February 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    John, I don’t like when science is being kidnapped from either end of the politic spectra. Regarding Heartland:

    1. It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn’t try to distort climate science.

    2. There is little of no. 1 going on. I’m sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative – which – so far appears to be fantasy.

    3. 6.4 million isn’t a multi billion denial industry. It’s peanuts and most of isn’t even concerned with climate issues.

    4. Heartland hasn’t an Evil agenda.

    In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.

  2. #2 chek
    February 23, 2012

    stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism

    We can add politics to the list of things, like climate science, that Petri doesn’t understand.

  3. #3 chek
    February 23, 2012

    GSW @791 – it’s your associate Petri that comes here making a total arse of himself with his religious fervour. Nobody forces him, and I’ll wager that respect for his second-hand opinions (such as they are) among the vast majority of readers here hovers at or below zero.

    My analogy holds – and anyway, Petri is a creepy and damaged individual, as has been previously remarked.

    Mind you, the same applies to parrots like you.

  4. #4 David Duff
    February 23, 2012

    My absolutely sincere congratulations to our distinguished host, Mr. Tim Lambert, for a display, or to be precise, I suppose, a non-display, of anything whatsoever to do with the Gleik affair. I have been watching this site like a hawk – well, a hawk with bifocal specs – to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves. Well done, Mr. Lambert, alas, your cause is slowly sinking beneath the waves (and it’s not because the waves are rising) but at least you had the intelligence to avoid this particular mess of potage!

    Now, if only you could sort out your Labour party . . .

  5. #5 MikeH
    February 23, 2012

    stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism

    Reclassifying fascism and national socialism as far left ideologies may make you feel better about your own far right views Olaus but all you do is confirm Jeff Harvey’s view that you are an ignoramus.

    Name calling and link-spamming is all you have.

    My neighbour’s cat dragged a dead rat that it found into his house. Like you the cat was pleased with itself but the rat was as dead and smelly as your links.

  6. #6 Dave H
    February 23, 2012

    @795

    > It is a lobby org.

    No it is not. It is a *charity*. If they want to be a private lobbyist, fine – but they have to pay tax. Benefiting from tax-exempt status whilst also being a lobby organisation can result in fines and loss of charity status.

    Of course, being a lobby means that they are subject to even more stringent rules and disclosure, such that they would be unable to get away with having a huge percentage of their funding derived from an anonymous source.

  7. #7 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    ^broken record^

  8. #8 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    Duff is the broken record, I mean. Darn, you have to be fast posting on this site sometimes.

  9. #9 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    1.It (Heartland) is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn’t try to distort climate science.

    Petri acknowledges Heartland’s business is political lobbying and not science. We now know Heartland has a number of scientists on a ‘retainer’. Therefore, that same political lobbying organisation must be attempting to distort climate science.

  10. #10 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Chek, so you claim that anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society are footed in Right wing ideology? :-)

    For your knowledge Mussolini was a communist before he evolved his fascism. He was also inspired by syndicalism and he even worked at the same news paper as Gramsci. Röhm of the SA never let go of his dream of a second revolution. And why? Because socialism is socialism regardless prefix.

    Sorry chek, historically, National Socialism and Fascism off springs of Socialism – on the very far left. You can picture it like the tongue of a snake. A split at the end where one part stays international and the other becomes national (goes right, but still left), all of them with respectively branches.

    No one in the 1930s recognized fascism and nazism as “right wing”. The right wing “narrative” of nazism and fascism is an innovation from the 1960s. Originally I believe this modern confusion comes from the classic behavior among quarreling political extremists on the left: calling each other traitors and lackeys of the bourgeoisie.

    Hmmm..sounds familiar. ;-)

    It sad though, because this anachronistic label of Nazism and Fascism often make us look the wrong way (right) when trying to identify the ugly political and ideological tendencies of today.

  11. #11 MikeH
    February 23, 2012

    @798
    It has taken Duff a week to work out how to comment on “Cash for Denial” without mentioning cash for denial.

    Meanwhile
    [Congressman Calls For Hearing Into Heartland Institute Payments to Federal Employee Indur Goklany](http://www.desmogblog.com/congressman-calls-hearing-heartland-institute-payments-federal-employee-indur-goklany)

  12. #12 Lars Karlsson
    February 23, 2012

    [This pretty much proves that Heartland doesn't give a s**t about scientific accuracy:](http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/08/10/heartland-replies-science):

    > Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled “The Skeptic’s Handbook,” by Joanne Nova, which Heartland mailed to the presidents of every public school board in the U.S. This was one of a series of mailings we did and continue to do to educators and school board members in the U.S. as well as in Canada.

    Also see [here](http://desmogblog.com/fakeducation-years-heartland).

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    Hitler loved those communists so much he had had them all locked up and excuted.

    When Petri tries to make a serious contribution he make a complete arse of himself.

  14. #14 MikeH
    February 23, 2012

    @804
    Olaus – you have been drinking from the same ideological well as Anders Breivik.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2012

    >I have been watching this site like a hawk – well, a hawk with bifocal specs – to see if Mr. Lambert would instantly leap into the early breaking news which must have seemed at the time so temptingly delicious to a HAF (Hot Air Fanatic) like him. However, with admirable coolness and care he held his fire and just left it to the kiddies in this open thread to make arses of themselves.

    Like a hawk with macular degeneration and/or glaucoma, I’d say.

    It seems to have escaped your attention that Tim Lambert has been involved with non-Deltoid matters for months, to the almost full exclusion of posting anything on the blog. Even posts in moderation have been days in the waiting, simply because Tim has real and currently very full life.

    If this plain fact has escaped detection by your radar, then it’s no surprise that the whole enterprise of real scientific endeavour has also escaped your notice and comprehension.

    Duff. You are, by your own display of ineptitude, a fool.

  16. #16 John
    February 23, 2012

    >It is a lobby org. Fine by me as long as it doesn’t try to distort climate science.

    You mean the real climate science in the AR4 you haven’t read or the fake sceptics made-up mish-mash of cherry-picked facts that you believe because it supports your pre-determined poltical notions?

    >There is little of no. 1 going on. I’m sure some dirt can be found, but so far most of it seems to be Gleick-elaborations in grand Jeffie H-style along the lines of the climate scare narrative – which – so far appears to be fantasy.

    And you believe that the document is faked because…Heartland say so and Josh made a pretty cartoon?

    >6.4 million isn’t a multi billion denial industry. It’s peanuts and most of isn’t even concerned with climate issues.

    Strawman. I never claimed a “multi billion denial industry”. I never claimed it was mostly concerned with climate issues. I simply noted the “charity” pushes a free-market, anti-envriomental regulation, *political* agenda and is funded by vested interests. This is not an organisation that can claim to be free of political bias and therefore a trusted source.

    Do you deny any of this?

    >Heartland hasn’t an Evil agenda.

    Their agenda is to protect the interests of their funders through the use of fake “experts” sympathetic to their political cause by distorting science.

    We’re talking about an organisation that dispute the link between tobacco and lung cancer and just happen to be funded by tobacco companies. Nothing shady going on there.

    >In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.

    And you claim not to believe these conspiracy theories. Weird! Why do you keep lying?

  17. #17 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Mike, I see that you too have problems with reality when it comes to analyzing ideology. Let me and Socrates help you guys out with a modern example:

    Cornerstones of Fascism are anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, hatred of the bourgeoisie society and nationalism. Its text book stuff.

    Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini’s hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).

    So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?

  18. #18 Mikem
    February 23, 2012

    Olaus Petri,

    One of Hitler’s first acts when he gained power was to ban trade unionism and imprison trade union leaders. Similarly, he rounded up communist party and “socialist” leaders. They weren’t simply sent to prison like the unionists. They were sent straight to concentration camps.

    He hated and despised other races, especially negros, thinking they were naturally inferior to whites or “aryans”. He allowed wealthy industrialists to continue to run German industry (under Nazi party direction of course).

    So I dunno…..let me just throw this one out there……”right” wing tendencies, or “left” wing tendencies?

    I think your comments have surprised even a few regulars here who are used to seeing stuff straight from an alternate reality.

  19. #19 chek
    February 23, 2012

    You’re living in a fantasy world Petri, where just like your friend Jonarse and Humpty Dumpty, you invent your own meanings for words. And as this is a climate blog, I’m certainly not arguing political definitions here with a fake Euro-libertarian beanbag like you. I’ll leave that to someone who knew first hand what they were talking about.

    “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power”. — Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Hence why trash like Heartland need to be taken out.

  20. #20 John
    February 23, 2012

    By the way, I don’t believe that companies or individuals donate to influence Heartland’s political aims.

    I do believe Heartland’ve found a cynical way to make money under the guise of protecting the “freedoms” of the elite few over the livelihoods of millions.

    Is this evil? Make your own mind up.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2012

    Cop [this](http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/#comment-173942) for unintended irony:

    >With regards to Gleick, my impression of him changed substantially over the past 18 months, when he went activist with blog posts and op-eds. Before that, I thought he was an honest broker for the scientific integrity issue.

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Lord, Yes Hitler hated communists. What has that do to do with anything? In the radical 70s extreme lefties of different obscure acronyms also hated each other. An from history we know that lefties, when getting into power, often go into killing mode trying to defend and purify true way towards utopia. Those favoring alternative socialistic routes “disappears”.

    Or do you really mean that Stalin’s massive extermination of his fellow not so like minded communists (Troskij is perhaps the best example) is a proof that he was Right wing?

    I don’t think so Lord. But please give it another shot. I’m afraid though that your best arguments, like always, will be that I’m a mean rapist or an idiot, etc.

  23. #23 Lars Karlsson
    February 23, 2012

    [Heartland Institute sending a pack of lies to 14,000 US school board officials.](http://www.desmogblog.com/fakeducation-years-heartland)

    That is what I call a big scandal!

  24. #24 Mikem
    February 23, 2012

    @816

    No, Stalin was just a power-hungry, evil, nut. You get those on the right and the left.

    This pitting left against right is just a bullshit distraction. What matters is what the science and the data says, when analysed objectively over a reasonable time frame. This is where the “Petri” arguments consistently fall flat on their face.

  25. #25 Lars Karlsson
    February 23, 2012

    The core of the Nazi ideology was a worship of strength and force, and a contempt for weakness in any form. The Nazis viewed the world as a place where various races competed with eachother, and some races would dominate while others would perish.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    Ah, Olaus, you’ve missed your true calling:

    > …wanting facts instead of fanatasies is my cup of tea.

    > Fine by me as long as it doesn’t try to distort climate science.

    I actually laughed out loud at these – which makes you far funnier than that Josh fellow you like to tout!

  27. #27 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Mikem, why shouldn’t he incarcerate his opponents? Many of the unions were international socialists. Mussolini did the same.

    And I can assure you that Stalin didn’t allow unions diverging from “his” communism. Heard of Gulag? Many, many socialists had to go there. Does that mean that Stalin was right wing?

    Stalin’s pogroms are infamous, didn’t you know? He hated jews.

    Just face it, racism hasn’t a political color but becomes extremely dangerous in the hands of a totalitarian government.

    Socialists problems with jews/anti-semitism isn’t hard to explain. They/jews are an incarnation of what the socialistic doctrines claims are rotten in society – the blood sucking superstructure of capitalism – that has to be eliminated via direct action.

    And history – again – tell us that we humans have big, big problems with making difference between structural analyzes including clearly identified “enemies” AND individuals.

    Opps sorry, forgot that I was at Deltoid.

  28. #28 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Lars, the core of Stalinism was also strength and force. So was Stalin Right wing? Jeezzus.

    And Lars, please stop making out with straw-men. No one claims that nazism and communism are identical. Get it? like I mentioned above, racism hasn’t political color. History shows that’s not the case. That didn’t stop Hitler from embracing it though, and making it part of his national socialism.

    Lothar, I’m so surprised. No arguments left (not right) I see.

  29. #29 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    Petri – anti-communism was central to Nazism (interestingly, so was extreme social conservatism), Stalin killed his fellow communists because he was a paranoid nutcase and not for ideological reasons. Fascism/Nazism borrowed some elements from other ideologies and added ideas that were their own.

    Basically, you are contorting reality simply so you can use the term ‘Fascist’ as an epithet. Are you familiar with Godwin’s Law?

  30. #30 Dave H
    February 23, 2012

    Olaus ignores corrections on his false assertion that Heartland is a lobby org and descends rapidly into Godwin territory. Nothing more to see here folks. plonk.

  31. #31 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    Petri’s recent detour into another aspect of his unreality is revealing. He truly believes climate science is a socialist/marxist/communist conspiracy.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > Ms. Readon then refers to a mailing conducted by The Heartland Institute in 2009 of a publication titled “The Skeptic’s Handbook,” by Joanne Nova, …

    After a recent comment at [Rabett Run](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/02/in-other-news.html?showComment=1329889888510#c93550631922811957), Ms Nova turned up to exclaim that she would correct any significant errors:

    > If you explain a significant error in The Skeptics Handbook I’ll fix it.

    I think she went to the same comedy school as Olaus.

  33. #33 chek
    February 23, 2012

    Time to ignore Petri and his lame, own ignorance based distractions.

    From [over at DSB](http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic) on page 18 of the Heartless fundraising plan:
    “We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 a quarter, starting in the second quarter of 2012 for this work.

    Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science.

    Dr. David Wojick, it goes without saying, has no background or expertise in any climate related sciences. But it seems he’s exactly the right man to design the teaching of the subject in the libertarian right-wing-nut-o-sphere.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > No arguments left (not right) I see.

    Again with the fantasies about my obligations. How long have you been suffering from these?

  35. #35 Lars Karlsson
    February 23, 2012

    Lotharson @ 826,

    Yes, and I pointed out her error about the “hotspot”, which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.

    I personally think that Jo Nova is intentionally peddling lies, and that the Heartland Institute is doing the same when they send our her book of lies to 14000 school board officials.

  36. #36 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Lord, anti-maoism was central for stalinism as well. And do I really have to remind you of Trotskij? Your point is? Hitler did a lot of killing within his own party. The murder and Röhm is perhaps the best illustration. This was also about power. According to your own logic this makes Hitler left, but I reckoned that’s not what you had in mind? Sorry chaps, you still have nothing but blind faith.

    And please stop making out with the strawman saying that I call nazism and communism identical twins. Sister’s or cousins are more spot on. What’s alike is anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie society.

    In the 1920s Sweden’s leading communist – Nils Flyg (pres. of the Swedish Communist Party, in the parliament) was the man of Comintern. During a period of 20 years his party went through seven split ups. In the end Flyg’s party ended up in the lap of Hitler. Interestingly enough Flyg was still fully convinced that his socialism was the right (but still left)) one. The party manifesto was then almost identical to the ones wrote in his early days.

    How come?

    If reading the contemporary political debates surrounding Flyg’s transformation (from international to national socialist) no one viewed him or his fellas as “right wing”. His former communist fellows, of course, called him a traitor and a lackey of the bourgeoisie. But Guess what, Flyg accused them of the same thing.

    What can we learn from all this? That the way to the socialistic utopia is a narrow one, and any little slip could turn you into an enemy.

    Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it? ;-)

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    Comment from [Ray Ladbury at RC](http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=10829#comment-228511) about the Heartland Institute and denialists:

    > You quit lying about the scientists and the science, and we’ll quit telling the truth about you. Deal?

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > Yes, and I pointed out her error about the “hotspot”, which others already have pointed out to her numerous times, but which she appears to never have corrected.

    Yep, I nearly posted at Rabett Run that I’d personally pointed it out to her on a thread at The Drum, along with a number of other fallacious claims (including pointing out that (a) what she was calling ad hom was not in fact an ad hom fallacy, despite her coaching her acolytes to say it was, and (b) some of them were engaging in actual ad hom fallacies without her calling them on it…)

    …but the old posts still contain the errors, etc.

    But it seemed like it was already being covered by people who knew what they were talking about :-)

  39. #39 John
    February 23, 2012

    You know Olaus is winning the argument when he starts comparing his opponents to Nazis.

  40. #40 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear all, now that we all know that national socialism and fascism are left wing and not right wing, I would like to comment on the earth shattering news that Heartland isn’t a lobby organization. In my view it is even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.

    If that’s a felony, I’m sure the legal system will deal with it.

    Anyone against?

  41. #41 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2012

    BPW:

    A man who has worked for 30+ years to establish a successful career, and a life, potentially risks it all to show the world that Heartland is pretty much exactly what anyone who pays attention already knew they were?

    So no-one thought this made any difference to Heartland and it was just going to disappear into history until Gleick made his announcement? Sure, if you say so.

    and a life

    Spare us the melodrama.

  42. #42 Scribe
    February 23, 2012

    I just want to say THANK YOU to Dr Gleick. He’s got balls. Thank you for explicitly unmasking the cunts at Heartland. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2012

    Petri’s recent detour into another aspect of his unreality is revealing. He truly believes climate science is a socialist/marxist/communist conspiracy.

    I guess we could update that to socialist/marxist/communist/nazi/fascist conspiracy.

  44. #44 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Chris, here I am giving you all a well informed history lesson (for free, no tobacco/fossil money involved), where I corrected some of your delusions, and somehow I get the feeling it wasn’t appreciated.

    Surely a detour, even if initiated by the monchekie, was called for?

    Knowledge isn’t a heavy burden. Carry your new wisdom with pride, ergo that nazism and fascism are left wing.

    Speaking of knowledge, I would very much like to be enlightened about the evil multi billion denial industry obstructing for climate scientists. I believe I’m wide enough over the shoulders to deal with the weight.

  45. #45 chek
    February 23, 2012

    And let’s not forget it’s a religious/socialist/marxist/communist/nazi/fascist conspiracy.

  46. #46 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    I think it is time Petri got his own thread. His idiocy is just getting in the way.

  47. #47 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Way to go chek. When silenced by someone that knows what he talks about, you run away.

    You are such a cry baby.

    What’s wrong with a “thank you master Olaus”?

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    Can’t say I’ve followed Petri’s claims about fascism very closely, but I got the impression he was arguing that it was exclusively a “far left wing” thing – certainly not “right wing” in any shape or form. This view is interesting because it is a quite common article of faith amongst American (right-wing) wingnuts, and was subsequently championed in a book entitled “Liberal Fascism” (“Liberal” denoting a range of left-wing-ness in the US) by Jonah Goldberg. He argued that:

    > “fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

    and IIRC [his entire thesis didn't stand up to scrutiny very well](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html).

    I don’t know whether Olaus is peddling precisely the same claims or not or drawing inferences on the same basis as or even from Goldberg – and I don’t much care – but others may find interesting reading at that link.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > When silenced by someone that knows what he talks about…

    How long have you been having these delusions?

    (And these cognitive defects?)

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    And if you haven’t got time to read the many links at that earlier website, perhaps start by [pondering this article](http://prospect.org/article/jonah-goldbergs-bizarro-history-0) which includes [my emphasis]:

    > Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism… And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously – no, viciously – anti-liberal.

    > … After all, the facts of Mussolini’s utopian/socialist origins and the Nazis’ similar appeals to socialism by incorporating the name are already quite well known to the same historians who consistently describe fascism as a right-wing enterprise.

    Go read the whole thing.

  51. #51 John
    February 23, 2012

    I am enjoying Olaus’ paranoid conspiracy theories. What next? The leader of the religious/marxist/socialist/facsist/stalinistglobal warming conspiracy is well known Reptilian shapeshifter Al Gore in conjunction with the reverse vampires?

    *How far does it go*? All the way to the *middle*?

    Let this thread be a reminder of the next time Olaus claims he is driven to scepticism by science, not his loony fringe political beliefs.

  52. #52 Dave H
    February 23, 2012

    Damn, no killfile on my phone browser, so I’m still subjected to Petri’s blithering. However, nice to see him own up that the leak brought to light tax wrongdoing by Heartland. I shall endeavour to quote his admission that

    >In my view it is [lobbying] even if it a calls itself something else tax-wise.

    Far and wide.

  53. #53 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Lothar, why are you giving me links? Can’t you speak for yourself?

    So far you guys, and of course monckeekie most of all, have come up with a lot of arm waiving and name calling, which I have riposted upon without breaking sweat. In the 1930s nobody considered fascism and nazism as right wing. And why should they? When an old commie like Mussolini evolves into a fascist he STILL hates liberalism, bourgeoisie and capitalism.

    Try to argue that instead of giving me links.

  54. #54 BPW
    February 23, 2012

    @ Gaz,

    As I said, it was their property, and he did deceive to get it, and it did cross state lines, so it fits the bill. Now, some level of value would have to be placed on the info, and a judge could always fine him, say, a dollar for the offense, but he would still be guilty of the crime. That said, the feds could just not bother because they could deem that there was no harm. In that case, Gleick would have dodged a very serious bullet.

    @ Chris O’Neill,

    Spare me the ignorance. It isn’t melodramatic to state that the man just jacked up his entire life by doing something incredibly stupid. Two weeks ago, Gleick was well respected scientist/activist who’s opinion carried weight. Today he is living with his having to resign in shame from two organizations, and his reputation is being dragged through the mud in papers, magazines and blogs everywhere. Like it or not, he made himself the poster boy for people who think that alarmists will do anything for “the cause”.

    But you’re right, it was all worth it to out those baddies at Heartland. The people we knew were funding anti climate change information all along primarily because that is exactly what they say they do. The only real question is the one Inspector Mashey is looking at. Do they hide under the cloak of being a charity? At least Dr. Mashey has the common sense to not break the law to find out. I find the good doctor’s work to be obsessive and difficult to digest, but I give him credit for being careful to get his information in the proper manner. And if the IRS investigates, and deems they have broken the law, I have zero sympathy for them. I do think any such investigation could open the door for similar looks at groups on the other “side” as well, including Gleick’s own organization. Time will tell.

  55. #55 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Browsed you link Lothar, and I can’t say anything about Goldberg’s book since I haven’t read it (but it appears to take on America, which is not my field of expertise and – I’ll give you that – it also seems to be written with a tendency), but the reviewer is doing the same mistake you guys do. He says nazism can’t be socialistic because its socialism is based on ethnicity.

    Sorry, he isn’t the judge in that matter.

    Again no one contemporary viewed nazism and fascism as right wing. In Sweden the term “right wing extremism” came about in the 1960s as some kind of diffuse generic term for fascism, nazism, colonialism, liberalism, conservatism and nationalism. A disfigured bastardization in other words.

    For chist sake, today we even call the creep Pinochet a fascist even though he loved Milton Friedman of all people. A man carrying Friedman’s gospel would have been shot point blank if he had sat is foot in Italy, Germany (and Sovjet naturally) during the 1930s.

  56. #56 lord_sidcup
    February 23, 2012

    Links to learned individuals and pesky stuff like scientific evidence. Pah!

    Petri – let’s re-wind. You said:

    In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.

    That’s conspiracy theory, and you’ve done a Godwin.

    Do you really expect anyone to take your drivel seriously?

  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear Lord #850, prove otherwise then. No Godwin, but a good win by me. ;-) Heard of Lysenkoism? And what ideology infested the most what then was reckoned scientific – racial biology/phrenology?

    I’m still waiting for the forensics confirming your illuminati theories. Until then your blabbering is an expression for ideology/religion. And since your blabbering centers around evil right-wing Elders I assume you must be leaning left? ;-)

    Take care!

  58. #58 JRC
    February 23, 2012

    Olaus, then I guess the skin heads and white aryans in the U.S. have been doped into believing in a political left wing idea. I guess that is the conspiracy. Wow, that is just incredible. I guess when they figure it out they will all commit suicide. You are such a moron dude.

  59. #59 JRC
    February 23, 2012

    doped=duped…..sorry for the typo was reading Olaus and his right=left left=left ramblings and I was thinking this guy is doped up or something.

  60. #60 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2012

    Dear JRC, European skinheads sure hate commies and they represents a working class movement. But what’s your point? Hating commies isn’t something defining a right winger, which I already have told you guys. During the first half of the 20th century social-democrats hated commies as well. Que?

    And don’t forget how much different groups of commies hated each other – and what Stalin did with these “dissidents”. He wasn’t right wing was he?

    And what about my modern example with Chavez in #811?

    “Hugo Chavez is true to socialism. Still he shares Mussolini’s hatred of capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie society. Lately though, Chavez fire and brimstone speeches have diverged towards nationalism, often cantaining rantings about Venezuela and the Venezuelan culture under siege. On top of that he, like Mussolini, prefers to prance around in uniform (why is that lefties see a democratic guarantee in uniforms?).

    So are Chavez on the verge of doing a gigantic ideological leap over to the extreme right side of the political spectrum or is he only about to shift his footing way out on the left side flank?”

    Care to comment instead of making infantile remarks?

  61. #61 JRC
    February 23, 2012

    Olaus, the problem is that you are trying to fit a philosophy that doesn’t necessarily fit one ideology. Yes there are some leftist ideas in fascism, but there are also rightist ideas in fascism. Against unions more of a rightwing idea…corporate directed government (maybe a leftwing idea, but not necessarily), government control of social issues (mostly rightwing), equality for only those that fit a certain definition of who should be equal (definitely a rightwing idea). Anyway as far as Stalin, Mussolini, and Chavez, they are not good examples in my opinion. Stalin suffered from paranoid behavior for one. And you know that famous quote that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not a left or right thing, but a human nature thing. Question for you. I’m a libertarian myself, but I follow the facts and data. So the question is, if the facts and data present itself that you felt that global warming was real (which it is) how would you propose we dealt with it? Do you fell private interests would like the civil rights movement in the U.S.? Oh wait they didn’t. Anyway I had another question, but I’m running late. Going to go donate a little money to the local casino. :) Anyway I look forward to your response. Sorry I’ve been calling you a moron, but dude it’s almost deserved with all of your ramblings and avoiding of straightforward questions.

  62. #62 JRC
    February 23, 2012

    Sorry, not leaving just yet. Nationalism at least in the U.S. is a weapon of the rightwing in this country. If you don’t support unnecessary wars you are a liberal. That would be anti-liberal. As you have said, fascism was both anti-liberal and anti-conservative. So where would you put it? In the middle? Hardly, it is mostly right wing. And Mussolini even said it was right wing, but they were okay with some of the leftist ideas. You think that ideology changes have to be in baby steps. That is totally in error of logic. (PERIOD) Many a leader of the people have taken absolute power when opportunity arouse. Not all…but the majority.

  63. #63 Rattus Norvegicus
    February 23, 2012

    I found this quote from the Prospect piece quite apropos:

    Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its “palingenesis” — that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously — no, viciously — anti-liberal.

    This certainly describes the roots of Nazism as well as providing a broad outline of Nazi ideology.

  64. #64 John
    February 23, 2012

    I dunno guys. I just believe that artifically adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is causing the average mean temperature of the planet to slowly rise.

    Apparently this makes me religious and a Nazi.

    Isn’t it interesting that Olaus can only discuss science through the prisms of either religion or politics but can’t discuss the science itself.

    It’s almost like his political views govern what scienctific information he will/won’t accept.

  65. #65 JohnL
    February 23, 2012

    News on the fake Heartland memo, Joe Bast done it.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/is_the_heartland_strategy_memo.php

  66. #66 ianam
    February 23, 2012

    Put URLs containing underscores between backquotes: `http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/is_the_heartland_strategy_memo.php`

  67. #67 JohnL
    February 23, 2012

    Ianam, thanks

  68. #68 ianam
    February 23, 2012

    Care to comment instead of making infantile remarks?

    Fro the fellow who gave us

    Jeffie, more unsubstantial shoutings from the Harvey pi(l)ehole

    and

    CO2-doomsayers are not in high fashion anymore. Reality is closing on you guys, and soon everybody will understand that you are worshiping and polishing a turd

    and so much more. The appropriate response to someone like Olaus is to point out the thousands of instances of his intellectual dishonesty, not to give him a sheen of legitimacy by engaging in a debate with him about the fine points of political labeling … an area fraught with fallacies of guilt by association and affirmation of the consequent, where none of the terms are well-defined but rather are laden with connotations that derive from decades of ideologically driven propaganda.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > …why are you giving me links?

    Your delusions are strong. They were **not for you**.

    > Can’t you speak for yourself?

    Me, I value informed opinion and data over the sound of my own voice.

  70. #70 ianam
    February 23, 2012

    Your delusions are strong.

    More relevant is his extraordinary hypocrisy … I count 21 links that he has posted ion this thread alone. You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.

  71. #71 Scribe
    February 23, 2012

    @ John 858

    It’s almost like his political views govern what scientific information he will/won’t accept

    This is truer than you might think. Once again, listen to the research into this topic in this podcast (second half, after James Hansen). Turns out conservatives are a little slow on the uptake, very defensive, and less likely to accept new data. Explains a lot, for me.

  72. #72 bill
    February 23, 2012

    Hey, Tim, can re just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own, or something? This apparently ADD-afflicted garrulous little prat just clutters the place up!

    Back to reality: Those interested in issues of tone and substance could do worse than beaver away over at Joe Bast’s own posts at Heartland itself.

    E.g.:

    It’s also the sort of thing you might hear in an elementary or high school classroom, where teachers either simply repeat what they hear on television or consciously advance the agenda of the political party they feel most loyal to.

    From the eloquent Is John Hunstman Stupid? Now, can you guess why Mr Bast might think former Republican presidential candidate John Huntsman could be ‘stupid’, boys and girls?

  73. #73 J M Sute
    February 23, 2012

    I would just point out a simple fact that the capacity to store heat in the oceans is 1,000 times greater than the capacity to store heat in the atmosphere. (The oceans have 250 times more mass than the atmosphere and water has 4 times the specific heat as air.)

    Day to day weather for the earth’s surface may be more dependant on air currents, but the long term trend is driven by oceans.

    An analogy is the rhinocerous and the bird perched on his back. The climate deniers think the bird is steering.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2012

    > You play his game, Loth, by offering a defense to his grossly dishonest attack.

    I agree it was grossly dishonest and your point about hypocrisy was both explicit and excellent. However, I disagree that I was playing his game or even offering a defense. I was subtly ridiculing and laughing at the embedded fallacy in his attempted attack along with his lack of reading comprehension, and subtly raising the implications for his own many and varied claims. If that constitutes a defense in your view, so be it.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2012

    BPW:

    Spare me the ignorance.

    So all those comments and links beginning at #367 were written only by people who don’t pay attention. OK. If you say so.

    It isn’t melodramatic to state that the man just jacked up his entire life

    Do you read what you write before you send it off?

  76. #76 SteveC
    February 23, 2012

    @ Bill
    just get rid of Olaus to the Jonas thread or start his own

    I think Tim L must be away or something, STC (Scandinavian Troll Collective) “members” (and I use the term in all its senses) have usually been put back in their cage or given their cards by now.

    DNFTT as they say.

  77. #77 Derrick
    February 24, 2012

    Thanks John Mashey for your reply. Other than co-incidence there’s no reason to speculate that you knew and co-incidences do happen. I think desmogblog are clutching at straws claiming that ‘strategy’ could be authentic (they say “is”), and it doesn’t do their reputation any favours. The similarities only prove that the author of strategy had access to the other documents and nothing else.

  78. #78 guest
    February 24, 2012

    Yup, we know how those lefties are just itching to achieve power so they can privatize everything. In fact they [invented the term.](http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)

  79. #79 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Dear all,

    if you don’t want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don’t do it. It was chek who got it all started. I’m perfectly satisfied getting informed about the evil right-wing illuminati fantasies of yours.

    @JRC # 855. No, I believe the problem is that you (and many others) argues from a postulate that says real socialism is a monolith. Nothing is. It is for sure affected by societal trends. And that goes both for commies and nazis (and of course right wings, liberals etc). Do you, for instance, believe that the term “national boljevism” was an invention of Marx?

    Your point on nationalism becomes valid only from an anachronistic perspective. Historically the roots of nazism is socialistic – socialism evolved if you like. “isms” aren’t static.

    @Rattus, are you telling me that communism isn’t about populism, anti-intellectualism, a carefully groomed culture of violence, identifying dissedents? from your citation:

    “populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason”

    Besides the nationalism (which is present but less outspoken in stalinism) there is nothing there defining fascism only.

    @ianam, you sure have nothing to share but feelings. Hoe about arguments?

  80. #80 tmcm
    February 24, 2012

    >if you don’t want to recognize an talk about the socialistic roots of nazism and fascism, don’t do it. It was chek who got it all started

    always the liar, Olaus. The first instance of fascism on this thread comes from you:
    >In sum, when ideology and politics infests science on a broader scale its usually stemming from the far left, e.g fascism, international socialism (communism) and national socialism.

    in a reply to John, not Chek

  81. #81 chek
    February 24, 2012

    chek@796:

    We can add politics to the list of things, like climate science, that Petri doesn’t understand.

    and:
    chek @813:

    And as this is a climate blog, I’m certainly not arguing political definitions here with a fake Euro-libertarian beanbag like you.

    Petri aka Mr. Elders/Protocols/Illuminati/various other religiously-themed drivel @873:

    It was chek who got it all started

  82. #82 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Dear tmcm.

    I said that but it was chek who challenged it. And as usual the only thing he could muster were insults and feelings. Then I felt it necessary to enlighten him.

    Anyways, as I have told you guys numerous of times, I’m totally satisfied getting non-doctored proofs of the multi-billion right wing conspiracy against climate science you all are nursing like a little baby.

  83. #83 FrankD
    February 24, 2012

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

    Il Duce begs to differ with you:
    >“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

    So does Leon Trotsky:
    >”If you place a ball on top of a pyramid, the slightest impact can cause it to roll down either to the left or to the right. That is the situation approaching with every hour in Germany today. There are forces which would like the ball to roll down towards the right and break the back of the working class… The Communists want the ball to roll down toward the left and break the back of capitalism….The rapid growth of the fascists signifies the danger that the ball may roll down toward the right.”
    For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism (December 1931)

    Mind you Trotsky also said in a later pamphlet, “These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left…” It’s almost like he foresaw the existence of Olaus.

    But fascism was like Stalinism in its authorianism and intolerence:
    >Mikem, why shouldn’t he incarcerate his opponents?

    Yep, Olaus should fit right in, then…

    In 1944, then-Vice President Henry A Wallace wrote:
    >“Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. “The Danger of American Fascism”, New York Times

    Sound familiar, much?

  84. #84 Wow
    February 24, 2012

    > DNFTT as they say.

    However, Kick The S*t Out Of The Troll (KTSOOTT, pronounced “kit-suit”) is fine if you need a workout. A good bit of cardio work does wonders.

  85. #85 chek
    February 24, 2012

    Indeed, FrankD.

    Rather as fascists have to spend all their time denying holocausts, so do right wing nuts have to deny being fascists, even if definitions have to be stood on their heads along with the whole world.

    The bottom line is that far from being libertarians, our currently resident fake Euro brand here spend all their time being corporate apologists and denying science. I’m not sure there is a political definition for that, and shills and whores don’t normally operate for free.

    Who do Petri & Co. they think they’re kidding, or indeed influencing?
    Apart from their being stout warnings on the dangers of idiocy?

  86. #86 GWB's Nemesis
    February 24, 2012

    Olaus said in 849 “no one contemporary viewed nazism and fascism as right wing”. Absolute nonsense. Try reading either of these two books on Italian Fascism in the 1930s:
    Sternhell and Ashéri 1994 The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution
    Cristogianni and Caso. 2007. Fascist Italy: A Concise Historical Narrative.
    Both demonstrate that by the mid to late 1930′s Italian fascism was widely agreed to be a strongly right wing ideology.
    Similarly in the UK fascism developed from the “True Conservatism” response to the development of Bolshevism.

    As usual, an even superficial examination of your claims demonstrates that you are plain wrong.

  87. #87 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    FrankD, you keep up doing own-goals instead of showing me data supporting your multi-billion dollar denying machine.

    Trotskij says nothing about fascism being right wing (in our modern anachronistic sense), he says, which is the common denominator for all quarreling sects/acronyms within the “extreme left”, that fascism is helping the bourgeoisie/capitalism. In other words its the wrong way/path towards utopia. If we for instance get back to the former leader of the Swedish Communist Party, he also accused his former “buddies” (still faithful with Comintern) of ruining the way to utopia and hence the Bourgeoisie.

    That said fascism also declares the bourgeoisie society and capitalism as evil. Why don’t take Mussolini’s words for it? And he sure liked to talk on the behalf the workers (who doesn’t?).

    Correct is though that fascism, thanks to its ultra-nationalism, is the right part of the double tongue. And that’s not disputed by me.

    But seriously Frank, do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL representatives of the bourgeoisie with his: “These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left…”. :-)

    Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn’t have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn’t add up, does it? ;-)

    However, what add up, is that Trotskij is being confused by the fact that those wanting to end capitalism and the bourgeoisie society had a hard time taking correct (sic) measures.

    Can we please go on with the proofs of the right wing conspiracy?

  88. #88 lord_sidcup
    February 24, 2012

    This is fairly interesting. Sean Lawrence Otto uses some software to perform stylometry and textometry on the Climate Strategy memo that Heartland say is fake to see who it points to as the most likely author from a range of suspects (including Gleick). The conclusion:

    [According to the above six analyses, which as I caution above may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-document_b_1297042.html)

    The least likely suspect seems to be Peter Gleick.

  89. #89 chek
    February 24, 2012

    In keeping with that analysis lord_s, I’m inclined to believe a proposed hypothesis that Gliek was ‘Dan Rathered’ in this affair.

    That is, a fake memo with some genuine info designed to discredit whoever blew the whistle on it. What likely wasn’t expected was that Gliek would verify the information before acting, hence the focus on the memo itself rather than the damning, subversive information contained therein.

    Which is why our Eurofake-libertarian interloper is jumping up and down so vigourously to derail with anything but the whole underhanded way a flagship organisation behaves.

  90. #90 lord_sidcup
    February 24, 2012

    Whoops, I see someone above has already linked to the Sean Lawrence Otto’s article indirectly via Greg Laden.

    Too much troll wreckage on this thread to pick out the interesting stuff.

  91. #91 MikeH
    February 24, 2012

    FrankD @ 877

    This is Trotsky in 1933 in his pamphlet “What is National Socialism” describing its philosophy and growth among the ruined German middle class.

    Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.

    and

    The leaders of the movement are liquidating “intellectualism” because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion.

    Update the language and he could be describing the right-wing libertarianism of the Tea Party.

    Understandable that Olaus is trying to cast off the association of “fascism” with his own politics.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2012

    Greg Laden linked to Otto, but also did a separate analysis. Again it did not support the assertion that Gleick authored the scanned doc. Hardly proof either way, but interesting data points.

    I don’t know how much of the scanned doc was very similar to content from the e-mailed docs, and one might expect that a high cut-and-paste ratio would bias the comparison away from Gleick, but Otto also took out a sentence that was identified as identical to one of the Heartland docs and re-did the analysis with similarish results.

    A larger data set would probably also be helpful.

    I pondered the idea that Gleick was “Rathered” a few days ago, and still can’t rule it out. That could explain why he was suspected so quickly – and the author of the paper doc may even have attempted to copy aspects of his writing style. However there’s not enough info either way.

  93. #93 Karen
    February 24, 2012

    Sherlock Holmes said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    It’s actually very interesting watching the chooks running around in here :)

    Analytical skills are severely lacking, no wonder you are all so off track about climate change.

    Oh um….. chek your head is over there and Lotharsson your small one is about 90 cm to the left.

  94. #94 lord_sidcup
    February 24, 2012

    Columnist Christopher Brooker admits receiving $1000 and lavish hospitality from Heartland:

    [Anything to declare, Mr Booker?](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/24/christopher-booker-heartland-climate?CMP=twt_gu)

    Presumably, the interpreter of interpretations has been similarly rewarded.

  95. #95 Karen
    February 24, 2012

    lord_sidcup,
    are you from the famous Lord Monkton clan ?

    Maybe one of his illegitimate little sproggers?

  96. #96 Olaus Petri
    February 24, 2012

    Gosh, even more from the mouth of Trotskij. He’s a very neutral bystander. C’mon!

    I repeat what I said above:

    Do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that Trotskij are addressing the REAL advocates of the bourgeoisie with his: “These are people who obviously do not know how to distinguish their right from their left…”. :-)

    Surely the REAL bourgeoisie, in other word those supporting capitalism and the bourgeoisie society, didn’t have a problem with that distinction? Sorry Frank, it doesn’t add up, does it?

    How naive can one be?

    What’s true though, is that many members of the bourgeoisie started to favor fascism before communism and accordingly became fascist/left.

    And before you tell me this proves that fascism is right wing, remember the class markers carried by Marx and Engels.

  97. #97 chek
    February 24, 2012

    Presumably, the interpreter of interpretations has been similarly rewarded.

    ISTR he was an invited speaker at some heartless deniapalooza in NYC, possibly a year or three ago. Expenses paid, natch.

  98. #98 Dave R
    February 24, 2012

    chek:
    >That is, a fake memo with some genuine info designed to discredit whoever blew the whistle on it.

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

  99. #99 Hasis
    February 24, 2012

    Karen, you do realise that the method that has been used to analyse the text was originally suggested by Watts don’t you?

    on, petard, own, his, hoist

    But you don’t see that do you, you just see chickens

    How … transparent!

  100. #100 FrankD
    February 24, 2012

    Olaus is too busy scrambling about trying to cover his bare arse to see that he has utterly missed the point. :^D

    Was Trotsky accurate or fair in describing Fascism as a ideology of the right? Guess what – it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that he characterised it as such. Mussolini could hardly have been clearer. Many others described it as an ideology of the right.

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

    Wrong. Demonstrated several times. By me and others. Yet Olaus sadly wanks on about whether Trotsky was addressing the “real bourgeoisie” as if that had anything to do with anything.

    Now, if Olaus had any intellectual honesty, he would simply admit he made a mistake, overreached himself as it were, and get back to the essential point of debating the whole Heartland Memo situation, which is far more important than his stupid mistake.

    But having read most of the shit he has poured into this blog over several months, my bet is that he will be incapable of simply admitting he was wrong, and will go on arguing the toss, desperately dragging goalposts to new locations in some sort of psychotic rework of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to prove he was right. Even when his claim is clearly, demonstrably, verging-on-laughably wrong.

    Can he man up? I’m excited to find out :-)