(See the update below where SkS compares Climate Skeptics to the Viet Cong along with needing….”a conspiracy to save humanity”.)
LewWorld continues to crumble from within and Skeptical Science has been exposed as conspiracy theory central, according to Dr. Judith Curry, who sums up your failure quite well:
The latest ‘explanation’ for lack of belief in the IPCC consensus ‘truth’ is that these non believers are conspiracy theorists. See Stephan Lewandowsky’s editorial Evidence is overrated if you are a conspiracy theorist. Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey. Bloggers such as Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs). BS detection in action. While I have used the term ‘auditors’ for deep investigations of problems with climate data, BS detection seems much more apt for this particular issue.
Lew, get a clew. I hope this experience with the skeptical bloggers has revealed what they are really all about, as they have revealed YOUR conspiracy by finding a really big pile.
The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum (link). SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers. All this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars. But take a step back, and consider how bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.
Read her post here.
Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre is collecting data on who actually took the survey, if you took the survey in 2010, then please note it in a comment here.
==============================================================
UPDATE: I had pretty much ignored the SkS forum dump when it was happening, thinking that perhaps they were being treated unfairly, but since Cook has gone a bridge too far now with this Lewandowsky mess, I no longer feel the need to hold back on what is going on behind the scenes over there.
Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.
And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]
So, who are the nutters again?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Might I remind people that the Viet Cong lost the war. They signed a peace treaty with us, which our own Congress refused to enforce when the NV government violated it. (Just like Saddam, by the way, but our government responded to Saddam’s repeated (17 times!) provocation by invading Iraq and removing him).
cdquarles:
I assume your comment at September 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm is a troll intended to deflect the thread from its true subject. It says
No. The Viet Cong won. They drove the Americans out of their country and took over running it – all of it – themselves in a manner of their choosing. They had complete and absolute victory.
Similarly, we are driving out those who are despoiling science with PNS and climastrology. The work of Lewandowsky is as self-delusional as the propaganda was that emanated from the US Embassy in Vietnam when the Viet Cong were slowly but surely winning their war.
Science has provided many benefits. So, it important that we win the battle to save science from its usurpers as soon as possible. Science is being despoiled by the Agent Orange of PNS, it is being corrupted by the puppet leaders installed in Executives of science Institutes, and its practitioners are being burned by the napalm of the conflict.
Richard
Barry Woods says:
Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions
Barry, that’s what’s truly frightening to me. If they really believe this and really think skeptics are so evil, I fear that they might take things beyond just talk. With rhetoric like they’re already throwing out, it’s not that much of a leap to imagine that someone might just decide that “action” is necessary.
TonyG:
At September 17, 2012 at 7:01 am you say of climate catastrophists
You are a bit late. Over recent years some of their “actions” include
Getting US State climatologists sacked for not proclaiming AGW.
Smearing the reputations of any who question AGW
Throwing pies ate scientists who question AGW
Attacking computer systems of people who question AGW
Usurping the peer review systems of scientific journals
Getting ‘replaced’ Editors of science journals which publish papers not-supportive of AGW
Usurping the Executive Committees of science Institutions
etc.
Richard
A general comment about the sincerety of warmists. The problem is, their behaviour is inconsistent with the idea that their fears are genuine. People with genuine fears don’t try to discredit their opponents by fraudulent actions and suchlike. Moreover, they don’t commit such acts in response to an invitation to present their case, as Gleick did. People only do that when they are acting in bad faith. As far as their ‘fears’ go, the overblown rhetoric gives the game away – it’s rationalization rather than genuine expression. The thing that fascinates me is that, as always, the truth of the matter is right in front of everyone (whatever the ultimate interpretation of such actions). Their behaviour gives the game away.
This may be off-topic, but since it has become an integral part of the thread, it is worth noting the VietCong did NOT win the war. They didn’t lose it, either. They were all but eradicated during the Tet Offensive in 1968. All effective military operations thereafter were conducted by the North Vietnamese Regular Army. A few (percentage wise) of the forces were VietCong, but not a majority. That’s why the administration of the south after American forces were withdrawn and South Vietnam was abandoned by the US was run almost exclusively by North Vietnamese personnel. And why there now is only “Vietnam,” neither north nor south but one country. Additional commentary about how it appears we won the subsequent economic war (or not, depending on how you view the hybrid Communist-capitalist way things are being done now) could be interesting but will not change the situation.
Bill Durham:
Decades have passed since the Vietnam war and it should now be considered as a matter of history which – like all history – has lessons from which we can learn.
One can have views on the politicians who were in control of combatants on both sides of that war, but it is not reasonable to minimise the heroism of combatants on either side. The fact that the Viet Cong died in such numbers is a tribute to their heroic contribution.
Similarly, many Americans and their allies died and suffered. Their sacrifice deserves to be honoured, too.
Think what you like but the historical facts are clear: without the Viet Cong the forces of ‘North’ Vietnam would not have won that war and – by any rational assessment – they did win.
Richard
Richard, the Viet Cong were destroyed during the 1968 Tet Offensive. They were never an effective force after that.
After 1968, all of the fighting in South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA never won a major battle and lost most of the minor ones.
The Vietnam War was won on the streets of the US when the middle class decided the horrid costs at home were not worth the benefits in Vietnam, and joined the protests.
I’m sorry, but I am the first person to think the leak is a “plant,” a cover, propaganda in itself?
Tamblyn’s statements reflect either a deliberate attempt to mislead (either to, I guess, rally the ignorant masses or as propaganda), or some pretty severe delusion.
I would very much like to know what Tamblyn thinks Gleick did that gathered all that attention. I know that people tend to forget that an echo chamber doesn’t just let you hide from opposing ideas, but actually allows people to ramp up their rhetoric, but this is just a little beyond ridiculous. “Gentlemanly” fraud is Marquess of Queensberry rules?
Pat Frank:
Your post at September 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm is the most recent in this thread about the Vietnam war and it is addressed to me. So, I am answering that post as a reply to all who want to understate the contributions and sufferings of combatants on both sides of that war.
Your post says to me
All modern wars are won or lost on the ‘home front’. The Vietnam War was no different. People in the US and allied countries were shocked at the conscription, the deaths of their own Service personnel, and the continuing escalation of the scale of the conflict. Eventually they became convinced that the war was not worth its cost in lives and money.
That conscription, loss of life and escalation were a result of North Vietnamese (mostly North Vietnamese) opposition to the US and allied forces. The Viet Cong were a significant part of that opposition. Indeed, the Tet Offensive was a significant part of gaining the attention of the US public at the scale of the war. The fact that so many Viet Cong died is a statement of their contribution to the winning of that war: their sacrifice was part of gaining the attention of the public in the US and and its allies.
People die and suffer in wars. In later ages people can consider whether or not a war was worth fighting. But the troops on both sides of a war mostly fight for admirable reasons (e.g. patriotism, protection of their homeland, etc.). Of course, there are individuals on both sides of any war who commit atrocities, but their fellow combatants cannot all be tarred with responsibility for that.
Those who have fought with valour and honour for their country – including those who fought on land far from their country – need to be treated with the respect they deserve whether or not later generations think the war was ‘just’. And their contribution needs to be recognised; especially the contribution of those who died.
Importantly, we need to learn from history. In the context of the – I think mistaken and objectionable – analogy of the AGW-dispute with the Vietnam War, we do have people willing to make great sacrifices. For example, Pat Michaels, Mark Albright and George Taylor were US State Climatologists and they were dismissed from their jobs because they refused to toe the AGW line. It remains to be seen if their sacrifice has as much effect on US public opinion as the sacrifice of the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive.
Richard
I concur with the several comments about the Vietnam War being lost (or won, depending on your perspective) on the streets and in the media in America. I remember the media reports of the Tet Offensive being all about the success of the VietCong, and NEVER reporting the casualties they incurred, while emphasizing those of American and South Vietnamese soldiers. The comments about the courage of the individuals involved also were, in general, accurate. But those attributes were not the topic of my comment.
My primary interest in this topic is that of MILITARY history, and evaluation of the effectiveness of different tactics and strategy. Twenty years in the US armed forces led me to give up trying to analyze POLITICAL strategy, since it has never (or, at best, rarely) been strongly influenced by military objectives, but primarily by immediate interests of those in office at the time, with little or no interest in the long term benefit to the country (the US, in my perspective, but I doubt if it changes much if your focus is on another) much less the people actually involved in the fighting.
The reason for the initial post was just to correct the way the military results of the conflict in Southeast Asia were ASSUMED (based on media reports, apparently). Several analogies had been made that were inaccurate (or “false” if you prefer non-PC language) as they were worded.
BullDurham:
For sake of clarity, I write to say I agree with your post at September 18, 2012 at 9:20 am.
Richard