Wednesday, October 31, 2012

One For John Mashey

Frontline and Propublica have found something interesting about the American Traditions Institute, you know the one that Chris Horner and Paul Schnare are running.  Turns out, and this gets complicated, that ATI was really started by the American Traditions Partnership which was a name change from Western Traditions  Partnership (everybunny knows that).  Well, so what?

Turns out that WTP in applying for its tax exempt status told the IRS that they needed expedited consideration because their existence depended on a $300K donation from one Jacob Jabs who was not going to hold the money forever.  Well, so what?

Well turns out that Jacob Jabs spoke to Pro Publica and Frontline and had an interesting non story to tell

“I think they just grabbed my name out of a hat to forward their agenda,” Jabs told us. “I know nothing about the group, never heard of them, never have heard of them until the last few days, and I did not, absolutely did not, commit $300,000 to start this company.”
and
"I did talk to Christian LeFer," Jabs said. "They basically admitted they used me to get their 501(c)(4) status." Jabs said he also contacted Reed, who did not call him back. 
and there is evidence
On Monday, we detailed how some of those documents pointed to WTP actively shaping the campaigns of candidates for state office in Montana. The documents, found in a meth house near Denver by a convicted felon in late 2010, indicate possible coordination between candidates and outside groups. Outside groups and candidates are not allowed to coordinate. 
 Well, so what?  Well he also talked to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

Well, so what?  Well, there is an important US Election going on and interesting things are happening in Montana

73 comments:

Rattus Norvegicus said...

since I live in Bozeman (and often comment on the Chron website) I can say that these vermin have been infecting our electoral process for the last four years. They are scum, but then everybunny knows that.

I don't know about Jabs. He did give a pretty big donation to the local U (where I work) for a new business college -- there is already a rudimentary one there -- but since he lives in Denver, I can't say much about his standing in the community. Some of the local businessmen in this town are less than savory, especially one who is running for Rehberg's seat.

Anonymous said...

Why Mashey? He has no integrity and is the picture definition of the word duplicity.

What an odd choice.

John Mashey said...

Eli: Having a pile of juicy documents pop up in a meth house seems like a bluebird deal for Frontline. I'm jealous.

Admittedly, interesting emails sometimes just appear in my inbox, so I can't complain too much.

Anonymous said...

"Why John Mashey (blah blah blah)..."

Completely unevidenced and illogical faff from a troll who's so lame that he can't even squeeze out a pseudonym.

Obviously Mashey has confronted said troll more than his neurone is able to process.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

bill said...

anonymous - both gutless and gormless.

Jeffrey Davis said...

Discovered in a meth house?

(repeat 20 times in ever bigger font with ever more exclamation points)

73 boutsour

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Actually they were found in a car which had been stolen. What is really funny is that the Montana Political Practices Commission had them for the last year or two but couldn't do anything with them because they couldn't ascertain their veracity. Now that ATP has stepped forward and said "hey those are ours and they are stolen and we want 'em back!" the PPC can move forward developing a case against ATP. I would guess that within a year both ATP and ATI will be history. Unfortunately they will be replaced with equally pernicious entities run by the same people.

Anonymous said...

@Bernard & Bill


Don't get mad, get angry.


Mashey who is persistent in his pursuit of truth, who said "sue the bastards" just ignored Mann's claims to be a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Duplicity.

Lack of integrity.


Everything he does/says is suspect.


But not to his followers.

Cannot wait to read about "Masheytown" down the road in the future.

dhogaza said...

" just ignored Mann's claims to be a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize."

This doesn't even rise to trying to build a mountain out of a molehill ... more like out of a shrewhill ...

Anonymous said...

Not to people like you, uninterested in being truthful in any and all representations.

Goes to character. If that is his mindset what other little items will he embelish, exaggerate, fudge, use a trick on?


I though we should expect scientists to be precise, honest and go where the facts lead them.


Nope. It is more like a cult following.

kT said...

I though we should expect scientists to be precise, honest and go where the facts lead them.

And us scientists thought that idiots like you would have at least gotten yourselves a minimal post-sputnik education so you could follow the science well enough to be knowledgeable to comment on it.

Back to community college with you!

J Bowers said...

"Not to people like you, uninterested in being truthful in any and all representations. Goes to character. If that is his mindset what other little items will he embelish, exaggerate, fudge, use a trick on?"


That's no


way


to talk about




Pat Michaels.

Anonymous said...

@KT,

Your post is void of science so your claim to be a scientist is lacking supportive evidence.


Your lack of concern for honesty and integrity is noted along with your derision for those that do not agree or are like you.

IOW you are a joke.

dhogaza said...

Is our new idiot Lumpy or Cadbury?

Jim Eager said...

When they use phrases like "cult following" and "Masheytown" it is an open admission that they have no logical cogent argument to make.

kT said...

Your post is void of science

That is so weird that you say that, because my post contains a link on my user name that points to a blogger profile the further points to a Wordpress blog which further (if you dig deep enough) points to a document repository. Most people here know me by my real name. Anonymous doesn't point me anywhere in contrast to your ruminations.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Apropos my previous comment, this just up at the Comical "Political practices reports apparent break-in". Things just keep getting weirder...

Anonymous said...

When they use phrases like "denier" and "tobacco supporter" it is an open admission that they have no logical cogent argument to make

Anonymous said...

@Kt


So you are saying you are related to Kevin Bacon?

Hank Roberts said...

The spambots are still clever. Perhaps raising the bar during the last days before the election would be worthwhile? A deluge is likely.

Hank Roberts said...

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/elections/2012/article_05cd60d2-2447-11e2-a9a6-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Nixon's Plumbers came out of retirement??

Lotharsson said...

When they parrot the structure of a statement of an argument using different terms, but without any seeming awareness that those terms are supported by evidence in their parroting...

...it is an open admission that they don't understand the concepts of evidence or logic.

(And that they are at a loss when snark is called for.)

Anonymous said...

Loth meet mirror, mirror say hello to Loth.

kT said...

The troll is losing his mind.

Ok, I want to be the first person to call for popcorn all around. Due to the high price of popcorn, a small honorarium is requested, but not required. Thanks.

Marion Delgado said...

Bernard I have to agree with Anonymous 8:49 - just to give one example, while running a Mashey shell I set up a cronjob to sort my popmail, and instead, it tried to launch nuclear missiles on Taiwan.

He also introduced billiards to River City.

Jim Eager said...

Ah, but anthropogenic climate change denial is a demonstrable fact, which can be demonstrated by merely comparing the statements of those in denial with the scientific evidence, not to mention observations of physical reality.

It is also a demonstrable fact, thanks to the tobacco papers, that that some of the very same people orchestrating the denial of anthropogenic climate change also orchestrated the denial of the health effects of tobacco.

Voila, a logical and cogent argument.

EliRabett said...

Ooops. Hit the wrong button.

Lotharsson said...

Our troll who has problems typing complete names is now apparently expecting inanimate objects to speak.

'nuff said.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll.

Just out of perverse curiosity, could you please explain why the circumstance of John Mashey not writing about Michael Mann invalidates the (planetary) weight of evidence he collects that shows the incompetence, duplicity and general misbehaviour of many other people.

You see, it seems to me that you're pursuing a vigorous (and logically fallacious) campaign of attempting to poison the well. I'd like to understand why this is not the case - but be warned, if you can't convince me or otheres here we'll just have to conclude that your reason for remaning un-named is a direct consequence of your fixation with logical fallatio.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

"It is also a demonstrable fact, thanks to the tobacco papers, that that some of the very same people orchestrating the denial of anthropogenic climate change also orchestrated the denial of the health effects of tobacco.
"

So with this bit of logic, if say a university President was charged with whitewashing / botching one investigation at his/her university it could be said he/she botched another?


Loth has trouble typing complete words, so I thought he liked the practice, my bad.


Oh Bernard I nor anyone on the planet could convince a follower like you of anything other than your beliefs.



And here we are, not a single Rodent Run regular can say that Mann should not have claimed to have won the Nobel Peace Prize. We have one group that denies he ever said that, I'll them the deniers. We have one group that says it is irrelevant to Global Warming and proceed to argue against that Straw Man. And yet a third group who think he did win the Nobel Peace Prize, because the IPCC did and Mann was part of the IPCC.


One thing all the groups have in common, attack the messenger and avoid discussing the topic of whether Mann should have claimed to have been awarded the prize. Also let us not forget that the great Mashey, the exposer of duplicity and flase claims completly over looks this claim by Mann.


Rodents Running to Masheytown. Catchy.

Zibethicus said...

"One thing all the groups have in common, attack the messenger and avoid discussing the topic of whether Mann should have claimed to have been awarded the prize."

This line of yours might have slightly better traction if you cared to make a statement of some sort regarding Monckton's own long-standing (and utterly baseless) claim to be a Nobel laureate himself.

Aren't you trying to campaign for intellectual honesty and full disclosure on both sides of the 'discussion'?

Anonymous said...

"Oh Bernard I nor anyone on the planet could convince a follower like you of anything other than your beliefs."

Oh, you flatterer, you!

Given that the only things that I "believe" in when it comes to knowledge are the objective conclusions of empirical evidence assessed by the scientific method, you couldn't have hit the nail more square on the head.

I'm pleased that you acknowledge the strength of the paradigm to which I adhere.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

"One thing all the groups [ie. deniers] have in common, attack the messenger and avoid discussing the topic" - anonymous troll

Well, you have to admit, here our troll is 100% correct.

Instead of talking about the physics of GHGs and the observed warming confirming that we are experiencing AGW, troll wants to attack Michael Mann over a piece of paper hanging on his office wall.

Anonymous Etc.

Jim Eager said...

And with "So with this bit of logic..." anonytroll demonstrates that he hasn't even the slightest grasp of how to construct a logical argument based on facts.

No wonder he instead relies on blather and sputter.

Anonymous said...

"Instead of talking about the physics of GHGs..."

You might want to read the title of the article and stay on topic.


Bernard,

In the; Mashey ignored the false claim by Mann, you have avoided the evidence and tried to change the subject.


Zibethicus,

Ah excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Weak. But since you like weak. Monckton's claim was wrong although his was in jest and not in a legal filing.

"Aren't you trying to campaign for intellectual honesty and full disclosure on both sides of the 'discussion'?"

Yes by staying withing the context of the article.


Number of times Rodents Running to Masheyland have acknowledged that Mann made a false claim is zero.

Mashey still out to lunch on the topic as his credibility (yes I am charitable assuming he had any to begin with) erodes away.


Anonymous said...

"I kind of like incentives, myself, but maybe I'm classless". Myself, Mr. Rabid, well forgive me for thinking that all little hares do not liken to socialism. Little hares get up every evening and forage for themselves. Their only incentive is hunger, not collectivism. Ergo, deep down, one wonders if you really are a little bunny.

Anonymous said...

Can we please get back to talking about the goings on with LeFer et al. The troll has had his moment in the limelight.

Albatross

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Aww, isn't it cute! John Mashey has an Internet stalker!

I guess when the burden of repeated failure become too great, stalkers just crack and lash out at those who have a long track record of integrity and success.

Enjoy it, John, and remember the words of Leonardo:

"As to my enemies, I pay no more mind to the wind that comes from their mouths than I do to the wind that comes from their anuses."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll: "Mashey still out to lunch on the topic as his credibility (yes I am charitable assuming he had any to begin with) erodes away."

Yet the earth warms, and humans are the principle cause.

More anonymous troll: "Myself, Mr. Rabid, well forgive me for thinking that all little hares do not liken to socialism." Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Apparently Anonymous troll is a Libertarian Idealogue, IDE1 or IDE2 in John's 2008 taxonomy. Irrational fear of "socialism" (They keep using that word, I do not think they know what it means) is diagnostic.

E pur, si riscalda

Anonymous said...

@Anon,

lol Another Straw Man arguement. I make a point about Mashey and you want to say that the earth is warming, duh.

Jim Eager,

It is also a demonstrable fact, thanks to the recent idictment, that that the very same person orchestrating the whitewash of investigations about Jerry Sandusky also orchestrated the whitewash of the Michael Mann misconduct investigation.

I know I know not in your duplicitous world, but I digress.

Martin Vermeer said...

It's good to see that some folks understand what an important recognition it is to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in real, individual person; not something to be claimed lightly. Surely that's why Anon soaks up every word from the Gore's lips as gospel truth, and of course will be voting for the Laureate in a few days

kT said...

Apparently Anonymous troll is a Libertarian Idealogue

very same person orchestrating the whitewash of investigations about Jerry Sandusky also orchestrated the whitewash of the Michael Mann

OMG it's a CLUE from the clueless!

He's a Simberg simbot, guaranteed.

J Bowers said...

"the very same person orchestrating the whitewash of investigations about Jerry Sandusky also orchestrated the whitewash of the Michael Mann misconduct investigation."

Which fails to explain or even address the other eight inquiries exonerating Michael Mann.

Jim Eager said...

As I said, blather and sputter is all it can muster. Amusing that it has nothing better to do than make a fool of itself here. Repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Lol

So J Bowers are you equally mocking Jim Eager's point about tobacco supporters and their guilt in current actions based on past actions?

LMAO


Set the trap and watch all the rodents come a scampering in.


Still not a single rodent who is a member of the Rodents Running to Masheytown can muster enough integrity and honesty to denounce Mann's claim in a legal filing that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.



Thanks for the laughs

J Bowers said...

"So J Bowers are you equally mocking Jim Eager's point about tobacco supporters and their guilt in current actions based on past actions?"

No, because Jim Eager's correct.

Got anything to say about the other eight inquiries clearing Michael Mann that doesn't require you wear a tinfoil hat?

J Bowers said...

And, Eli might note there's an Anonymouse at Wiki zealously censoring global warming from the Sandy record.

Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia

David B. Benson said...

Becoming boring.

Anonymous said...

I agree.

Reading duplicitous trash on Rodents Running to Masheytown is boring, at least on this article.

Looking forward tp rubbing rodent faces in their crap in the future.

kT said...

Looking forward tp rubbing rodent faces in their crap in the future.

More rodent crap for your face :

http://dgsmith.org/2012/10/31/big-sky-dark-money/

Interesting stuff on 'attorney' Jim Brown in there - janitor boy.

The 'Morman' connection.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

J. Bowers,
It may come as a surprise to some here that I actually try to deal charitably with my fellow forest dwellers. If someone says something the is seemingly stupid, I try to interpret it in the best light possible. I have found that not only does this facilitate my relationships, it is also usually more enlightening.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that our climate denialist/glibertarian brethren and cistern really just aren't that bright. Whether this lack of intelligence and insight is native or due to prolonged wearing of ideological blinders is not known. Certainly, research has shown that watching Faux News actually makes you stupider than having no news source at all.

Perhaps we should take up a collection to see if we cannot help these poor, benighted creatures. I can even come up with a name for the condition:

Acquired Stupidity Syndrome--ASS

And the sufferers can be called ASSes

Anonymous said...

A_ray,

Hate to break it to you, but you are pretty stupid and yoo lack integrity. You are always quite angry and lashing out at others that disagree with you on one point and you exaggerate that to they must be deniers taking money from big tobacco and corrupting the election system.

You are a fruit loop and a soggy one at that.


Continue to live in your own constructed reality, it is quite entertaining to read your arrogant condescending idiocy on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

I suppose all the rodents are going to arguing with the IPCC about who can claim to share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.


Game-Set-Match.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf

The prize was awarded to the IPCC
as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer
to any IPCC official, or scientist
who worked on IPCC reports, as a
Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC
reports in this way: “X contributed
to the reports of the IPCC, which
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”


I applaud the IPCC, not so much the rodents here.


Zibethicus said...

"Zibethicus,

Ah excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Weak."

Oh, well...(shrugging)...given the stentorian silence which has been maintained by the denialist community on the subject of Monckton's claim, which dates back years, one can be forgiven for the suspicion that your forefinger, quivering with righteous indignation, is actually pointing out at least two malefactors.

"But since you like weak. Monckton's claim was wrong although his was in jest and not in a legal filing."

Here is a link to Monckton's denying in 2010 that he ever /made/ any such claim: http://www.readfearn.com/2011/07/monckton-not-in-control-of-his-own-biography/

At the time, the claim was up on the SPPI website, and not in any context which stated or even implied that it was in jest:

His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.

(end quote)

Now, it seems to me that Monckton's been a very, very naughty boy indeed, especially since Mann was actually a member of the organisation to which the award was presented, and Monckton, well - he just wasn't a member of anything at all relating to any such award.

So when are you going to start calling Monckton ugly things like "the picture definition of the word duplicity" and "uninterested in being truthful in any and all representations"?

I mean, it's not as though you have a double standard or anything, is it?

Anonymous said...

So when are you going to start calling Monckton ugly things like "the picture definition of the word duplicity" and "uninterested in being truthful in any and all representations"?


I never called Mann "the picture definition of the word duplicity" nor the other quote.

Try reading what I wrote one more time.

Oh and btw, The IPCC agress with me that Mann is wrong to haveclaimed he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his legal complaint and other places available in cached pages on the good ole Internets..


Are you trying to convince me Monckton = Mann?


Anonymous said...

Come on Mashey go tell the IPCC they are wrong and that Mann can claim to have been awarded the 2007Nobel Peace Prize!

lol

What a joke. The IPCC's letter today makes all of you look very foolish.

Zibethicus said...

"Are you trying to convince me Monckton = Mann?"

Well, let's put it this way: if you think that it's "weak" to be "excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior", why are you trying to hard to keep the spotlight on Mann and off Monckton?

Surely you're not "weak"...?

Anonymous said...

I suggest you read your question again before I answer it.

You are not one of the smarter bunnies are you?


I am not surprised you have no reaction the IPCC letter which makes all the defenses of Mashey and Mann seem pretty pathetic.

Since you insist on the comparison, then yes Mann and Monckton are equally wrong and are very similiar in their views of honesty and self promotion.

Monckton and Mann can now be viewed as two peas in the same pod.

David B. Benson said...

A certain commenter on this thread certainly belongs in Bedlam.

Anonymous said...

Hysterically ejaculating Anonymous.

1) Are humans emitting CO2 and consequently increasing its concentration in the atmosphere?

2) Is CO2 a 'greenhouse' gas?

3) Does CO2 raise the mean global temperature by approximately 3 degrees C for every doubling of concentration over the pre-Industrial concentration?

4) Have humans warmed the planet as a consequence of their CO2 emissions, in a manner that describes the type of 'hockey stick' trajectory that many independent studies have demonstrated?

5) Will warming of 2 or more degrees C over the the pre-Industrial temperature have serious impacts on the functioning of the biosphere?

6) Are the effects of warming increasingly serious in direct proportion to the magnitude of the temperature increase?

7) Will the impacts of a warming planet have significant consequences for the economic activities and the lives of humans?

8) Have scientists been pointing out the risks of global warming/climate change for at least half a century?

9) Has there been a concerted campaign by vested interest in the fossil fuel industry to obfuscate the scientific facts, and to hamper the willingness of governments and the public to accept and act on the scientific evidence and analyses?

10) Can you explain why your campaign to poison the well is not anything more than an attempt sabotage the future integrity of life on Earth for your own personal ideological ends?

All negative answers should be supported with reference to defensible evidence.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Zibethicus said...

"I suggest you read your question again before I answer it.

You are not one of the smarter bunnies are you?"

If you think that I somehow possess some psychic powers which make me capable of re-reading my question before /you/ choose to answer it, I can state with confidence that at any rate I'm not the /least/ smart bunny, my friend...

"I am not surprised you have no reaction the IPCC letter which makes all the defenses of Mashey and Mann seem pretty pathetic."

Well, here's what Mann says on his Facebook:

"After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award."

(end quote)

That seems reasonable to me.

"Since you insist on the comparison, then yes Mann and Monckton are equally wrong and are very similiar in their views of honesty and self promotion."

That's an interesting point of view.

Mann is a climate scientist.

Monckton is not.

Mann was a member of the IPCC when it was awarded the Nobel, and was given acknowledgement as "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize" in the words of the IPCC itself.

Monckton made up his 'Nobel' and it was based on nothing whatsoever except perhaps his hubris. There is no sort of scientific work whatsoever which underlies even Monckton's false and broken claim of the award.

Mann is notable as a climate scientist, with a long track record of publication and citation. Intense (and motivated) scrutiny of his work has exonerating him repeatedly of all charges of malfeasance.

Monckton is notable as a conservative commentator with no publication record in climate science. He is perhaps most notable for entering the denialist fray with an article in a British tabloid in 2006, in which he claimed that in the MWP "There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html)

I would have to say that Mann is infinitely more rigorous than Monckton in every possible manner relating to climate science.

Or perhaps you believe MOnkton's never-withdrawn claim about The Great Chinese Naval Arctic Expedition of 1421?

"Monckton and Mann can now be viewed as two peas in the same pod."

Dear me. That being so in your view, no doubt you can furnish the readers of this blog with a series of your posts to climate change denial blogs in which you have been taking Monckton to task for his false claim to have been given a Nobel?

I mean, you've had years to exercise your righteous indignation on /Monckton's/ false and broken claim, and you are after all impartial and fair, aren't you?

2/11/12 8:34 PM

Anonymous said...

For consistency with the last sentence in my previous post:

10) Do you agree that you campaign to poison the well is nothing more than an attempt sabotage the future integrity of life on Earth for your own personal ideological ends?


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

So the point you are making with far too many words is Mann is one smart scientist and should know better than to make a false claim that he was "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.." Whereas Monckton is a fool and does not know wtf he is talking about.

Yet they both did the same thing.


You are a curious one.

Zibethicus said...

"So the point you are making with far too many words is Mann is one smart scientist and should know better than to make a false claim that he was "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.." Whereas Monckton is a fool and does not know wtf he is talking about."

It doesn't surprise me that you misinterpret what I am saying, whether wilfully or otherwise.

I am inviting you to show that you are sincerely motivated by a distaste for what you regard as intellectual dishonesty by showing us where you have condemned Monckton in the same terms with which you now seek to smear Mann here.

It doesn't surprise me that you're not providing this evidence of your own intellectual honesty.

"Yet they both did the same thing."

Perhaps the reason you think I am using 'too many words' is that you haven't read them properly. I claim no such thing.

Mann actually did the things which the Nobel was awarded for, as part of the IPCC. Monckton did not.

It is /you/ who are seeking to equate them, and that only because I pointed out your double standard.

"You are a curious one."

You are a disingenuous and increasingly dull one.

Anonymous said...

Hysterically ranting anonymous.

You going to answer my questions?


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll: "lol Another Straw Man arguement. I make a point about Mashey and you want to say that the earth is warming, duh." So, if we were all to sigh and tell you "OK, you've made your point", would that give you your little school-yard victory? Would you finally go away and let us get on with what really matters here?

Mal Adapted

kT said...

I can also remind our neolibertarian commenter that planetary physics is still physics, just like astrophysics is physics, and there will be future Nobels. So get out there and publish your work - anonymous.

John Mashey said...

See new comment at here, I finally had a few minutes while waiting to start bike ride, to post on the Nobel foofaraw on a thread where it belongs.

Now, back to this topic.
Needless to say, after writing Appendix A.6.2 of Seen No Evil, Speak Little Truth... about David Schnare of ATI (ATP), I look forward to future developments.

Anonymous said...

Zibethicus,

So I must go back in time and show where I spoke out against Monckton's claim about being a Nobel Peace Prize Recipient?

lol Ok and after that how many others that you put on "my side" must I denounce?


Not interested in your games.


Bernard,

Please stay on topic. When articles are posted for those subjects I will gladly respond. Some yes, some no and some questions are signiifcantly loaded and biased without being based in reality.

Mashey,

You forgot to list the IPCC letter which I posted a link to last night. It does not matter what others say who can claim what. It matters what is right and wrong. And your duplicitous omissions are always wrong.

@ Mal,

People here will never do that. They are stubborn. Even the IPCC letter from yesterday does not phase them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous troll: "People here will never [give me my little victory]. They are stubborn. Even the IPCC letter from yesterday does not phase them." So what, please, will it take to get you to stop yapping? Or are you just here because (as I'm sure most of us suspect) you like making noise?

Mal Adapted

kT said...

It does not matter what others say who can claim what. It matters what is right and wrong.

Right : Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and land use policies are causing climate change and economic instability.

Wrong : Social welfare non profit institutions engineering elections.

Even more wrong : Non profit religious institutions actively participating in political engineering.

Zibethicus said...

"Zibethicus,

So I must go back in time and show where I spoke out against Monckton's claim about being a Nobel Peace Prize Recipient?

lol Ok and after that how many others that you put on "my side" must I denounce?


Not interested in your games."

Hypocrite /and/ coward, eh?

Figgers...

Anonymous said...

"Bernard,

Please stay on topic. When articles are posted for those subjects I will gladly respond. Some yes, some no and some questions are signiifcantly [sic] loaded and biased without being based in reality.
"

Oh, I'm staying on topic. I'm merely broadening it in order to understand where you part from mainstream science, and thus why you are disparaging John Mashey's meticulously forensic work that details the campaign against this same science. You see, as I pointed out previously you are attempting to perpetrate the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, and I want to establish with your own explicit words what you believe is incontrovertible truth.

So far you've been avoiding that like the plague.

It is however interesting that you think there are "some no" answers to my ten questions. I think that this is actually worth pursuing, in order to establish the intellectual base from which you operate; to establish what of the scientific consensus you believe is not "based in reality".

Please don't be shy - lay it out for all of us, so that we may know the quality of your scientific understanding.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.