September 2011 Open Thread

More thread

More like this

Not an awful lot seems to have been said in the denialist world about Mike Mann having been [cleared of wrongdoing](…) for the 4th/5th/6th/whatever (I've actually lost count now) time regarding conspiring to hide or fabricate climate data a couple of weeks ago.

When the Office of the Inspector General for the National Science Foundation decided they were going to investigate the Penn State investigation, Fox News (everyone's most balanced and reliable news source) trumpeted loudly that finally [someone would get to the bottom of the climategate scandal.](

The Inspector General has now made the observation that in fact there seems to be no evidence of wrongdoing by Mike Mann, and has therefore decided that there's actually nothing to further investigate.

Is it possible that sceptics might actually apply Occams' Razor to the multiple theories of why numerous investigations by many different agencies have found that there isn't a conspiracy, ie, that there actually isn't a conspiracy?

"Is it possible that sceptics might actually apply Occams' Razor to the multiple theories of why numerous investigations by many different agencies have found that there isn't a conspiracy, ie, that there actually isn't a conspiracy?"

No, the conclusion would be "this is an even bigger conspiracy than we thought and far more powerful."

By John Mashey (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink

> Not an awful lot seems to have been said in the denialist world about Mike Mann having been cleared of wrongdoing for the 4th/5th/6th/whatever ... time.

I saw a post saying it was the 7th, but I confess I haven't checked.

And what John Mashey said.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink

Already did, Vince :-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink

Mikem, you will find the deniers using this umptieth clearing of Mann as evidence that there IS a conspiracy. Why else do so many investigations to clear him?

"Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding â possibly a result of global warming â which would ease exploration and drilling."

'partly', 'apparently', 'possibly'. Rewriting history the Orwell way, this is the middle of the process. Know tomorrow that Exxon was the first to point to AGW and its great benefits.

Quote source: [Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians](…)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

@ Marco, 6

The conspiracy theories and paranoia in the denialosphere are reaching disturbing levels. Take, for instance, [this](h reaction to the research published by the CLOUD group at CERN. The fact that CLOUD did not instantly jump to the conclusion that "cosmic rays are responsible for global warming and therefore the AGW theory is a fraudhoaxconspiracycommieplot" was evidence of the scientists being "gagged" by a subversive organization apparently part of the said conspiracy.

These people are delusional. They deserve to be placed in the same intellectual category as 9/11 truthers, birthers, and Alex Jones listeners.

Ark #8, make no mistake: these people are not delusional, but deliberate. Andrew Orlowski is the spinner for the Register as of years hitherto, one of those guys who recycle the same lies again and again. Should have an entry in the [Database](

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

"I saw a post saying it was the 7th, but I confess I haven't checked."

Shewonk has been keeping count, over at The Policy Lass - she has it at seven!

> Is it possible that sceptics might actually apply Occams' Razor to the multiple theories of why numerous investigations by many different agencies have found that there isn't a conspiracy, ie, that there actually isn't a conspiracy?

To a conspiracy theorist, the presence of evidence (regardless of how tenuous it is) is proof of a conspiracy. The absence of evidence is proof of a cover-up. The notion that they were mistaken in thinking they had uncovered a lie is completely incomprehensible to them.

I see there are cross-fertilization effects between the two camps of denialists. Inevitable, I suppose...

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

What was the date of The Australian's war on science number 1?

By john byatt (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

Is Tim considering a book on the Australian's war on science? Would they sue to prevent it?

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

Thanks Vince, somedays it seems like denialism is stepping on my last nerve, and a survey like that is a great way to vent.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

That homeopath survey was fun. When the question "Why do you think homeopaths are being treated this way?" There was only one obvious answer: they are quacks!

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

I did like the idea of homeopaths 'explaining' how homeopathy 'works', though. Could be fun to watch.

I have to concede I did have fun with the "homeopaths explaining how homeopathy works" question. It would be a fascinating study to record various explanations from different homeopaths on a particular "remedy" and compare them.

Well, my answer for the "how homeopathy works" was something along the lines of, "it doesn't work, therefore any explanation is necessarily a lie".

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

Of course the first War On Science mentions the Wegman Report. It makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the Homeopaths could be required put this short explanatory video on their website?

I don't know how many people are actually aware that the 'Blue Ford Mondeo' method is actually how homeopathy 'works'!

My homeopathy answers- crap,crap,crap,it's crap
does not give a score though, crap.

By john byatt (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

first, The Australian, war on science July 2006,
will have to get Tamino to plot the articles and see if the acceleration is accelerating.

By john byatt (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

No, Salby has cleared The Australian by doing a regression, finding only 6 incorrect words per one hundred, little things like putting "is" instead of "is not" or "aren't" instead of "are" thus concluding that 94% of all The Australian claimed "War on science" articles are in fact correct. see his podcast @


By john byatt (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

The homeopathy survey is so full of leading questions and weasel words that it is as unethical as.... as.... homeopathy itself!

At #8

Big Tobacco has a long history of aggressively dismissing scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health, she said

Oreskes is all over this issue.

Louise at #14: Interesting article, and yes the parallels are indeed disturbing. The anti-AGW crowd are in many cases from the old Tobacco warriors, even to the extent of the same PR firms and individuals being involved in both campaigns, usually with some "big government is bad" argument to bolster their support.

Nowadays I can usually walk through Rundle Mall and not encounter horrible second-hand smoke, but 25 years ago it was a shocker. And then the ash and stubs littered about; just a grotty habit. I feel sorry for anyone who gets hooked on it.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

I'm moving my comments on the Jonas N crap here, where it more deserves to be far more than it does in the Perry/Wood thread.

The troll says at [#249](…) of that thread that:

>I would say that my qualifications i [sic] climate science rival most of the commenters [sic] here.

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you? It doesn't mean that saying so makes it true, and it's curious that you don't actually elucidate your bona fides in order to substantiate yourself. I suspect that you:

  1. do not understand the nature of the qualifications of many commenters here and elsewhere in the formal and informal scientific arena
  2. do not have comparable qualifications yourself
  3. have nothing else of relevant substance that permits you to comment with any authority about John Mashey's investigations, or about Michael Mann's work.

>I doubt that more than a very few have actively published anything coming close to climate science.

Many of us have published in the scientific literature, and many have published in disciplines that require an operational understanding of climate science.

Some of us do actually publish in the climate science arena.

What have you published in the scientific domain?

>I'd say that I'm more qualified reading the literature than many [sic], and level with those few who actually do (and can keep their temper).

Again, you would say that, but the saying of it doesn't make it so. Thing thing is, one isn't required to be "qualified" in order to "read... the literature", nor does "reading the literature" render one qualified (two interpretations that are grammatically more accurate than the one you intended...).

From the vacuous and consistently unsubstantiated guff that you post here, and from my own decades of reading of and publishing in the scientific literature, I'd say that you're not qualified either to "read" the literature, or to comment on it. If you disagree, you could start by actually providing some evidence to support your persistently unsubstantiated claims.

>Most of you are even uncapable [sic] of correctly reading...

perhaps you mean "interpreting" or "understanding"

>...a statement, and must project a lot of wishful fantasies about almost anything else (not ever mentioned) instead,

ironic hypocrisy indeed!

> somehow create, or reinforce some narrative about persons you don't know.

there's that irony thing again...

>It is utterly amazing: People [sic] who make a lot of loud noise [sic] about 'what the science says' are incapable of understanding simple statements in a blog comment of a few sentences, and instead must make up all kinds of 'explanations' to convince themselves of utter deslusions [sic].

and again...

>And yes, I'd agree that there is a lot of mudslinging and piggish behaviour here. Compulsory by quite a few who cannot refrain from insults, profanities and name calling. MapleLeaf syas this need is 'being only human' .. Indeed!

>But you think that is acceptable, maybe? Well, to me it indicates immaturity and emotional instability.

Do you eat nails for brekkie?

Jonas N. Petal. Really, what is your case?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

Bernard: can you explain why it is worth spending any more time on JonasN?

In… is JonasN comment to EricAdler:

"I bet you haven't read Dunning Kruger either. Well, I have, and I also have an opinion of those people who think that they need to bring it up, that it somehow would strengthen their argument."

Now this is obviously funny, but at some point in the future, an even funnier reason may emerge.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink

>And no, definitiely not 95% of 'the scientific comunity' behave or sound like people here, instantly needing to switch to shouting down, ad homs and worse!

>Among the 'hard sciences' I would be very surprised if even 5% take that stance. Also, among those the percentage thinking that climate change (or a possible anthropogenic part there of) thinking this is a real problem, requiring massive policy changes to be adressed is far lower.

So [Jonas N](…) reckons that the "the percentage [of "hard sciences" practicioners] thinking that climate change (or a possible anthropogenic part there of) thinking this [sic] is a real problem" is "far lower" than the "even 5%" of "hard sciences" practitioners who need to "switch to shouting down, ad homs and worse"?


Er, [wrong](

And really, if one wants to get an expert opinion, one would ask [the experts]( who, contrary to Jonas N's befuddled misunderstanding, base their work on the "hard science" of physics which absolutely supports the fact of 'greenhouse gas' caused global warming.

And the little troll wonders why people aren't polite to him...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink

>Sigh. Bernard: can you explain why it is worth spending any more time on JonasN?

Don't worry John, I've just about reached my limit. I simply like to do my bit to make it patently clear to anyone who might yet doubt it that the troll has no case at all.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink

Tying together several recent threads, this piece in The Garuniad by Stephen Lewandowsky (see also The Conversation) is both a nice precis of Tim's TAWoS and a great primer for overseas audiences on the distortions, smears and lies promoted by Limited News in the name of its self-professed "acceptance" of the principles of climate science.

(via Pure Poison at Crikey)

And just in case anyone is still in any doubt, the real real truth (with added truthiness) about where Limited News gets its "facts" is remorselessly exposed in all its naked nudity (including the Digital Cloaca of Truth) by FirstDogOnTheMoon:

The Factbricator!!1!

You know,its time to call the tobacco industry out.

You can't just make it illegal, because lots of people are addicted, and it wouldn't be fair on them. But right now you can't legally smoke at 17.

So, from now on, raise the legal smoking age by 1 year each year. I'd like to see the tobacco industry arguing that the law unfairly stops people getting addicted to the drugs of their choice....

By John Brookes (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink

Why do you think homeopaths are being treated this way?

Their opponents are few, and diluted in a large quantity of water, therefore they are incredibly strong.

By Bill Door (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink

A small update to the Dr. Charles Monnett saga for those not following at Eliâs.…

[An Ozzy angle](

[This from the PEER (the legal group representing Monnett) site:](

Something I find damming in the letter to Inhofe, is that the IG received the complaint from a "'seasoned, career Department of the Interior' employee" in March of 2010. Thatâs at least 9 months before the paperâs coauthor, and fellow observer on the relevant flights, Gleason was raked over the coals, and 10 months before Monnettâs first questioning. That questioning was all about the paper, with the Interior Inspector Generalâs investigators specifically stating that the complaint was about the scientific integrity of the paper.

Monnet was suspended in July, for reasons having nothing to do with the âscientific integrityâ of the paper, but instead because of contract management issues which appear equally bogus.

Also note that the letter is careful to include that the scientific integrity guidelines were promulgated after the March 2010 complaint, and their deviation from the IGâs policy of providing anything to the publicly about an ongoing investigation.

The Keystone Kops want out from under this one.

By WhiteBeard (not verified) on 03 Sep 2011 #permalink

Hey, I've just noticed (again) that the climate has not changed as much as predicted. What does it all mean ? I wonder, what does it all mean ? ('How elephants come to be buried in churches is a very perplexing question indeed').
LOL ! :-)

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink

To clarify, I say 'wierd' as the last La Nina only finished in the N Hemisphere spring. Then again, a similar thing happened in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 so maybe it isn't that unusual. Queensland and Pakistan floods were associated with the last La Nina, and La Nina is strongly associated with drought is East Africa, which could be really bad news.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Re JonasN on Dessler thread -

Re steveC@30 Thanks, where is the open thread? Can we add this? - There might be more to JonasN than meets the eye. One possibility is it's actually a petty dorm team with sly, obfuscating intentions to ignorantly provoke - unwittingly junior to adult integrity and the feeling of scientific adventure. Otherwise JonasN could be another Betula about whom I've remarked there's '... a metaphysical eggdom to Betula whereby the possibility of hatching out of constraining mental shells like political fear (corrected) into a more fundamental realm like world standard humanness is an inconceivable nonsense - in the way a monkey doesn't know the gamut of intelligence. So I suggest see the monkey but don't feed it, just love the science of our 6 billion (corrected), trillion tonne planet.' And maybe 'Shub' could be included as a monkey.

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

Attempting for a second time to move Jonas N to a forum more appropriate than Mahsey's discussion of Perry and Wood...

The troll [said](…):

>No, Appendix 9.C is not the scientific basis.

For pity's sake, you numpty, I didn't say that it was. I simply pointed to it as the first stop for a reasonably intelligent person attempting to learn more about the analysis. This is why the Appendix is titled "Notes and Technical Details on Figures Displayed in Chapter 9" and not "The Complete Scientific Explanation of Figures Displayed in Chapter 9".

You will note that I, as have many other commenters, directed you to the references appropriate to the chapter for further explanation. It seems to be escaping your understanding that the IPCC is a panel that summarises the science - it does not repeat the entire body of literature of the science.

I seriously doubt that you're this stupid, however: more likely, it serves your propaganda purposes to pretend that all of the original work is supposedto be included in AR4.

>That is what's stated in sm 9.6. It is not a [sic]attribution, or validation of the hypothesis of the models.

Jackass, I didn't say that it was. I mentioned that page as an example (and you [can check](…) - I even used the term "example") of a further explanation of how some of the ranges were derived.

>Nowehere does it confirm that the chosen hypothesis indeed is the true one, and even less that is explains it with 90% certainty!

"Chosen hypothesis"? What exactly do you believe is the "chosen hypothesis"?

As [Mike said](…), you've been repeating the same vague mantra for so long that no-one actually knows what it is that you are pretending to be so worked up about. If you had an actual case, you'd clearly and explicitly detail it, with references to pages numbers and sentences. Your posts are remarkable for the volumious repetition, with an almost complete absence of any references.

If you want to determine how a particular "90% certainty" was derived, why don't you select an example from AR4 and show us how you have attempted to validate the value. We'll start by seeing how you used the references and supplementary materials, and then how you read back into the primary literature. If that draws a blank we'll watch as you correspond with the authors of the papers that are listed as being responsible for the value, and see whether it is correct or otherwise that the IPCC made the value up, rather than obtaining it from the scientific literature.

>The underlying physics are not even addressed...

So, you have therefore read the references, and determined that this is the case? Fine, please tell us then how you pursued the appropriate papers from the references in Chapter 9 (and elsewhere), and how you explicitly determined that the working that you claim to seek is not present in any of them.

>It's circular arguing: 'If it is true, then we are 90% certain that is indeed is (at least to some extent)!'

Oh, so that's what "they" are saying, is it? Well, how about you use those thingies again (what are they called... oh yes, "references"!) and tell us which statements by the IPCC you have specific issue with, and exactly what you believe their words are and are not saying. You've come up with tens of thousands of words on content-free guff so far, and not one item of substantiation. Great trolling, but shit-poor logic.

>But what it actually says, that the observational (scanty) data to assess the climate sensitivity is padded with 'expert opinions' of a value of 5-10°C/doubling (the mean value of that uniform distribution between 0 and 10 or 20 °C)

Seriously? This is what you think it means?! A couple of sentences removed from hundreds of papers, and you can state this? If God exists She'll be weeping at the flaws in Her creation.

> provided the link to the material explicitly explaining how things are done.

No, I provided you with the first step in the process. A process that you have amply demonstrated you are incapable of pursuing.

>PS I'm sure your kids are adorable. But they have nothing to do with the above.

Oh, but they do. As you seem unable to comprehend it, I repeat: your intellectual capacity for enquiry is at the same stage of development as my three year old's. This has everything to do with your inability to grasp what you are being told, and to synthesise a working understanding of the subject at hand.

>And it is really funny to see at what level people here are capable of arguing ...

I think Jonas N's irony well just exploded...

It's time for you to grow up Jonas N, and actually try to substantiate your claims arising from your very flawed understanding of the work summariesed in AR4.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

I think we're rapidly heading towards a Jonas thread.

>Bernard vehemently defends the idea that (in some cases) scientists hide their main results so well that nobody can find them again.

Ah, a foray into the lying/strawman gambit combination. Struggling a bit to keep up with your usual output of crap, are you?

I have at no point said that I "defend... the idea that (in some cases) scientists hide their main results so well that nobody can find them again". And if you think that the material that the IPCC references is so well hidden that "nobody can find them again", then you are a hopeless tracker of scientific literature - but that has been observed numerous times already.

>Read his many posts here (esp adressing them with who have a different point of view), and you'll see that he is merely an angry activist shouting, who can't handle dissent. He rarely ever addresses any of the core issues or the content of a point.

You obviously haven't read my many postings on Deltoid. If you had, you'd know that I have in the past spent considerable time deconstructing the content of pseudoscientific claptrap, especially when it's within my fields of experience. If I don't do it as much these days, it's simply because I have much to do in the real world, and I choose my targets with more care than I might have in the past. Your silliness is of such triviality that if you were burning within it, I wouldn't bother to piss on you to put it out. The only reason that I'm taking a potshot at you now is that it's a slow weekend.

As for getting to your "core issues", I'm not sure that anyone here could do that yet, because you still refuse to actually come up with specifics, referenced and explained for their perceived (by you) deficiencies. I've even challenged you with a specific protocol, and you seem to be strangely quiet about actually following it up.

You're almost right about one thing however... I'm frustrated (rather than angry) at the bastardisation of science that is occurring amongst the pseudoscientific and ideological denialists. If the nonsense continues for much longer though, that frustration will definitely start to simmer into anger, because we're leaving a whole mess of serious problems for future generations.

>And can you please explain what you meant by the last sentence in #58? Are you also one of those who already know the ansers (and the motives)?

Eh? You mean:

>Happily of the hundreds of scientists that publish in climate science-related fields there are only 3 or 4 individuals that play this dreary game...

which is currently the last sentence of #58?

If you're having more of those pesky comprehension difficulties, you'd better ask Chris, because [that's his post](…). Neither Chris O'Neill nor MikeM, to whom you appear to be addressing your question, are responsible for that post.

Although, seriously, if you need it to be explained to you, then I can understand why it is that you haven't been able to find any of the material in the IPCC reference lists.


By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2011 #permalink

>f you're having more of those pesky comprehension difficulties, you'd better ask Chris, because that's his post. Neither Chris O'Neill nor MikeM, to whom you appear to be addressing your question, are responsible for that post.

Mea culpa.

You did mention Chris. Just not at the top if the post. My bad.

Your confusion, however, is still odd. Chris's statement is clear to probably everyone else here.

It'll be interesting to see if Jonas N actually reads this, as he seems to have an aversion to not sclerosing threads whose topic foci are far from the bent of his trolling. And this is, after all, the Open Thread...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2011 #permalink

I'm not going to clog up John Mashey's thread by posting there about this topic, but if Jonas N is so concerned about confidence ranges he should warn [Will Steffan](…) about the dodgey statistical fudging that the IPCC has apparently been doing, because the Australian Climate Commission is using quite a lot of that information in their own assessment of the future.

Shock! Horror! The Australian government is being defrauded!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2011 #permalink

Warning - the first four minutes of the presentation linked above are just audience chatter. The impatient may want to scroll through to the actual talk!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2011 #permalink

I think it's shame that almost none of the major climate change bloggers has as much as mentoned the climate reality project. Has the blackening of Al Gore really been THAT successful?

Stand up for his important message! 3 days to go.

By Exile Rowan (not verified) on 11 Sep 2011 #permalink

The scam continues:

>Ice at the North Pole has melted to the lowest level since satellite observations began in 1972, meaning the Arctic is almost certainly the smallest it has been for 8000 years, polar scientists said.

The Sydney Morning Herald says [The Coalition distorts facts in campaign on climate charge](…):

> THE Coalition has distributed 34 pages of climate change "talking points" to help its federal MPs step up their anti-tax campaign, including several assertions that are untrue or misleading, as debate begins on the controversial carbon pricing bills today.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

That 4 Corners episode now up on iView for anyone who missed it.

The key thing I think they missed was the significant role of the MSM, especially the Murdoch media empire's influence but perhaps less obviously certain sectors of Their ABC (Unleashed/ The Drum leaps to mind). It's all very well to pinpoint certain political figures (Bernardi, Mirabella) but no political campaign goes anywhere without media support. Apart from The Parrot no other MSM outlet got mentioned, let alone have their role in all this dissected. Perhaps it was deemed to close for comfort...

Has anyone read the [latest pamphlet]( from the CEC (Citizens Electoral Council).

They were being distributed all around the University of Tasmania campuus for free yesterday. All I can say is OMG, are there really people who believe that???

Interestingly the pamphlet says it costs $2... but they're given away for free. I wonder if people are likely to pay more attention to it if they think it's a commercial publication of some sort?

If anyone has the stomach to actually read that tripe, pay attention to the use of language. It reminds me very strongly of the language used by a now-banned contributor to this site who famously predicted that seawater would be drinkable thanks to ocean acidification.

Small correction, lord_sidcup: these are plans of the most-likely-to-become the new Danish government.

Oh Dear, does that mean the the funding of certain Scandinavian trolls may dry up as a result too? Afterall, I can't believe that anyone would go out of my way to be so d*mn obstructive if they weren't being paid handsomely for their efforts.

Thanks Marco. Fingers crossed.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink


This is indeed good news as far as I am concerned. Its taken a change of government in Denmark to see the light.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

Given the public drubbing you gave Lomborg Jeff, and his current situation,and the recent influx of Scandinavian trolls, I'm wondering if Hasis' speculation isn't so idle.

They exhibit a puerile common theme of anonymous insults common among the legendary keyboard hard men, once they've tired of bullying pre-teen girls on Facebook or whatever.

Bjorn Lomborg what a man!
He must be so proud.
Let's hope tales of this episode travel far and wide!

Does anybody have a link to the Jeff v. Lomborg episode?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

Andrew Bolt Loses Race Case

Fascinating to watch Bolt after the court case. Perhaps he was thinking "We live in a world of evil people."

BTW, it was good that the TV news called him a "News Limited journalist".

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

Much as Bolt is a complete fuckwit, the results of this court case don't please me particularly.

If people spring from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, is it incorrect to say that in "identifying" with just one of those ethnic backgrounds in particular, are they not "choosing" it?

If some financial advantages exist to people from a particular ethnic background, is it incorrect to draw attention to the coincidence of the "chosen" ethnic "identity" and the ethnic-based financial advantages available to that ethnicity?

I wonder how long it will be before a practitioner of homeopathy (for example, or acupuncture) uses this discrimination legislation to sue critics of homeopathy on the grounds that their derisive criticism "humiliates" them on account of a belief derived from their cultural background.

The societal flaw that allowed Bolt to "humiliate" these people is the fact that these finacial advantages are not assigned on the basis of need, but on the basis of ethnicity, exacerbated by the fact that there seems little in the way of objective definition of what that ethnicity comprises.

Oh, and if you have a character like Geoff Clark in your corner, that's hardly a vote of confidence in the rightness of what you are doing.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

Not a problem Craig.

Saw a couple of good analyses from media commentators pointing out that this case is, essentially, about neither freedom of speech nor racial vilification.

It's about bad journalism.

Bolt didn't contact any of the people he wrote about, he did a pretty lackadaisical Google search for info about them - witness the almighty clanger about Behrendt's father, and he admitted approaching the subject in a particular way. The way that led the court to agree that he acted in bad faith.

If he'd put in a couple of hours on the phone, he could easily have found a few people in indigenous communities to back up his general argument. But my betting would be that even if he did that, going on his previous record, he wouldn't fact-check any claims made about individuals if what he was told accorded with his pre-conceptions.

So doing it properly would have taken more than my postulated 2 hours. And he's not prepared to do any real work on the matters that obsess him. His idea of 'hard work' is just to put in more time on writing or presenting the same old stuff. He could very well have finished up in court anyway - but maybe with more co-defendants.

[The Olaus personality of Trollinavia said](

>Thank god that CAGW is losing its scientific colors*. Hopefully soon it will be looked upon for what it is: yet another scientific hypothesis kidnapped from the lab and infested with politics and idealism by white privileged middle-aged heterosexual men in the hunt for prestige and status.

I've [already asked for comment about the Arctic ice]( It seems that the trolls didn't want to discuss it, and I'm done with speaking to fools on the Jonas thread who [refuse to acknowledge their errors]( when such have been [pointed out to them](

So, here's a simple statement. When the Arctic finally becomes effectively ice-free in summer, I will be referring to the fact that catastrophic human-caused global warming has explicitly commenced.

Why will I do so?

  1. the ice will have melted as a direct consequence of, and almost completely because of, human fossil carbon emissions
  2. the melting of Arctic summer ice will have immediate and profoundly negative ecological impacts, and will presage further global climate changes.

The trolls might disagree. If so, I would like them (other than "Jonas") to explain here:

  1. why the summer Arctic ice will not melt completely in coming decades: such an explanation should explicitly reference the trend in summer Arctic ice volume
  2. why the melting of Arctic summer ice, should it occur as I state that it will, will not have immediate and profoundly negative ecological impacts, and why it will not presage further global climate changes.

I'm quite certain that they will not come up with any credible response.

Oo, and everyone else. Do yourselves and the rest of Deltoid a favour, and close the Jonas tab. It's the easiest way to stop picking at the scabious lesion on rational thinking.

[I'm curious to know why a Scandinavian would use American English - back in my day in the lowlands to the south English was taught the British way. Do the Scandinavian countries bypass Ol' Blighty in favour of a trans-Atlantic approach to English?]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Sep 2011 #permalink

I've once worked with a Swedish guy, and he actually was more British English literate then some of the locals here in the UK. I wonder if the troll invasion has been spending more time than is healthy on the less reputable American blogs? My impression of them was very much Morano-light ( or -lite).

And while I too called quits a couple of times on the useless waste of time spent feeding trolls, my respect and liking for the Deltoid community only increased. Side-effects, schmide-effects, as Daffy might say.

There's surely nothing more embarrassing than a dramatic, door-slamming, last word exit, only to catch one's foot in it.

Perhaps when the swelling subsides, Mike could enlighten us on what precisely a "particple" (sic) is. CERN don't seem to recognise it.

Sure you are mike. Your lurking mode right now is as tediously predictable as you.

Still, as anonymous abuse of strangers on an internet forum isn't generally recognised as the most obvious sign of a sound sense of self-esteem, I'll refrain from pointing out your immediately previous display of crass, ill-thought out ineptitude.

And to show there's no hard feelings, please accept as a token [this recent paper]( on IR radiative transfer and planetary temperature, by Ray Pierrehumbert for you, Jonas and the gang.

On a cautionary note, try to impress on the gang to read it and try to understand it for themselves. ON NO ACCOUNT should they let Jonas interpret it for them, or they'll likely end up thinking Earth is another planet or whatever his mash-up style of comprehension leads him to believe.