We’ve had some unexpected early success, and figured it was time to migrate to a more robust blogging platform. Thanks for the support so far, and please change your bookmarks!

Taking a quick respite from saving civilization.

You also mentioned that you think people write because they have “some pain inside that simply has to get out”, and then you left the hall with your wife, who was wearing the pelt of an entire polar bear,  and walked toward your car, where I assumed there would be a bordeaux and a radio that only worked when tuned to either NPR or nearsighted DJs named Ezra.

So reading your piece today was refreshing. And I also would like you to know that your appearance ten years ago may have helped push me towards the path you are on today, so I thank you for that as well.

I ask that you post another one of these some 12 months from now – I predict it will be less flowery, less theoretical, and include the words “reason”, “moonbat”, and “Lieberman”. You will also have played golf with Dennis Miller and Roger L. Simon, have read the Koran,  and have dressed down a coffee house employee whom you overhear calling Giuliani a “fascist”.

 Best,

David

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html

He was, hands down, the best source of information anywhere, quite an accomplishment considering his proximity to the event and how that must affect him personally.

http://Israellycool.com

He saved lives today. Who knows how many.

“Yitzhak Dadon, a student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building. “He came out of the library spraying automatic fire … the terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head,” he said.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335730,00.html

 “Residents say the Israeli soldiers were more anxious than during past incursions, and gruffer. At least four young men said independently that the soldiers used them as human shields. The young men were blindfolded and handcuffed, and then lined up, two or three at a time, in front of an Israeli soldier, they said, who guided them from behind as they moved down this street or entered another building. Sometimes, they said, a soldier used their shoulders as props for his M-16 rifle.”

…Here comes the good stuff (Cue sound of needle abruptly slipping off record, dancing club goers looking peeved, etc.):

The young men — Riad Abed Rabo, 26; his brother, Muhammad, 21; his cousin Majdi, also 21; and Hassan Abu Sabah, 32…”

Ahem.

Mr. Erlanger?

Did it occur to you, prior to relaying this to the world, that there may be something fishy about four men repeating the exact same story “independently”, when two of them were brothers and one of them a cousin?

By “independently”, were you simply implying that they did appear to be separate, sentient beings,  and not one amorphous mass of interconnected body parts with four distinct mouths, yet sharing a brain stem? Because that would make it okay, though it really isn’t necessary, as there’s only like three of those four-mouthed blobs currently existing, and all of them are totally into Alan Dershowitz’s stuff, I hear.

Best,

David    

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Once again, they call me a giant poopy-pants. 

Sigh.

 ————————————————————————–

DeSmog on the Ground for Denial-a-palooza

2 Mar 08 DeSmogBlog has hit New York City for the Heartland Institute’s climate change denial-a-palooza to mingle with the conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers, scientists for hire and those who just can’t let go of their flat-earth ways. First stop registration, where I received a big bag of think tank propaganda, including a copy of Fred Singer’s book Unstoppable Global Warming, a John Christy DVD produced by the Center for the American Experiment and a recording of Christopher Monckton’s lecture, Apocalypse? No. And what conference grab bag wouldn’t be complete without a copy of the “Summary for Policymakers: Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change,” produced by Fred Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project. Singer’s report opines:

Desperation? More like exasperation. Maybe tomorrow I’ll find out what science Singer is referring to. As far as ad hominem, I’ll assume he’s referring to sites like DeSmogBlog that regularly and rightly point out the industry interests that promote the views of Singer and many of the others who will present at this conference – the most prolific being oil-giant ExxonMobil, who a little birdie told me isn’t touching this conference with a 60-foot pole. Stay tuned.

» by Kevin Grandia | more from Kevin Grandia | add new comment 

———————————————————————————–

Greetings,

I’ve read your first post above, and you appear to be using the tactic of delegitimizing the presenters, rather than addressing their forthcoming arguments, as a means to debunk them.

How is it you find this to be a necessary, or effective, tactic? As the conference will be releasing transcripts and its topics of discussion, you should instead be focused on addressing the coming information.  

Statistics and studies are independently verifiable — how about taking the role of peer reviewer? I would be happy to discuss the conference releases with you,
starting with this one:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

Best,
David

————————————————————————————-

Been There, Done That

The reference to Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) is an obvious act of out-of-context quoting:
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

And I see that Douglass et al. (2007)’s bogus paper and bogus graph is quoted:
http://tinyurl.com/yntbatNothing new there except the same old denialist junk.

I wonder, now that I’ve taken “the role of peer reviewer” as advised by Posthumous Luger, whether he’ll actually honour this effort at peer review? Or will he instead throw a hissy fit and start sending out coded messages on Galileo?
Frank Bi,

http://tinyurl.com/2f63xd»

 —————————————————————————————-   

Submitted by FEMACK on Mon, 2008-03-03 09:35.

If the presenters have anything new to say, by all means let’s have a look at it & see how it holds up. But this crowd has been singing the same tune for quite awhile now, and none of their previous arguments has stood the test of scrutiny. It may seem like a tactic to you, to be “delegitimizing the presenters,” but I like to know where the information is coming from, and whether it is likely to be biased. It is also of interest to me to know whether a person has a track record in climate science and is actively involved in current research.

As for your suggestion about taking the role of peer reviewer, my academic peers are historians, not climate scientists. Peer review of climate science can only be carried out by climate scientists whose scholarship and research qualifies them to do so — not by PR people, reporters, hockey players, retail managers, lawyers, dentists, English Lit teachers, etc etc etc. Despite all the amateur number-crunching that goes on in these posts, only a few of us are really capable of a meaningful analysis of the statistics.

Fern Mackenzie 

———————————————————————————————-

Submitted by Posthumous Luger (not verified) on Mon, 2008-03-03 10:28.

Thanks for the reply, Ms. Mackenzie.

My thoughts exactly — if the presenters have anything new to say, by all means let’s have a look at it. I’ll be happy to discuss anything that arises from the conference.

The problem with attacks on the presenters and the funding is that, logically, it means absolutely nothing.

If you present evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, should I discount it I find the study was funded by DeSmogBlog? Of course not. I should examine the data and the study on its own merits.

Nike has quite a financial stake in convincing us that Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer in history — should I discount the message? Or should I examine Woods’ record?

Perhaps we have no business conducting climate study, but everyone who wishes to offer their two cents regarding the results of others has the responsibility of due diligence. Dismissing the conference outright, and then claiming that one is not qualified to comment, is a cop-out. As is praising the conference and then recusing one’s self.

Would anyone like to comment on the release?

Best,
David

————————————————————————————–

Peer Review vs. Informed Opinion 

Submitted by FEMACK on Mon, 2008-03-03 10:59.

I am not suggesting that we have no business commenting on the science, but part of informing ourselves is developing the critical skills to recognize who has credibility and who does not. I wouldn’t presume to tell Mann et al how to construct a modelling algorithm, but I know that their work has the respect of their peers, and has been confirmed by other qualified researchers — so I will consider their results accordingly. Likewise, I will take the assessment of other climate scientists of their work over the critiques of MacIntyre & that other fellow.

As far as dismissing the conference out of hand, it’s very difficult to take it seriously, given that the list of presenters is a who’s who of the same old crowd that has been touring with the same old arguments for years. I haven’t heard anything new out of them for years, so I hope you will forgive me if I am sceptical that the present conference will feature any scathingly brilliant new information.

I’ll have a look at the release when I have more than a few minutes to spare. Will get back to you later.

Fern Mackenzie

Submitted by FEMACK on Mon, 2008-03-03 13:53.

Well, David, I have taken a stroll through Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate by S. Fred Singer. I am sorry to say that it’s the same material he’s been trotting out at every opportunity for ages — nothing there that hasn’t been picked apart (very convincingly) by the folks at RealClimate.org and others over the years. I am amazed that Singer still drags the “hockey stick” into the discussion. He just can’t let go of it, as though the entire case for AGW rests on that graph alone! The so-called “failings” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report have all been addressed and dismissed. The solar effect has been repeatedly and soundly ruled out as an explanation for current warming. . . and so on.

My best suggestion is to go to realclimate.org and search out each of Singer’s points. An alternative is this site: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462.

Fern Mackenzie

—————————————————————————————- 

Submitted by Posthumous Luger (not verified) on Tue, 2008-03-04 09:01.

Thank you for your comment.

You are speaking rather broadly, I would like to focus on the one specific you bring up. Which studies do you claim have repeatedly and soundly ruled out the solar effect?
I am familiar only with the Lockwood/Froelich study, could you offer some other links?

Best,
David

———————————————————————————————-

Submitted by FEMACK on Tue, 2008-03-04 09:59.

Les Chevaliers de l’Ordre de la Terre Plate, Part II: Courtillot’s Geomagnetic Excursion (Prelude: It’s the physics, stupid) by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert appeared at RealClimate.org 18 December 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/3cwouz). It is clear, thorough, and up-to-date. If you search “solar forcing” on that site, you will find links to other articles, all of them scholarly in annotation, which is how I tracked down the research papers and other sources that I have read on the subject. Good luck, & have fun.

As for my response above being “very broad,” that’s because to get into the specifics of everything I find insupportable about Singer’s paper would take all day, and I would probably exceed DeSmog’s text limit. Furthermore, it would be redundant for me to do so, as his arguments are all the same old talking points with a new release date tacked on the front for show. Asked & answered. Let’s move on, shall we?

Experience warns that often what appear to be sincere attempts by someone new to the discussion to initiate a dialogue turn out to be a more sophisticated approach to trolling. The goal: to waste people’s time in a useless attempt to inform a neophyte. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suggest you spend some time exploring RealClimate. Do the reading. Then we’ll talk some more.

Fern Mackenzie

—————————————————————————————————–

Submitted by Posthumous Luger (not verified) on Tue, 2008-03-04 14:10.

Thank you for your comment.

I am not entirely aware of your definition of “troll”, though I am thrilled that, if I am such a thing, I qualify to be one of the more “sophisticated” of the bunch. So thank you! I did watch America‘s Top Model last night, although I was sipping a beaujolais at the time, so I firmly believe I am on the path towards leaving the riff raff behind. My mother will be beaming.

I am interested in having a detailed discussion of information related to AGW, without rhetoric, attitude, or condescension. And without being accused of wasting time or being nudged to “move on”. Am I in the wrong place? There’s always a time and a place for pithy comments (guilty as charged, above), so no judgments if I am. Just thought the site that promises to “clear the PR pollution” would be a good place for a respectful chat.

Best,
David

 http://www.desmogblog.com/desmog-on-the-ground-for-denial-a-palooza#comment

(See my previous thread on Treehugger  – http://posthumousluger.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/hello-world/)  

Your column which ran this morning, “How to Hate Barack Obama”, is one of the more hateful and troublesome pieces of political commentary I have seen appear in a large market newspaper. There is always time and room for a good-natured, humorous rant, but – as nothing in your piece suggests you intended this as comedy – what you have written is, objectively, classifiable as pure hate speech.

You write: 

“…nothing much for the right to do with Barack Hussein Obama’s moniker except “accidentally” mispronounce it as “Osama Hussein” over and over again on Fox News and at McCain rallies and across Wal-Mart’s loudspeakers so trailer park denizens across Bush’s ‘Merka will get even more confused and panicky and start loading up the bunker with Ding-Dongs and Coors just in case the Muslim radicals take over.”

You accuse a large number of people of intentionally mispronouncing Obama’s name in the hopes of grouping him in with the deeds of a terrorist and a dictator. As you offer no proof of this behavior occurring, you have effectively slandered and stereotyped with the goal of arousing anger.

This is – objectively – hate.  

The second half of your statement quoted above contains no less than eight(!) stereotypes. “Trailer park denizens…will get even more confused…” is your most galling fragment; you ridicule the capacity of the lower class regardless of individual circumstance. This is thoroughly repugnant to those who grasp tolerance. 

You write: 

“…the troglodytic, Limbaugh/Coulter-grade sects of the party… are already hugely terrified of the notion of a black liberal president…” 

You accuse several million people of being terrified of the notion of a black President. I ask that you show statistical proof of widespread fear of a black President among this political persuasion. When you fail to find this, as you will, I ask that you retract your smear.  

This “troglodytic” sect of the party, which has in the past offered praise to Justice Thomas and Condoleeza Rice, has only stated distaste of Obama’s liberalism. His skin color appears to be an issue only to you, as a tool with which you can generate fear and anger. 

You write: 

“Assuming Obama gets the nod, just how will they attack him, smear him, paint him as an evil and untrustworthy force for the nation, the way they did Al Gore and John Kerry? How nefarious, racist, draconian will they get?” 

I fail to see how you do not recognize this sentence as being a hateful smear itself.  

You write: 

“[Obama] doesn’t have Hillary’s infamous laundry list of faults and transgressions, the enormous built-in wall of hate the right already has for her, her gender…” 

Please offer the evidence you used to conclude that all American voters who are right-of-center – a group which, I must mention, includes tens of millions of women — hates women. 

 You write: 

“There’s no true genius hate artist like Karl Rove around anymore to attempt to unify the racists and the white evangelicals and the Latinos and the war-lovers into one giant, seething, Obama-fearing voting bloc.” 

Please offer the evidence you used to classify all Bush voters into these four categories. Again, it is your writing, not those you target, which is objectively hateful. 

You write: 

“[Race] is the card the right will have to play very, very carefully, as the slightest slip-up in demonizing Obama’s skin color and playing to America’s nastiest, deep-set racist tendencies will offend millions and only make Republicans look like the party of old, white, sexist, racist, classist warmongering men they very much are.” 

This is unashamed bigotry, used with the intent of fanning hatred. You reduce people to rank stereotypes.  

You write: 

“It’s hard to imagine Latinos flocking to the Republicans, given the party’s hateful, isolationist immigration agenda…” 

Besides the hateful comments of Pat Buchanan, David Duke, and Ron Paul, I am not aware of any Republican who has expressed notions of hate towards immigrants. Show me proof that Republicans tend to be concerned about immigration itself, not illegal immigration.

When you fail, as you will, you owe an explanation. 

You write: 

“When they stole two elections for Bush, the brutal, homophobic conservative machine was tightly organized, had focus, mountains of cash, Karl Rove, the backing of a very nefarious, deeply inbred team of ultra-wealthy war hawks hell-bent on taking over the nation and ruling with a flaccid peni- … er, iron fist.” 

This is beyond the pale. You may exercise your First Amendment rights, but this is wretched. 

You write: 

“The sad news is, there are simmering pockets of racist hate in this nation that have never really been tested, pockets of such vehement intolerance and power that it’s impossible to know what demons lurk, what sort of outrage will erupt.”  

Please direct us all to these pockets of “vehement intolerance and power.” While there are certainly racist movements remaining in the US, I don’t know of any which hold a position of power, nor one which has offered any mass display of violent behavior.

This is fearmongering.   

The pocket of vehement intolerance on display, with power in the form of publication in a large media outlet, is simply you. 

I sincerely hope your newspaper reconsiders offering you such a stage in the future. You should have to pay for your own soapbox and loudspeaker, and should be aware that those who are more wise, tolerant, and respectful than you will always be around to challenge your thoughts. 

Best, 

David 

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/ 

http://posthumousluger.wordpress.com 

mmorford@sfgate.com

Your February 20th editorial, published in the Guardian, bore some references to Fidel Castro which directly contradict a piece published that same day by author Humberto Fontova. I ask that you please respond regarding the instances where the two accounts clash, for the sake of those readers looking for historical accuracy. 

You write:

“The most surprising thing that I found out about [Castro], in the hours we spent together compiling his memoirs, was how modest, human, discreet and respectful he was. He has a tremendous moral and ethical sense.”

Whereas, Fontoya writes:

“[On January 8th, 1959], just below San Juan Hill in eastern Cuba, a bulldozer rumbled to a start, clanked into position, and started pushing dirt into a huge pit with blood pooling at the bottom from the still-twitching bodies of more than a hundred men and boys who’d been machine-gunned without trial on the Castro brothers’ orders. Their wives and mothers wept hysterically from a nearby road.”

I have no grounds to contest your use of “modest”, though the behavior Fontova describes does not appear to fit your description of Castro as being “human”, “discreet”, “respectful”, “moral”, or “ethical”. Though I understand clerical errors can happen, it would be a benefit to your readers if you wouldn’t mind offering your thoughts regarding the discrepancy.

You continue:

“[Castro’s] current preoccupation isn’t so much socialism in his own country as the quality of life around the world, where too many children are illiterate, starving and suffering from diseases that could be cured.”

However, Fontoya writes: 

“His firing squads murdered pregnant women, his coast guard machine-gunned mothers with their children for trying to escape on rafts…”

 Again, minor contradictions. But I feel it would be useful for you to clarify for those less familiar with Cuban politics, lest they harbor an inaccurate portrayal of your subject. 

Additionally, you write: “Most Cubans themselves – even those who criticise aspects of the regime – do not envisage or desire change: they don’t want to lose the advantages it has brought them, the free education right through university, the free universal healthcare, or the very fact of a safe, peaceful existence in a country where life is calm.” 

Yet, we have this from Fontova: 

“By 1975…the bullet-riddled bodies of over 10,000 Cubans lay in unmarked graves…”. 

Hmmm.

 “Cuba…held the most political prisoner as a percentage of population on earth, surpassing Nazi Germany’s prewar rate by several multiples.” 

He don’t say.

 “He jailed and tortured at a rate higher than Stalin…[Castro’s] legal code mandates 18 months in prison for anyone overheard cracking a joke about him.” 

“…his regime made Cuban women into the most suicidal in the world, tripling their pre-Revolution suicide rate.” 

“He drove out a higher percentage of Jews from Cuba than Czar Nicholas drove from Russia and Hafez Assad drove from Syria.” 

“He overthrew a black Cuban head of state and replaced his government with one where only nine percent of the ruling Stalinist party is black and where the prison population is 80- 90 percent black. He jailed the longest suffering black political prisoner of modern history. (Eusebio Penalver who suffered longer in Castro’s dungeon’s than Nelson Mandela suffered in South Africa‘s.) He sentenced other blacks (Dr Elias Biscet, Jorge Antunez) to 20 year sentences essentially for quoting Martin Luther King Jr. in a public square.”  

Wow! That’s just crazy talk, right, Mr. Ramonet?   

I appreciate your time.  That’s about it for the discrepancies, but I feel it would behoove you to — oh, holy fuck!:

 “[Castro] thinks his country must have good relations with all nations, whatever the regime or political orientation.”  … 

“[Castro] twice tried to destroy New York, once with nuclear missiles, the following month by planning to set off 500 kilos of TNT in Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Grand Central Terminal on the year’s busiest shopping day.”  

(Author curled up in corner, muttering something about “cognitive dissonance” — Ed. note) 

Best, 

David  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/20/usa.eu

 http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1108FA89-5019-4FE5-A2FA-612C1B38C9D5  

comment@guardian.co.uk  

In the winter of 2004, did you tell Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, to “keep up the good work”? Did you additionally claim to be withholding your actual opinions on Israel, as you believed it would affect your chances in the primary race?

Abunimah claims as such. He writes:

As [Obama] came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

Best,

David

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/1892  via http://www.philipweiss.org/)