (none), units = integers

    where M = mass, L = length, T = time

    The paper proposes

    Energy ~ (SunspotNumber – Temperature^4)/4000

    (more or less, he’s not very clear about what he’s doing)

    Left hand side has dimensions ML^2T^-2, right hand side has (none).

    It’s gibberish. Numerology.

    (And don’t get me started on what he does with PDO trends where he treats up-trends differently from down-trends)

    SRL: “I think we know more about anthropogenic greenhouse gases than we do solar forcing.”

    So now denialists are claiming that the science of AGW is better understood than nuclear physics and thermodynamics?????

    ROTFLMFAO!

    I reiterate:- there has been no change in solar irradiance. Temperature has however increased. The sun is not responsible.

    JM

    January 7, 2010 at 3:33 am

  39. JM I started to write you a long earnest reply, but this is very tedious. Temperature has one dimension (the number on the temperature scale), and measures heat energy, which also has one dimension (the amount). Dimensional analysis is beside the point.
    .
    So now denialists are claiming that the science of AGW is better understood than nuclear physics and thermodynamics?????
    .
    Only the denialists of your imagination.
    And on another note, I don’t believe you actually Rolled On The Floor From Laughing Your Ass Off.

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 8:41 am

  40. DD, your ignorance is showing. degrees Kelvin != Joules energy

    Temperature has no dimensions but one scale of measure.
    Energy has the dimensions of ML^2T-2, and one scale of measure.

    Just because they both – like everything else – have a single scale of measure, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

    JM

    January 7, 2010 at 8:52 am

  41. Rog:

    “Now you are pretending to be stupid DB and doing a very good job of it – a simple yes or no is too much to ask for”

    Why, thank you, but at least in my case I have to pretend; to you, it comes naturally. To answer your question: No. I’ve always thought they were sincere in their beliefs but that they were rather underhanded in the manner they promoted them.

    Adrien:

    “No. It appears that there’s some kind of politically motivated bias amongst the editors of a scientific journal. I’m not sure what the full story is nor does it seem too Earth shattering. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that this indicates a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists to fuck up the global economy however.”

    No? Politically motivated bias by an journal editor is professional malfeasance. I have never said this indicates “worldwide conspiracy”. Anyway, why focus on the claim of a “worldwide conspiracy” when we have clear evidence of professional malfeasance before us? Its almost as if unless we uncover a monstrous octopus centred at the CRU with tentacles connected globally, people such as yourself would be prefer to continuing imagining that there is in fact nothing going on that is at all questionable. It is as if there is nothing between innocent scientists doing their job and a “worldwide conspiracy.”

    dover_beach

    January 7, 2010 at 9:11 am

  42. JM, the CLOUD experiment at CERN should lets us know a little more about the complicated manner in which the sun interacts with climate in the next 6 months. The experiments, I believe are being conducted as we blog.

    dover_beach

    January 7, 2010 at 9:16 am

  43. Can’t read the link to see what they are claiming, but JM is completely right that temperature and energy including heat are not the same thing.

    Temperature is a measure of the average energy in a substance (usually kinetic energy). Heat is a quantity of thermal energy transfer.

    They are not the same thing. Different substances have different specific heat capacities, and particularly for gases this is a function of their current temperature and pressure, and how constrained each of these quantities is.

    Steve Edney

    January 7, 2010 at 9:20 am

  44. DD says:

    Heat is a form of energy, and temperature measures heat

    I’d be wary of criticising JM’s understanding of physics when you are making clangers like this.

    Steve Edney

    January 7, 2010 at 9:22 am

  45. JM is completely right that temperature and energy including heat are not the same thing.
    .
    okay, fair enough.

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 9:23 am

  46. I’d be wary of criticising JM’s understanding of physics when you are making clangers like this
    .
    it’s hardly a clanger… sloppy perhaps.

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 9:28 am

  47. This is an interesting piece of data regarding NH snow cover:

    Dec 09 third highest level of snow cover in period 1966-2009.

    dover_beach

    January 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

  48. noted denialists ( and irony deficients) Forrest and CL are now believing smoking has no connection to cancer.

    People just get loopier and loopier defending the indefensible

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 7, 2010 at 11:17 am

  49. noted denialists ( and irony deficients) Forrest and CL are now believing smoking has no connection to cancer.

    You really are a low rent grubby dishonest little liar, Homer. You know I’ve never said anything of the sort. That’s all you and that other dishonest grub (Rogette) are let with now.

    People just get loopier and loopier defending the indefensible

    You mean like you defending a crazed maniac abusing women by called them skanky ho’s or you emotional, gut wrenching defense of nazi economics? You mean that loopy, you low rent moron.

    jc

    January 7, 2010 at 11:31 am

  50. like JM, you’re putting words into people’s mouths.

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 11:32 am

  51. “So now denialists are claiming that the science of AGW is better understood than nuclear physics and thermodynamics?????”

    What am I denying JM? I am saying that we understand atmospheric drivers better than the influence of solar variation in it’s entirety.

    What that means for policy is that we could under state or overstate costs and benefits of mitigation or the price for carbon if one is justified.

    If you think because we understand how a nuclear reactor works means we completely understand the sun, sorry but you are wrong.

    Steve,

    “Can’t read the link to see what they are claiming”

    There is a correlation between sunspot numbers (with variation around the mean of temperatures) and temperatures. It may be spurious, to the idea that temperature drives sunspot numbers seems impossible.

    JM fails to understand that I am not talking about irradience per se (to which UV has increased, according to wiki) but solar variation, which drives a lot more than simply how much infra red light we get on earth.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 7, 2010 at 11:42 am

  52. ” climate sceptics thrive on hyperbole”

    Say, did you see that Al Gore movie? Not a bit of hype in that, no sir. Not one tiny little bit.

    Some Guy

    January 7, 2010 at 12:41 pm

  53. Say, did you see that Al Gore movie?
    .
    That’s the movie that Richard Dawkins recommended people should watch when he was asked about the science of climate change.

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 1:37 pm

  54. Some more interesting analysis of temp and rainfall datasets is undertaken by applying a Chow test:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050/#more-14854

    Eyeballing their graph, it looks like they predict no more than a 0.3-04 C rise in temp to 2100.

    dover_beach

    January 7, 2010 at 1:41 pm

  55. SRL your claim was: “I think we know more about anthropogenic greenhouse gases than we do solar forcing.”

    My response – expressed in internet vernacular – was on the contrary, we know more about solar forcing and more accurately than the total effects of greenhouse gases on climate. Solar forcing is only one (small) part of AGW, anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2 are by far the largest contributors.

    We know the sun very well.

    For example, we know that TSI (total solar irradiance) varies about 0.1% over the sunspot cycle, that a component of this – irradiance in the UV spectrum – varies a bit more, that TSI over the 20th century varied very little, and the TSI is now only very marginally above that present during the Maunder Minimum, a period with no sunspots. Your wiki reference documents all of this.

    And we know scadloads of stuff about electromagnetic radiation and can calculate the amount of the suns radiation incident on the earth very accurately. We even measure it directly these days.

    I don’t think you meant to claim that climate science was better understood than straight up radiative physics. But that’s what you did and that’s why I was laughing.

    The sun is not to blame. It hasn’t changed, but temperatures here on earth have. The only serious candidate for forcing that has changed is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. End of story.

    dover and Nick: I know about CLOUD.

    According to CERN, as at October 2006 (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html) prototype results were expected during 2007 but as far as I can tell none have been reported.

    There was also supposed to be a “Technical Proposal” at the end of 2006, followed by a “Technical Design Report” at the end of 2007, but neither has emerged.

    Last time I looked (several minutes ago) their website (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/) hadn’t been updated since May 2006.

    And during the last couple of years Svensmark’s ideas have taken a real beating and look pretty ragged.

    I don’t know how seriously this project is being pursued now

    JM

    January 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm

  56. Er Forrest you have twice now defended loopy idiots who believe that there is no link between smoking and cancer.
    if you believe that smoke to your heart’s content.

    Forrest you have been ample time to justify your pathetic statement that Latham knew what the rap version of Skanky ho meant.

    As usual in all things you still cannot justify indeed no-one can.
    Not surprising in that both his diaries and the two staffers both say he had no idea of the rap version.

    As for Germany please just give ONE academic that backs your demented view that Germany did not get out of the depression.

    Once an idiot always an idiot

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 7, 2010 at 7:45 pm

  57. Hi homes , don’t the anti-stupid pills calm you down as you seem unusually animated for a loon this evening.

    Who exactly have I supported that believes in that linkage? You mean Dick Lindzen? So Dick said something really silly which is outside his field of knowledge and I’m supposed to discount everything he says, am I?

    If so then I guess you would also be hurtling stones at Jim Hansen for suggesting the executives the work in areas that cause emissions are guilty of crimes against humanity.

    Do you, you pure unadulterated dickhead? Ummm.

    Humans say stupid things at times. Very intelligent people say silly things infrequently while morons like you say dumb things every single day.

    Forrest you have been ample time to justify your pathetic statement that Latham knew what the rap version of Skanky ho meant.

    You’re kidding me, right, you clown. You actually are saying that as some sort of spoof aren’t you? You really can’t be serious.

    Not surprising in that both his diaries and the two staffers both say he had no idea of the rap version.

    Oh and you forgot, you were also telling people that it meant the mistress of an Asian warlord… it was well known in the NSW Labor right, you said.

    That claim is so preposterous that I’m left open mouthed in wonderment at how you can even know where you live from 100 feet away down the street.

    As for Germany please just give ONE academic that backs your demented view that Germany did not get out of the depression.

    We can of course debate that, but what I suggested was that I was disgusted by your views in the way fellow nazis treated jews by sticking them in labor camps. You said they were treated fine… intimating as though it was in 5 star accommodation.

    Once an idiot always an idiot

    Which is what I have been saying about you for years, homes.

    jc

    January 7, 2010 at 7:59 pm

  58. no disguising your idiocy.

    You defended the idiot as idiots always do. It is the second time you have defended an idiot who says that there is no link between smoking and cancer.

    yep still cannot find any evidence to support your contention that Latham knew the rap version of skanky ho but you continue to bluster about it.

    oops since I said my version of it quite a number of times there would be considerable evidence that my version was wrong however nothing there either.
    Why am I not surprised.

    No Forrest you are simply lying your head off again.

    I have talked about the RAD often enough but that is well before Jews are put into concentration camps for being Jews i.e. 1938.

    you are so consistent.
    You get caught out and you lie ,obfuscate , parade your ignorance trying to hope your words escape you.

    you are a pathetic human being.A classic example of projection

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 7, 2010 at 8:09 pm

  59. What exactly am I disguising, you douche. I agreed and said it was a silly to say. However on the balance of probabilities he would say far less stupid things than you do.

    Do you have a link to what he said exactly as I really want to see it rather than accept your word for it as a result of you being a dishonest clown.

    You also said the fellow Nazis treated the Jews well.

    You really are a beta male, Homes. In fact you give all betas a bad name.

    jc

    January 7, 2010 at 8:12 pm

  60. hey Lier go ahead and find a quote where I said the Nazis treated the Jews well.

    You are given plenty of time to show evidence for any of the stupid things you say but you just never ever give any evidence.

    You simply go ahead and either lie about something more or attempt to change the topic

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 7, 2010 at 8:32 pm

  61. Homer, JC. Please stop. Let’s move on.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 7, 2010 at 8:34 pm

  62. I defend Isaac Newton! His ideas on Gravity were groundbreaking. (therefore, I have defended someone who believes in astrology)
    I defend Pablo Picasso! His art was brilliant (therefore I have defended an unscrupulous womanizer)
    I defend Albert Einstein! for all kinds of reasons! (therefore I have defended someone who “denied” the reality of quantum mechanics).
    .
    need I go on?
    How many do I have to do before Homer’s ridiculous logical fallacy is illustrated?

    daddy dave

    January 7, 2010 at 11:38 pm

  63. DD, you argue that

    a. person X (Newton, Piccasso, Einstein) was right on a true, subsequently proven idea A
    b. person X also holds/held discredited idea B
    c. person X also holds/held unproven idea C

    Therefore their beliefs on B do not discredit their ideas on C

    You’re right, but it doesn’t prove C either.

    Particularly in the face of evidence that does disprove C (or at least make it unlikely)

    Your argument is the argument from authority in an extreme form. X is a guru, therefore anything they say must be true, even if it is outside their field of authority.

    Just because a person has one good idea doesn’t mean all their ideas are good.

    JM

    January 8, 2010 at 3:20 am

  64. Just because a person has one good idea doesn’t mean all their ideas are good.

    isn’t that what DD is saying crafted in another way.

    Just because some guy in this case Dick lindzen said something silly outside his field doesn’t mean everything he says inside his field is silly or should be assumed to be.

    That’s why he’s calling Homer’s fallacy ridiculous or in his case moronic?

    jc

    January 8, 2010 at 3:32 am

  65. oh you idiot.
    I was disproving Homer’s logic, who thinks that because someone agrees with Lindzen on global warming, they must also be endorsing his views on smoking and cancer.
    ,
    X is a guru, therefore anything they say must be true
    .
    That would only be true if I believed in astrology. Do you hear that whooshing sound? that’s the point flying over your head.

    daddy dave

    January 8, 2010 at 7:57 am

  66. “There was also supposed to be a “Technical Proposal” at the end of 2006, followed by a “Technical Design Report” at the end of 2007, but neither has emerged.

    Last time I looked (several minutes ago) their website (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/) hadn’t been updated since May 2006.”

    And during the last couple of years Svensmark’s ideas have taken a real beating and look pretty ragged.

    I don’t know how seriously this project is being pursued now

    You might care to look at the following:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077

    The funding of a new chamber, etc. suggests to me they are taking this project somewhat seriously and that sometime between the experiment which commenced in Dec 09 and 2006 a technical proposal and a technical design report were submitted and approved. I’m looking forward to the result.

    There is an excellent presentation re this experiment given by Jasper Kirby here:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    Let me say, the suggestion that “Svensmark’s ideas have taken a real beating and look pretty ragged” is nothing more than that AGW folklore.

    dover_beach

    January 8, 2010 at 8:11 am

  67. OK, just hold that very point…

    …and stop applying it to anyone that has an idea or opinion that conflicts with your own.

    Until then its, you smoke = you are insane

    rog

    January 8, 2010 at 8:12 am

  68. Oops. In moderation and the end quotemarks should have followed the sentence ending …pursued now”.

    dover_beach

    January 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

  69. “Until then its, you smoke = you are insane”

    Doesn’t Obama occassional have a cigarette? Why then he must be ‘insane’.

    dover_beach

    January 8, 2010 at 8:17 am

  70. you smoke = you are insane
    .
    as an ex-smoker, I have a bit of understanding of smokers’ situation. It’s certainly a bad idea to start, but the bad decisions are mostly made at the front end before it’s a full-blown addiction.
    .
    OK, just hold that very point……and stop applying it to anyone that has an idea or opinion that conflicts with your own.
    .
    If I’ve been doing that, then yes I should stop.

    daddy dave

    January 8, 2010 at 8:58 am

  71. You smoke = you are insane

    That reminds me of Jeremy Clarke’s story in the Speccie about how he went to his therapist confessing to a weekend of heavy alcohol and drug consumption, only to be congratulated heartily because throughout this period of indulgence he’d resisted the urge to have a cigarette.

    Rococo Liberal

    January 8, 2010 at 9:40 am

  72. There is also an excellent documentary, called The Cloud Mystery, regarding Svensmark’s idea here:

    The viewer should note the reaction of the UK Met Office director in episode 3 or 4; he refers to the idea and experiment as “completely misconceived”. Similarly, the reaction of a former IPCC chair was also interesting, he suggest the idea was “irresponsible”.

    One should also note that regarding this theory, what is important are changes in solar geomagnetic activity, not, as JM erroneously claims, TSI.

    dover_beach

    January 8, 2010 at 10:44 am

  73. Dover thanks for those references, I haven’t seen them before, I’ll take a look.

    And ‘solar geomagnetic activity’ might be important to explaining changes in the sun (if any), but it is TSI that affects the earth. ‘solar geomagnetics’ = cause, TSI = effect

    In the meantime I refer you to the section “Debate and Controversy” on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark) where several challenges from 2007 and 2008 to Svensmarks ideas are discussed (with references if you’re interested).

    There’s also quite a skeptical review here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/still-not-convincing/ from 2009

    At a gut feel level, I personally think (and I’m not qualified to argue this but others who are have, and it feels right) there are several major problems:

    1. Cosmic ray flux hasn’t varied since we started measuring it in the 1930’s (while temperature has).

    2. A varying cosmic ray flux assumes a varying sun, but that hasn’t happened

    3. What evidence there is for changes in cloud cover is pretty poor, but it doesn’t indicate any significant change

    4. The scales of length are wrong (this is actually a pretty damming criticism)

    a.) The microseeds he postulates from cosmic ray interactions are about 3-4 orders of magnitude smaller than that required to seed cloud formation. He proposes that the microseeds “scale up” through unknown processes. He hasn’t identified what those processes might be.

    b.) He claims the “scaling up” to real cloud seeds occurs over a period of several days when it is generally agreed that the clouds themselves have lifetimes of only a few hours. Just doesn’t gell.

    5. He claims that his proposed cosmic ray effects act only on middle level clouds ignoring both high and low level clouds because:

    a.) higher level clouds appear transparent to cosmic ray effects

    b.) middle level clouds are opaque to cosmic ray effects and shield low level clouds.

    To me, 5a.) contradicts 5b.) and smacks of special pleading.

    JM

    January 8, 2010 at 7:29 pm

  74. JC: “isn’t that what DD is saying crafted in another way.”

    I think DD is trying to argue that a person who has a good idea in one area should be given credence in another, even if they have a record of bad ideas (apart from their one good one). ie. one good idea trumps a number of bad ones.

    Homer appears to be arguing the opposite that a bad idea (or a string of bad ideas) tells you something about the person’s judgement or capacity to reason outside their field and diminishes their credibility.

    JM

    January 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm

  75. Why don’t you write to Svensmark?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 8, 2010 at 7:37 pm

  76. think DD is trying to argue that a person who has a good idea in one area should be given credence in another, even if they have a record of bad ideas
    .
    no, the opposite.
    .
    Look at the thread. Homer (that’s Butterfield, Bloomfield and Bishop) has been doing his usual trick of attacking anyone who agrees with Lindzen about global warming, by referring to Lindzen’s beliefs about an unrelated matter.
    .
    that’s why I dragged out some examples of people who did exceptional work in one domain but were dummys in another. The fact that we agree with Lindzen about global warming does not mean we are on the Lindzen Express, for good or ill, and must defer to him on all matters.

    daddy dave

    January 8, 2010 at 7:56 pm

  77. “Homer (that’s Butterfield, Bloomfield and Bishop) has been doing his usual trick of attacking anyone who agrees with Lindzen about global warming, by referring to Lindzen’s beliefs about an unrelated matter.”

    Homer stole that trick from CL.

    Jarrah

    January 8, 2010 at 8:24 pm

  78. Got an example, Jarrah, or are you just running your usual ‘Bush/CL did it’ line of distraction?

    C.L.

    January 8, 2010 at 8:50 pm

  79. Jarrah if you’ve got unfinished business from an old thread, perhaps it’s best to let go.

    daddy dave

    January 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm

  80. “1. Cosmic ray flux hasn’t varied since we started measuring it in the 1930’s (while temperature has).

    2. A varying cosmic ray flux assumes a varying sun, but that hasn’t happened”

    Both statements are wrong. See the figures on pp. 8-9 of the following presentation:

    “3. What evidence there is for changes in cloud cover is pretty poor, but it doesn’t indicate any significant change”

    A 1-2% change in global cloud cover is all you need to effect a change in temp analogous to GHGs.

    “4. The scales of length are wrong (this is actually a pretty damming criticism)”

    Your 4a) and b) derived from RC seem to me too demanding. He and his team are not required to explain the effects of GCR across the whole chain of CCN formation, its enough to begin with that he show them for a few in order to demonstrate their role. This is not to say that these sort of questions shouldn’t require explanation in the near future.

    “5. He claims that his proposed cosmic ray effects act only on middle level clouds ignoring both high and low level clouds…”

    This is wrong. In the documentary I linked to above he suggests that the interaction actually influences the development of low level clouds.

    In summary, the reaction that people have to the work of Svensmark, Kirkby, Shaviv, etc. reveals to me, anyway, a siege mentality, and a fear of its implications for climate policy. Whether the solar/ GCR idea is right or wrong will be demonstrated in the fullness of time I’m sure.

    dover_beach

    January 9, 2010 at 9:42 am

  81. dover_beach

    January 9, 2010 at 9:43 am

  82. “Got an example, Jarrah”

    You’ve tapered off recently, but it’s still a staple trick of yours. It gets heavy rotation among Homer and Rog, though Phil got plenty when he/she was around and several others had their fair share.

    Homer mentions cancer and smoking, CL says “Anti-lunatic campaigner Homer backed Mark Latham for the prime ministership in 2004.”

    Rog mentions “border protection, Islam, AGW” and CL says “That’s new doctor’s wife, Rog. Here’s old Rog: [quotes Rog’s views on the ALP]”

    Homer mentions whaling, CL says “Homer is concerned about SS whale pirates but plays down the horror of Hitler’s Labour camps.

    Homer says “err fellahs he is echoing well known lefty John Humprey’s attack on the expenditure on the ‘war on terror’.” CL says “This is coming from Homer who backs a Democrat deficit bigger than the price of the Iraq War.”

    Rog mentions editorials, CL says “More of the famous accuracy that had Rog claiming last week that nuclear power had been made redundant by windmills.

    Homer accuses CL of lying about deficits, CL says “Homer, a person (like you) who sings the praises of Nazi labour camps is not in a position to accuse others of lying.”

    Etc, etc, etc.

    Jarrah

    January 9, 2010 at 1:46 pm

  83. Jarrah:

    Homer just didn’t mention “smoking and cancer”. He suggested that Richard Lindzen, perhaps one of the best climate scientists in the world and one of the few well known ones that actually does happen to be trained in atmospheric science wasn’t ever worthwhile listening to, because he may have said something silly about second-hand smoke.

    CL was basically giving examples (quite verifiable) that Homer is a loon. This isn’t unreasonable as far as propositions go, i might add.

    Rog has turned a 180, had a sex change and married to Dr. Edelsten and since then is now offering opinions opposite to those he did before his sex change of a few months ago.

    This too is reasonable for CL to bring up, as sex change or not, Rog/ now Edel should offer some idea as to how we reconcile the differences with his 180’s. I know we ought to be big hearted and offer gals such as Edel reasonable latitude in terms of contradiction but there are also limits to how much idiocy and inconsistencies one can endure…. even from Rogette- Edel as she likes to be called now.

    Lastly, it is quite correct to frequently bring up Homer’s contradictions in terms of supporting German labor camps for Jews (he does) when that conflicts with his other other illogical, incomprehensible babble.

    jc

    January 9, 2010 at 2:16 pm

  84. Jarrah, I think the “trick” is that whenever I say something you don’t like, you blame me (or possibly Bush). I recall your hilarious claim that Bushitler stole the 2004 election – though the topic had to do with something else entirely. Not much blame for Obama about anything, oddly.

    Further examples:

    Homer mentions cancer and smoking, CL says “Anti-lunatic campaigner Homer backed Mark Latham for the prime ministership in 2004.”

    I would have thought it obvious that I was imitating Homer’s strategy to point out how irrelevant was the subject of smoking. Instead of castigating Homer, Jarrah turns to me (Bush being out of office).

    Rog mentions “border protection, Islam, AGW” and CL says “That’s new doctor’s wife, Rog. Here’s old Rog: [quotes Rog’s views on the ALP]”

    No, sorry, but that doesn’t work. (Which is probably why you conveniently airbrushed Rog’s quote away). Rog’s full comment (edited by you) was a generalised trollish attack on everyone in lieu of making an argument:

    You guys are so predictable; border protection, Islam, AGW and you snap at the bait and are off running.

    Jarrah re-works this as “Rog mentions ‘border protection, Islam, AGW’.”

    Responding like to like, I reminded Rog of his views on “the left” – not, as you say, “his views on the ALP”:

    The facts of the matter are….the left completely stuffed up again, as usual.
    Couldnt organise a root in a brothel (well actually they have, but that was the ALP conference)

    Where’s my list…..

    health system fail
    economy fail
    foreign relations fail
    national security fail
    transport system fail
    water system fail
    credibilty fail (thats the BIG ONE)

    On it goes…

    My link and quote were a fair and germaine rebuttal of Rog’s credentials as a non-partisan, progressive commentator. So you lied.

    Homer mentions whaling, CL says “Homer is concerned about SS whale pirates but plays down the horror of Hitler’s Labour camps.”

    Again, you’ve airbrushed a comment, this time mine, and left out the part about the Homer/Hitler debate having been re-started at Catallaxy by others – not me. My comment:

    Homer is concerned about SS whale pirates but plays down the horror of Hitler’s Labour camps.

    Why the moral chasm?

    Because Kevin’s focus groups told him that luvvies cared about whales in 2007 and so he (hilariously) promised to shut down the Jap whaling industry. This is in the same category as his promise to end the nuclear arms race, cool the planet, give a laptop to every Aussie kiddy and NEVER EVER go into deficit.

    But providing the full quote would have shown I was indeed on topic – so you lied again.

    Homer says “err fellahs he is echoing well known lefty John Humprey’s attack on the expenditure on the ‘war on terror’.” CL says “This is coming from Homer who backs a Democrat deficit bigger than the price of the Iraq War.”

    Again, sorry – that doesn’t work either. The thread topic (which you conveniently failed to provide) was the Cornelia Rau affair and the notion of “reasonable suspicion.” Rog introduced the subject of deaths by bee stings (inter alia) – ?? – and Homer introduced the subject of expenditures and war (??). I responded by pointing out that Homer had earlier been defending deficits larger than the price of the Iraq War (entirely appropriately) – before later going on to affirm Sinclair’s view:

    Sinclair, I tend to agree with you on this subject. It was a cock-up of large and worrying proportions. Clearly, there need to be accountable procedures in place to protect the liberty of citizens. It’s possible too that Miss Rau and her guardians must also accept responsibility for what transpires when she is abroad in society. She was arrested in Jordan for erratic behaviour in February 2009.

    I’m not really comfortable with Joe Q. Bureaucrat making judgements about “reasonable suspicion’ at all and if he does, I expect a decision involving the detention of persons to be reviewed juridically (and independently) in very short order.

    It’s fair to say that – again – you have lied.

    Rog mentions editorials, CL says “More of the famous accuracy that had Rog claiming last week that nuclear power had been made redundant by windmills.”

    Again – no. Rog didn’t “mention” editorials. In the New Year’s Open Thread, I posted this link to an MSNBC business article on a potentially looming inflationary crisis. Rog’s response: “CL should stop reading editorials. Oops.” I responded:

    I haven’t posted an editorial, Rog.

    Oops.

    More of the famous accuracy that had Rog claiming last week that nuclear power had been made redundant by windmills.

    Note: you again totally lied about and airbrushed away relevant details. I wasn’t responding to Rog. He was responding to me.

    Homer accuses CL of lying about deficits, CL says “Homer, a person (like you) who sings the praises of Nazi labour camps is not in a position to accuse others of lying.”

    Again – you’re lying via omission. The subject of Homer’s troubling atraction to Nazism was re-introduced by others and became a Catallaxy theme du jour. Apart from dishonestly leaving out mention of the multiple rebuttals of Homer’s argument that I posted, you imply (absurdly) that if one person accuses another of lying, no reminder of that person’s actual (rather than imaginary) dishonesty (on any subject) is permissible.

    So then: Jarrah – who has always obsessively zeroed on everything I write – has once again allowed his obsession to cloud an already slender grasp on veracity. To say nothing of the fact that he appears to have no opinions on any of the many subjects presently current at the site.

    C.L.

    January 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm

  85. CL now: “you lied…you lied again….you have lied…you again totally lied…you’re lying via omission.”

    CL earlier: “when someone starts over-pressing the “lies” button as frequently as you’re doing, it usually means they’re struggling.”

    You can’t have it both ways.

    “Jarrah – who has always obsessively zeroed on everything I write…he appears to have no opinions on any of the many subjects presently current at the site.”

    So which is it? I obsessively respond to everything you write, or I don’t make enough responses anymore? You can’t have it both ways.

    And I can’t tell if you are being deliberately ironic by bringing up an unrelated opinion of mine in a defense to being accused of doing just that! LOL

    You can parse the examples you asked for all you like, and find fault with individual ones, but the fact remains that you persistently bring up someone’s beliefs about unrelated matters in order to bolster your weaker arguments (I guess it’s an insecurity thing). Just like Homer. Looks like you are in good company.

    Jarrah

    January 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

  86. I didn’t ‘press the lie button’ in the manner of Bird’s famous custom; I demonstrated that you were lying. So you have again been dishonest and you have again shown that you have no interest in any of Catallaxy’s current topics but are only concerned with obsessively stalking me.

    Here is another example of your dishonestly:

    I wrote:

    So then: Jarrah – who has always obsessively zeroed on everything I write – has once again allowed his obsession to cloud an already slender grasp on veracity. To say nothing of the fact that he appears to have no opinions on any of the many subjects presently current at the site.

    Jarrah responds:

    So which is it? I obsessively respond to everything you write, or I don’t make enough responses anymore? You can’t have it both ways.

    I said you a) obsessively respond to everything I write (you do); and b) that you show no interest in contributing to the many other topics on site. I did not write that you “don’t make enough responses [to me] anymore” – which is the corruption you invented to facilitate a one-liner about me not having it both ways.

    It is you who is channelling Homer, not me.

    You can parse the examples you asked for all you like, and find fault with individual ones, but the fact remains that you persistently bring up someone’s beliefs about unrelated matters in order to bolster your weaker arguments (I guess it’s an insecurity thing).

    I wasn’t ‘parsing’ “examples.” I was proving that you lied several times, including by ommission, editing and in one case, a complete reversal of sequence. (Rog responded to me with irrelevance, not me to him).

    Finally, for sheer hypocrisy it takes the breath away for you to decry alleged OT distractions by furiously cutting and pasting (edited) quotes by me from other threads in a post on ClimateGate. You appear to have insecurity issues, not me.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  87. Err fellahs I only said a person who believes there is no link ( or words to that effect) and cancer is a loony.

    As for anything to do with Germany before WW2 we have only ignorance or lies from anyone else here as I have constantly shown.

    One favourite of CL and Forrest is to conflate labour camps ( this is predominantly camps made up of people from Conquered nations and /or Jews after 1938) with labour services programs eg the RAD.

    The first mistake could be put down to ignorance. Given this re-occurs it is merely a Goebellian lie ironically enough.

    showing up mistakes of CL/Forrest etc is a regular occurance indeed it becomes boring.

    CL and Forrest still think the deficits of Reagan/Bush is the same at today.

    Ignorance say no more

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm

  88. I don’t “conflate” anything, Homer. Rarely do I participate in your ongoing conversation about the putative genius of Nazi economics. On a few occasions, I have pointed out that Nazi economics can only “work” if we’re also willing to default on all our international financial responsibilities (like Hitler), launch an re-armament campaign contrary to law, expel the Jews, set up labour camps and invade Poland. For you to compare your critics to Goebbels – a man whose responsibilities included lying about the true state of the German economy – is revolting.

    I haven’t made any comment on Reagan’s deficits. I pointed out that Obama has tripled the deficit and that you personally subscribe to the following theory on budgetry policy:

    Labor/Democrat deficits: good.
    Liberal/Republican deficits: bad.

    I have also pointed out that you were a zealous supporter of GroceryWatch and FuelWatch – two of the most ridiculued and utterly useless policies recently seen in Australian politics. You supported them because you can’t bear to criticise Kevin.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm

  89. CL says “Homer, a person (like you) who sings the praises of Nazi labour camps is not in a position to accuse others of lying.”

    CL says he doesn’t conflate anything.

    oops caught lying again.

    look up when the first ‘default’ occurred and look up any other countries that did so.

    oops.

    Re-armament is highly debatable, labour camps well that has been dealt with, invasion of Poland 1939 how is this relevant to Germany getting out of the Depression. Well is isn’t of course but that is what CL does.

    Well CL if you wish to compare the RAD to Labour camps you are a Goebbels and yes that is revolting.

    Labour deficits good. oops what about Keating’s. oh dear CL has a bad memory.

    Yes bush’s deficit were bad as the times were good.

    Yes the deficit is good now as the times are bad.

    No you have not and never will show the Obama programs that triple the deficit.
    I have in fact showed the Bush programs that have done that.

    Yes and I showed your criticism of both ‘watch was very poor as usual.

    Can’t criticise the ALP. oh dear he has forgotten the only decent criticism of their first budget.

    oops

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm

  90. You were talking about conflating labour camps with RAD and accused me of having done so. That is a lie. I’ve rarely participated in the Nazi economics question – mostly because I felt sorry for you because you’d made such a goose of yourself. You comprehensively lost that debate more than a year ago.

    Re-armament is highly debatable.

    Really? Interesting idea: we’re not sure the Nazis re-armed now. Mmm. OK. (*Backs away slowly – avoiding eye contact*).

    What is revolting is your track record of casual flippancy about a brutal totalitarian regime that achieved “full employment” by defaulting on its financial responsibilities, lying, setting up slave labour camps, abolishing the rule of law, creating a one party state and murdering anybody who got in the way.

    Yes bush’s deficit were bad as the times were good.

    Yes the deficit is good now as the times are bad.

    Oh, that’s interesting because you were saying that the present deficit was all Bush’s fault but you have also argued that the current deficit saved the world economy. So you’re actually saying that Bush saved the world economy. Thanks, Bush! Oops.

    Here’s that WaPo/CBO graph showing how Obama has tripled the deficit. The CBO has also costed Obama’s health care bribes in the billions and warned that he may end up quadrupling the deficit. Obama is the worst fiscal deadbeat in American history.

    You don’t deny that you enthusiastically praised the almost universally ridiculed FuelWatch and GroceryWatch. Good. Thank you.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm

  91. CL you have just been caught lying. it is a direct quote old son.

    you are conflating labour camps with the RAD. The former I have not talked about ( it is well after Germany got out of the Depression after all), the second well I am the ONLY person around here to have read the ONLY book written about it.

    Re-armament being the reason for Germany getting out the the Depression not debatable perhaps you should tel that to Peter Temin or Richard Overy etc perhaps.

    No old son I never said the Deficit incurred by Bush because of the GFC was bad I merely showed it was mostly his. oops

    Come on show us the policies that tripled the deficit.
    Oh that is right you cannot.

    Yep I like both set of watches and no it was universally condemned

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm

  92. Lindzens credibility has been further weakened by his latest work; it contained flawed methods of measurement so could be manipulated to achieve the result you wish for.

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 5:19 pm

  93. Err fellahs I only said a person who believes there is no link ( or words to that effect) and cancer is a loony
    .
    the key being “or words to that effect.” I believe he is on record as saying that the correlation has been overstated, not that it doesn’t exist.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  94. rog, if you want to argue the toss on methods of measurement in climate science, head on over to climateaudit.org, will you? I’m sure they’ll be agog with interest at your insights.
    There’s a good rog.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

  95. CL you have just been caught lying. it is a direct quote old son.

    Let’s have the “direct quote” again because I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    You said I conflated labour camps with RAD. This is a lie. I don’t participate in the RAD discussion and never have. If you can find one comment where I discuss RAD I’ll give you a thousand dollars. I rarely participate in the general discussion of your admiration for Nazism either because you’ve made such a goose of yourself that I have tended to feel sorry for you. I have noted several times that your theory of Nazi economics tends to play down the other mainstays of the Nazi approach to “full employment.” Defaulting on its financial responsibilities, lying, setting up slave labour camps, abolishing the rule of law, crowding out the private sector, abolishing commercial legal rights, creating a one party state, murdering anybody who got in the way – that sort of thing.

    Here’s that WaPo/CBO graph again showing how Obama has tripled the deficit. The CBO has also costed Obama’s health care bribes in the billions and warned that he may end up quadrupling the deficit. Obama is the worst fiscal bum in American history.

    No old son I never said the Deficit incurred by Bush because of the GFC was bad I merely showed it was mostly his.

    No no no, Homer. You definitely blamed Bush for the deficit – the deficit you believe saved the world economy. You were trying to straddle a fence that turned out to be barbed wire. Oops. Ouch.

    Yep I like both set of watches and no it was universally condemned.

    You don’t deny that you enthusiastically praised the almost universally ridiculed FuelWatch and GroceryWatch. Once again: good. Thank you. See, you don’t have to reflexively tell porkies all the time.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 5:24 pm

  96. “Lindzens credibility has been further weakened by his latest work; it contained flawed methods of measurement so could be manipulated to achieve the result you wish for.”

    Rubbish. Lindzen has already admitted to the weaknesses identified in his paper. Compare this to the response to the numerous errors identified in ‘Team’ papers incl. Mann, Rahmstorf, Steig, etc. where you had denial, stonewalling, etc. and you might identify a credibility crisis. Sorry, rog, but that was pathetic.

    dover_beach

    January 11, 2010 at 11:55 am

  97. “Lindzens credibility has been further weakened by his latest work; it contained flawed methods of measurement so could be manipulated to achieve the result you wish for.”

    Rog,

    The idea is that Linzden did not choose an objective temperature baseline. Let him respond.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:59 am

  98. i know, CL. Richard Lindzen actually seems to welcome the challenge in others suggesting he’s wrong and says he’ll examine the data/ conclusions and write a suitable response.
    This is how science is actually done and there is absolutely nothing remiss if Lindzen is shown to be wrong.

    Intellectual rogette thinks that’s a sign of weakness or his isn’t up to scratch.

    Rog… what a complete waste of time you are.

    [edited. JC – that’s defamatory. Sinc]

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: