February 2012 Open Thread


  1. #1 chek
    February 24, 2012

    Actually Dave R, I believe there was the Koch Bros. $25K to med research changed to $200K for climate research howler in the memo, but not in the gen docs.

  2. #2 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Dear Frank,

    Sorry, posting quotes from Trotkij when he is accusing his anti-capitalistic, anti-liberal and anti-bourgeouise opponents for not knowing right from left doesn’t make them right, which I have said from the beginning. It’s classic civil war lingo on the left flank and, accordingly, is he not aiming towards those in favor of capitalism and the bourgeoisie society.

    Can you please do better?

    Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine? If you don’t step up to the task soon I will assume you have nothing to show for it (like when you try to pin point fascism as “right”) 😉

    Take care!

  3. #3 Stu
    February 24, 2012

    Yep Frank, you called it.

  4. #4 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    On topic again fellas. I guess you havn’t missed this one:


    Is this another one of your rock solid proofs of a multi-billion right wing evil denying machine?

    Anyone for tennis?

    And please don’t bring up Trotskij again. 😉

  5. #5 Dave R
    February 24, 2012

    chek, the 25k vs 200k could plausibly just be a mix up over the year, since the fundraising document confirms they expected 200k in 2012.

  6. #6 Dave R
    February 24, 2012

    re 899, it doesn’t explicitly link the 200k to the Kochs, but that explanation seems much more likely than the conspiracy angle.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    It appears that Gleick got an honest chance convincing Heartland’s donors about the seriousness of the climate threat. Heartland invited him to speak before the donors at a fundraising event. Very brave I think.

    But Gleick declined. Some trooper. He could have pulled the rug from under the evil 6.4 million dollars right wing denial machine controlling climate science.


  8. #8 dhogaza
    February 24, 2012

    I get it – it’s OK for Heartland to publish e-mail from Gleick without his permission while simultaneously threatening to sue those who publish e-mail from Heartland without their permission.

    Pretty much sums it up, eh?

  9. #9 lord_sidcup
    February 24, 2012

    Update on the Wegman affair:

    [University reprimands climate science critic for plagiarism](http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george-mason-university-reprimands-edward-wegmand-/1#.T0fBrYfnF4K)

    The split decision seems a pretty bizarre. I don’t think we have heard the last of this.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    February 24, 2012

    “I don’t think we have heard the last of this.”

    Next step is to see what the Office of Research Integrity makes of this, since the paper in question was partially funded by federal grants.

  11. #11 BPW
    February 24, 2012

    @Chris O’Neill,

    Man, you are stubborn, thick, or both. Do you think before you write?

    The ignorance is in your belief that somehow Gleick’s life is all honky dory and this has no effect on him. You want to believe that is melodramatic, so be it. I call it reality. If I stuck my foot so far down my throat that I was potentially on the hook for federal charges, I would consider that a pretty big, lifetime achievement style, fuck up. One which would throw both my personal and professional life in the trash.

    But, apparently in your world, forced resignation from presumably well paid positions of status and public disgrace are just fine personally, financially, and professionally. OK, if you say so. Clearly you are far more proud of his actions than he is by his own admission.

    As for Heartland, if you are commenting on and reading this blog, or Curry’s, or Watts, or Eli, or DC, or any other on the topic, yes, you would have to be pretty lacking in attention to miss what Heartland is. They come up pretty often. So, nothing released is, in my opinion, the least bit surprising. Not even that they flirt with IRS trouble concerning their tax status. In that respect, Gleick gave up a great deal for very little. Even if Heartland disappeared tomorrow, little to nothing would change. Still plenty of money to go around on both sides.

    You can return to fantasy land now Chris. I’m going skiing for the weekend.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    February 24, 2012

    I don’t think we have heard the last of this.

    See the thread over at Deep Climate .

  13. #13 bill
    February 24, 2012

    I wouldn’t even bother to address any issue raised by that dismal, attention-seeking ninny, but, since it’s come up in discussion, nothing shows the new libtard Right’s disconnection from reality quite the ‘the Nazis were Leftists’ meme.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    This is the standard version of Niemöller’s letter. Other versions – because he made the recitation many times over several years – add ‘Socialists’ and ‘Social Democrats’ to the list.

    Because they came for them all, you sad, sad, little man.

  14. #14 JRC
    February 24, 2012

    As usual, and like I said why you almost, and now thinking you do deserve the title “Lord Moron” you skipped over my question. If Global Warming is real (which it is) what would you propose to offset it? If you avoiding of the question is the answer then so be it. You have no ability to critically think, and by your past record I won’t be surprised. You do seem to be lacking in critical thinking and analysis of data.

  15. #15 JRC
    February 24, 2012

    Sorry @907 THAT WAS INTENDED FOR OLAUS. 🙂 My bad.

  16. #16 bill
    February 24, 2012

    Back in reality rather than the Breivik ideological hinterlands: have we seen this?

  17. #17 JRC
    February 24, 2012

    dhogaza, the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn’t interested in real debate. They wanted someone there with some credibility so they could either take out of context their statements, or the old Monckton I won the debate because I threw 100 lies at them and they couldn’t refute them all with citation. Everyone knew before Gleick released these Heartland documents that Heartland wasn’t worried about real debate and release of an invite to “a debate” doesn’t prove that it was a real debate.

  18. #18 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Bill, thanks for sharing your feelings with us, but isn’t there anything you would like to add besides a story totally irrelevant. It’s an ugly Godwin though.

    I’ll help you out explaining what you really meant with the quote, even though I’m repelled by the way you are making use of it:

    “First Olaus came with some historical facts, and I didn’t have anything relevant to say because I was very angry. Then Olaus came with more historical facts, and I didn’t have anything relevant to say because I was a hater. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts, and I didn’t have anything relevant to say because I was ignorant. Then Olaus came with even more historical facts and then I had to admit to myself that he started to make sense but I cursed him anyway.”

  19. #19 chek
    February 24, 2012

    I’d also suggest in support JRC, that a scientist of Gleik’s calibre would choose only to appear at a conference of his own peers, rather than attempt to make a presentation to a hall full of KKK or Watts webfans, or their equivalents.

    Why would he (or anyone else), based on their record, expect that the latter two or a herd of H.I’s ideological goons would even comprehend what he was talking about?

  20. #20 chek
    February 24, 2012

    You know you’re kicking the shit out of them Bill when they can only respond with some pathetic emo crap they just made up plagiarised like the scum-sucking, unoriginal, tedious repeaters they are.

  21. #21 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    February 24, 2012

    Best comment so far on the ‘oh noes Gleick faked the strategy memo’ meme comes from Greg Laden:

    > Brad [18] You are telling us that Peter Gleick traveled forward in time to see the documents he obtained from Heartland, then went back in time to fabricate a memo based on them. You are also telling us that he resigned from the NCSE yet he does not work there and there was no resignation.

    > Please stop with the random misinformation.

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Sorry JRC, I didn’t notice your Q. Contrafactual crystal balling isn’t my cup of tea. What ifs of that kind needs more space than a blog can offer (to be answered in a meaningful way).

  23. #23 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Chek, I see that you are working yourself up to ecstasy mode so you can tell us about what Jeffie is doing tonight? 🙂

    God, you are an angry little hater aren’t you. So far your only contribution to this discussion is abusive words and insults, while hiding behind other’s backs. Very typical of you.

    Straighten up, take a deep breath, release your hands from your groin, and try to articulate some consistent sentences about the topic at hand. After all it was you who started it. And if you do, please refrain from bad language.

    I’m not the one wanting to talk about the thick socialistic roots of fascism and and nazism. I’m more interested about stuff I’m not aware of, for instance signs of a mulit-billion right wing denial machine obstructing climate science.

    Can you help me out with that please?

  24. #24 Stu
    February 24, 2012

    Again with the creepy sexual references, Olaus. What the hell is wrong with you?

  25. #25 Rick Bradford
    February 24, 2012

    @916 Olaus

    You must understand that it is psychologically crucial for the Green/Left to portray themselves as the heroic little guys standing bravely up to protect Gaia from the rapacious capitalists.

    Hence the oft-repeated nonsense about “well-funded denialist machines” when we all know that the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland’s. That’s even before we talk about the billions of taxpayer dollars poured in on top.

    The Green/Left will never accept this; psychologically, they cannot.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    > …the problem is that most people know that Heartland wasn’t interested in real debate.

    As in “it would look better on our resume than on yours”, the same motivation for Creation Scientists to “debate” evolutionary biologists.

    Just like Creation Scientists, they desperately desperately want anything they can use to suggest the **appearance** of being taken seriously, which they can lever into PR claims of having serious science on their side (at least to uninformed audiences).

    They don’t have a better scientific explanation for observations, and their scientific claims are not taken seriously because they are either already known to be false, or they don’t explain the observations better than mainstream climate science, or they fall apart at the first examination by their peers.

    Any **real** scientific debate – that denialists like to argue (ironically via their highly visible media and PR platforms, no less!) is being “suppressed” – takes place in the scientific literature. If they’ve got something of value, that’s where it will appear and it will ultimately have an impact on scientific thinking. Nobel Prizes and solid gold fame await anyone who can *actually* demonstrate we’ve got nothing to worry about from GHG emissions.

    But so far everything they’ve tried in the literature has proved to have far less impact than they claim it does (to uninformed audiences) outside of the literature. So they try to focus (uninformed) attention on faux-scientific “debates” to keep their audiences from twigging that they’ve got nada, zip, nowt, zero, nothing.

  27. #27 FrankD
    February 24, 2012

    >Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion machine?

    While Olaus’s posting style reminds me of nothing so much as an explosive splatter-shart, I prefer to concentrate on thing at a time. I might decide to tackle that question, or others, once we’ve finished with this:

    >In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.

    Once Olaus concedes he was wrong, I’ll happily move on to other topics. Or just revert to my more common read-only mode. But until then, here’s what Il Duce himself had to say:

    >Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ” right “, a Fascist century. “Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions”, 1935.

    Olaus’s pair of twos is not the worst starting hand, but one would have to be terminally stupid to double down on that opening. Man I wish this really was a blackjack game. Olaus would already be trying to trade his jewelry for more chips. 😉

    But perhaps he will surprise me, for once. Can Olaus admit he was wrong and allow things to move on? It’s rivetting stuff!

  28. #28 FrankD
    February 24, 2012

    “concentrate on thing” s/b “concentrate on one thing”

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    The guy expected to write the specially ordered “climate science” curriculum for Heartland [doesn’t understand even the basics](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/behind-the-controversy-an-effort-to-rewrite-curriculum-on-climate-change/):

    > There are 5 different systems for estimating global temperatures, with a 6th in development. The problem is that these systems contradict one another. While all show some warming it occurs in different amounts and most importantly at very different times. Science needs something specific to explain but we just do not have that with warming. For example, HadCRU, UAH and RSS show no warming for the last 10-15 years, while GISS and BEST show steady warming,” he said, referring to the systems.

    Any “skeptic” want to apply some skepticism to that argument? How many errors of science and logic can you find? Anyone “skeptical”?

    > “So has it warmed or not, we do not know”.

    “Skeptics” who claim “no-one denies it has been warming” immediately rushed to corr…oh, wait:

    And Gavin Schmidt’s response is right on the money:

    > “You have to be specially trained to be so blind,”

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    Er, preview is your friend.

    “oh, wait:” => “oh, wait: [crickets]”.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    Meanwhile, Barry Bickmore [has some thoughts](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/) on Rutan and company’s response to the scientists’ response to their original Op-Ed in the WSJ.

    He concludes:

    > The level of deception by the WSJ authors and others like them is absolutely astonishing to me.

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    February 24, 2012

    >Or can you finally show me the proof of an existing right wing denial multi-billion [sic] machine?

    Erm, inflation has not yet reached the point where denial propaganda requires financing to the order of magnitude of billions of dollars (as your inept wording implies), so your question is another of those straw men for which you have such a penchant.

    However, if you want proof of a denial machine that makes billions of dollars profit for its clients, then the answer to your sly question is an emphatic “[yes](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)”.

    Less stupid trolls, please.

  33. #33 MikeH
    February 24, 2012

    Hence the oft-repeated nonsense about “well-funded denialist machines” when we all know that the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland’s

    Bradford suffers his usual logic fail.

    If Heartland like WWF actually employed or supported working scientists engaged in research who publish in the scientific literature then they would be regarded differently. Of course that is not what they are funded to do – they are funded to do climate science denial.

    From the [WWF statemtent on the IPCC](http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2010/WWFPresitem15346.html)

    Just within our central Conservation Science Program, based in the U.S., there are 20 practicing scientists, 10 with PhDs, who produce an average of 20 peer-reviewed papers each year in journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Bioscience, PLoS Biology, Ecology Letters, Conservation Biology. On average, our research is cited by other scientists more than 600 times per year.

    Here is a list of WWF scientist [publications](https://secure.worldwildlife.org/science/pubs/).

    Here is a list of Heartland [publications](http://www.gifbin.com/985265).

    That is why WWF publish their [financial information online](http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/index.html) unlike Heartland who are too embarrassed to.

  34. #34 John Mashey
    February 24, 2012

    It has been a busy week or so, with more to come.

    1) See Fakery, p.3 and p.12.
    In ~2009, Heartland+SEPP+CSCDGC got ~$8M.
    The other 9 on p.3 got ~$39M.The additional 36 501(c)(3) on p.12 added another $283M.

    Now, only some of that is for climate disinformation, but some of it is for tobacco advocacy and other science disinformation, such as on environmental issues. In addition, these entities cross-support each other in various ways. One often finds them cross-quoting, cross-writing articles, signing petitions, together.

    It is far cheaper to create confusion than to actually do science and improve understanding. Still, there’s a $330M in 2009 for these folks.

    2) Wegman.
    In addition to the prime site where this all started over 2 years ago Deep Climate, where there have been recent updates, and USA Today, where story broke, but as gotten updates, there is:

    Retraction Watch,

    Chronicle of Higher Education



    I can assure you that this story … is only starting again.
    It only took 709 days to reach this conclusion, and people might ponder this passage from Strange Inquiries at GMU (SIGMU), p.21, from GMU’s policy:

    ‘In conducting the investigation, the committee –
    (a) Uses diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations;

    (b) Interviews each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent; and

    (c) Pursues diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continues the investigation to completion.’

    Now, inquiring minds might want to know:

    1) Was there any other information that a diligent committee might of found? Like Strange Scholarship?
    Wegman certainly knew about it. Maybe the diligent commiteee somehow didn’t notice it?

    2) Did the committee ever check Deep Climate to see if anything else came up? Guess not.

    3) Did the committee ever get anything like this graph of the various alleged plagiarisms with Wegman and students?

    4) Are Roger Stough (VP Research), Peter Stearns (provost) and Alan Merton (GMU PResident) involved?

    Anyway, main conversation is at Deep Climate for the latest news, but others should know.

    Here’s a theme.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    February 24, 2012

    John Mashey.

    Once again I have to compliment you (and DC) on your incredible investigations. As tiresome as it must sometimes grow, you are conducting an important service for greater public understanding of scientific truth.

    With respect to GMU, it’s as though the administration peered into the hole Wegman and his group dug for themselves and said “whoa, that’s not deep enough!”

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    Skeptical Science has another series on Monckton and his July 2011 debate with Aussie Richard Denniss. This series addresses Monckton’s responses to Skeptical Science’s critique of Monckton’s claims in that debate ([part 1](http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-scientists-own-work-part1.html) and [part 2](http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-specific-situations-part2.html); part 3 doesn’t seem to be up yet).

    (And the Monckton “debate” is a great illustration of why it’s foolish for real scientists to “debate” at Heartland Institute events – “debate” is a terrible format for uninformed onlookers to try to get at the truth.)

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    +1 for what Bernard said about John Mashey’s investigations (and the same for Deep Climate).

  38. #38 John Mashey
    February 24, 2012

    Thanks to all for kind words, we all help as we can.
    Some, like senior members of Houses of Representatives, can do more. H/T Martin Vermeer, see Markey wants Heartland documents.

  39. #39 Dibble
    February 25, 2012

    I’d like to join the others in thanking John for his painstaking work in exposing the funding of the doubt machine.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2012


    Good news about Markey.

    The sting in the tail was the high degree of Stupid evidenced in the comments section of your link…

  41. #41 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Frank, still clutching for straas are we. Thanks though for writing in a civil manner.

    But sorry again, Mussolini isn’t labeling his fascism as right wing. And why should he? For obvoius reasons his fascisms is an off spring of his socialistic radical views, regarding anti-capitalism, anit-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society. And of course he hated socialism in terms of internationalism.

    And democracy too. But hey, anti-parlaimentism is nothing alien to fascism’s older sibling communism.

    Mussolini was a extrem communism very prone to violance and direct action before he added nationalism to his new, but still socialism-soaked, ideology. Why is this so hard to grasp?

    Sects on the far left always fight one another. They even hate “dissendents” more than they hate the bourgeoisie. Deal with it.

    Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about…

  42. #42 bill
    February 25, 2012

    Full marks to Ed Markey!


  43. #43 Lionel A
    February 25, 2012

    Again with the creepy sexual references, Olaus. What the hell is wrong with you?

    I second that Stu. OP’s output is summed up in one word, ‘puerile‘. I would add with ‘juvenile and sinister’ undertones, to be read and quickly passed on without further comment. Coventry calls for those of his ilk.

  44. #44 SteveC
    February 25, 2012

    @ Bradford #918 – standard drive-by troll.

    In addition to Mik H’s evidence and the questions he asks (which Bradford, being the outright bigoted coward he is, won’t answer)…

    Please provide evidence and cite sources that show beyond reasonable doubt that

    the incomes of groups like Greenpeace and WWF are orders of magnitude bigger than Heartland’s.

    and evidence (citing sources) of:

    the billions of taxpayer dollars poured in on top.

    I am about at the point where, as a self-identified “left/green” I’m wondering whether all my efforts to slow or stop the increasingly incessant rape and plunder of what’s left of our natural environment for the principal benefit of a select few very rich entities (and the subsequent squalid waste of those resources) don’t simply help support parasites like you.

  45. #45 Marco
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus, allow me to quote from “La dottrina del fascismo”, the official doctrine of the Italian fascists, and supposedly co-written by Mussolini himself:
    “Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century.”

    Oops..seems Mussolini IS calling fascism right-wing.

  46. #46 chek
    February 25, 2012

    The trouble is Marco, and an Il Duce reference has been pointed out already, that Petri belongs to that unique band of blithering idiots like Monckton who think their own interpretations – no matter how steeped in stupidity and ignorance they may be – outweigh those of the actual authors.

    Petri’s abiding rationale is that all evil must be a leftist phenomenon, ergo fascism must be left wing.

    But then we already know that deniers cannot handle facts, especially those from the pens or mouths of the very authors of those facts, if they don’t agree with their worldview.

    It could be called pathological dishonesty.

  47. #47 GSW
    February 25, 2012

    Apologies Marco,

    Not my argument and I’m not an expert. From memory, Mussolini said many things at many times, not all of which were consistent. It’s part of the problem the third Reich had with him, what was he thinking today? a loose canon at best.

    His somewhat confused state is amply demonstrated by the fact the document you cite “La dottrina del fascismo” was subsequently removed from publication (all available copies being destroyed) by Mussolini as, on reflection, he decided he didn’t actually agree with it.

    Anyway, the whole totalitarian “managing the populace for the greater good” is your sides ideology. What is labeled “right wing” these days are libertarian “little government” views. You chide them for being so.

    To quote Ronald Reagan (from memory)

    “The most frightening words in the English language are – I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”

  48. #48 chek
    February 25, 2012

    When you strip away the labels, politica is the haves versus the have nots.

    The right wing is now defined as the haves hanging on to their private gains and socialising their losses – just as with climate change and the banking collapse. Such a system is unsustainable not least because of its unfairness.

    Any inclusive, progressive egalitarian politics now happen on the left.

  49. #49 GSW
    February 25, 2012


    From your last post chek, I’m guessing you see yourself as one of the have nots.

  50. #50 chek
    February 25, 2012

    Your ability to infer is just as poor as your understanding of the climate issue GSW.

    However, I am on the side of the have nots. The right’s neo-feudalism is a dead end leading to a calcified (in every sense) world.

  51. #51 GSW
    February 25, 2012


    What can I say chek. I’m a “glass half full” kind of guy, you, I suspect, exist in a permanent state of misery at the injustice of yours being “half empty”.


  52. #52 bill
    February 25, 2012

    ‘I am not an expert’

    Never were truer words spoken.

    Funny how so many of your (*phtttt!*) ‘libertarians’ also want an all-powerful state with a mighty military. Ain’t it?

    And a welfare state for the rich (said military-industrial complex purchasing over-priced useless junk from heavy-industry; union-busting regulations – and mercenaries if necessary – because only the mighty captains of industry can be allowed to collectively throw their weight around; bail-outs, more bail-outs, and more bail-outs, as required; massive tax relief; oh, and, let’s not forget, publicly-subsidised corporate donations to political lobbyists and professional spin-merchants masquerading as ‘educational’ think tanks!)

    That’s Socialism for the Rich, and nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw for the rest. Not you, of course, you’re a ‘good boy’; ‘Oh, please Mr. Millionaire, won’t you let me shine your shoes and ride your coat-tails?’

    Your paranoiac fantasies regarding those people brighter and more capable than you (a very large set, admittedly, so let’s narrow it down to, say, actual climate scientists and add the remainder of the evidence-based community) are classic hallmarks of an Authoritarian personality. You, Sunshine, and your little pals, don’t need to be looking elsewhere to be asking, to paraphrase Mark E Smith: ‘What makes the Nazis?’

    Now, you can rabbit on about ‘Godwinning’ all you like (as that other sad little fellow did, despite the small detail of his repeatedly insisting that Leftists are Nazis and we’re all Leftists, so… !) but the fact remains: you who spend so much time shouting ‘Nazi Nazi’ should instead be looking to the distinct brown tinge of your own shirts…

  53. #53 GSW
    February 25, 2012


    I’m afraid, it’s you lot that are arguing for a totalitarian (for the greater good) regime (of what ever colour), not us.

    The fact you tie yourself up into contradictory knots when discussing “your ideology” is hardly our fault.

  54. #54 chek
    February 25, 2012

    you, I suspect, exist in a permanent state of misery

    … and you, as illustrated here and in the Jonas thread exist in a permanent state of foisting your own externalised fantasies onto other people. How is your laughable little analysis of Peter Gleik’s typically Green ‘anger’ going, idiot?

  55. #55 GSW
    February 25, 2012


    You bothered to go and read it chek. I am pleased.


  56. #56 chek
    February 25, 2012

    The fact you tie yourself up into contradictory knots when discussing “your ideology” is hardly our fault.

    That description applies perfectly to your moronic friend Petri and his monumental ignorance with regard to fascism as documented on this very thread, not the rational posters here.

    And despite the hyperbole, regulating an industry is not a totalitarian act, no matter what rhetoric your over-excited little mind has had inserted into it.

  57. #57 FrankD
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus said:
    >In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.

    Repeated quotes from different people of the 1930’s referring to fascism as a right-wing doctrine proves this claim to be wrong. When Olaus acknowledges that that is the case, I might be more inclined to indulge him by discussing:

    >Still wanting proofs of this right wing conspiracy thang you talk about…

    But for now, I await a simple acknowledgement that his claim was wrong. That medicine could take as little as three words, and yet we are still waiting…

    In the meantime, lets have another Trotsky example: “As a result, power slipped from its hands, shifted from left to right, and fell prey to fascism.” The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy, from Whither France?, 1934.

    It’s easy for honest people to say they are wrong when they make a mistake. See my post 921, for example. So for home viewers, why does Olaus find that so difficult? And what credibility can Olaus possibly retain here when he is so embarrassingly incapable of acknowledging that he made a relatively trivial overreach in the heat of an argument?

    It is fascinating to watch, if I say so myself.

  58. #58 FrankD
    February 25, 2012


    GSW gives a thumbs-up to a spambot echo-comment, which is about par for GSW’s course, really. Of course, he’s still playing the pitch-and-putt course, intellectually speaking, but he gets an elephant stamp for trying, the special little guy.


  59. #59 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Marco, you are doing the same mistake as Frank and others before him. Fascism is Right compared to Communism, which I have said all along. But it still Right far out on the left flank and not on the Right flank. How many times do I need to tell you guys this?

    Your way to label fascism Right is an anachronism, and so far you haven’t presented anything that contradict this. Mussolini was fighting against the bourgeoisie, capitalism and liberalism – and internationalism. Him being nationalist doesn’t change a thing. Haven’t you read anything I have written in the previous post? Using arguments from antagonistic lefties trying to define/defend themselves are not the way to go, Capisce?

    In the 1920/30s there was Right socialism and Left dito and it was nothing controversial about it. Fascism came about in the radical milieu of communism and syndicalism where Mussolini was a major player. When Mussolini coined Fascism he was still a member of the revolutionary socialistic movement. During the big strikes in the factories (1920) he tried hard to force the socialistic leaders to join him (while shouting their language).

    When the strikes ebbed out M’s nationalism became really prominent. Until then it had been rather low key. A right turn -Yes – but on the left hand side of the fence.

    Besides the political and historical evidence that F is a left hand side product, we have a psychological one. I’m sure you are aware of Adornos’ study on authoritarian personality? He constructed the F-scale and you know what? Both fascist and commies scored almost the same extreme results. Who would have thunk?

    Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what’s really interesting, ergo the proofs of the right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?

  60. #60 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus, you don’t have to write a detailed explanation. Could you give a summary, or at least a basic explanation? Or is it as complex, as say, Climate Science, and to really understand it, it can’t be summarized in a short one sentence proof?

  61. #61 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    This chart might help you better understand…..the political spectrum is not linear. It’s not just a scale from left to right, as you can see.


  62. #62 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus my comment @955 is a reply to your comment @915 just to clarify.

  63. #63 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    The chart also explains why Communist and Fascist scored relatively closely in your example since they are both Authoritarian minded. And of course you said it was a test of Authoritarian personalities. Who would of thunk???? lol

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    JRC # 956

    I have never said that it is a Q of only left and right when analyzing politics. I guess what I’m really saying is that we cannot understand and guard ourself from the development of fascism if we use an anachronistic way of understanding politics and ideology.

    How can we otherwise properly understand Chavez recent nationalistic vocabulary? Has he suddenly become right wing?

    Your scheme is interesting and I have of course seen many times it before. Not surprisingly I believe it needs some modifications. There is also a weakness with schemes of that kind since they lack dynamics and can’t help you understand change (over time).

    Regarding you contrafactual Q, I don’t fancy it because the answers will be so shallow and open to criticism. That said , the number one action would be to reinforce research on nuclear energy, thorium, cold fusion, etc that has a fair chance – in short period of time – to come up with a substitute for fossil fuel.

  65. #65 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    JRC #958, please don’t reduce this discussion to singularities. The F-scale becomes interesting only if you combine it with the historical facts I have presented.

    You also need to stop viewing “socialism” (and all ideologies) as something static. It isn’t.

  66. #67 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Like Mr Watts I think this quote is right (not Left) on the money. It also illustrate how futile the cryings of a multi-billion right wing denial industry really are:

    “Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.”

  67. #68 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    As far as understanding a Chavez type. He is an authoritarian, and in the process wants even more control, so he moved to the right but no less an authoritarian. As far as your idea of more research, I have no problem with that, and I’m sure many don’t, but I would include solar, wind, and hydro as part of the solution. As far as claiming it’s a contrafactual question, it’s not because the facts and evidence support that it is real. But I guess in your bizarro world it’s contrafactual. I see you doing your little dance though. Quick question, is the Iranian government leftist or rightist? This is an elementary question, that I feel you probably will get wrong.

  68. #69 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Food for thought even for some of you deltoids? Professor Curry comments Gleick’s Heartland strategy:


  69. #70 JRC
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus, if the skeptics are winning, it has nothing to do with the weakness of the evidence. (Winning will only last so long, because reality and nature doesn’t care about what you or I think) It has to do with most people not understanding science for one. Spinning science into bite size bits that seem reasonable, but are in fact false number two. I’ll list more later because I’m going to visit my grandmother here shortly…..but just an example I recently got an e-mail about the danger of margarine and how it was just one molecule (even if they meant atom) away from being plastic. Well don’t drink water because it’s just one atom away from being hydrogen peroxide. That’s how they are winning. Take something and make it sound correct. But it isn’t. There is much more to chemistry than just the atoms and molecules as we know with CO2. But if you don’t know that geometry of a molecule is important then the whole atom away from something else seems reasonable as unreasonable as it really is.

  70. #71 elspi
    February 25, 2012


    In politics, Left = Labor and Right = Capital. This isn’t a new thing. It has been this way for a couple of hundred years. You don’t get to change definitions of well-established terms whenever you feel like it.


    I think that Olaus has infested so much in this thread, that you should just name it in his honor
    (and here I was thinking that bad spelling was a handicap).

  71. #72 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    JRC #963, That wasn’t fair. It sure is contrafactual since you explicitly told me “If” CAGW was true, yet you came up with “bizarro”. So much for me giving in.

    Your, as it turned out, very stupid Q was based on URGENY, and from that perspective my suggested research focus was rational since possible break-throughs in nuclear power etc appear (to me) to be within reach.

    Do I really have to spell out that I don’t mind research on solar, wind etc? Amazing!

    Chavez sure is becoming more and more authoritarian but the most interesting part is that he’s becoming more and more nationalist. Still he is the golden boy of the extreme left.


  72. #73 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Elpsi, then you agree with me? Both nazism and fascism is about the wellbeing of the working class. Please read what has been said before you comment.

    But like I said to JCR, it is not about singularities. Get it?

    Can you please bring something to the table that carries a bit more thought?

    Or, more preferably, give me some facts about the right-wing multi-billion denial machine?

  73. #74 chek
    February 25, 2012

    Can the stupidity that seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?

    Of course it can. Just see Petri’s next comment.

    Tim, one of the things that I like about this blog are the varying views and comments from intelligent, clued-up people.

    One of the things I now detest about this blog is the Scandinavian Troll Collective running wild disrupting any and every thread.

    Please contain them or ban them – either action works for me. Essentially they add nothing except depths of ignorance that would embarrass Watts.

  74. #75 Olaus Petri
    February 25, 2012

    Oh dear, chek resurfaces and even deltoids reach for the kidney dishes.

    And Chek, your latest ether pile was a bit rich, even for you. Olaus:

    “seeks to have us believe that Heartland is the only player in the pro-industrialist lobbying game sink any deeper into the sea of stupidity?!

    On the contrary my friend, I hunger for more information concerning this so called multi-billion right wing denial machine. Heartland is about tiny 6.4 million and only bread crumbs of that sum deals with climate related subjects.

    And ckek, You hate diversity of opinions. It annoys you to the length that you loose it. Your presence here brings no substance but plenty of hate and scary longings towards Jeff and Tim.

  75. #76 chek
    February 25, 2012

    Keep your projections of what *you* think is happening Petri.

    Your ‘diversity of opinions’ are ten a penny on any rubbish denialist blog which I mainly choose to avoid apart from occasional rare recce visits. It’s time consuming enough keeping abreast of even a good cross-section of the wortwhile, intelligent ones.

    Take your ‘diversity’ back to your own climateidiots blog, and suffer the lack of attention your loonytoon views naturally attract and stop piggybacking this venue in the vain hope for whatever validation you so desperately crave.

  76. #77 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2012
  77. #78 freemike
    February 25, 2012

    I think this (from David Evans)needs a proper debunking.


  78. #79 FrankD
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus, still doesn’t understand that this thread has long since ceased to be about whether Fascism is of the right or left (if it ever was about that). This thread has become a case study in denial – the refusal to concede the most trivial error, despite being presented with copious evidence. It is a metaphor for all denial.

    >In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.

    But: “The National Socialists, as the strongest party of the right, have shown…that they have a firm, positive relationship to Christianity”, Otto Dibelius, Lutheran Superintendant General of the Kurmark, 1930

    > Can we pleeeeeazzzze stop this distraction from what’s really interesting

    Any time you are ready, Olaus. You know what you need to do – stop making this thread about you, man up, admit you made a mistake, and then we can talk about the:
    >”right wing multi-billion denial machine you all are talking about?”.

    Will Olaus’ pathology force him defend his hopeless point, even though it means he himself is sabotaging the discussion he would like to have? Or can he concede the point to get what he wants? It’s like the kid who grabbed too many cookies and got his hand caught in the cookie jar – if he can let go of one cookie, he’ll get several cookies. But can he?

    I can’t wait for our next installment…

    Until then, here’s a little [musical interlude](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybxR7uiDGM).

  79. #80 MikeH
    February 25, 2012

    freemike @ 973

    Climate science deniers like Evans are masters of the zombie* argument. It does not matter how many times it is debunked, it keeps rising from the grave.

    His zombie arguments are debunked here


    * zombie – a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means.

  80. #81 bill
    February 25, 2012

    There’s certain types of links I never bother with.


    POST [n1]:

    I have no dog in this fight, but the Warmists are clearly wrong, in a way that I am somewhat reluctant to pin down. Here’s a chart with several numbers and some lines; hence science.

    I also see little difficulty with even the most outrageous ‘Skeptic’ claims, but will discover something shiny if you call me out to defend them.

    COMMENT [xN]:

    I also have no dog in this fight, but the Warmists are clearly wrong, in a way that I, too, am somewhat reluctant to pin down. I admire your chart, that is clearly science, as it is.

    And I, too, see little difficulty with even the most outrageous ‘Skeptic’ claims, but will also discover something shiny if you call me out to defend them.

    COMMENT [‘< 'xN]:

    Look what I found at the Weatherman’s or the Sticky Bishop’s. Aren’t the Warmists stupid, and probably also corrupt?

    COMMENT [xN]:

    I am inclined to be offended by the forthrightness of your opinion, but I’m also inclined to agree with you.

    COMMENT [‘< <'xN]

    But surely this position you are all putting forward is barely supported by the actual evidence? Surely, also, given what’s at stake, we must also act decisively and in a timely manner on the balance of probabilities?

    COMMENT [xN + n1]:

    We are offended by your opinion.

    COMMENT [‘< 'xN]:

    I squeal with delight. You Warmists are indeed stupid, and corrupt.

    COMMENT [xN]:

    I am perhaps slightly more inclined to be offended by the forthrightness of your opinion, but am now perhaps more strongly inclined to see even fewer difficulties with the outrageousness of your position, so I’m also perhaps somewhat more inclined to agree with you.

    ALL [≠ ‘< <'xN]:

    How wise we all are.

  81. #82 Rattus Norvegicus
    February 25, 2012


    On that musical interlude I was expecting The Horst Wessel Song.

  82. #83 MikeH
    February 25, 2012

    Olaus is in a place where logic and science cannot reach.

    Bill above mentioned the “Breivik ideological hinterlands”

    If it is not there it is close by.

  83. #84 ianam
    February 25, 2012

    I disagree that I was playing his game or even offering a defense

    It’s an objective fact that you defended your use of links against his “Can’t you speak for yourself?” attack. The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it’s not warming. You can point to your comment about informed opinion, but that falls squarely into the territory of begging the question. As I said, to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection … the use of links wasn’t the issue and isn’t an issue, as we all use them. What is the issue is that OP is a dishonest sack of feces and engaging with him is stepping in it.

    Olaus is in a place where logic and science cannot reach.

    Nor, most importantly, ethics.

  84. #85 ianam
    February 25, 2012

    That would need some non-genuine info in it too, and there doesn’t appear to be any.

    There wasn’t any non-genuine info in the Rather memos, either. Molly Ivins had exposed Bush back when he was the “compassionate conservative” governor of Texas, and Lt. Col. Killian’s secretary said that, while she didn’t type those memos, their content was consistent with Killian’s opinions.

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2012

    > The problem with your specific defense in this context is that OP or any other denier could use it to justify their mindless use of links, as when they link to the David Rose article to argue that even the Met Office says it’s not warming.

    The problem with your specific critique is that practically **anything** one does can be used to justify denialist behaviour, precisely because most of that behaviour and justifications for it **are not rational**.

    Life’s too short to go to that level of granularity of analysis on every comment, wondering whether there’s a way a denialist can twist it. (At least for me – yours may differ.)

    *Especially* since the answer almost always is “yes”. It’s far more fruitful to attack the twist and the misinformation, regardless of source.

    In this specific case it matters not one whit whether denialists use links and claim that “others do it too so it must be legitimate”; what matters is whether the information (whether typed in, or referenced via a link) stands up to informed scrutiny. I think we agree on that point. However, on:

    > …to engage with OP on the acceptability of using links is to play into his game of deflection.

    Perhaps you missed the “you’re demonstrating you’re full of shit if you need to stoop to that fallacy” undertones in my response to Petri? Too subtle, perhaps?

  86. #87 ianam
    February 25, 2012

    You disappoint me, L, but I will not go further with you on this because I have too much respect and appreciation for what you most of the time.

    On the Bush affair, here’s a piece that gives the details I alluded to above (the original Dallas News link is dead):


  87. #88 ianam
    February 25, 2012

    Make that “what you do”.

  88. #89 John Mashey
    February 26, 2012

    re: 603 FrankD
    Sorry, life has been very busy.

    I don’t know about the laws. In general, whether or not one went public, one certainly might well bring it to the relevant authorities. I think it depends on what it is, and whether or not you think the government will grind on it fast enough to be useful.

  89. #90 bill
    February 26, 2012

    re #977 Mike H

    …and then the little turkey accused me of Godwinning him! Goog grief; you know, this from the charming little bloke who – along with his equally contemptible (and equally ignorant) cohort – is busily attempting to prove that because we’re all Left (!) we’re all Nazis (!!).

    Of course, irony is completely lost on such – well, I was going to say ‘minds’, but let’s just say ‘states of neural electrical activity*’, shall we? 😉

    *the problem being that they lead to typing…

  90. #91 Marco
    February 26, 2012

    Olaus, if you look at how little money thinktanks received from tobacco companies compared to the hundreds of millions that went into cancer research, it shows exactly how stupid Watts is. FUD is easy, really easy. It does not require much money to lie, distort and deceive, especially when the general public does not have the required knowledge to see through those lies, distortions and deceipt.

  91. #92 Olaus Petri
    February 26, 2012

    Sorry Frank,

    You do the same mistake again, using un-contextualized quotes, this time from a christianity leader justifying his support for nazism in the fighting against internationalism. The indeed national-conservative Dibelius had to make this rational, not the least thanks to Hitlerisms of this kind:

    “The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

    Siding with such a movement needed advanced rhetorics, don’t you agree? On top of that was Hitlers progressivism (or revolutionary) something alien to conservatives:

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

    Even though I don’t like to compare ideological standpoints with real politics (ideology usually don’t match its practice) it’s rather stunning that Hitler’s reforms were very advanced for his times. And please don’t tell me again that Hitlers’s socialism was based on ethnicity and race and hence wasn’t real socialism. There is no real socialism, but socialisms. Some uglier than others.

    Many people and organizations became faithful to nazism, but that only meant that they became nazis, not that they remained Right (definition-wise). How could they? The war on the bourgeoisie society was, roughly described, a two front one, and the victorious part became the nationalistic branch, not the international.

    Any comments on Mussolini?

    And it’s only in you brain that I side left leaning people with nazis, so no Godwin on my part.

    What about the multi-billion right-wing conspiracy?

  92. #93 Olaus Petri
    February 26, 2012

    Any thoughts on this peace?


    Professor Judith Curry: “this time they hit the nail on the head”.

  93. #94 Marco
    February 26, 2012

    Olaus, my thoughts are quite aptly summarised by Barry Bickmore:

    Amongst others the Op-Ed contains a SCANDALOUS distortion of the facts by leaving out the confidence interval. Judith Curry likes to hype the uncertainty so much, and then comes out and supports an Op-Ed that deliberately leaves out the confidence interval!

    Equally ‘hilarious’, if it weren’t so funny, the discussion on Spencer & Braswell. A paper that contains basic flaws, ranging from statistics (confidence intervals? Why add those, Mark I eyeball works best!) to leaving out inconvenient data. If Judith Curry cannot see the basic flaws, she does not belong in science.

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2012

    > Any thoughts on this peace?

    Yes – that you’re [quite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6231436) distinctly [slow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6231528) on the [uptake](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6233899), Petri.

    And if you click through to Bickmore’s brief critique (and the excellent first comment), Curry appears to reveal that she is unable to detect basic pseudo-scientific deception – nor does she appreciate risk mitigation in the face of uncertainty, even though it has been clearly pointed out to her.

  95. #96 FrankD
    February 26, 2012

    Goodness me, after having it repeatedly explained, Olaus still doesn’t get it, or else is assuming that nobody else does. Extraordinary!

    Well, as Einstein (I think) said it, the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Olaus has shown he would not be convinced by an encyclopedia of quotes showing that he was wrong when he said:
    >In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing.

    I never expected to do so, and having proved that point, most likely wont be posting further for now.

    I’m sure I annoyed some by cluttering up the thread, but I hope it served a purpose; I’ve had many discussions where people were asked “what would it take for you to change your mind about climate change?” Generally, “warmists” (sic) are able to answer that question with some precision; X years with an temperature anomaly below Y is the usual formulation. In my experience, “deniers” (sic) do not, but waft a lot of high-tone bafflegab about “definitive proof” and such like.

    And here is the thing (well-known, but still worth reminding from time to time): There is NO level of proof, however definitive, that can convince somone who is in denial to shift their position. They are simply incapable of incorporating new evidence into their mind-map. Olaus, of course, compounds this problem with a narcissism and authoritarianism that speaks of an actual pathology.

    No troll can ever be persuaded of anything. Though they can be smacked down from time to time. GSW’s brief return here reminded me of [the funniest thing I’ve ever read on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu.php#comment-4182998). GSW perfectly illustrated the resistence to new information when he ignored six people trying to warn / explain how badly he was being forked and at the end, still didn’t get it.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2012

    > GSW’s brief return here reminded me of the funniest thing I’ve ever read on Deltoid.


    I could not believe how long it went on without him twigging to it.

  97. #98 Lionel A
    February 26, 2012

    If Judith Curry cannot see the basic flaws, she does not belong in science.

    I think that she has figured that out and is looking for another day job. Is it true that they are opening a ‘Curry Wing’ at ‘The Heartland Club’?

    PS Desmog doesn’t seem to be accessible at present, has been like this for the last three hours to my knowledge.

  98. #99 Olaus Petri
    February 26, 2012

    Dear Frank,

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I prefer to contextualize historical quotes. You don’t apparently. But that’s not my fault. None of your quotes were made as attempts to analyze fascism and national socialism, but to make political stunts. Can’t you see the difference?

    Until you are ready again to debate why anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society isn’t very lefty, I wish you all the besty. You might think otherwise, but I found our little differences interesting.

    Hopefully someone got a bit wiser, not the least regarding how to place Hugo Chaves on then political map based on his nationalistic lingo.

    Lets focus on the Right Wing multi-billion conspiracy then.

    Take care!

  99. #100 elspi
    February 26, 2012


    Labor opposed the Fascists/Nazis.
    Capital (Henry Ford and many others in Germany and Italy) bankrolled the Fascists/Nazis.

    The Fascists/Nazis opposed Labor and supported Capital.
    Hitler sent the Labor organizers to Auschwitz first.


New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.