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?

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2009

    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.php#comment-2105489), 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.php#comment-2134849), I’ll repeat it – scientific work either supports or refutes (disproves) a hypothesis. Nothing in science is ever proven; it is merely supported – 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.

  2. #2 TrueSceptic
    December 9, 2009

    89 mb,

    If you don’t already know it, go to [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/), where you have lots to add. :)

  3. #3 TrueSceptic
    December 9, 2009

    89 mb,

    (correct URL)

    If you don’t already know it, go to [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/), where you have lots to add. :)

  4. #4 David Kane
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  5. #5 TrueSceptic
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  6. #6 Truther
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  7. #7 WotWot
    December 9, 2009

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

  8. #8 Truther
    December 9, 2009

    “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.

  9. #9 E. Van Jellical
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  12. #12 William Wallace
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  13. #13 Bob S.
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  14. #14 Janet Akerman
    December 9, 2009

    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?

  15. #15 Anna Haynes
    December 9, 2009

    > “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?

  16. #16 Betula
    December 9, 2009

    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?

  17. #17 WotWot
    December 9, 2009

    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.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    December 10, 2009

    [Bray-fart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou.php#comment-2136077).

    I think that you actually meant “wa wa wa waaahhh”.

    Scienceblogs authors back up their material with facts, and their scientific audiences are far from credulous.

    Now if you’d said “But enough about coincidencetheories.com”…

    Boom tish.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    December 10, 2009

    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?

  20. #20 Spiny Norman
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  21. #21 Spiny Norman
    December 10, 2009

    Seriously, Neil, don’t do it. Al Gore recommends that you not enter the Tiger Cage! Stay out!

  22. #22 Marion Delgado
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    December 10, 2009

    “Wanders”? Egads!

    Almost as bad as “[yolks of socialist oppression](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2078291)”.

    Still, I wish I’d come up with “[gorilla warfare](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php#comment-2135389)”!

  24. #24 Marion Delgado
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  25. #25 Marion Delgado
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  26. #26 Betula
    December 10, 2009

    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!

  27. #27 stewart
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  28. #28 carrot eater
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  29. #29 carrot eater
    December 10, 2009

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

  30. #30 TrueSceptic
    December 10, 2009

    123 Bernard,

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

  31. #31 Kevin (NYC)
    December 10, 2009

    “”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?

  32. #32 MapleLeaf
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  33. #33 Chris Winter
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  34. #34 Chris Winter
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  35. #35 dhogaza
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  36. #36 Betula
    December 10, 2009

    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.

  37. #37 Don Wigan
    December 10, 2009

    Well, Betula, I’m sure you and Sara Palin can offer lots of words of comfort to Christina Ora
    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/as-climate-talks-drag-on-lowlying-atolls-are-already-being-flooded-20091210-km57.html

  38. #38 Janet Akerman
    December 10, 2009

    Carrot [eater writes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou.php#comment-2136685):

    >*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.php#comment-2136101):

    >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.

  39. #39 Janet Akerman
    December 11, 2009

    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?

  40. #40 Betula
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  41. #41 dave heasman
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  42. #42 carrot eater
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  43. #43 carrot eater
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  44. #44 MapleLeaf
    December 11, 2009

    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……..

  45. #45 carrot eater
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  46. #46 MapleLeaf
    December 11, 2009

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

  47. #47 Mark
    December 11, 2009

    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….

  48. #48 Tony
    December 11, 2009

    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?

  49. #49 Don Wigan
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  50. #50 bi -- IJI
    December 11, 2009

    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?.

  51. #51 Janet Akerman
    December 11, 2009

    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-2138162) where the context is laid out, rather than here where there is no context is where it is off-topic.

  52. #52 Betula
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  53. #53 Raging bee
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  54. #54 Derek
    December 11, 2009

    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_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)

    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.

  55. #55 dhogaza
    December 11, 2009

    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?

  56. #56 dhogaza
    December 11, 2009

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

  57. #57 MapleLeaf
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  58. #58 carrot eater
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  59. #59 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2009

    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?

  60. #60 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  61. #61 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  62. #62 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2009

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

  63. #63 carrot eater
    December 11, 2009

    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.

  64. #64 Don Wigan
    December 11, 2009

    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?

  65. #65 Betula
    December 12, 2009

    @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.

  66. #66 Michael Ralston
    December 12, 2009

    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.

  67. #67 luminous beauty
    December 12, 2009

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

    The something is being intellectually dishonest. Also.

  68. #68 luminous beauty
    December 12, 2009

    the WP further documents its own decline into pathology via the inimitable [Charles Krauthammer](http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/27085.html)

  69. #69 Dpn Wigan
    December 12, 2009

    Yeah, Betula… ˆI thought you’d squib it when it came down to espousing a credible alternative scientific theory.

    No better than Dave Andrews or William Wallace.

  70. #70 JP
    December 12, 2009

    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!

  71. #71 zoot
    December 12, 2009

    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.

  72. #72 dhogaza
    December 12, 2009

    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.

  73. #74 MapleLeaf
    December 13, 2009

    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 you’ve 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.

  74. #75 Betula
    December 14, 2009

    Mapleleaf et al..

    MAKING CULT STEW

    1.Start with a base: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-study-More-Democrats-than-Republicans-believe-in-ghosts-talking-with-the-dead-fortunetellers-79162197.html

    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.

  75. #77 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  76. #78 luminous beauty
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  77. #79 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    Luminous, re #178.

    :o) Excellent!

  78. #80 luminous beauty
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  79. #81 Don Wigan
    December 14, 2009

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

  80. #82 Betula
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  81. #83 Betula
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  82. #84 Betula
    December 14, 2009

    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-right-to-serve-country/

    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.

  83. #85 Betula
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  84. #86 Janet Akerman
    December 14, 2009

    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.

  85. #87 Michael Ralston
    December 14, 2009

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

  86. #88 MapleLeaf
    December 15, 2009

    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?

  87. #89 luminous beauty
    December 15, 2009

    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.

  88. #90 WAG
    December 16, 2009

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

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

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

  89. #91 Betula
    December 16, 2009

    Shorter WAG..

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

    Show me signs of cooling, the angrier I get.

  90. #92 Aquaria
    December 24, 2009

    ::::snicker::::

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

    :::snicker:::

    What a moron.

  91. #93 el gordo
    December 25, 2009

    Politicians are human too and have every right to an opinion. In the meantime luminous uses wiki even after this revelation of history being rewritten. I understand the ministry of truth was very impressed.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

  92. #94 jakerman
    December 26, 2009

    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.php#comment-2163107) 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.php#comment-2165203) the [lives of others](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2163519).

  93. #95 el gordo
    December 26, 2009

    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.

  94. #96 jakerman
    December 26, 2009

    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.php#comment-2165536), 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.

  95. #97 el gordo
    December 26, 2009

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

  96. #98 jakerman
    December 26, 2009

    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.

  97. #99 looopy!
    December 26, 2009

    El gullibo,

    So you now are believing in a conspiracy?

  98. #100 el gordo
    December 28, 2009

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