People send me stuff.
I’m sure readers remember the billboard put out by Heartland that didn’t go over at all well with many. Here’s another asking “Who do you believe”?
It’s a tough question for the pro AGW side, and an easy answer for everyone else. You can choose your answer in the poll.
This billboard was done by CFACT.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jan P Perlw1tz:
Your despicable post at February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am erroneously claimed the honest lady Gail Combs had produced a “forgery” and “lied”. Well, those falsehoods could be expected from you because lies and smears are your ‘stock in trade’. But it is possible that there are onlookers who are not familiar with your egregious history and, therefore, I explained your lies in my post at February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm where I ridiculed your disgraceful lies.
At February 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm you have claimed I was wrong and that Ms Combs did provide a forgery when she accurately quoted Schneider. She did not. For your information, this is how the Online Dictionary defines forgery.
Clearly, Ms Combs was honest and correct in what she wrote and she did NOT forge anything.
However, not content with your lies and smears of Ms Combs, you attempt to distract from my refutation of those lies and smears by concluding your post saying
Politicians pay me for factual, referenced information and analysis. They have their own sources for propaganda.
I don’t attempt to “sabotage” anything. On the contrary, I promote high scientific standards. However, I recognise why you would think that is “sabotage”.
My “professional connections to the coal industry” ended when British Coal (BC) was closed in 1995 and, therefore, my job as Senior Material Scientist at BC’s Coal Research Establishment ceased to exist. Subsequently, I wrote on Clean Coal Technology as a part time Technical Editor of CoalTrans International which is the journal of the international coal trade. That job ended when the journal changed ownership in 2002 and the new publishers replaced all the employees of that journal with some of their own existing employees. So, decades in the past there may have been some possibility of suspicion that your smear was true, but only an idiot would claim I have “professional connections” to an industry which has sacked me twice and most recently over a decade ago.
The reality is that you are a GISS programmer who blogs, lies and smears in attempt to avoid explaining e.g. this.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Mark Bofill wrote on February 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221851
Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate.
1. I do not believe you that.
2. You defended the forging of a quote as a legitimate “revision” of a statement. I am not going to honor such a propositon by engaging in a dialogue with you.
There are enough of the “skeptic” crowd here who are similar minded to you. Aren’t you satisfied when they give you confirmation?
—————————————————
Awww Jan. Don’t be like that.
Tell me, seriously this time. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying. You must therefore be making an argument that you don’t actually believe. What makes the puzzle harder is that nobody else on this thread believes it either. So, what are you up to?
Since you’re clearly not being honest with us in the first place, I doubt you’re going to tell me. Still, it would be rude of me to call for speculation without first giving you a chance to explain.
Mark
No one agrees with Perlwitz regarding his false claim that Stephen Schneider was not advocating lying for the alarmist cause — when everyone [except lonesome Perlwitz] can see that is exactly what Schneider was proposing. That Schneider quote has been posted and re-posted here and all over the internet for twenty years, with no one defending Schneider… until now, when Perlwitz wants folks to believe that White is Black, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, and that Schneider Didn’t Advocate Lying. All are equally preposterous
And Perlwitz emits the usual alarmist canard that Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, and others educated in the hard sciences cannot understand the debate. Only “climate scientists” can understand the science?? As if. All of us here understand too well the shenanigans that are going on: a false scare is being promoted, which has no verifiable, testable scientific evidence to support it. There are no measurements of “AGW”. None. It is all one giant head-fake, based on assertions that cannot be measured.
Now that we have gone sixteen [16] years without any global warming, these pseudo-scientists are forced to lie through their teeth to keep their false alarm alive. But the public is catching on, and the alarmists’ AGW scare tactics are being laughed at. Who still believes the nonsense that Perlwitz is asserting?
D.B. Stealey says:
February 10, 2013 at 6:37 pm
…Perlwitz wants folks to believe that White is Black, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, and that Schneider Didn’t Advocate Lying. All are equally preposterous…
————————————————————–
Okay, but isn’t it strange that he’s making such a feeble argument? He comes in here, looking to pick a fight using a laughable argument against Gail, and quickly gets sidetracked into arguing against peripheral details in people’s rebuttals. Heck, maybe he’s just bored and this is how he fills the time. Still, I tend to be suspicious when my opposition starts behaving stupidly.
~shrug~ well, whatever. Monday morning comes fast and furious; good night folks.
Mark
Mark Bofill wrote on February 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221980
I understand what Stephen Schneider said. He talked about an ethical dilemma, which one can face as a scientist. On one hand, to be committed to the highest scientific standards, on the other hand to convey results of research with important societal consequences to the public in an effective way, given the working of the media as they are. Stephen Schneider was reflecting about this. It is a virtue to be aware about these problems. He did not say scientists should be lying. On the contrary, he expressed his desire to be both effective and honest.
If you think I was dumb to think that is the correct interpretation, so be it, since it is was I think. It’s not an argument I don’t believe.
Gail Comb presented a forged version of the statement, which significantly distorted its meaning.
What do you propose what would be a valid criterion what interpretation of the statement is the correct one? We don’t need to ask Stephen Schneider. Even if he was still alive we already know what he said about it. And the “skeptic” crowd clearly dismisses what he said about it right away, since the preconception among “skeptics” is he was lying like most climate scientists allegedly were, anyway. So, what else?
The context of Schneider’s statement is well explained by his behaviour from the date of said quote to his death.
Ample evidence to me, that Jan is blowing smoke.
Course he could believe it, as a common trait of serial liars, is believing their own BS.
Lies being difficult to keep track of, and hard to reference.
Truth seems to work so much more reliably over time.
richardcourtney says:
“The assertions of Jan P Perlw1tz get progressively more bizarre with each post he makes.”
And Mark Bofill says:
“…the conversation continues to deteriorate…
Being unable to address the substance of my post in any way shape or form, this pathetic troll comes back with yet another unfounded distortion.
Jan, you’re being boring. Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate. Couldn’t you step up your game a bit? My kids argue a better case than you for Pete’s sake…. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying… Okay, but isn’t it strange that he’s making such a feeble argument? He comes in here, looking to pick a fight using a laughable argument against Gail, and quickly gets sidetracked into arguing against peripheral details in people’s rebuttals.”
And DirkH says:
“The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.”
And Code Tech says:
“Perlwitz, why did you misquote me, then agree with what I actually said? That didn’t make sense…”
Nobody agrees with Perlwitz. I can’t believe that he misunderstands either Schneider’s statement so completely. He has completely reversed Schneider’s meaning. Can he really be that delusional?
I doubt it. I think Perlwitz has repeated his unsupportable assertions so often that he cannot renege on them now without forfeiting credibility — which would make him ineffective. Therefore, Perlwitz owns his alarmist catastrophic AGW position. He would rather make things up, than refute what he has repeatedly asserted.
It is that same choice between being honest, or being effective. Perlwitz can be honest, or he can be effective. He cannot be both. Perlwitz obviously believes that his false assertions are effective enough to jettison honesty. He has made the choice offered by Stephen Schneider. Now we know what that choice is.
As an alternative:
john robertson wrote on February 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222030
So, show me what the truth was, which you allege. This should be easy for you then. Please, give me specifics about the behavior of Stephen Schneider after the interview, which confirm the, in my opinion malicious interpretation of his statement, according to which he promoted that scientists should be lying. Specifics that are actually based on verifiable evidence, not just copy-paste of assertions from some fake skeptic blogs.
DirkH wrote on February 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221884
Am I? Tell me, what would you accept as evidence for the validity of the statement that increasing greenhouse gase mixing ratio in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions caused global warming was a paradigm among working and publishing climate scientists?
Stealey tried to trap me with a challenge regarding this question. And now he already seems to have chickened out. What about you? Are you willing to take the challenge, instead? Since you think I was “delusional” you must be quite certain in your belief about this issue.
richardscourtney wrote on February 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221947
a lot of bla bla, and he also claims:
The original quote by Stephen Schneider was:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)
Gail Combs presented following alleged quote instead:
~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~”
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492)
The original quote has been clearly and deliberately changed here. It is not even marked where parts of the original quote have been cut out.
But Mr. Courtney claims this was “honest and correct” doing.
The irony is that “skeptics” do here exactly with the quote by Stephen Schneider, and Mr. Courtney and likes defend such doing, of what they accuse Stephen Schneider to allegedly have done.
Jan P Perlwitz:
I am replying to your silly and mendacious post at February 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm.
The facts are .
1.
(At February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am)
Gail Combs quoted Schneider verbatim and accurately summarised the quotation.
2.
(At February 10, 2013 at 8:47 am)
You lied that the quotation is a “forgery” and smeared Ms Combs.
3.
(February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm)
Following others who objected to your nonsense, I explained that you had lied and smeared Ms Combs.
4.
(At February 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm)
You replied by repeating your lie and by adding lies and smears of me.
5.
(At February 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm)
I refuted all your lies and smears and I pointed out that
GISS employs you as a professional liar .
6.
(At February 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm)
You have responded (in the post I am answering) by repeating the lies and smears.
Conclusion
You are earning your pay as a professional liar.
Richard
richardscourtney wrote in February 11, 2013 at 2:24 am wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222145
Some funny things.
You are hilarious, Mr. Courtney. Trying to declare a quote manipulation, which is ones more documented here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222096
to be none. It’s all fine and good, nothing wrong with it, according to you, to re-arrange the words of someone else’s quote, to present the re-arranged words as the original quote and attribute the changed meaning to the original author of the quote. And the one who calls such quote manipulation what it actually is, is supposed to be the “liar”. In your little delusional “skeptic” fantasy world.
You should try such an approach when you finally defend your PdD thesis, in which you ultimately refute global warming, using your revolutionary analysis method called “eyeballing”. Have you started with writing your thesis already? Once you have finished them, and get it through the commission, even with manipulated quotes, about which you think that’s nothing to worry about, then you even can call yourself legitimately “Dr. Courtney”.
Well, it’s all documented in this thread here now. How an original quote by Stephen Schneider is being manipulated by fake skeptics by erasing parts of the quote without marking it and re-arranging the remaining parts, so that they can give the statement the meaning they want it to have. And how such doing is defended by Mr. Courtney and by others here as a totally legitimate approach. You have exposed yourself, Mr. Courtney. And it is documented now.
I hope people get to see this, before they deal with Mr. Courtney professionally. If they have to rely on what Mr. Courtney writes, they should know what he thinks about quote manipulation.
Well, I guess Mr. Courtney is going to send now another recursive reply, in which he calls me once more a liar, because I call malicious quote manipulation what it is. It doesn’t change a thing.
For the record, here is the full quote from Steven Schnieder:
That was in a 1988 interview with Discover magazine.
UPDATE: I’ve tracked down the source via ClimateSight
The Detroit News selectively cut out parts of the above quote, publishing the following:
And, from there. It spread, as do many things the mass media pushes. Gail Combs didn’t fabricate it. There’s only one instance of the original, thousands of instances of the Detroit News version. That became the “truth” as found on the Internet.
This is why when Hansen says something stupid and unsupportable, like his famous “coal death trains” quote, it get spread far and wide by the MSM, and the skeptic voice hardly gets a word in edgewise.
Perlwitz is whining about this instance, where Schnieder said something stupid, and it got legs in a reduced form. I’m not terribly sympathetic, since climate scientists really should learn not to say such things that get them in trouble when talking to the media.
D. B. Stealey wrote on February 10, 2013 at 6:37 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221985
Really, Stealey. Is this what you need to reassure yourself that you were on the right side. To tell yourself that you were right because “no one agrees” with me and “no one” had been defending Stephen Schneider for the last twenty years, except for me. Well, good for you. I just don’t care about your appeal to majority fallacy.
I did not say that. Everyone can get him/herself sufficiently educated, in principal, given sufficient IQ, to understand issues of climate science. However, this doesn’t make everyone equally qualified to be considered an expert in the field. But you seem to think differently. I guess you also go to your dentist then, when you have a heart problem. After all, you must believe dentists know equally much about cardio problems as cardiologists, the ones who are specially trained and work in the field.
But the real point was another one. It is related to your previous statement,
… liars believe that everyone else lies, too.
which I countered with the question whether this was the reason why you think that thousands of climate scientists were lying etc.
Here, you reiterate your view:
So, you claim that most climate scientists from all over the world are lying, when they agree with the paradigm that greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming. And all the scientific organizations and academies from all over the world, which agree with that there was AGW. And the editorial boards of the specialist journals in the field. And you believe there was an omnipotent, vast global conspiracy of liars who are proponents of an “AGW hoax”. Right?
So, either you admit to that most climate scientists say AGW was real, and you believe they were all liars, or it should be easy for you to take the challenge. For every climate scientist who works and publishes in the field and who agrees with the AGW paradigm, and this is documented, you present 10 climate scientists who work and publish in the field, but disagree with the explanation that greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and this is documented as well.
I am willing to agree to an ease of the challenge for you. It doesn’t have to be the proportion you originally proposed. What about a 1:1 proportion?
But you seem to have already chickened out. Are there any other takers among the “skeptic” crowd here?
The fact that Schneider thought there is any other way to do science than honestly showed his bias. The “effective” part of his speech obviously refers to the propaganda wing of Klimat Science.
Jan P Perlw1tz:
I have read your bloviating nonsense at February 11, 2013 at 5:38 am.
I assume your shovel must be getting blunt so I am willing to offer you another one to assist you to keep digging. It really is good to see your hole getting deeper and I wish to assist you in every possible way.
I know of no other person so deserving of the self-revelation which you are providing in this thread.
However, I would appreciate your answer to a question although – of course – any answer you provide is likely to be a falsehood. You post on WUWT during the time of your employment at GISS.
Does GISS pay you for the number of posts you make on WUWT or do they pay you per lie?
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 8:15 pm
…
I understand what Stephen Schneider said. He talked about an ethical dilemma, which one can face as a scientist. On one hand, to be committed to the highest scientific standards, on the other hand to convey results of research with important societal consequences to the public in an effective way, given the working of the media as they are. Stephen Schneider was reflecting about this. It is a virtue to be aware about these problems. He did not say scientists should be lying. On the contrary, he expressed his desire to be both effective and honest.
—————
Yes Jan, he talked about an ethical dilemma. Why should there be an ethical dilemma between being ‘committed to the highest scientific standards’ and ‘conveying the results of research to the public in an effective way’? What part of ‘conveying the results of research to the public in an effective way’ do you think Schneider felt is in conflict with ethical scientific behavior? Why is it in conflict with ethical scientific behavior?
I know, you can’t bring yourself to say it. Clearly, you know the answer because you are so doggedly omitting it every time you rehash what Schneider said in your own words; you couldn’t avoid it that thoroughly unless you understood the significance.
Let’s try approaching the problem a different way.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
What does it mean when someone makes a statement using the idioms ‘on the one hand’ ‘on the other hand’? Well, the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms gives us this:
“Also, on one hand. As one point of view, from one standpoint. This phrase is often paired with on the other hand to indicate two sides of an issue. For example, On the one hand this car is expensive; on the other hand, it’s available and we need it right now.”
Two sides of an issue. On one side of the issue, we in effect promise ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’. So tell me Jan. What can we possibly understand about the other side of that issue, given that one side is characterized by telling ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’? Is the other side of the issue consistent with telling ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but’?
—————
Gail Comb presented a forged version of the statement, which significantly distorted its meaning.
—————
Jan, when you make a statement like that it’s reasonable for people to expect that you’re going to support it. It’s evident to everyone here that Gail’s quote omitted a few supporting sentences which in no substantial way change the meaning of what Schneider was saying, with the possible exception of the last line. If you disagree with this, the burden is on you to explain in detail how omitting these supporting sentences distort the meaning.
Finally, you are attacking straw men if you believe Gail said ‘Schneider openly said scientists should lie.’. Obviously nobody believes that’s what Schneider meant to blatantly convey. Schneider took it as a given, as a basic premise he didn’t question, that ‘potentially disastrous climatic change’ was in the cards and that activism BY SCIENTISTS was ethically required to combat it. This was his first fundamental error. In my opinion, scientists have no business engaging in activism, for exactly the reasons Schneider noted earlier. You can quibble about it all you want, but scientific activism of the sort Schneider is describing is nothing more than lying to manipulate people because you think you know better than they do.
—————
What do you propose would be a valid criterion what interpretation of the statement is the correct one? We don’t need to ask Stephen Schneider. Even if he was still alive we already know what he said about it. And the “skeptic” crowd clearly dismisses what he said about it right away, since the preconception among “skeptics” is he was lying like most climate scientists allegedly were, anyway. So, what else?
—————
If I could lay out a deterministic algorithm for understanding the meaning of human speech, I wouldn’t be spending my time discussing this with you, I’d be on a beach in the Carribean. I suggest that you rethink your notion that removing any portion of a quote distorts it’s meaning, since the most useful method I’m aware of for understanding speech is to reduce it to it’s essence, understand the core points, and then to understand the elaborations. I think your whole line of argument has been silly and frankly beneath you, and I don’t see the point in trying to establish a set of criteria by which we can validate an interpretation of words that’s plain to everybody but you.
Mark Bofill:
You conclude your very fine post at February 11, 2013 at 7:18 am by saying to Jan P.
I have to disagree with you.
I agree that his “whole line of argument has been silly” but it is definitely NOT “beneath” him. His behaviour on this thread is his typical behaviour.
This is the third WUWT thread (and there may be others) where I have seen him deliberately misrepresent clear words then lie about and smear those who disagree with him while not making any substantive points in support of his misrepresentation. It is what he is employed to do.
“Forgery”!? For goodness sake!
Richard
It’s too bad Stephen Schneider isn’t around to tell climate scientists what he really meant. Apparently, many, according to Perlwitz anyway) completely misunderstood what he was really saying, and went ahead and did as they pleased, truth be damned. But, there was no moral struggle involved; just the very real need to keep the MMGW gravy train chugging along.
richardscourtney says:
February 11, 2013 at 7:41 am
Mark Bofill:
You conclude your very fine post at February 11, 2013 at 7:18 am by saying to Jan P.
I think your whole line of argument has been silly and frankly beneath you, and I don’t see the point in trying to establish a set of criteria by which we can validate an interpretation of words that’s plain to everybody but you.
I have to disagree with you.
I agree that his “whole line of argument has been silly” but it is definitely NOT “beneath” him. His behaviour on this thread is his typical behaviour.
——————————
Thanks Richard.
You may be correct. I can’t properly express how it dismays me though, to see a NASA PhD make this sort of argument. I don’t want it to be real. In this particular case, I probably am indeed indulging in a form of denial. But how far we have fallen! Dear God, to conclude that Dr. Perlwitz of NASA is either in need of remedial 10’th grade English or is deliberately promoting a point of view he knows to be false, when in our lifetimes NASA has achieved the scientific and technological miracles that it has!
Well, I’m probably generalizing too much. As Philip Shehan correctly pointed out to me in a slightly different context on earlier thread, it’s wrong for me to deduce by analogy that merely because Perlwitz appears to be a cockroach that NASA is therefore a nest of cockroaches. Still, the whole business is surreal in a very sickening and disturbing way.
At any rate, best regards Richard.
Mark
So it turns out that Gail Combs simply posted a newspaper quote of Schneider’s, and she wasn’t fabricating anything. Time for Perlwitz to apologize, no?
Gail Combs’ quote left out Schneider’s choice between being ethical, and being unethical:
You cannot be dishonest and honest at the same time. That is the kind of tap-dancing that Schneider did, and Perlwitz is doing the same kind of tap-dancing.
Someone is either honest, or they are not. There is no middle ground.
One more thing. I almost forgot.
richardscourtney, on February 11, 2013 at 7:41 am, in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222238 wrote:
The false accusations toward me aside, if I was Courtney I would be careful to make this kind of assertions about the private university that employs me, since Courtney is unable to prove his assertion about the alleged fact to be true.
Everything I write here are my personal views, and I do not write here on behalf of any institution with which I am affiliated.
I see that Perlwitz is still writing his long blog comments during his workday.
He needs to study up on ethics. I’m sure his employer is not paying him to post blog comments on company time.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 12, 2013 at 6:01 am
…
The false accusations toward me aside, if I was Courtney I would be careful to make this kind of assertions about the private university that employs me, since Courtney is unable to prove his assertion about the alleged fact to be true.
————————————————————–
Still all bluster with no balls, I see. Are you having difficulty understanding the questions I asked you or the points I raised in my last post? As I’ve said, please don’t hesitate to ask if you need help. I’m looking forward to your response.
– – – – – – – –
Jan P Perlwitz,
Question for you about that comment.
Has Columbia University legal staff and/or your university department staff advised you to make that legal sounding disclaimer of Columbia University’s responsibility for the legal consequences of your extremely adversarial comments on this thread?
Of course, can’t you always contact Scott Mandia for legal aid from the UCS if Columbia University is displeased and unsupportive of your activities?
John