Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!
Aha – so the beanie-heads are now being told by their handlers that the antarctic “balances” the arctic. And yea so verily they believe in it fervently and mightily with all their hearts.
Tell us “Karen”, how does that work.
In both cases.
‘Karen’, is this really how you lot are consoling yourselves? If only the icepack was as dense as you are!
First, try here.
And then: we explained the DMI thing to you before. Try looking at the red lines in the early data away from the peak of the curve and then compare them to recent years. Then click on a few of the middle years. Notice any, um, trends? Funny how the little red line always traces roughly the same arc above the mysterious horizontal blue line, isn’t it? What do you think is happening?
Karenmackspot believes that his graphs are the exact opposite of the arctic ice loss.
The exact opposite.
Karenmackspot believes they cancel each other out.
anyway I thought NOAA was lying about the data karenmackspot, or is that only when it’s inconvenient to you?
There there Bill, I know I know the sky is really going to fall. tch tch tch.
Have you bought your floaties yet Bill ? I’m sure that the climate refugees will start looking for higher ground soon.
Hang on wasn’t that supposed to start 5 or 6 years ago ? You know, about the time when it was never going to rain again !
Or was it when the Himalayas were melting before they were found not to be ?
or or was it when they thought (hoping) that the Antarctic was melting.
So many climate fails, enough to fill a book, but by all means if your into self flagellation whip away fella. LoL
“Or was it when the Himalayas were melting before they were found not to be ?”
Huh? What’s so special about Himalayan snow that stops it melting in summer???
Why is this happening ?
In the alarmist mind it’s not
Uhm, go look at an atlas.
Australia: South Pole.
“or or was it when they thought (hoping) that the Antarctic was melting.”
Antarctica *is* losing ice.
“Why is this happening ?”
Because it’s winter in Australia?
Karen is so good at digging holes perhaps she could apply for a job in mining. No not with Gina ‘No heart’ Rinehart but over in South Africa.
Oh Really! A quick fact check for the bozo.
Oh. And another thing. None of us wish all this ice melt, drought, increase on tornadoes, floods and rising sea level rise (all leading to massive crop loss) etc to be actually happening just to prove us right. We wish to stop it for we have the intelligence to see where this is all leading.
Karen is a disgrace to the human race being so ignorant and stupid she/he/whatever may qualify for a Darwin Award before much longer.
More for numbskull Karen to take in Nine Ways Climate Change Is Throwing Animal Populations ‘Out Of Kilter’.
And that is only a few examples of the ways by which the ecosystem is becoming disconnected. Many species are out of kilter with key life and breading stages – we will soon be made painfully aware of what is lost – when it is too late to do anything about it.
And then there is this: In The American West, The Hottest Year On Record Forces Us To See Things As They Are. Perhaps Tillerson should be parachuted out into that country with instructions to ‘Adapt’. stuck to his chest.
And don’t forget to follow the links in and at the foot of those articles, if you can recognise them that is.
Frankly I think the notion of an IQ of 90 is a distinct overestimate.
Further on out of kilter.
While in other respects she may be able to qualify, Karen cannot be awarded a Darwin due to the following criterion: “…the candidate is disqualified if “innocent bystanders”, who might have contributed positively to the gene pool, are killed in the process.”
I don’t personally expect to die as a consequence of climate change, being lucky enough to have been born in a nice rich first world country, but some already have, and many more will. Her stupidity is fatal to others.
Let me out? Sadly, unlike you, ‘Karen’, I am a busy scientist who has been doing field work in the UK; I have 5 papers to review; three articles to complete; 4 students to supervise; and two experiments in progress.
The thrust of this is that I don’t spend too much of my valuable time replying here to complete idiots like you. Your links say nothing about the vast and growing evidence for AGW, and especially the extreme events that have characterized this over the past decade or so. Your grasp of science is so utterly limited that you think that one anomaly somehow brings down a vast array of data and evidence. Let us be honest here: you are a moron who makes themselves look ever more insidiously stupid with every posting on Deltoid. That you can’t see that is further evidence that your IQ is situated somehwere in the benthos.
Think is Karen et al would PREFER death and destruction from AGW catastrophes than having to change their lifestyle or have government do something.
Question of the day:
Who dresses Karen/Mack/Spot each morning?
Yeah busy busy busy Jeff …so much fearmongering AGW crap to purvey so little time. And those poor 4 students you supervise, are they also dispairing of the “overwhelming evidence” . because I tell ya Jeff baby I ain’t overwhelmed, in fact I’m distinctly underwhelmed.
You’re distinctly underendowed, more like.
Is that microcephaly, or microfallacy?
Is there somebody constantly pulling your chain Brainwash Bill?
Mack, could you please take that cock out of your mouth when you’re typing.
Hmmm………….The Southern Oceans are losing heat,
The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world’s oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation. However, the air-sea fluxes that drive these processes are severely under-observed due to the harsh and remote location. This paucity of reference observations has resulted in large uncertainties in ship-based, numerical weather prediction, satellite and derived flux products. Here, we report observations from the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS); the first successful air-sea flux mooring deployment in this ocean. The mooring was deployed at 47°S, 142°E for March 2010 to March 2011 and returned measurements of near surface meteorological variables and radiative components of the heat exchange. These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm−2 in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2, with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm−2 in January and −79 Wm−2 in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets.
No wonder it’s so cold and snowing right around the the Southern Hemisphere, so where is Trenbarffffss missing heat ?
Sheeez, and that mooring is about 500 klms South West of barnturds CO2 belching chimney !!
ps. Jeff I did find it extremely amusing that you told me to go away, but you did
you can stay away too, LoL
Karen, don’t put your cock in Mack’s mouth when he’s typing.
here’s a global sea ice chart, the trend seems to be flat.
wow you give me the impression that you are a bald pale skinny man with one large muscular arm.
Oh… and I am wiggling my little pinky at you
Good sound scientific reasoning there Wow …you truely are an asset to the Cause. .
Like Karen, take your kindergarten level understanding of science to one of the comic-book levels blogs .My scientific record speaks for itself. I have repeatedly asked the witless deniers here what they do for a living, and the general response has been silence. What’s your big contribution to any scientific field, Mack? Same question to Karen? My guess is nix and nix. At least Betula told us what he does for a living (tree pruning business), and GSW is some third-rate chemist, but most of the big-mouthed deniers here consistenly avoid the question. Jonas did. PentaxZ and Olaus did. At the same time, the deniers all write here as if somehow lacking any relevant education is unimpotant when challenging the broad scientific evidence for AGW. By now, most of the scientific community has moved on, save for a few dead enders. And they are dragging their army of right wing idiots along with them.
Turth is Mack and Karen, neither of you could debate your way out of a sodden wet paper bag. If I was so inclined, I could throw so much empirical evidence from natural communities that it is warming that even you two morons would have to shut up. Its all there in the empirical literature were you to get off of your sorry asses and go to a library that has the access to the Web of Science.
So, where do you think that heat is going. You do realise that this does not imply a net heat loss to the Earth’s systems don’t you? We are not talking about a net heat loss in this context.
And are you aware of the meaning and implications of ‘uncertainties’?
Hey Mack did you hear a little whining noise ?
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
Even NASA knows that there is a little melting in the Arctic every 150 yrs or so.
climate4you is ‘a bait-trap for the unwary‘ as Daniel Bailey puts it here with other comments there revealing more.
And here is another example.
A Google reveals that Jennifer Marohasy likes to reference climate4you allot – so the rat do smellith.
Sorry Lionel, the likes desmog thinkprogress and scepticalscumbags are religious propagandists for the climate cultists, extremely biased and scientifically unreliable.
So where is the heat hiding, poor Kev can’t find it ?
Bugger, Lionel beat me to it on the “heat loss” meme.
Well in other “Karens an idiot” news, that graph (10:59 post) “seems to be flat” because the trend line has been put in the wrong place. Its a bit like put a trend line through a multiyear series that starts in summer and ends in winter and saying “Look! Cooling!”
Deniers trying to put trends through cycles and getting it wrong? Thats olds, not news. But Karen laps it up like a good doggie, because she thinks it says what she wants to hear…
You persist in posting coincidentally, and apparently expecting that there are still some who wil assume that you are two (or more) separate people.
You’re not fooling the regulars though. Just yourself, it would seem.
And for the hundredth time, think about working on your punctuation.
I didn’t have a post at 10.59 Frank.
2 of my posts had links to graphs, but the graphs didn’t even have trend lines.
barnturd has your shrink discussed “major affective disorder” with you ?
August 18, 10:25 am
“I asked a psychologist friend of mine to spend a few minutes to read your posts,”
I think it’s cute how people with mental health issues think that their psychologist is their friend, I suppose that it helps to build trust.
No, Karen, swapping “Donor” and recipient with Mack isn’t acceptable either.
I think it’s cute how people with mental health issues think that carbon doixide is not a greenhouse gas.
I think it’s cute how people with mental health issues think that the planet is not warming.
I think it’s cute how people with mental health issues think that they know that the world’s best scientists are simultaneously imcompetent and engaged in a collective fraud involving tens of thousands of people, and for which there is not a shred of evidence.
“here’s a global sea ice chart, the trend seems to be flat.”
It isn’t when you actually look at the original:
There’s been a clear decline in global sea ice area, even using the shortened period that Climate4you provides. In the years around 2000 – the start of the Climate4you graph- , the global sea ice area was concentrated on the 30 year average; in the last 5 years global sea ice area has been below the 30 year average, and noticeably so. It is right now in fact. Your eyecrometer has failed you.
Thanks again for another graph that shows the temperature increasing since 1979 even by the denialist sites.
starts at 0, ends on +.35
Wouldn’t that make it +.35C over 33 years, about +.1C per decade?
Wouldn’t that also mean that the sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 would HAVE to be over 1C per doubling, since we’ve only got an increase of 40% so far?
And as was pointed out above, the Climate4you graph has fudged the data. In the original, here:
global sea ice just barely goes about 23 million km^2 on 3 occasions, and is otherwise well below that level throughout the 30+ years. It regularly reaches or goes below 15 million km^2 now. In the doctored graph from Climate4you, the data has been shifted up about 4 million km^2, making the average global sea ice appear to be about 23 million km^2. The data also continues through July 2012, but the smoothed line (also doctored to appear about 4 km ^2 higher than it is) ends in March, hiding the decline during this NH summer.
The Climate4you graph is a lie, and plainly intended to deceive. Is that why you used it?
here’s a global sea ice chart, the trend seems to be flat.”
I didn’t have a post at 10.59 Frank.”
So entrenched in denial that she has to deny her denial. I think recent events have pushed her over the edge into psychosis…
You are correct, but these idiots are anything but cute. They are right-wing politically indoctrinated charlatans. Of course the planet is warming: there are many thousands of biotic indicators for that. I am planning to study some insects that are expanding their distributions from the south: processionary caterpillars. The oak processionary was restricted to southern and central Europe until the late 1980s, when it began expanding its range to the north. It established itself in Holland in 1989 and now is abundant throughout the eastern part of the country. Cold winters used to keep this species well to the south, but mild winters have allowed it to overwinter here successfully. Third to fifth instar larvae produce thousands of toxic urticating hairs, which can persist in the environment for several years. A major problem with this species is that its natural enemies – especially parasitic wasps – have not tracked it northwards for some reason. The pine processionary moth, which has a natural range that is even more southerly, is now expanding northwards through France. At current rates it will arrive here in a few years, and is similarly toxic.
If one loosk at the distribution patterns for many ectotherms (and some endotherms) they can see clear evidence for polewards movement since the 1980s and 1990s, as well as movements to higher elevations. There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming quite rapidly. NONE whatsoever. Of the few remaining scientific deniers there are out there, evenmost of these do not deny this. Their tactic has been to claim that the recent warming is due to natural causes (in the old days it was a doomsday myth, but they’ve since moved on as the evidence piled up). That the idiot brigade who spew their nonsense on Deltoid don’t appear to recognize this shows you how dumbed-down they really are.
The anomalies given on this graph for the various data sets make no sense. According to Climate4you, since 1979 the “net change relative to the average from 1979-1988” (an odd baseline, though it should make much of a difference) is the following:
NCDC: + .43C
HadCrut3:+.40C (I note they don’t use the updated HadCrut4)
So, according to them there has been between .4C and .5C of warming from the ’79-’88 baseline, and the biggest warming was seen with the satellite data, the smallest with GISS. That’s ass-backwards. They appear to just take the start number and find the difference with end point and ignore the data in the middle. All of their numbers are hogwash.
Another way that Climate4you doctored the data:
If you look you’ll see that the range for the year 2000 say is from about 18 million km^2 to a little above 27 million km^2 on their graph – a range of about 9 million km^2. The actual range for that year was from about 15 million km^2 to a little over 22 million kn^2 – about 7 million km^2. The whole graph’s shape is distorted because of the sloppy doctoring that was done. Again, I’m sure there was a reason Karen posted this crap…
I’m sure there was a reason Karen posted this crap…
There is, it is because she/he/they/whatever were brought up on Turds-Are-Us. Now they cannot recognise one when they step in it.
I just looked at the Climate4you website and found the chart in question (the one labelled global sea ice area), and I think I know what the problem is: it’s mislabeled. It says “Global Sea Ice Area”, but below it it says:
“Graph showing monthly global sea ice extent since January 2000. The area covered by sea ice is defined as having at least 15% sea ice cover. The blue line shows monthly values, and the red line shows the simple running 13 month average. Data kindly provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Last month shown: July 2012. Latest diagram update: 5 August 2012.”
The numbers may very well be correct for Global Sea Ice Extent, but that is not what the graph says, it says area. Of course, the Arctic is losing sea ice about 3 times faster than Antarctica is gaining sea ice, so global sea ice extent is still going down as well.
Very sloppy website. It’s hard to tell what it’s saying when it carelessly mislabels its graphs. And there is still no explanation for the incorrect warming trends given on its temperature graph above. Big waste of time.
2:57 pm (about Karen &10:59am)
Dates and times are not universal, but this does illustrate yet another pain point. Do people recall when ScienceBlogs *numbered* posts so there was a clear, simple reference?
Do people recall when ScienceBlogs *numbered* posts so there was a clear, simple reference?
Even better – they used to provide a URL per comment so that one could provide a stable reference, even if comments were renumbered (as happened occasionally, e.g. if the moderator removed an earlier comment). And one could also use this to link to a specific comment from another thread or website.
Yet again, the only real debate is whether the ‘evidence’ provided by the residual Dimwit Duo is flawed as a result of intention or incompetence.
And, yeah, Scienceblogs under NG have screwed up in a big way. You used to see comments in threads here referenced externally, not just locally.
This could be fixed. The numbers are still there. Here – for instance – is 127162, the comment ‘Karen’ didn’t make at 10.59 am. Here’s 127063, an imbecility from the 16th.
It could still work, and we could still be referencing valid opinions from competent people.
In case anyone hasn’t twigged, the ‘Recent Comments’ list in the upper right of the page has hot-linked comment references. One can copy the comment URLs from there, if one is quick…
Ah, but I deliberately chose two not from the recent comments list.
Say we wanted to go back and point out that some people don’t understand the most basic things about the Greenhouse Effect, the ‘recent comments’ list ain’t going to be of much help!
My point being there’s no reason for us not to have unique URLs for comments across the entire blog. Why the hell haven’t NG/SciBlogs done this?
And, fer chrissakes – no preview? Or, at least, review? This ought to be standard across the blogosphere.
Ironically, if it wasn’t for all the ‘helpful’ multiple pages of comments that the new setup has afforded us all the old links to comments on the site would still work!
Why the hell haven’t NG/SciBlogs done this?
Well, as someone said about something else recently: intention or incompetence?
To be clear – I’m not going to some cache of comment URL’s I’ve happened to keep lying around – that wouldn’t work pre-NGswitch, anyway, at least beyond a certain depth in a comment thread.
It’s still entirely possible to provide a link to any comment on the entire blog – say, randomly, Bernard dealing with a concern troll in the discussion over Tim’s debate with Monckton.
What we’ve actually lost is the automatically generated linky that lets us do it easily… This is very annoying!
“Thompsons Update – looking for work in the US…”
“Matt and Janet are in Texas and looking for work…”
“They are people who get-things-done….”
er, except for being able to successfully run a business in compliance with all the relevant regulations, that is….
“For those who wonder why we keep track of these excellent people, read all about how they were running a business so profitable they were turning away customers until they spoke out against carbon legislation. I would not have believed what happened to them could occur in Australia. Their determination to get justice and stoic good humour are inspiring.”
Yes, you heard it from Joanne Codling/Nova – anybody spruiking anti-science gibberish is promptly destroyed by a sinister cabal of global-warming mafia…….
Well, you can always get the comment reference from “view page source”, but its hard to be arsed when dealing with weapons-grade stupidity.
With regard to Jeff’s observations, we are all on “blogtime”, are we not? Even if we weren’t I’m on the same timezone that Karen has previously claimed to be on, so we would see the same local time. Even if the time reference was utterly wrong, I quoted the relevant bit of text. An actual link to a comment made less than an hour up thread seemed to be unnecessary, though I concede it gave Karen the chance to avoid reflecting on the fact that her link was, yet again, an epic fail.
But then, I’m not really posting for Karens benefit. If other’s understood the degree of fail, then I’m comfortable regarding Karens continued ignorance is simply fuel for further hilarity.
Karen Aug 22 11.41am,
Yes, To a certain extent I think NASA looks as if it’s cleaning up it’s act…..
1) Petitions from astronauts
2) Realising nutty fraudster Hanson in their midst.
3) Suddenly getting the message from “Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”
Yeah, sure ‘Mack’. It’s telling that you can’t even spell ‘Hansen’ after all this time.
Mack, you’re mumbling again.
STOP typing with your mouth full.
Hey, guys, I think I know why the denialbots aren’t here in anything like their usual numbers.
Not because of the weather that has made it untenable for any USian to proclaim there is no such thing as Global Warming but because Julian Assange is not being extradited.
They’re all busy railing their Faux News Outrage (patent pending) at anyone posting about this and INSISTING that JA is a sexual threat to every man, woman and child because his socks have rolled down a bit.
Seriously. Go have a look at the Guardian Comment Is Free section. Several thousand-plus threads on JA.
Squirrels? I’ll give you squirrels … several thousand plus …
No, we have plenty.
Bill, I feel your pain.
FrankD, thanks for the heads up – obvious once one thinks about it.
USKMS, it’s just plain weird when you have conversations with yourself.
Yes Bill and Boydnerd…..incorrect spelling of Hansen. Oh dear, I should have gone over to Desmogblog to get it right, because sure enough he’s there….”an expose of planetary scale” What a weight to carry for your whole life…notice the bags under his eyes lately….maybe not sleeping too well.
I have seen the comment-is-free section in the Assange-hating Grauniad in response to Glenn Greenwald’s outstanding article (he’s the only one in that rag standing up to the cacophony of hatred and ridicule aimed at JA). It seems like the so-called “liberal intelligentsia” – those who claim to be on the left but support US-UK imperial wars, drone attacks, extrajudicial assassinations and defer to our war-criminal leaders in the west – are frothing at the mouth over Ecuador’s decision to grant Assange asylum there. As for the right-wing nuts, they are even more rabid. But I agree with you – the denialists here are down to K-M-SS and I suppose the others are elsewhere spewing out their vitriol against Assange in various ‘liberal’ media outlets. But let’s face it, this sordid bunch of idiots don’t have science on their side and recent climate-related events have further isolated them. In a few years thios lot will disappear altogether, but what right wing/pro-corporate/deregulatory horse they will start backing is anyone’s guess.
Yeah you join the squirrels Jeff and keep nibbling on “right-wing nuts”
Greenwald has also just moved from Slate to The Guardian and has a couple of articles up on Assange.
I find they have an awful taste – much like you.
“Glenn Greenwald’s outstanding article”
Well, not the *only* one there.
Women Against Rape have a column as does Seumas Milne who works there.
Despite none of them saying that Assange shouldn’t face rape charges (and despite also giving out ground that is not required: i.e. saying that Sweden “may not be able to” give a guarantee not to extradite to the USA when this isn’t the case, but IS the insistence of the howling mob out for JA’s blood or other body parts).
You may want to give Seumas’s thread a look since it gives one set of reasons why ALL media (pretty much) is howling for his blood:
I read Milne’s yesterday. Excellent as well. I think that Greenwald’s pushes the level of dissent to the edge: hacks at the Graun and Observer were tweeting today back and forth in apparent mockery. You ought to check out the web site Media Lens. Run by Davids Cromwell and Edwards, it constantly exposes the myth that the so-called ‘left-wing’ papers in Britain are anything other than state-corporate establishment supporting rags. Note that the deck is heavily stacked in in favor of scribes who laud the likes of Tony Blair, supported the Iraq War and invasion of Afghanistan, routinely explain systematic abuses of power and international law by Britain and the US as ‘mistakes’ in pursuit of ‘noble’ agendas, and forever bury a litany of western crimes. The system ensures that the voices of Milne, Greenwald, Mark Weisbrot John Pilger, and to a lesser extend Robert Fisk are drowned out by many, many more towing the party line. Its the same in the US, and perhaps even worse.
The wall-to-wall trolling and zombie ‘arguments’ being deployed by the obviously well-motivated and co-ordinated anti-Assange commenters (both those employed to write and those responding to this week’s hate-fest) are all too familiar with the same tactics also used by AGW-deniers. All the more depressing of course for being echoed wholeheartedly in the Nu-left(ish) UK Guardian, Observer and Independent broadsheet newspapers.
Whether it’s focus on (alleged 1984-style sex crimer) Assange and not what Wkileaks has revealed, or focus on (alleged data fiddler) Phil Jones and not what the temperature record has revealed, the similarities are disturbingly familiar.
Reassuringly however there are a substantial number of commenters able to stand up against and expose the BS with relevant information, providing the reader is interested enough to stick with the threads long enough.
What amazes me is that those who are actually sane about the whole thing are explicitly saying “I think that Assange has been a snake” and “He must go to Sweden to face charges” yet EVERY SINGLE NUTJOB ***insists*** this isn’t happening and that EVERY Assagne supporter (even if all they support is the rule of law and don’t actually support either Assange or WL) are saying Julian is their hero and can do no wrong.
Makes me wonder what these idiots are doing and why the others are still bothering to say anything against Assange at all. It’s not like it’s changing anything, is it.
And how many are there yelling “If the USA wanted him, where is the request from the USA to get him?!?!?!”.
EVERY SINGLE TIME getting cart WELL before horse.
If a Grand Jury is meeting and sign a secret document on Assange, NOBODY is allowed to know the contents and linking or exposing it is a federal crime (much like the one Bradley is languishing for 800 days in a concentration camp for).
And everyone going on:
“Since when do suspects start dictating to investigative agencies how an investigation is to be conducted?”
NOBODY has seemed to ask where, precisely, there is a need to ask Assange ANYTHING.
Surely the only reason to answer questioning is to clear your name, right? That means they already have evidence of your guilt, or enough to go to court with, but wish to see if there’s an innocent explanation or alibi involved.
So WHY, exactly, does Assange need to go to be questioned AT ALL?
They already have all the evidence they ought to need to prosecute.
So just go with it.
And people have been tried in absentia lots of times. Is Sweden unique in not allowing a party absent to be charged and proclaimed guilty? If so, that’s a pretty good loophole to avoid being a criminal, isn’t it?
…it constantly exposes the myth that the so-called ‘left-wing’ papers in Britain are anything other than state-corporate establishment supporting rags.
And one can find similar analysis of the media outlets in the US that are routinely derided by Republicans as “left wing” – even if you ignore Greenwald’s extensive body of work on the subject.
Slight correction – Greenwald was at Salon, not Slate.
Because we all know that the country that engages in extraordinary renditions, feels no compunction at killing people via sky robots at the President’s due-process-free say-so and violates international law and treaties when it feels like it…
…would feel the need to make formal and public legal requests to 3rd parties for someone it “wanted”.
Greenwald was at Salon, not Slate
I wonder how many of the wing-nuts who are conveniently claiming Assange is a monster also think Todd Akin has a point?
The Guardian has always defined the limits of ‘acceptable’ dissent. Read any of their reviews of anything Chomsky ever wrote, for instance. It’s not too much to say that they despised him as much as the Right do (perhaps more), though they have, interestingly, been running several of his pieces as Op Eds of late.
And their pollyanna-ish lack of skepticism of Pentagon claims of Iranian WMD’s etc. is truly horrifying, and can really only be deliberate policy given the fiasco that was the lead-up to the Iraq War. They’re also way too easy on Israel – one of the big focuses of their founder – but this has improved.
That being said, it and it’s sister publications are still waaaaaaay better than anything that hails from the dismal Murdoch Empire or generic tabloidia, which are both hateful and hate-filled. And CiF is brimming with people who see the world the way I do – as with Labour/Labor voters, the readership is generally well to the Left of the publication.
No-one could accuse Amy Goodman of being anti-feminist or some species of rape-enabler. Thus it’s interesting to see DN!’s coverage of the current Assange crisis.
What I find most intriguing is that Sweden laid and then dropped the rape charges in 2010, but continued investigating the molestation charges. You wouldn’t know it from the current carry-on. How many of the people righteously howling for blood have any idea what he’s actually wanted for? How many have similar ‘skeletons’ in their own closets?
What I think is certain is that if he wasn’t the founder of Wikileaks none of this would be happening, and that if the US weren’t looking to extraordinarily render him, none of this would be happening. I also think that given its previous collaboration in renditions Sweden would certainly surrender Assange to the US, and has probably already arranged to do so sub rosa.
Another supine government – our own – in both its Liberal and Labor marketing manifestations, has given us three very instructive lessons in what Australian citizens in the US Imperial gunsights can expect. They’ll certainly ask if they should gift-wrap you…
“How many of the people righteously howling for blood have any idea what he’s actually wanted for”
Hell, they don’t even know it’s merely for questioning.
For which you have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to go where they demand. They can only cart you off if they charge you and this EAW (which should never have been written: it’s an ARREST WARRANT, which means you have to have been charged at the very least, not merely accused) explicitly says it’s merely and solely for questioning. If they wanted to arrest him with it, even after questioning, then they would be breaking EU law.
It would be like charging someone with the offence of squirrel baiting. No such law exists and although the arrest may have been carried out with the correct procedures, the arrest itself is unlawful because no such offence exists.
“Because we all know that the country that engages in extraordinary renditions…”
Heck, not even that.
Is there ANY reason why the USA would not be allowed to issue a warrant for his arrest when he’s in Sweden because they haven’t issued one for him in Englant?
Really? Is there a statute of limitations on this and it will run out in a couple of days? Or can warrants only be issued to the UK? What?
Meanwhile the BBC sweeps the gutter for ‘Opinion’. propaganda.. It is easy for the discerning reader to figure where the hypocrisy really lies especially those familiar with the work of Noam Chomsky or John Pilger. PJ Crowley (former US Assistant Secretary of State or not) is full of it.
Whilst few recognise that this is a trumped up situation dreamed up by the US, with Assange, to my knowledge not having been charged with any offence. How much cash is now changing hands in, or other incentives offered to, Sweden.
If it smells like a rat then Assange has just reason for not returning to Sweden which country only has to send lawyers to the embassy if there is a case to answer. Tellingly they are avoiding this. Perhaps Uncle Sam has made it known that they will take care of it by foul means as fair will not stand a chance.
I suspect William Hague’s foot is sore, he having ‘shot’ it, with him now busy sucking it.
“How much cash is now changing hands in, or other incentives offered to, Sweden. ”
A swedish ex MP with designs on becoming boss lives in the USA at the moment and looking for something to display as chops. They are also one half of the legal team that is persuing this case.
NOTE: its unlikely for an Swede who has moved nationality to become the Prime minister. You need serious backing to manage to get that going…
On the push back against the deniers and their apologists Peter Sinclair has an article up on Michael Mann filing a law suit against National Review with a hint that more could be in the works:
The legal dismemberment of the Denial machine has begun. In a conversation thursday with a very senior scientist, I was updated on a number of actions slowly encircling the Denial industry. Think, – Tobacco lawsuits on stereo steroids, with extra secret sauce.
Meanwhile elsewhere there is news that the Daily Kos is rallying the troops. This needs watching and supporting.
Picking up on the Mann v National Review thing here is the letter from Baker Hostetler (lawyers for National Review at a guess) where they invoke Andrew Montford and James Delingpole (the Page 3 guys – they having been revealed as snappy dressing emperors ). You just cannot make this stuff up. But that’s ‘interpreters of interpretations’ lawyers for you.
I hope that Michael Mann makes the National Review bleed hæmorrhage.
Someone more knowledgable about US litigation than I would be able to clarify the matter of ‘damages’, but I imagine that if Mann had recourse to such he’d have a Bag of Infinite Holding into which to delve, once not only is his personal reputation taken into account, but his is capacity to operate effectively in his professional role in communicating the import of his work.
No doubt you will all be delighted that Steyn’s and NRO’s lawyers will have the legal right to inspect *every single document* written by Mann pertaining to his ‘research’ including those that hitherto he has refused to release on grounds of confidentiality. The words “No hiding place” come to mind.
Yup, we’re delighted. Since it is accurate and has been scrutinised for any errors like no other document in history, there’s nothing to feat for Mann.
Those lying scumbag deniers, however, have to hope like hell this stalls.
Here’s another of the hundreds of “Hockey Sticks” http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1-kinnard2011.jpg
No, no, Wow, I am referring to all those documents Mann has so far *refused* to release. And they will include, no doubt, a host of fascinating e-mails to his co-consp – ooops, sorry – co-confidants.
Your declared location suits your persona.
Time for FOI moves on Delingtroll and Cardinal Puff perhaps, now that would be interesting. MacIntyre too would probably yield enough to incarcerate quite a few given his involvement in the so called climategate – there are your real criminals. In a real investigation into that hacking MacIntyre would have been hauled in for questioning. After all, even if he did not do the hack himself he probably knows those who did.
“I am referring to all those documents Mann has so far *refused* to release.”
So you’re up with Bradley Manning who released documents that the US government refused to release? You think he should be set free, because the US government REFUSED to release classified documents?
No, Wow, because Manning is a serving soldier who released classified documents against the orders of his superiors.
Prof. Mann is a civilian ‘scientist’ who is perfectly entitled to keep his documents secret, and I and others are perfectly free to speculate as to why. Now however, he has taken a step which means that he must allow NRO/Steyn (and the rest of us) total access.
Well, you’re in support of open acces, I’m sure, Wow, so you must be pleased.
Except that isnt a refutation that the USA *refused* to release that information.
That’s the only reason you’ve given for Mann’s release of every scrap of information, so therefore you HAVE to be insisting that the only reason something MUST be released is because it has been *refused*.
Except it seems you don’t.
This is because you want to hound Mann and have a raging hard-on about AGW.
“Well, you’re in support of open acces, I’m sure, Wow, so you must be pleased.”
You, however, aren’t.
Unless it’s to harrass someone who says something you find politically and ideologically dangerous. Rather stalinist of you, really.
“which means that he must allow NRO/Steyn (and the rest of us) total access.”
No it doesn’t.
Wow, the law, along with climate ‘science’, is obviously not your strong point. Allow me to help you.
1: Manning is a serving soldier who took an oath part of which implies that he must obey any legal order from his government.
2: He disobeyed a legal order and therefore he must answer for it.
3: Mann, a civilan, has consistently refused to disclose a host of documents **which he is perfectly within his rights so to do**.
4: However, he has now decided to sue NRO/Steyn and the law states quite clearly that they and their lawyers are entitled to look at every single document Mann has in his possession dealing with the subject of the case.
Presumably, Prof. Mann was so advised and presumably he has nothing to hide and nothing to worry about – er, has he?
Duff, I am a bit slow. Which documents are you referring to? How did the National Review know what is contained in these alleged, but as yet unnamed, documents before they defamed Mann?
One would have to be remarkably thick to make a libellious accusation and hope it will be backed up by unseen “documents”, documents that deniers are unwilling or unable to name. As seen with the latest Watts lets-suspend-my-blog-so-I-can-make-shit-up debacle, all the deniers really want is a chance to trawl through Mann’s email. Apparently the first trawl wasn’t enough to prove what they claim.
Moreover, their claim that the term “fraud” is merely “rhetorical hyperbole” is delightfully stupid. To claim that their accusation of criminal behaviour was a bit of eccentric wordplay will be exploded in court, along with any notion that Mann has committed any of the malfeasance the deniers squeal he has.
Cue the coming shrieks of “WHITEWASH” as a gaggle of sad old men discover the US court system is just another cog in Al Gore’s green machine.
re:1: The FIRST OBLIGATION of a soldier is to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
The NDA is very far down the list from that.
re:2: No, he didn’t. He wasn’t ordered to cover up the crimes and if he had been, these would have beein illegal orders.
re:3: The president of the USA is a civilian.
re:4: Yes, but the court can only request access to documents relevant to the case.
“Presumably, Prof. Mann was so advised and presumably he has nothing to hide and nothing to worry about – er, has he?”
He has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from a court case. Which is why he brought it up.
And I guess the USA government and military have something to hide here, right:
So why the worry? Why the fear?
NEWS FLASH —-
Today, accusations have arisen that Anthony Watts has a secret horde of kiddie porn stashed away in a secret location on a computer system he has access to.
Tales of four month old babies bleeding from the abuse being photographed have been made.
Anthony Watts, REFUSES to let courts release all the information on all his computer systems to discover any other co-conspirators in this kiddie-porn ring, contended to be international in scope, whilst forensics teams work to find out if he has used encryption programs to hide his secret shame.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.