denialism | Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

Skeptics noise broad; no deep effects on American opinions

July 2, 2010

A commenter with the handle Klem complained about my outlook on global warming issues, in a recent post about the desperation I see in the warming denialist world. Klem finds my views not pessimistic enough:

Those purloined emails have ultimately destroyed the IPCC, it has no credibility with the public anymore. You seem like a smart guy but I can’t believe after this amount of time you still don’t understand this. And you say it’s the anti-warming camp which is desperate? Oops I think you’re in denial.

I’ve been involved in environmental issues since well before the first Earth Day. Lack of understanding among the public at large is a constant issue, and not a recent development. Lack of support for a clean environment rarely is an issue, however. The old progressive era push for clean water, clean air, outdoor activities, and healthy living, continues probably stronger today than ever before. No one defends smoking stacks as symbols of progress anymore.

Even petroleum companies spend millions in advertising to tout their “green” tendencies. Big Oil doesn’t spend money like that if they don’t have clear indicators that it’s effective.

One indication of how deep is the desire for environmental protection is the mini-movement chronicled and maybe led by conservative writer Rod Dreher, known as “crunchy conservatism.” Dreher wrote about conservatives who, from most outward appearances — Birkenstock sandals, organic-food heavy diets, environmentally-friendly yards and homes — might be considered lefty environmentalists, but who adhere to conservative social and economic policies, and the Republican party (yes: educated people who vote against their own best interests; go figure).

No matter how odd their views on economics, no matter how odd their views on their fellow humans, they recognize the basic benefits of the progressive movement on their own lives, and they would like to conserve those benefits.

Have the so-called skeptics changed those trends? Did the stealing of e-mails convince most Americans that scientists are evil, conniving, and wrong?

Rather than take the denialists’ methods, the famous MSU technique*, how about we actually ask people what they think?

Recent polls with some depth on environmental issues show most Americans to be quite level-headed about warming and other environment issues, and not so subject to the hot winds of talk-without-fact from Fox News, the Heartland Institute, or other paragons of science denialism.

Most Americans remain concerned about global warming

Pay attention to reality for a moment; the headline on the press release is, “Large majority of Americans still believe in global warming, Stanford poll finds”:

Three out of four Americans believe that the Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it, according to a new survey by researchers at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

The survey was conducted by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and of political science at Stanford, with funding from the National Science Foundation. The results are based on telephone interviews conducted from June 1-7 with 1,000 randomly selected American adults.

“Several national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening to people,” Krosnick said. “But our new survey shows just the opposite.”

For example, when respondents in the June 2010 survey were asked if the Earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent said yes. And 75 percent said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred. Krosnick has asked similar questions in previous Woods Institute polls since 2006.

“Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today,” Krosnick said. “Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists.”

In terms of average Earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, Krosnick said. “Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when forming opinions about global warming’s existence,” he added. “But people who do not trust climate scientists base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature. These ‘low-trust’ individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007.”

According to Krosnick, this explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global warming is likely to be temporary. “If the Earth’s temperature begins to rise again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority who still think warming is real,” he said.

Ah, the Fickle Public — it appears only a small fraction of the public is fickle, after all. Shifts in public opinion on the reality of warming were driven by weather, not weather men.

The poll also specifically addressed the effect of the computer break-in that exposed a few thousand e-mail messages from climate scientists under attack by anti-green critics:

‘Climategate’

“Overall, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists,” Krosnick said. “Fully 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely.”

Several questions in the June survey addressed the so-called “climategate” controversy, which made headlines in late 2009 and early 2010.

“Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news reports about e-mail messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia in Britain – characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence unconvinced colleagues – and by the discoveries of alleged flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC),” Krosnick said. “Our survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. ”

For example, only 9 percent of respondents said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicate that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent said the same about the controversial IPPC reports.

That may explain why Anthony Watts’ logo for his Australian tour shows a kangaroo whose rear end has just been kicked (you can tell by the stars).

In cartoons, stars show where a character has been punched or kicked, right?

No agreement to control greenhouse gases came out of the Copenhagen conference last fall. So-called climate skeptics patted each other on the back, claimed victory, and proceeded to send Christopher Monckton on his Bonnie Lies All Around the World Tour. In cool light of morning, however, the facts can’t be silenced: Warming continues, science shows the extremely high probability that humans cause it, official investigations show that climate scientists who had their e-mails stolen were victims of crime, not perpetrators, and climate skeptics failed to stop warming with their big-dollar, nice-banquet meetings with the Heartland Institute, or anywhere else.

If they are skeptics, they are pretty bad at it, falling like chumps for a story that fourth-grade science project made the case they have failed to make everywhere else, and for the story that one of their comrades was sent a bomb in the mail (it turned out to be a misdirected fuel filter).

No wonder Americans remain concerned about warming.

_____________

* Make S[tuff] Up

More, resources:

Jon Krosnick’s page on public opinion at the Woods Institute for the Environment, featuring polling data over the past few years

19 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, Hoaxes, Politics, Polling and Public Opinion, pollution, Science | Tagged: Climate change, Climategate, denialism, Global warming, Jon Krosnick, Politics, Polling, Public Opinion, Science, Stanford University, Stolen E-mails, Woods Institute | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Astounding lightning strike photo — Chicago Tribune readers show proper skepticism

June 27, 2010

Amazing photo of two Chicago buildings struck by lightning simultaneously, by Chicago Tribune photog Chris Sweda:

Dual lightning strike in Chicago, June 2010 - photo by Chris Sweda, Chicago Tribune

Among other things, the photo isn’t perfect enough to suggest post-shutter-snap manipulation — you can see from other photos that the rain drops on the window disappear with a focus farther away.

Blair Kamin writing at Cityscapes discussed skepticism from readers of the Chicago Tribune about whether the strikes were really simultaneous, or instead the result of a very long exposure.

Exactly the sort of skepticism anti-warmists should have exhibited when confronted with the story of a fourth-grade student in Beeville, Texas, disproving global warming, or the story of a Spanish solar energy company sending a bomb by courier to an anti-warmist, and then bragging about it.

Kamin offers a couple of paths by which a reasonable person can determine it was a chance photo, the photographer pushing the shutter release coincidentally with a double lightning strike (see the “postscripts” section of Kamin’s post).

Were they true to their warming science, in the anti-warmist world two camps would be forming. One camp would argue the photograph was manipulated, a clever collage of two different photos, or maybe a clever use of miniatures; the other camp would argue that lightning doesn’t strike man-made objects.

1 Comment | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, History, How do we know what we know, photography, Science | Tagged: Chicago, Climate change, denialism, Global warming, Lightning, photography, Science, Skepticism | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Spanish warming skeptic claims a bomb in the mail; so-called skeptics caught unskeptical

June 25, 2010

This is a story of a hoax. It may not be an intentional hoax — some of the alleged victims here are victims of their own gullibility — but it’s a hoax all the same. In large part, this is how lynch mobs form and operate:

News reports come out of Spain that a guy said he got a bomb in the mail. No corroboration from the cops, no corroboration from anyone else. Moreover, the guy who got the bomb accuses his rivals in his work with sending it to him.

Smell a rat? It’s a bit of a preposterous story on its face — astounding if true, but who could be so stupid as to send a bomb to a rival with a return address, and then admit it?

Climate change so-called skeptics don’t smell a rat. They’ve blown by the “wonder what the facts are” phase into the “let’s string the culprit up” phrase.

Let them tell the story:

Long time denier that warming occurs or is caused by humans Christopher Horner at Pajamas Media:

Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Ignore that noise in the background that sounds like a vuvuzela amplified — that’s my Hemingway solid-gold shit detector going off. Or, if you’re a normal human, it may be yours. I’m resetting mine — just a minute.

There. Now let’s think about this: A guy gets a package in the mail. First thing he does is call the sender to see what it is. They tell him it’s a report. So, then he calls his terrorism expert buddy who happens to be close by, and that guy tells him it’s really a dismantled bomb.

How many scientists do you know who do that?

Just a minute, gotta reset the Hemingway again.

So, this is reported not by the major news agencies, but by partisans in the debate — in this case, people who claim that green jobs can’t work, that alternative energy programs are worthless (but please don’t notice the requirement to sacrifice Louisiana to the ~~Blob~~ oil spills). And in the reporting, the culprit admits his felonious actions.

You know, this is not a scenario you could sell to the producers of “Transformers.”

I read it at Watts’s blog first. Over there, they mention the story was published in a Spanish publication, so we’ll have a source to consult. But look at how it’s reported. Any journalistic “wonder what the other side says?” Any common sense “wonder if it’s accurate?”

The headline:

Green Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts

The story — quoted from Horner (and posted by Charles the Moderator):

The author of a damning study about the failure of Spain’s “green jobs” program — a story broken here at PJM — received the threatening package on Tuesday from solar energy company Thermotechnic.

From Pajamas Media

June 24, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Dr. Calzada added:

[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.

The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.

Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” — they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report.

Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up.

As I have previously reported at PJM (here and here), Spain’s “green jobs” program was repeatedly referenced by President Obama as a model for what he would like to implement in the United States. Following the release of Calzada’s report, Spain’s Socialist government has since acknowledged the debacle — both privately and publicly. This month, Spain’s government instituted massive reductions in subsidies to “renewable” energy sources.

Read the rest of the story here:

On the basis of that report, a skeptic should be saying, “that’s almost unbelievable — where are more facts?” A mob would take it at face value.

How do the readers of WUWT respond?

Comment 1:

The judge who stopped the moratorium has received threats. Zerohedge has an article about Soros.

Comment 2 (from a reader handled “The Monster”):

There is really no other way to look at the situation. The AGW industry has become an organized crime syndicate.

Calzada messed with the Family, and if he keeps it up, he gets to swim wit’ da fishes. Capice?

Comment 3:

And then they wonder why scientist not swallowing the AGW scam are not coming out in the light… those are still dangerous times to speak out, it seams.

Comment 4 — just a minute, I have to reset the Hemingway again — okay:

Blacklists,bombthreats,these are acts of terror and not a peep from MSM !!

You get the idea. You have to get to comments 10, 11 and 12 before we find anyone with a functioning Hemingway:

Comment 10:

I can’t imagine why the company would put their return address on this present. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Comment 11:

Does nobody see something odd about the claim that a regular commercial firm is sending out simulated bombs in packages under its own name?

This article (on the opinion page, for which Dr Calzada writes) mentions a simulated bomb in the imaginative headline. But the text says it was a fuel (gasoil) filter with a cable. The firm Termotechnics had intended to send a different item.

No mention of police, only Dr Calzada’s own “bomb expert”.

Comment 12:

Missing something. Why were the police not called? Why were anti-terrorist officials not involved? Spain’s no stranger to domestic terrorism, so I don’t understand why this was handled “privately” and wasn’t handled through “official” channels. Maybe there’s a good and rational explanation, and if anyone has one I’d be grateful to understand it.

At this point, we don’t know much; what we have is at best third hand, translated from Spanish. A skeptic should be wondering, “what’s going on here.” Those who most patently wear the self-moniker “skeptic” don’t appear, to me, to be very skeptical.

Horner’s article mentions the Spanish newspaper Expansion, which, he says (and I know no better), is a publication much like Financial Times.

(Why is this article published in the opinion pages, if it’s news? Drat! There goes the Hemingway again.)

Let’s go see what it says, shall we?

Here’s the article from Expansion, translated with Google’s translator (interesting — Spanish followed by English translation, sentence by sentence):

Gabriel Calzada, EXPANSION regular contributor, was a simulated bomb sent by a photovoltaic company and sought to intimidate their critical articles about solar energy.El miércoles 16 de junio se recibió un paquete en el Instituto Juan de Mariana dirigido a su presidente, Gabriel Calzada. On Wednesday June 16 received a package in the Instituto Juan de Mariana addressed to its president, Gabriel Calzada. Nada le hacía pensar al destinatario que podía tratarse de una amenaza con forma de artefacto casero desmontado. Nothing made him think the recipient might be a threat in the form of explosive device dismantled. Pero como el envío no era esperado desde el think tank decidieron contactar con el remitente por vía telefónica. But as the shipment was not expected from the think tank decided to contact the sender by telephone. Al otro lado del hilo, señala Gabriel Calzada, una empleada de la empresa supo inmediatamente de qué paquete se trataba y contestó sin dudar un segundo que esa “es nuestra respuesta a los artículos sobre energía de Sr. Calzada en Expansión”. At the other end, said Gabriel Calzada, an employee of the company immediately known which package and said it was without doubt a second that this “is our response to the articles on Mr. Calzada energy expansion.”

La forma cuadrada del paquete no hacía pensar de que pudiera tratarse de un documento por lo que Gabriel Calzada, tras consultarlo con el abogado del Instituto, decidió pasarlo por un escáner antes de abrirlo. The square shape of the package did not think it could be a document that Gabriel Calzada, in consultation with counsel for the Institute, decided to pass it through a scanner before opening. El paquete estuvo cerrado hasta que el martes 22, día en que Calzada aprovechó su colaboración semanal como contertulio en el programa de César Vidal ‘Es la Noche de César’, de EsRadio, para pedirle a la empresa de seguridad si podían escanear el paquete. The package was closed until Tuesday 22, the day he used his weekly collaboration Calzada contertulio in the program as Cesar Vidal ‘Caesar’s Night’ by EsRadio, to ask the security company if they could scan the package.

El agente de seguridad privada recomendó no abrirlo tras comprobar que se trataba de dos objetos metálicos difíciles de interpretar. The private security officer advised not to open it after checking that there were two metal objects are difficult to interpret. Pidió ayuda a una persona con más experiencia quien tras un breve visionado de la pantalla del escáner creyó saber de qué se trataba y procedió a abrirlo con cuidado ante la atenta mirada del guarda de seguridad, Lorenzo Ramírez (antiguo redactor de Expansión) y el propio Gabriel Calzada. He hired a more experienced person who, after a brief viewing of the screen of the scanner thought he knew what it was and proceeded to open it carefully under the watchful eye of security guard, Lorenzo Ramirez (former editor of Expansion) and the actual Gabriel Calzada. De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro. In the box came a diesel filter thread and a piece that could be adapted to the filter.

“Los cuatro nos miramos y pensamos lo mismo”, comenta Gabriel Calzada, “se trataba de una amenaza que podía resumirse en que si seguía dando mi opinión sobre cuestiones energéticas en los medios, la próxima vez podía esperar que las piezas estuvieran ensambladas y me estallaran”. “The four of us and we look the same,” says Gabriel Calzada, “was a threat was summed up that if I kept giving my views on energy issues in media, the next time could be expected that the pieces were assembled and me exploded. ”

El experto en seguridad confirmó lo que pensaban y les contó que no era la primera vez que veía algo así. The security expert confirmed what he thought and told them that was not the first time I saw something like that. Durante algunos años trabajó en el País Vasco dando protección personal a distintas personas y ya había asistido a este tipo de amenazas. For some years he worked in the Basque country giving personal protection to different people and I had attended this type of threat. “Ten cuidado Gabriel, esta vez lo mandan como aviso, la próxima vez te puedes encontrar con un paquete que estalle al abrirlo”. “Beware Gabriel, this time he is sent as a warning, next time you can find a package that explodes when opened.”

Gabriel Calzada dirigió una investigación sobre el coste del experimento renovable español a comienzos del año pasado. Gabriel Calzada conducted an investigation on the cost of renewable experiment Spanish at the beginning of last year. Calzada y su equipo concluyeron que en España nos encontrábamos ante una burbuja de energías renovables que estaba a punto de estallar, que los famosos empleos verdes que según el presidente Obama y el presidente Zapatero nos iban a sacar de la crisis, habían costado de media 570.000 euros y que en realidad por cada empleo verde creado había destruido 2,2 empleos en el resto de la economía. Calzada and his team concluded that in Spain we were dealing with a renewable energy bubble was burst, that the famous green jobs that according to President Obama and President Zapatero were going to get out of the crisis had cost on average 570 000 euros and in fact for every green job created had destroyed 2.2 jobs in the rest of the economy. Las conclusiones del estudio corrieron como la pólvora en EE.UU. The study’s conclusions ran like wildfire in the U.S. donde Calzada participó en algunos de los mayores programas de televisión de cadenas como CNN, FoxNews o Univisión después de que The Economist y Wall Street Journal dedicaran elogiosos editoriales al estudio. Calzada where he participated in some of the major television programs such as CNN, FoxNews or Univision after the Economist and the Wall Street Journal editorial praise devoted to the study.

A finales de mayo de 2009 Miguel Sebastián decidió ponerse al frente de un grupo de trabajo para dar respuesta, siempre indirecta, al estudio de Gabriel Calzada y su equipo ( ver expansión de 30 de mayo de 2009 ) In late May, 2009 Miguel Sebastian decided to take charge of a working group to respond, if indirectly, to the study of Gabriel Calzada and his team ( see expansion of May 30, 2009 )

En diversos medios comenzaron a aparecer falsas noticias que trataban de desprestigiar el estudio afirmando que había sido pagado por Exxon Mobil u otras multinacionales petroleras. In various media began to appear false information trying to discredit the study stating that he had been paid by Exxon Mobil and other oil multinationals. Dos meses después, el Diario Público dedicó un amplio reportaje al éxito del estudio en el que acusaba sin pruebas a Calzada de recibir fondos públicos en el Instituto Juan de Mariana (el Instituto es una de las pocas instituciones que tratan de avivar el debate político sin aceptar dinero público ni de partidos políticos), ser cercano a la Fundación FAES así como a su presidente José María Aznar y tratar de perjudicar a España y su industria. Two months later, the newspaper published an extensive article devoted to the success of the study in which he accused without proof Calzada receiving public funds at the Instituto Juan de Mariana (The Institute is one of the few institutions seeking to revive the political debate without accept public funds or political parties), being close to the FAES Foundation and its president José María Aznar and try to hurt Spain and its industry.

Sin embargo, la campaña de desprestigio, replicada en EEUU por la Fundación de George Soros, no fue tomada muy en serio y el congreso de los EEUU llamó a testificar a Gabriel Calzada seguido poco después por el Senado de ese mismo país que le solicitó la presentación de informes sobre las consecuencias económicas del modelo español de ayuda pública a las energías renovables. However, the campaign to discredit replicated in the U.S. by George Soros Foundation, was not taken very seriously and the U.S. Congress called to testify Gabriel Calzada followed shortly by the Senate in the same country that requested the reporting on the economic consequences of the Spanish model of public support for renewable energy.
Público. Public.

Desde entonces el gobierno español ha boicoteado en dos ocasiones la participación de Gabriel Calzada en foros internacionales. Since then the Spanish government has twice boycotted participation in international forums Gabriel Calzada. La primera ocasión fue el veto del gobierno a su participación en una cumbre hispano-estadounidense convocado por el Congreso estadounidense. The first occasion was the government veto their participation in a Hispanic-American summit convened by the U.S. Congress. Calzada recibió una carta pidiendo disculpas por el incidente por parte de la parte estadounidense. Calzada received a letter apologizing for the incident by the U.S. side. El segundo boicot tuvo lugar a comienzos de 2010 cuando Gabriel Calzada iba a debatir junto a un miembro del gobierno español, un representante de CC.OO. The second boycott took place in early 2010 when Gabriel Calzada would be discussed with a member of the Spanish government, a representative of CC.OO. y uno del la federación europea de sindicatos en un conferencia internacional celebrada en Roma y patrocinada por la Comisión Europea. and one of the European federation of unions in an international conference in Rome sponsored by the European Commission.

Los demás participantes comunicaron a la organización que dejarían de participar si no retiraban al Profesor Gabriel Calzada del programa. Other participants reported that the organization would cease to participate unless they withdrew to Professor Gabriel Calzada of the program. Sin embargo en esta ocasión la organización se negó a aceptar el chantaje y mantuvo a Calzada, motivo por el que a última hora cancelaron su participación los representantes del gobierno, CC.OO. But this time the organization refused to accept the blackmail and kept Calzada, why at the last minute canceled his participation of government representatives, CC.OO. y el sindicato europeo. and the European Union.

Tras más de un año de presión política sobre los autores del estudio, en abril de este año el Ministerio de Industria produjo un documento en el que reproducía y actualizaba varios de los argumentos expuestos en el estudio de Calzada y su equipo. After more than a year of political pressure on the authors of the study, in April this year the Ministry of Industry produced a paper which reproduced and updated several of the arguments in the study of Calzada and his team. El paquete amenazante llega justo cuando el Ministerio de Industria que dirige Miguel Sebastián trata de renegociar las subvenciones a las energías renovables. The threatening package comes as the Ministry of Industry Miguel Sebastián is directed to renegotiate subsidies for renewable energy. A pesar del intento de intimidación, Gabriel Calzada escribe de nuevo hoy en Expansión sobre las tarifas eléctricas. Despite the attempt at intimidation, Gabriel Calzada writes again today Expanding on electricity tariffs.

Okay, I’m turning the Hemingway off. I can’t stand the constant noise. But I’m not abandoning all skepticism.

Surely there is more to the story, no?

The story was repeated in Libertad Digital. That publication had the good sense to do what every reporter ought to do — they called the firm alleged to have sent the alleged bomb. So there’s a second story. There’s another half to the story. The whole truth is more than has been reported by too many self-proclaimed skeptics.

Again using Google’s software translator, I found:

The company says solar has never wanted threaten Calzada

Thermotechnic, the solar company under whose forwards received a package highly suspect Gabriel Calzada, completely denies any connection with this shipment. Pedro Gil, el propietario, lo achaca a un error de mensajería y asegura que siente el mal rato que ha pasado Calzada. Gil Pedro, the owner, blames the error message and says he feels bad time that has passed Calzada.

DIGITAL FREEDOM Libertad Digital se ha puesto al habla con Pedro Gil, presidente de Termotechnic, que ha negado cualquier tipo de relación con el envío recibido por Gabriel Calzada, el presidente del Instituto Juan de Mariana. Digital Freedom has been able to talk to Pedro Gil, president of Termotechnic, who has denied any connection with the shipment received by Gabriel Calzada, President of the Instituto Juan de Mariana. Según sus propias palabras, “esto ha tenido que ser un error”. In his own words, “this has to be a mistake.”

El empresario navarro ha asegurado que lo único que se había enviado a Calzada era un informe sobre las energías renovables. The employer has secured Navarre only thing that had been sent to Calzada was a report on renewable energy. El problema es que lo que recibió el articulista de Libertad Digital fue un paquete lleno de piezas sueltas sin ningún tipo de nota explicativa. The problem is that what was the writer of Liberty Digital was a package of spare parts without any explanatory note. Cuando llamó a la empresa para preguntar qué había pasado le respondieron que eso era “una respuesta a su informe sobre las renovables”. When she called the company and ask what had happened he replied that it was “a response to its report on renewables.”

En ese momento, Calzada interpretó el hecho como una amenaza, algo que Gil niega. At that time, Calzada interpreted the incident as a threat, something that Gil dispute. De esta manera, hay dos versiones para lo sucedido: o bien hubo un simple error por parte de la empresa de mensajería o bien un cambio realizado por alguien que quisiera gastarle una mala pasada a Calzada a costa de esta empresa. Thus there are two versions of what happened: either there was a simple mistake by the courier company or a change made by someone who wanted to spend a dirty trick on Calzada at the expense of this company.

En este sentido, el presidente del Instituto Juan de Mariana ha confirmado que ha hablado con Pedro Gil y que éste le ha dado su palabra de que no hay ninguna responsabilidad por parte de la empresa. In this sense, the president of the Instituto Juan de Mariana has confirmed he has talked with Pedro Gil and it has given his word that there is no liability on the part of the company. Gil le ha transmitido a Calzada su preocupación por las molestias que le haya podido ocasionar, puesto que comprende el desconcierto que tuvo el receptor del envío cuando vio cuál era su contenido. Gil Calzada has been forwarded to concerned about the inconvenience we may have caused, because he understands the confusion that the receiver of the shipment when he saw what was its content.

Gil ha reiterado a Libertad Digital que es “un empresario honrando de 59 años” y que nunca haría algo así. Gil has repeatedly told ABC News it was “a businessman honored for 59 years” and would never do something like that. También ha pedido que quede claro que no hay relación entre lo recibido por Calzada y lo que él quería enviarle. It has also asked to make clear that there is no relationship between Calzada and received what he wanted to send.

Mixup at the courier company? Hoax?

In any case, the story that a think tank would be sending bombs to people in Spain makes little sense. Spain is a nation long wracked by terrorists both foreign and domestic. Bomb-senders go to jail in Spain.

Do you remember just a couple of weeks ago that several of these same self-proclaimed were taken in by a claim that fourth grade science project in Beeville, Texas, had disproven the hypothesis of global warming?

Do any of those guys know what Santayana said?

The story indicates that Gabriel Calzada got a package that was not the report the sender, Thermotechnic, intended to send.

From there, it’s a leap to imagine that Thermotechnic intended to send a bomb of any sort; there is no evidence apparent from anyone, anywhere, that such an event occurred.

Gullibles assumed the most fantastic, however.

The fantastic story has been denied by Thermotechnic. Why aren’t the “warming skeptics” reporting the denial? If a half-truth is a whole lie, these people have a lot of explaining to do, and apologies to render. Forrest Gump might advise that a skeptic is as a skeptic does.

Commenters on Horner’s article at Pajamas Media and WUWT wonder why more major news outlets are not covering this story. One reason appears to be that no police report was filed — a police report on a bomb sent to an academic would be news. Can you think of other reasons it hasn’t gotten coverage?

Remember the famous Sherlock Holmes example of the dog that didn’t bark in the night. Here we have skeptics who aren’t skeptical. Hoax.

Wall of Shame: Outlets that reported only half the story, and not the denial

In addition to Watts Up and Horner at Pajamas Media, it’s a too-long list of people who should know better:

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, was Instawrong and owes Insta-apologies (par for this guy’s course — is there any science topic he’s not grossly naive about?) The farce is strong in Reynolds, Obi Wan: He did it again.
Dean’s World got sucked in
Patriotic Dissent made the unpatriotic error (American patriots are famous for getting the facts first . . .)
Lucia at The Blackboard got suckered
Quotulatiousness got suckered
Scary Libertarian was scarily gullible
The Grumpy Republican shows why we should all steer clear of grumpy Republicans (are any of them not grumpy?) Barry Goldwater, who I watched on the floor of the Senate for years, would never have been so gullible.
Rebellion News got suckered
James Barlow in the UK got suckered
XM MLB Chat got suckered — but, heck, this looks like a robot site; shouldn’t the human-operated sites do better?
Jorge Valín got suckered
Maggie at Chandler’s Watch got suckered
ImpeachObamaToday impeached itself
Random Nuclear Strikes/Soft Green Glow.com
PoliticalForum.com followed James Barlow down the rabbit hole
ZetaBoards Liestoppers group (oh, the irony)
Andrew Bolt stepped into the open manhole
Randall Hoven at American Thinker (Sheesh! He coulda checked here first — the explanation from Dr. Calzada was already out by then, wasn’t it?)
British Democracy Forum — by the headline; the second poster had the good sense to check here first

Prize quote: “Yes. AB’s blog is packed with skeptics. The sort that are born every minute. The only exception seems to have been poster “george”, who bothered to google it.”

Honor roll:

Warn others of the hoax:

15 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Journalism, Political Smear, Politics | Tagged: Accuracy, Blogger Bias, Bomb, Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Gabriel Calzada, Global warming, hoax, Journalism, Political Smear, Politics, Science, Thermotechnic | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Record of error on climate continues at Powerline

May 26, 2010

So, this Hinderaker guy at Powerline: Does he ever acknowledge his goofs?

Since we last visited the issue, a month after the record was in that his claims of no warming were wrong, he’s talked about the issue at least twice.

Hinderaker didn’t fix his error here, in December.

Hinderaker didn’t fix his error here, in February, and in fact proceeded as if he’d been right instead of wrong.

This is Sith-strength denialism on Hinderaker’s part, don’t you think? It never was about the science at Powerline, but instead has always been about the politics.

How does the moniker “Baghdad Bob John” fit?

Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, History, Hoaxes, Journalism, Voodoo science | Tagged: Accuracy, Climate change, denialism, Global warming, History, Politics, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Climate change: We’ll see you in court

May 21, 2010

Contemplation of Justice, statue by James Earle Fraser at the U.S. Supreme Court (exterior) - photo by Steve Petteway

From a press release from Gardere and Wynn:

Gardere’s Faulk And Gray Tapped To Represent Business, Industry In Climate Change Amicus Briefs

Gardere Wynne Sewell attorneys Richard O. Faulk and John S. Gray have been retained to write amicus curiae briefs to federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to public nuisance lawsuits regarding global climate change.

(I-Newswire) May 13, 2010 – HOUSTON – Richard O. Faulk and John S. Gray, co-chairs of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP’s Climate Change Task Force, have been retained to write amicus curiae briefs to federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to public nuisance lawsuits regarding global climate change.

Mr. Faulk and Mr. Gray, partners in Gardere’s Houston office, will represent a group of organizations that include the American Chemistry Council, The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, The American Coatings Association, and the Public Nuisance Fairness Coalition.

The first brief was filed in the 5th Circuit on Friday, May 7, in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil. In that case, a group of property owners sued utility, mining, oil and chemical companies claiming their CO2 emissions ultimately caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Comer had originally been dismissed at the trial level because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue particular defendants for the effects of global warming, among other reasons.

A panel of the 5th Circuit reversed the dismissal, but on February 26 the court granted an en banc rehearing. The court is now weighing a number of procedural concerns caused by a number of judicial recusals, and has not set a final date for oral arguments.

“Despite the current procedural wrangling, the 5th circuit’s initial decision to reconsider the panel’s ruling remains a major blow to climate change and public nuisance litigation,” Faulk said. “Although the final decision, the panel’s original decision now has no value. Clearly, a significant number of the court’s judges believe the case deserves a closer look, and plaintiffs are surely not comforted by that development. Indeed, since no judge on the original panel dissented, the en banc court’s decision to reconsider suggests a serious interest in changing the result.”

Mr. Faulk and Mr. Gray also plan to file amicus briefs in Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al., which is pending in the 9th Circuit, and Connecticut v. American Electric Power, a 2nd Circuit decision in which a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is expected to be filed. Both of those cases also involve the propriety of using public nuisance litigation to redress global climate change.

Mr. Faulk and Mr. Gray have authored many scholarly articles regarding public nuisance and climate change. One of their major papers, “Stormy Weather Ahead: The Legal Environment of Global Climate Change,” has been presented at conferences of the United States Chamber of Commerce, in media events at the Washington Legal Foundation, at various Professional Development seminars for lawyers, engineers, and businessmen. A complete collection of their articles is available at http://works.bepress.com/richard_faulk/subject_areas.html#Climate%20Change.

In addition, Mr. Faulk recently spoke on climate change lawsuits at the Judicial Symposium on The Expansion of Liability Under Public Nuisance on April 26 at the Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth, Northwestern University School of Law.

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, an AmLaw 200 firm founded in 1909 and one of the Southwest’s largest full-service law firms, has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston and Mexico City. Gardere provides legal services to private and public companies and individuals in areas of energy, hospitality, litigation, corporate, tax, government affairs, environmental, labor and employment, intellectual property and financial services.

Familiar with any of those cases?

Were denialists to have the facts, some of those legal cases would be the places that the facts emerge in useful-to-stop-climate-change-legislation fashion.

Want to make bets on whether those who desperately want (and maybe need) climate change denialists to be right, actually use the climate denialists’ studies?

Watch those cases.

Leave a Comment » | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, History, Junk science, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Cuccinelli Witch Project

May 3, 2010

So, you didn’t think the opposition to global warming was political? You thought “skeptics” were just out to make a scientific case?

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli - campaign photo

As the Hook explains, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ordered the University of Virginia to turn over all records they have of research done by Michael Mann while he was at the UVA (he left five years ago for Penn State). (Civil Investigative Demand, here)

It’s a fishing expedition, the very definition of a witch hunt. Also, as I read the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act upon which Cuccinelli bases his actions [see comments — better source here], it’s probably outside the statute of limitations.

Research that Cuccinelli has targeted to investigate includes work Mann did with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cuccinelli probably lacks jurisdiction for much of the stuff he wants, trumped by those federal agencies.

Mann is the guy who put together the chart of all the different threads of research that show warming climate, commonly known as the “hockey stick” after Al Gore’s years of presentations on the chart and the movie, “Inconvenient Truths.” Mann also is among those scientists in U.S. and England whose private e-mails were exposed in the breach of the e-mail servers at England’s Hadley Climate Research Unit.

Three different investigations have put Mann in the clear so far (Penn State’s .pdf of investigation results; response to Texas U.S. Rep. Joe Barton’s assault) — odd that stolen e-mails would produce doubts about the victims of the theft, but ethical standards in science research are indeed that high. Caesar’s wife couldn’t be considered for research grants.

Why do I think the statute of limitations may apply? Look at the law, linked above, the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act:

§ 8.01-216.9. Procedure; statute of limitations.

A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a trial or hearing conducted under this article may be served at any place in the Commonwealth.

A civil action under § 8.01-216.4 or 8.01-216.5 may not be brought (i) more than six years after the date on which the violation is committed or (ii) more than three years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the Commonwealth charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in that event no more than ten years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last.

In any action brought under § 8.01-216.5, the Commonwealth shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Research at a major research institution like a big, public university involves many layers of regulation and bureaucratic checking. Generally the university’s research office will require adherence to the school’s ethical code and all state laws up front, and then the auditors check the money flow and research activities through the project. There is a final sign off at most schools, which would qualify as “the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the Commonwealth charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.”

Cuccinelli is sending a clear signal to researchers that they are unwelcome in Virginia if their research doesn’t square with his politics — and his politics are weird. Watch to see what the response of the University is, especially if their delivery of documents doesn’t put this witch hunt to bed.

[Update notice: The text of the law noting the statute of limitations was updated on May 5, to show application to § 801-216.4 as well as § 801-216.5]

Other sources to check:

Tim Lambert at Deltoid calls it part of the Republican War on Science
Eli Rabett has the letter from S. Fred Singer that shows how political this is (and good comments from the Smart People feared by Rev. Mummert)
Wow! To his credit, Steve McIntyre shows that a scientist can be a climate “skeptic,” and he condemns Cuccinelli’s actions as “overzealous”
A Few Things Ill Considered provides a few new details and history
It’s too far for way more commenters than I would have thought at Anthony Watts’s place; troubling: One commenter says the far-right wing astroturf group Competitive Enterprise Institute has sued Gavin Schmidt at Goddard (news to me)
P. Z. Myers is cold, cool, and correct in his comments
Ed Brayton had noted earlier that Cuccinelli is “crazier than you think” — remember, this is the guy who told Virginia universities they can’t practice non-discrimination against gays, and he’s single-handedly tried to cover up the breast of liberty on the Virginia Seal (an illegal act under Virginia law, entertainingly, to muck with the seal)
Chris Mooney hit the claxon to warn of Cuccinelli’s actions
Results of the ethics review already completed by Penn State University on Mann’s research (constructive notification, Mr. Cuccinelli — pay attention, please)
Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis of Cuccinelli’s first 100 days in office, with no mention of the current witch hunt (good for comparison)
Fox News
Charlottesville Daily Progress
Update, 5-4-2010: Story in The Washington Post
Nuts-falling-far-from-the-tree department: Cuccinelli is challenging EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, too.
Update 5-5-2010: This blog, Virginia Qui Tam, tracks citizen investigations such as those authorized by the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — slightly off track, perhaps, but perhaps not

23 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Chilling Effect, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, History, Junk science, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Research, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Chilling Effect, Climate change, Environmental protection, Global warming, Ken Cuccinelli, Law, Michael Mann, Research, University of Virginia, Virginia | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Parliament’s investigation: Stolen e-mails reveal no wrong-doing by climate scientists

March 31, 2010

As Galileo might have said, “Still the planet warms.”

A committee of England’s Parliament released its report on Hadley Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) stolen e-mails earlier today. The reports you heard that the scientific case showing global warming with human causation had died, were exaggerated, significantly in error, and hoaxes themselves.

The report comes from the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee. Press release with links and previous releases from the Committee, below:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Report publishedThe Committee published ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia‘, HC 387-I, its Eighth Report of Session 2009-10, on Wednesday 31 March 2010. Volume II, the oral and written evidence, was published the same day.

CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs

The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:

“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

Committee announcementOn 22 January the Science and Technology Committee announced an inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Commenting on the material which the Committee has received since the announcement the Chairman, Phil Willis MP, said:

The Committee has been receiving a steady stream of contributions to the inquiry, for which it is grateful. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the focus of the inquiry is the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research and the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA. It is not an inquiry into global warming. In the time remaining before the General Election the Committee would not have time to carry out such an inquiry.

Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?

—How independent are the other two international data sets?

Background

On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.

The Independent Review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .

Submissions

The Committee invited written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by Wednesday 10 February. The deadline has now passed.

Written correspondence

10 December 2009

Letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia to the Chairman of the Committee

Oral evidencePrevious session:

Monday 1 March 2010
The Rt Hon the Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation; Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner; Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit; Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review; Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra

Press notices31/03/10 Report published
22/01/10 Inquiry announced

Tip of the old scrub brush to P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Watching the Deniers.

______________________

Update March 31, 20101: Is this a surprise? Contrarians, dissenters and deniers say the report errs.

Update April 5, 2010: A little slower than I had imagined, Watts Up With That denies the accuracy of the report — but the denial is a doozy of denialist argument from authority. It’s a “guest editorial” by S. Fred Singer. Among other things, Singer’s piece reveals why we don’t let partisan politicians run investigations. He’s miffed because the investigation didn’t give Singer, nor any other denialist, a chance to malign Hadley CRU. In listing reasons to put fingers in his ears and not listen, Singer said of the House of Commons report, “It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics.” There’s no good reason Commons should have take direct testimony from “scientifically competent skeptics,” it wasn’t a news article where false balance was desired. Instead, the question was whether Hadley’s scientists had done anything wrong. Singer can’t know, since he has no direct involvement in Hadley’s work, nor would the biased claims of a denialist be able to shed any more light. Perhaps critically, Singer can’t know whether the Commons committee took direct testimony from claimed skeptics or not. That the report doesn’t mention the claims doesn’t mean the question wasn’t raised. It means that in the end, it wasn’t relevant, and not supported by the facts.

Update April 6, 2010: Singer’s in error. McIntyre has his say in Appendix 10 of the report. How many other contrarians, denialists and self-proclaimed “skeptics” are in the report?

8 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Conservation, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, Hoaxes | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Welcome, Pharyngulites!

March 29, 2010

You’ll find one of the posts I mentioned at P.Z.’s house, here.

Leave a Comment » | DDT, denialism, Rampant stupidity | Tagged: DDT, denialists, Nutcases, Obnoxious Commenters, Rampant stupidity | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Monckton among the Mormons

March 25, 2010

Christopher Monckton took his “pathological liar” comedy routine to Orem, Utah, last Tuesday night.

Peg McEntee wrote about it for the Salt Lake Tribune, “Monckton: Believe it or not.” McEntee saw through him, had the good sense to check the list of Members of the House of Lords, and noted that contrary to his claims, Monckton does not appear on the list.

But the priceless piece is this comment to McEntee’s article by adjustablespanner:

I like him much better as Dame Edna.

Christopher Monckton tries to get a clue - image, The Age

Dame Edna, already clued in - InsideSoCal image

More:

Straight news article from Wednesday’s Salt Lake Tribune
In Virginia, Monckton calls for scientists to be jailed; appropriately, he spoke to the Bull Run Republican Women’s Club
Hitting all the major science venues, Monckton addressed the Sauk County, Wisconsin, Republican Party at Wisconsin Dells; clearly demonstrating he’s got no clue about government in the U.S., he said the Environmental Protection Agency, our nation’s lead environmental protection regulatory agency, has no business regulating to protect the environment (Brilliant!)
Holy Mother of Pearl; Monckton’s logorrhea is back: “He criticized President Barack Obama’s administration by saying the country had elected a ‘monster.’ The stimulus package had been written by Communists to funnel money to extreme left wing, Marxist organizations, he said.” Could you make this kind of stuff up?
Monckton appears to be on a tour of America’s religiously crazy venues — he spoke at Liberty University on March 10; this follows his tour of not-religiously-just crazy venues in Australia
Monckton took to the estimable journal MensNewsDaily to criticize science journals for publishing research, classing up the editorial pages by calling the science journal editors “moaning ninnies”
British reality-based journal The Economist warns that climate scientists need to get out in force to debunk the fantastic falsehoods of Monckton and his cronies
Bill McKibben groks the issue
Good grief! Here’s a video from the Provo Daily Herald (the daily newspaper that serves Orem, where resides Utah Valley University, the unfortunate venue of Monckton’s speech) in which Monckton repeats his fantastic lies about DDT and malaria (hint: Never in the written history of the humans have only 50,000 people died from malaria in a year; the lowest rate we’ve ever had is now, with under a million deaths a year — half what it was when DDT spraying of cotton was banned).
Daily Herald story on the speech, “Briton espouses alternative view on global warming”
Apologies to Barry Humphries, who runs a class act, as opposed to Monckton

Is Monckton still in the country? If he’s going to be in Texas, I’d love to debate him. Is he still chicken?

Leave a Comment » | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Hoaxes | Tagged: Christopher Monckton, Climate change, denialism, Global warming, Hoaxers, Hoaxes, Salt Lake Tribune, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Joanne Nova can’t stand the heat

February 19, 2010

Oh, it’s a piffle in the grand scheme of things. But it’s indicative of the inherent, apparently congenital dishonesty in warming contrarians and denialists.

At Joanne Nova’s site, I’ve dropped quite a few information bombs, in comments. Well, they treat information as if it would kill them, and I have hopes it might at least leak through into their minds, so I continued for a couple of days.

But it’s like “teaching the old pig to sing” joke. The punchline says that it’s a waste of time because the pig will never sing well, you can really knock yourself out trying, and it annoys the pig.

I got a ping on a follow-up message. Some guy commented that he couldn’t figure the site out, because after I post something with solid scientific information, they dismiss it, ignore it, and generally pick themselves up after running into the facts, and run the other way as if nothing had happened.

machina.sapiens

<!––>February 18th, 2010 at 10:04 pm<!––>

I just read through a large part of this turgid “debate”.

It’s astounding stuff.

Ed Darell provides case after case after case of detailed references from the scientific and legal debates and the rest of you run around squawking “show us the evidence” over and over again as if you don’t understand that what he is writing IS providing the evidence.

Do none of you actually speak english? Can’t you read? Do you not understand the concept of providing evidence, or are you not bothering to comprehend, just shouting him down? That’s about the only conclusion I can draw.

And then the person who runs this blog leaps in and bans people for refusing to agree with her… Well, I suppose it’s her blog and her ball and if you don’t play by her rules, you can just go home…
Unbelievable, really.

I should have known a kommitted kommissar like Nova couldn’t let my earlier post go without twisting it. She responded:

Joanne Nova said:

Joanne Nova
–>February 19th, 2010 at 2:54 am<!––>

Machina,
I see you’re faking it right from the start. If you’d read the whole “debate” you’d know that Ed has been pinged for many things, including relying on the PSBG, and even had to apologize for baseless insults.

Ed:

““OK, I recognize that any cause of warming would melt glaciers, change weather patterns, and shift crops etc etc. None of these things is evidence that carbon is the cause of that warming. I was mixing up cause and effect. Point taken. Sorry for calling you drunk or dense or suggesting you have a mental disease.”

Time to let the pig go back to its mud, eh? That wasn’t my intent. I copied her words, but noted where I disagreed (you can read it here, perhaps, if she lets it stand.)

So I responded:

Ed Darrell

<!—->: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
<!––>February 19th, 2010 at 6:02 am<!––>

I clearly should have been more clear.

I didn’t mean to imply mental disease where it doesn’t exist. However, denialism may well be a symptom of disease. Warming denialism is like all tinfoil hattery, not so much a political stand as a symptom of something underlying. Mental disease? Perhaps.

Yes, any cause of global warming would melt glaciers, change weather patterns, and shift crops. None of this is, alone, evidence that carbon causes the warming. However, there is no more likely culprit than the set of greenhouse gases that cause such global warming. Cause and effect are not necessarily the same thing — the scientific evidence points to the increase in human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases as creating the mess we’re heading into.

Sorry for calling you drunk if you’re not. Sorry for implying you have disease if you don’t. That leaves only genuine skepticism, not politically motivated, or stupidity, or evil intent. Drunk or dense might be the better and more polite excuse, but Nova doesn’t believe it.

I got here on a link showing the astounding lies of Christopher Monckton about Rachel Carson, Jackie Kennedy and DDT. Since I can’t say Monckton was drunk or diseased, and since he lacks the science or history chops to be an informed skeptic, we must assume him to be evil. Why Nova promotes his statements escapes me.

I apologized for baseless insults, but cannot apologize for those with firm foundation.

As you can see from the note on moderation, they pounced on my remarks and closed them off from view.

YODA – Moderator

<!––>February 19th, 2010 at 6:37 am<!––>

Ed Darrell,

Your latest comment has been put into moderation. Jo will review it and make a decision accordingly

YODA – Moderator

If only it were Yoda instead of someone short, with a desire to be magical, but no light sabre or serious Jedi training.

They can’t defend Monckton’s insults of America and Jackie Kennedy, nor his ignorant insults of Rachel Carson. They know that. Censorship is the only way out for them.

Is that also true for warming? Nova doesn’t encourage discussion in any fashion. (It is rather sobering to see so many willing to give up their fleeces and follow along, though, isn’t it?)

My sole defender said:

machina.sapiens
<!––>February 19th, 2010 at 9:08 am<!––>

A couple of responses – although I have no intention of engaging in this discussion on a sustained basis. Life is too short. I don’t have the patience – unlike Ed Darrell, who seems to have limitless reserves of patience and politeness in dealing with the frequently abusive and nonsensical responses to his calm, respectful, logical, and evidence-based comments.

Farmer Dave says that I “seem a little upset” – an interesting rhetorical trope – place yourself in a superior, condescending position and devalue your opponent’s words by implying that they are the result of excessive emotion rather than rationality – it’s a flavour of ad hominem technique, I suppose. That trope certainly seems to get a substantial use in this arena – maybe it’s in someone’s “Big book of hints on how to derail discussion when you have no actual arguments” – like the one that goes “ignore any evidence that anyone provides and just keep chanting ’show us the evidence’”.

You (jonova)say that

Ed has been pinged for many things, including relying on the PSBG, and even had to apologize for baseless insults.

(I presume you mean the PBSG) – I guess if relying on the statements of actual scientific bodies is a justification for blocking someone, i shouldn’t be expecting rationality… I haven’t read all of the discussion – but I see no evidence of you blocking anyone other than people who disagree with you, no matter how abusive and irrelevant your supporters get. When discussion gets mildly robust, it always leaves scope to fabricate those sort of charges against those who disagree with you, while ignoring the sins of your own supporters. I guess it’s easy to get away with that kind of patent intellectual dishonesty when you’re only singing to the choir.

Roy Hogue, one of the main sty denizens there, claimed that nameless and faceless European bureaucrats were threatening his freedom. I asked him how, and here’s his latest tally of his loss of freedom, showing up just after my latest banning:

It’s now quite illegal to sell or install CFCs in the United States. It’s a federal crime with penalties attached.

So there you have it, folks. If you allow the warming warnings to take effect and let us try to make cleaner air to save our planet, you’ll have to pay the incredibly stiff penalty of . . . changing your refrigerant.

That’s a penalty any of us should be happy to pay. That these guys see that as a serious infringement of their freedom only demonstrates how blinded they are, perhaps by the slipping tinfoil hats.

Are we burning that bridge? With a bit of sadness, perhaps. They may need that bridge to save their tails someday.

It’s unlikely they’d know it, though.

My comment is still in “moderation.” When telling the truth needs to be “moderated,” the problem isn’t with the facts of the matter.

If they can’t stand the heat, maybe they should let the policy makers do something about the warming, eh?

Update: I’m up early, gotta do some hard thinking about Woodrow Wilson for a seminar today, and I find this posted over at Nova’s site:

Joanne Nova

<!—->:
<!––>February 20th, 2010 at 3:57 pm<!––>

Ed Darrell, I’m getting help to manage the hundreds of comments coming in. We’re still working out a system, so your comment has been released from moderation.

You however still appear irrational.

I think I have to agree with Alexander Pope on that issue:

All seems infected that the infected spy, As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.

Nova again:

You make assumptions we have asked you back up:
“the scientific evidence points to the increase in human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases as creating the mess we’re heading into.

You cannot provide any other evidence other than climate simulations, and I have already explained why these are inadequate. We need empirical evidence.

I make assumptions? I make assumptions?

I don’t assume, as your prophet Monckton claims, that Jack Kennedy came back from the dead to appoint his “good friend,” William Ruckelshaus, to head the EPA, an agency created seven years after Kennedy’s death, as Nova apparently does (Nova hasn’t defended any of the DDT insanity from Monckton — she can’t, of course, so she’s trying to deflect). I don’t assume anything, except some degree of intelligence and civility in most people — an assumption Nova is doing her best to batter.

Nova dismisses out of hand the papers by Australian scientists showing how and why Australia’s wildfires are results of greenhouse-gas-caused climate change. If all the evidence is ruled out of bounds, then she’s right.

Try to post a serious argument there.

Remember, my sole point was that Monckton can’t be trusted, a claim I make based on his astounding and continuing falsehoods about DDT, malaria and the environmental movement. Nova contests none of that, but accuses me of not providing evidence to other points.

Were I to be so cruel as Monckton, I’d ask whether she had to chew through the leather restraints to post that. But I won’t.

Before you can post again, please explain:
1. Are you still calling us “deniers”

She’s defending a guy who regularly calls scientists, Nobel winners, and anyone who questions anything he does “bed wetters” and is proud of it.

Am I pointing out you deny the evidence, Nova? Damn straight.

Does that make you a “denier?” I think it’s indicative of a syndrome. Over here in the U.S., when public figures get caught like that, they often head off to an alcohol abuse treatment program. Among the first steps of abuse correction is confession.

If I call you a “denier,” where does that description go awry, Ms. Nova? You won’t accept the science I post, and now you won’t let me post unless I swear fealty to your odd brand of nonsensescience.

Why should anyone regard you as a major denier, lost in depths of denialism? Where is there any indication that you accept any part of science?

If “yes” then you may not post again since this is delusional as you cannot provide any evidence we deny and have not acknowledged that your past effort to provide evidence was woefully inadequate.

I was unaware pigs wanted to sing. I still see no evidence of it. It’s that denialism thing, I think. A pig denying it is Sus domesticus might be deluded into thinking it should be able to sing.

Nova’s explanation for why the Australian scientists were wrong about wildfires in Australia was an answer along the lines of “everyone knows” Australian fires are caused by Smokey the Bear’s overmanagement of wildlands. No citation to anything at all, not even a newspaper article.

And she accuses me of providing no evidence.

Jack Rhodes explained the difficulties of coaching champion debate teams. First a team has to learn to beat the average teams. Then they must learn to beat the really good teams. Finally, and most difficult, they must learn to defeat the really bad teams. In the logical and evidence-laden world of intercollegiate debate at the time, a really bad team’s disorganized thoughts and fumbling arguments could draw good debaters off the track.

Nova’s tried to draw me off the track there. She’s demonstrating a moral failure in her support of the serial and continuing falsehoods of Christopher Monckton. Wholly apart from whether I could offer evidence of global warming to pass Nova’s jaundiced eye, it is a moral failure of Nova to support the falsehoods of the man, promote them as truths, and then engage in attacks on those who point out the errors.

It’s not an evidence failure we see at Nova’s blog so much as a failure of backbone, a moral failure to distinguish the dross that can mislead the masses from the gold that we need for policy.

I’m assuming Nova’s bright enough to make that distinction, of course. She could shuffle off to an evidence abuse program and claim bright light addiction or somesuch. But if we assume she’s not crazy or stupid, then her failing here is purely moral. She refuses to entertain the idea that she might be wrong in any sense, crazy, stupid, or just not yet sufficiently evidenced. If we believe her that far, moral failing is the only alternative.

If Nova wants to be seen as a serious non-denialist, she ought to act that way.

If “not” then talk of deniers applies to some other group, it’s not appropriate here. Go talk there.
2. You may apologise for wasting my time, and posting comments of sub-par logic along with baseless insults.

I regret your moderation is unfair, your characterizations of me inaccurate, and your science so poor as to be practically non-existent. Should I be sorry for that? Okay, I’m sorry your moderation is unfair, your characterizations wrong, and your beliefs unfounded.

I don’t think I should be apologizing for you, Joanne. You have to do that yourself.

You may not post again until we resolve this. Unfortunately I have to discriminate against the mentally deficient who throw insults. There is only one of me, I’m trying to lift standards on logic and reason and cannot offer free therapy for those who are simply, possibly due to no fault of their own, unable to reason.

I can and will post freely wherever reasonable discussion is obtainable, Joanne. I regret that is not your site. Alas, again, I cannot do your apologies for you.

Dear Readers, you may head over to Nova’s site and try to educate the hard-headed Aussies and others there. Don’t set your sites on long life on those boards. I gather most of the rational Aussies avoid the place. I wonder where sensible Aussies hang out? [Roy Hogue? Are you a troll or do you have serious questions? If the latter, post the questions here. I’ll work to answer them.]

Joanne Nova may wish to decorate Millard Fillmore for his contributions to sanitary science in the White House, especially his personal plumbing of the first bathtub there. It’s her right. It’s not history, it’s not science, it’s not accurate, it’s not appropriate. But it’s her right.

4 Comments | Clean Air Act, Climate change, climate_change, DDT, denialism, Global warming, History, Political Smear, Politics, pollution, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Climate change, Global warming, Joanne Nova, Monckton | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

No climate change denialists will apply

January 28, 2010

Australia is looking for a scientist to head up the next round of Australia’s reports to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But who would want a job that pays nothing and brings a great deal of grief? Crikey notes that scientists, especially Australian scientists, get slandered and libeled daily by climate change denialists. Not to mention the death threats.

That fat pay the denialists keep claiming comes to the scientists, and urges them to misreport the data?

The only remuneration IPCC scientists get – as a quick check of last week’s ad would have made clear — is travel costs and living expenses while they are at IPCC meetings. The IPCC work is on top of their day jobs as academics and researchers.

That’s right, ladies and gentleman: Climate Denialist Extraordinaire Christopher Monckton profits from his obnoxious and error-filled lectures more than the guys who do the heavy lifting.

You know that denialists won’t apply to do the job. Most of us suspect they don’t have the courage of their convictions to do it, but there’s another problem: Very few of them are qualified. They don’t do science.

Bookmark the story. Remind the denialists of it from time to time.

(New year’s greetings from the IPCC.)

5 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Political Smear, Politics, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Political Smears, Politics, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Monckton lies over the ocean

January 28, 2010

Christopher Monckton continues his “No Tern Left Unstoned, No Lie Left Untold” tour of Australia, trotting out all the old falsehoods about DDT — did he continue to falsely blame President John Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy for malaria?

Does he know malaria is spread by mosquitoes, and not Kennedys?

Leave a Comment » | DDT, denialism, Hoaxes, Political Smear, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: DDT, denialism, Global warming, Hoaxes, Jackie Kennedy, Monckton, Political Smear, Politics, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Astounding manipulation of data — from the climate denialists

January 26, 2010

Especially since they purloined the e-mails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), climate change denialists get bolder and bolder about making wilder and wilder statements of disinformation.

For example, our old friend Anthony Watts now makes criminal charges in his headlines, that scientists altered data to reflect the opposite of what their research found and then lied about it — but read the story, about Himalayan glaciers. Watts quotes a story with a bad headline from The Daily Mail, in which a scientist tells how important scientisits consider the situation in the Himalayas, with glacier decline. There is no confession of any wrongdowing, but Watt’s headlines it “Scientist admits IPCC usied fake data to influence policy makers.” There’s no confession. Were it so wildly inaccurate, wouldn’t Watts post the science that rebuts the IPCC claim?

Anyway, Dale Husband takes a harder look at some of the denialist claims. Nils-Axel Morner claims that, contrary to all measures and the actual submersion of islands, sea level rises do not occur. Morner testified to that point to the British government in 2005, according to Dale Husband.

Can you detect the “trick” Morner used to deny sea level rise in his graph?

Morner's "data trick" to show no sea level rise, 2005

Morner’s work is the basis of Anthony Watts’ and Christopher Monckton’s claims that the Maldives are not sinking, and probably the “science” basis for almost all claims that the oceans do not rise. You gotta follow the footnotes.

The intellectual execution, drawing and quartering of Morner’s claims is worth a read, at Dale Husband’s Intellectual Rants.

Good heavens. Is Morner really the intellectual basis of this part of the denialists’ denial? This isn’t an area I’ve followed closely. My experience is that if Monckton cites him, he’s probably wrong. But Morner is the major author on sea levels in the denialist compilation of what they claim is not crank science.

Maybe the denialists should just take up yoga. If you stand on your head to look at the charts, they all look different, and the charts showing the temperature rising aren’t quite so scary.

28 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Global warming, History, oceans, Politics | Tagged: Climate change, denialism, Global warming, oceans, Politics, Science, Sea Level Rise | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Where’s that global cooling the denialists promised?

January 20, 2010

Forgetting that the planet has seasons, climate denialists for months have been hoo-hooing about snowfalls and cold weather. Some of the more serious propagandists among them claim that the Earth is now in a cooling cycle, and that temperatures have been falling since the record hot year of 1998.

Really?

Head on over to Open Mind, and take a look at the facts.

NASA GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] has released the estimated monthly temperature for December 2009, which closes out the year 2009, which closes out the decade of the 2000s. The result: 2005 is still the hottest calendar year, 2009 is the 2nd-hottest year ever, although it’s really in a statistical tie with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.

They’ve confused weather with climate. They’ve failed to keep score. Perhaps they’ve spent wasted their time hacking e-mails instead of measuring climate.

RealClimate carries the news in a post by some of NASA’s top scientists, including James Hansen:

The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world. Global mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1a, was 0.57°C (1.0°F) warmer than climatology (the 1951-1980 base period). Southern Hemisphere mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1b, was 0.49°C (0.88°F) warmer than in the period of climatology.

How will the critics treat this news? And, what were they doing during the past decade when all those warm days rolled into weeks, rolled into months and years, and finally, to the warmest decade ever?

Global land temperature mean for the decade ending 2009, plus hemispheric comparisons

Caption from RealClimate: Figure 1. (a) GISS analysis of global surface temperature change. Green vertical bar is estimated 95 percent confidence range (two standard deviations) for annual temperature change. (b) Hemispheric temperature change in GISS analysis. (Base period is 1951-1980. This base period is fixed consistently in GISS temperature analysis papers. . . Base period 1961-1990 is used for comparison with published HadCRUT analyses in Figures 3 and 4.)

Heat things up a bit, and spread the alarm:

14 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Politics, Science | Tagged: Climate change, Climatology, denialism, Environmental protection, GISS, Global warming, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, History, James Hansen, Meteorology, NASA, Politics, Science, Warmest Decade | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Monckton’s profiteering: Climate denialists rake in the money

January 19, 2010

Bizarre as it may seem, the imagined profiteering of environmentalists has becoma favorite complaint of global warming deniers. Ignoring the fact that he’s on the board of Apple Computers and a very savvy investor, and ignoring the facts of his donation of proceeds he gets from lectures, deniers claim Al Gore has gotten rich off of warning people about global warming.

They even complain when researchers get grants to study the stuff, as if the researchers were buying Maseratis and taking vacations to the Caribbean on the money.

How could they think that?

Might it be because the deniers really are pulling in high dollar, luxury fees to campaign against the science? Christopher Monckton, warming denialist extraordinaire, is touring Australia. Comes this little slip of public relations:

During this tour, Lord Monckton will be chaperoned by wealthy mining consultant and geologist Professor Ian Plimer. Lord Monckton will also be getting a fee of $20,000 and all his travel and accommodation – somewhere in the region of $100,000 – will be paid for.

Who might be paying for Monckton’s tour?* China? India? We don’t know, but following Monckton’s lead, we might hope that the western intelligence agencies are investigating Monckton to see just what he’s up to.

$120,000 to make up political smears that damage national policies and science? Mencken would be ashamed.

More:

Read Quiggen directly, at Crikey

_____________

* It’s a paraphrase of Monckton, who evilly worried about funding for climate research and ill-funded environmental groups, “Goodness knows where they get it from! Foreign governments, possibly! I don’t know! I haven’t looked. But it’s certainly an alarming question: Are the environmental movements being backed by China or India so they won’t have to compete with us for natural resources because we will have shut our industry down. It’s a question that the security services, I hope, are looking at, because it certainly worries me.”

7 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Hoaxes, Political Smear, Politics, Science | Tagged: Australia, Climate change, Climate Denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, Hoaxes, Monckton, Politics, Profiteering | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

	Deadly force against… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Ed Darrell on Honoring James Madison in 2025…
	Steve Schwartzman on Honoring James Madison in 2025…
	Some Links - Cafe Ha… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Trump’s word games c… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Trump’s Word G… on Lincoln quote sourced: Calf…
	Ed Darrell on Rare, new and alternative Chri…
	Ed Darrell on Velsicol Chemical vs. Rachel C…
	Colin Wright on tran… on Quote of the moment: Richard F…
	How undocumented imm… on Based on a true story —…
	How to File the I-90… on Based on a true story —…
	Ed Darrell on Nate White’s stunning an…
	tinnyray on Just stay quiet: Poster hoax a…
	Ed Darrell on Just stay quiet: Poster hoax a…
	tinnyray on Just stay quiet: Poster hoax a…

Most Americans remain concerned about global warming

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Wall of Shame: Outlets that reported only half the story, and not the denial

Warn others of the hoax:

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Gardere’s Faulk And Gray Tapped To Represent Business, Industry In Climate Change Amicus Briefs

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

I like him much better as Dame Edna.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.

George Santayana (1863-1952)

Who needs a soak in Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub?

Pi Day!

Come often

Follow the Bathtub’s bathing events on Twitter:

Follow Splashings from the Bathtub on e-mail

Hot water (recent posts)

Freshly scrubbed (comments)

Do you hear a tweet? Bathtub splashes to the Twitter stream

Dead Link?

Currently warm bathing (top posts)

Public baths?

Popular Bathtub Toys (categories)

Bathtub Toys (topic categories)

Tub construction (pages)

Down the drain (archives by month since 2006)

Administrivia

Embarrassing Bubbles in the Bathtub

Faucets of Information - Earth - Environment - Well-being

Faucets of Information - Economics

Faucets of Information - Education

Faucets of Information - Geography

Faucets of Information - Government

Faucets of Information - History

Faucets of Information - Law

Faucets of Information - Science

Faucets of Information - Texas

Faucets of Information, miscellaneous

Bubbles in the bathtub

How warm’s the water?

Fly Your Flag Today

Steam from the Bathtub

Where the bubbles drain - Top Clicks

Come clean with the world

CO2 bubbles?

You are here in history:

Statcounter

Pi Day Countdown