Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.
One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.
The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?
This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.
Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?
Sometimes being simple isn't good enough. Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?
There isn't much profit to be made in trying to corner the market on training to fire an AK assault rifle.
I think very few people that fight along with al Qaida are going to be running for office in either the US or UK. There isn't much profit in trying to exploit them either.
It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data. Ideology is irrelevant if the emerging critique is scientifically valid.
I'm glad that the totalitarian impulses of the global elite are finally starting to penetrate peoples' realityTV-addled brains. Maybe pretty soon they'll figure out that it's just a mechanism to promote the redistribution of wealth upwards.
So you are suggesting a scheme along the following lines?
1) Track people going to terrorist training camps / fighting alongside terrorist groups 2) Arrest them when they return home 3) ??? 4) Profit!
I'm not sure what #3 is, and how it leads to meaningful profit for the "global elite."
Does arresting something on the order of 40 people for this over the last 2 years really make Britain a gulag?
You miss the point. If you bothered to look, you know that both Russia (USSR) and China were brutal communist dictatorships that killed 80,000,000 of their own citizens between them. They managed that on their own, the US had nothing to do with it. Both Russia (USSR) and China were hostile to the US. And as a matter of fact the US sent an enormous amount of supplies of all kinds to both Russia and China during World War 2 so that they could maintain their war effort against the Germans and Japanese. All of that equipment didn't just vanish at the end of the war. The US did help other countries avoid having communism inflicted on them, including by the Russians and the Chinese. If you think that preventing the USSR from gaining power over Western Europe was "screwing over Russia," we'll just have to disagree. The same goes for other places, such as Korea. As I said, you may not have a good grasp of history.
I would say both since Russia hasn't always been a friendly neighbor in the post Soviet era either. In fact it has threatened or tried to intimidate a number of its neighbors.
Nothing in your answer negates the presence of Russian submarines in the waters, or bombers in the airspace, of the United Kingdom, Sweden, the US, Japan, or other countries that could be listed. Nor does it alter the Chinese ambitions of hegemony, military modernization and naval buildup, creeping territorial demands, and threats of military action against its neighbors.
The end of the Cold War wasn't the end of history, or the end of Chinese communist power and ambition. Given the noises coming out of Beijing these days it isn't even clear that we aren't simply seeing an extended replay of Lenin's New Economic Policy.
Do you see this color guard? There is some very interesting symbolism there, at least as I see it. The Russian flag is followed by another color guard with the flag of the Soviet Union. Their history continues to follow them as they move forward, one might say it dogs them. They march to the tune of "The Sacred War," one of the great anthems of the Great Patriotic War we know as WW2. The Russian national anthem is the tune of the old Hymn of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately the Russians have found it more difficult than most of the rest of the old Soviet bloc to break free of the old ways, which they increasingly revert to.
So far as has been revealed, it appears that pretty much all of the government's actions have been legal under US law. Edward Snowden's actions were not. When he exposed US foreign intelligence operations, and the intelligence operations of US allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO allies, he clearly went outside the bounds of whistleblowing to protect the civil rights of Americans.
Japan gives a lot of aid and comfort to the other thug nations. It's like helping someone dump a body and cover their tracks.
Japan has long been one of the more generous nations for foreign aid and its military has been pretty much limited to almost purely national defense of Japan itself since WW2. Although they can be highly competitive in business, I think it is hard to build a good case that Japan is currently a "thug" nation. Taco Cowboy's comment I can understand as Chinese anti-Japanese sentiment that has existed since at least the 1930s. But yours?
China and Russia aren't especially friendly to Japan, whereas the US is. That leaves you portraying the US and UK as thugs, but not necessarily China or Russia. (The current Chinese regime is the same one that killed 60,000,000 of its own people and is trying to seize territory held by Japan even while it (China) is trying to claim the entire South China Sea as its territory, stepping on its neighbors.)
So you are basically condemning your own country again, seemingly above others, and it isn't clear why. The influence of school reading assignments, perhaps? It's a pity that contemporary American education tends to be unfavorable towards some views.
National Review Online:So how different is your history of the United States from, say, Howard Zinn’s?
Larry Schweikart: They are as different as night and day. We assume that people usually mean what they say; that they don’t always have hidden motivations; and that ideas are more important than “class” or “race” or “gender.” Under more normal times, our book would simply be entitled, A History of the United States, because it is accurate.
NRO:So a “Patriot’s Guide” isn’t all good?
Schweikart: Absolutely not. As we say in the intro/jacket flap, we reject “My Country, Right or Wrong,” but we equally reject “My Country, Always Wrong.” I think you’ll find us quite critical of such aspects of our past-such as the Founders’ unwillingness to actually act on slavery on at least three separate occasions; or about Teddy Roosevelt’s paternalistic regulations and his anti-business policies. On the other hand, as conservatives, we nevertheless destroy the myth that FDR “knew” about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Instead, we try to always put the past in the context of the time–why did people act then as they did, and was that typical?
Are you meaning to say that Russia nee USSR didn't illegally invade Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland, Romania, Iran, Afghanistan, Georgia? Even more than just invading them, many of those countries were either annexed or had territory stolen from them. I'm pretty sure the people of Eastern Europe weren't thrilled about being forced into communist governments as well, nor are they thrilled about being threatened today with Russian nuclear strikes for trying to protect themselves from Iran. Did you know that the Soviets approached the US to see if the US would passively allow the Soviets to nuke the Chinese? Russia has also be quite free about throwing its weight around.
Afghanistan was completely justified self-defense, and NATO allies are fighting with the US there. Saddam earned fate as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Your condemnation of Dr. Mann is rather harsh, but seems to be supported by the data.
There is certainly plenty of free innuendo.
Only HUGE industrial complexes (such as Boeing, Google, Corning, Citibank) get to benefit from the gems NSA manage to gather.
I'm sure you must have some proof of that. Care to share it?
We look forward to your publication of the flaws you have discovered in Dr. Mann ....
Here's Mann's new book on The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
Is it claimed that Dr. Mann won the Nobel Prize in that book?
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
That's a relief.
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
At least the Climategate emails are simple skullduggery whitened by a whitewash.
he's into politically motivated demagoguery, court actions and making a public circus of it.
You may recall that it is Mann that is suing Steyn, not the other way around, and Mr. Mann isn't above politics himself.
Climategate 2.0
Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.
One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.
The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?
This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.
Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One
Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?
THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.
Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One
Sometimes being simple isn't good enough. Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?
THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.
Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One
There isn't much profit to be made in trying to corner the market on training to fire an AK assault rifle.
I think very few people that fight along with al Qaida are going to be running for office in either the US or UK. There isn't much profit in trying to exploit them either.
It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data. Ideology is irrelevant if the emerging critique is scientifically valid.
I'm glad that the totalitarian impulses of the global elite are finally starting to penetrate peoples' realityTV-addled brains. Maybe pretty soon they'll figure out that it's just a mechanism to promote the redistribution of wealth upwards.
So you are suggesting a scheme along the following lines?
1) Track people going to terrorist training camps / fighting alongside terrorist groups
2) Arrest them when they return home
3) ???
4) Profit!
I'm not sure what #3 is, and how it leads to meaningful profit for the "global elite."
Does arresting something on the order of 40 people for this over the last 2 years really make Britain a gulag?
Theres a big difference between the Nazis arguments on the Jews and the OWS argument on the 1%.
The OWS believe the ultra rich are ultra rich because they are ultra rich
The nazis thought the jews where ultra rich because the nazis where racist fanatics.
Kind of a difference.
OWS thinks that the rich get that way by cheating or stealing from ordinary people.
The Nazis believed that the Jews got rich by cheating or stealing from ordinary people (Germans in that case).
The Nazis drew inspiration from Marx. OWS draws inspiration from Marx.
"The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” - Karl Marx
You miss the point. If you bothered to look, you know that both Russia (USSR) and China were brutal communist dictatorships that killed 80,000,000 of their own citizens between them. They managed that on their own, the US had nothing to do with it. Both Russia (USSR) and China were hostile to the US. And as a matter of fact the US sent an enormous amount of supplies of all kinds to both Russia and China during World War 2 so that they could maintain their war effort against the Germans and Japanese. All of that equipment didn't just vanish at the end of the war. The US did help other countries avoid having communism inflicted on them, including by the Russians and the Chinese. If you think that preventing the USSR from gaining power over Western Europe was "screwing over Russia," we'll just have to disagree. The same goes for other places, such as Korea. As I said, you may not have a good grasp of history.
I would say both since Russia hasn't always been a friendly neighbor in the post Soviet era either. In fact it has threatened or tried to intimidate a number of its neighbors.
The "Dulles Plan" isn't just bullshit, it is fiction according to your link.
The truth is a pittance to sacrifice when it comes to buffing the image of Snowden.... at least in some quarters.
The result was at worst neutral, and likely better.
Why President Gore might have gone into Iraq after 9/11, too
What Would Gore Have Done? (WWGHD)
It could have been much better than it was, if only ....
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess
You could try asking the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, and Czechs. I'm pretty sure they see some differences, and it doesn't end there.
You seem to have a really bad grasp of history. You might want to think about taking a step or two to remedy that.
Russian spies in Australia at 'near Cold War level'
China's spies come out from the cold
Chen Yonglin, a Chinese diplomat who recently defected in Australia, claimed Beijing had as many as 1,000 spies in Australia alone.
Nothing in your answer negates the presence of Russian submarines in the waters, or bombers in the airspace, of the United Kingdom, Sweden, the US, Japan, or other countries that could be listed. Nor does it alter the Chinese ambitions of hegemony, military modernization and naval buildup, creeping territorial demands, and threats of military action against its neighbors.
The end of the Cold War wasn't the end of history, or the end of Chinese communist power and ambition. Given the noises coming out of Beijing these days it isn't even clear that we aren't simply seeing an extended replay of Lenin's New Economic Policy.
Do you see this color guard? There is some very interesting symbolism there, at least as I see it. The Russian flag is followed by another color guard with the flag of the Soviet Union. Their history continues to follow them as they move forward, one might say it dogs them. They march to the tune of "The Sacred War," one of the great anthems of the Great Patriotic War we know as WW2. The Russian national anthem is the tune of the old Hymn of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately the Russians have found it more difficult than most of the rest of the old Soviet bloc to break free of the old ways, which they increasingly revert to.
So far as has been revealed, it appears that pretty much all of the government's actions have been legal under US law. Edward Snowden's actions were not. When he exposed US foreign intelligence operations, and the intelligence operations of US allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO allies, he clearly went outside the bounds of whistleblowing to protect the civil rights of Americans.
Japan gives a lot of aid and comfort to the other thug nations. It's like helping someone dump a body and cover their tracks.
Japan has long been one of the more generous nations for foreign aid and its military has been pretty much limited to almost purely national defense of Japan itself since WW2. Although they can be highly competitive in business, I think it is hard to build a good case that Japan is currently a "thug" nation. Taco Cowboy's comment I can understand as Chinese anti-Japanese sentiment that has existed since at least the 1930s. But yours?
China and Russia aren't especially friendly to Japan, whereas the US is. That leaves you portraying the US and UK as thugs, but not necessarily China or Russia. (The current Chinese regime is the same one that killed 60,000,000 of its own people and is trying to seize territory held by Japan even while it (China) is trying to claim the entire South China Sea as its territory, stepping on its neighbors.)
So you are basically condemning your own country again, seemingly above others, and it isn't clear why. The influence of school reading assignments, perhaps? It's a pity that contemporary American education tends to be unfavorable towards some views.
American History 101
National Review Online:So how different is your history of the United States from, say, Howard Zinn’s?
Larry Schweikart: They are as different as night and day. We assume that people usually mean what they say; that they don’t always have hidden motivations; and that ideas are more important than “class” or “race” or “gender.” Under more normal times, our book would simply be entitled, A History of the United States, because it is accurate.
NRO:So a “Patriot’s Guide” isn’t all good?
Schweikart: Absolutely not. As we say in the intro/jacket flap, we reject “My Country, Right or Wrong,” but we equally reject “My Country, Always Wrong.” I think you’ll find us quite critical of such aspects of our past-such as the Founders’ unwillingness to actually act on slavery on at least three separate occasions; or about Teddy Roosevelt’s paternalistic regulations and his anti-business policies. On the other hand, as conservatives, we nevertheless destroy the myth that FDR “knew” about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Instead, we try to always put the past in the context of the time–why did people act then as they did, and was that typical?
History Lies
Are you meaning to say that Russia nee USSR didn't illegally invade Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland, Romania, Iran, Afghanistan, Georgia? Even more than just invading them, many of those countries were either annexed or had territory stolen from them. I'm pretty sure the people of Eastern Europe weren't thrilled about being forced into communist governments as well, nor are they thrilled about being threatened today with Russian nuclear strikes for trying to protect themselves from Iran. Did you know that the Soviets approached the US to see if the US would passively allow the Soviets to nuke the Chinese? Russia has also be quite free about throwing its weight around.
Afghanistan was completely justified self-defense, and NATO allies are fighting with the US there. Saddam earned fate as well.