Home > Oz Politics > Someone should tell this guy about Godwin’s Law

Someone should tell this guy about Godwin’s Law

February 25th, 2009

As if it wasn’t already embarrassing enough to be a rightwinger, here’s Dennis Jensen.

Update Judging by the comments, rightwingers are pretty hard to embarrass (after eight years of Bush, and the complete collapse of their economic ideology, I guess this isn’t so surprising). No-one from the dexter side has showed any inclination to disown Jensen as a crackpot and a goodly number have solemnly refuted the jocular suggestion that a PhD in ceramics might be a little cracked.

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Ken Miles
    February 27th, 2009 at 14:47 | #1

    Water vapour adsorbs so much infra-red radiation that the amount of infra-red radiation carbon absorbs is insignificant. AGW proponents conveniently ignore water vapour in their theories and calculations.

    Do not mention the additional water vapour in clouds because as far as AGW proponents theories are concerned clouds don’t exist. That’s right, they do not know if their temperature readings are shaded by clouds or in direct sunlight.

    Tony, the above is outright dishonest and comes straight from the creationist playbook of making stuff up. Because I’m a charitable person, I’ll assume that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Every single climate model includes water vapour. This includes the first proto-climate model devised in the 19th century. Your claims are literally off by over one hundred years.

    Your claims about clouds are also laughably ignorant and 100% wrong.

    Anybody with a clue about spectroscopy would know that the absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O are different and that CO2 can still absorb while being in a water rich environment.

  2. Chris Warren
    February 27th, 2009 at 14:55 | #2

    Nanks

    Yes – the example Tony G uses actually indicates global warming exists but can be overwhelmed by other factors – in this case drought then precipitation.

    This is an excellent – classic – example of the “poverty of philosophy” of deniers (not just climate deniers – Windscuttle, Irving, racists and the rest).

  3. Chris Warren
    February 27th, 2009 at 14:58 | #3

    And Hitler – just to make this comment legal on this thread.

  4. David Irving (no relation)
    February 27th, 2009 at 15:34 | #4

    Ken @ 101, you’re too kind to Tony G. He’s been set right a countably infinite number of times in the past, but just sticks his fingers in his ears and goes, ‘Lah, lah, lah, I can’t hear you, Al Gore is fat.’

    As to the glacier that’s grown Tony G, the most likely explanation of this is that it’s moving faster (due to lubrication provided by the water under it), so the toe of the glacier extends past its normal position. That’ll only last until the ice melts completely.

  5. Ken Miles
    February 27th, 2009 at 16:05 | #5

    Ironically, Science has just recently published a discussion on our understanding of the role of water vapour in climate models, the pdf of which can found here.

    Which pretty much nails Tony’s comment that “AGW proponents conveniently ignore water vapour in their theories and calculations” as completely and utterly wrong.

  6. Ubiquity
    February 27th, 2009 at 17:12 | #6

    The debate is centered around the cause and reality of “Global warming” which would then define the response to countering or dealing with the global warming issue. For example If the planet was not warming we may resolve to implement planet friendly policy gradually vs rapid warming caused by natural or anthropogenic causes.

    I think the left and right concept only paralyses and stereotypes the debate. Consensus can never be achieved through critical analysis of data provided by both sides of the debate because neither side will sit down with the other and rationalise the data because of ideological picket lines.

    This blog topic of mixed facts and ideologies has been entertaining but has contributed nothing to the real debate. I predict nothing of benefit to the people and the earth will be achieved in the current AGW debate. It will come down to the nihilistic populist driven government to make a decision based on its ideological momentum de jour. Clearly the momentum is with the left at this time. Sigh…

  7. paul walter
    February 27th, 2009 at 17:29 | #7

    Terje#, 86,Am astounded at your naivety concerning CIS and you failure to grasp Quiggin’s explications earlier.
    It is NOT a “libertarian” org, it is funded by big interests of the coal industry/ Murdoch/ Packer/developer type, to prevaricate and dissemble along the lines illuminated upon at #102, with Tony G’s denialisms, typical of the species, rebutted by Ken Miles.
    The now-discredited power of right wing media in response to ecological investigations and discoveries in the eighties, following on social policy debatesal alsoso to do with dismantling of Keynesian and post Keynesian ” commons” (most recently played out with Pacific Bonds), reached its peak during the wasted Howard decade, where the ecological equivalents of Ruddock’s queue jumper anti refugee scaremongerings were employed on the Australian public “mushroom club”, to create open slather for vested interests and create fear and loathing of science and ecology, leaving the economy and and ecology of Australia utterly prone, then wasted, before the feet of commercial barbarians and their allies (think of Tasmania).
    Elsewhere, this writer joined in the discussion concerning “650 climate denial scientists”, citing the Rightist hired hack, Jennifer Marohasy and her toxic blog, as an example of the sort of restrictive agenda setting we get from Tony G here and the likes of IPA and CIS beyond, eg direct infeeding of alibis and alien agendas into the populist media and press; not in the service of some abstract crusade for individual freedom and expression- in fact, the diametric opposite- the silencing of genuine independent thinking and freedom in the interests of the globalised and local quick-buck hungry.
    Hence, the state of the world now. The Australian CIS/IPA follows a model developed by the rent seeker, as opposed to constructive investing rich, starting inAmerica, which leaves us with the horrifyng debacles on Wall st and with a looming environmental.

  8. Stephen L
    February 27th, 2009 at 18:08 | #8

    On the topic of Norton, some years ago Crikey published a guide to major bloggers where they ranked them on a left to right scale from -10 to +10. Norton was +1, only slightly to the right. He wrote a post arguing that he thought he should be further to the right (I don’t recall if he gave an exact figure).

    Not every one can be trusted to accurately assess their political position – most think they’re closer to the political centre than independent observers might judge, but I think Norton can be trusted when he rates himself firmly on the right.

    I don’t think Norton defined right and left in that post, but it seemed to me he was using the same definition I would – left wingers believe that priority needs to be given to creating more equality in society. Right-wingers believe that the inequality is either desirable or (more often) that it is undesirable but efforts to reform it more often than not do more harm than good. Obviously people can be right-wing on some issues and left on others, but taking this as a template can give a reasonable short hand.

  9. Ken Miles
    February 27th, 2009 at 19:17 | #9

    Paul, having looking at both the IPA and CIS’s writings on global warming, they can’t be lumped in the same category. Toxic sludge is probably a good discription of IPA’s work, but some of CIS’s is quite good (like John Humphries work on a carbon tax). When some CIS authors have strayed off the policy arena and into the science they tend to do an extremely poor job, but IPA sets such a low bar, that it isn’t hard for CIS to do better.

  10. Alanna
    February 27th, 2009 at 23:00 | #10

    Ken – was John Humphries the one who measured the deadweight loss of a carbon tax as the tax above price X the quantity?

    Someone did. I just cant remember who did that but it did the rounds of emails as a shocker of a boo boo for an economist. Normal rules for measuring deadweight loss apply and it is not total tax revenue.

  11. Alanna
    February 27th, 2009 at 23:21 | #11

    107# Paul.
    I think Tony G and a couple of others are hired right hand men. Notice they never have long posts, no evidence (dont deal in real science) and just repeat the no admission, no retreat lines lock stock and two smokin barrels of mind haze? Sometimes I wonder if they have a library shelf next to them with a pile of IPA, Quadrant and CIS cutouts.

  12. paul walter
    February 28th, 2009 at 01:24 | #12

    Alanna, are they not the bane of every blog atempting serious conversation, across the entire cyberverse?
    But often you meet interesting and or pleasant people and that’s why the likes of us persist, despite all the static.

  13. Alanna
    February 28th, 2009 at 09:45 | #13

    112# Paul.
    A truer word was never said in jest. Static and interference it is.

  14. Alanna
    February 28th, 2009 at 10:39 | #14

    112# Paul. The IPA is also exempt from income tax. As far as I can read, that makes it a) either an OSeas based organisation or or b)one of the below

    Subdivision 30?E requires the establishment of a register of * environmental organisations. Subdivision 30?EA requires the establishment of a register of * harm prevention charities. Subdivision 30?F requires the establishment of a register of * cultural organisations.

    The importance of this is that people get tax deductions for donations made to a fund listed on one of those (above) registers.

    So donating to the IPA becomes a tax deduction. Convenient for some isnt it? Not only to they actively promote and seek to have published, anti environment and AGW anti science propaganda and furvent de-regulation propaganda under the guise a the false edifice of individual liberalism but it is likely individually profitable for some of those involved to do so. It also does us all harm as a society, causes division and to top it off, the company pays no income tax.

    Nice. As I said before, it is published by the greedy and only the dense get taken in by it.

  15. paul walter
    February 28th, 2009 at 15:21 | #15

    #114,
    High Howardism, the early-mid two thousands in all their glory. Donald Duck’s birthday, so they organise another giantist black tie event at taxpayer expense and Howard and the the rest are all out inflated, posturing; immense gravitas, Kemps, Bronwyn Bishops all sniffing each other’s bums while Janet and Donald MacDonald preside over the whole disgusting orgy. Absolute frenzies of unreqited narcissism. Culminating in the most profoundly booring speeeches passed off as oratory.
    For the masses morbid fascination finally subsides before boredom and then a dull resentment; come-uppance in the form of the devestation of Kevin 07, Max and the rest following as day follows night.

  16. Alanna
    February 28th, 2009 at 16:30 | #16

    115#
    What annoys me more Paul is that quite a few of these bods behind this trash gutter press also stuck their hands out (or waited while Howard threw rose rewards their way)fill positions on government boards and many still do. They scratched his back end he scratched theirs and yet they are ideologically opposed to the public sector and public service delivery? Give me a break. Rats in the ranks.

  17. Bruce Littleboy
    February 28th, 2009 at 17:14 | #17

    Question about glaciers re nanks #96

    Is this worth sending to New Scientist?
    There is a difference between a glacier getting smaller because of melting at the bottom end (at lower altitude) and a glacier getting smaller at the top end when less snow falls.
    In the former, the thinning is at the bottom; in the latter it thins first at the top. This difference is observable. So we can separate temparature effects from precipitation effects. (I’m ignoring that melting at lower altitudes causes the glacier to slide faster and so presumably get a bit thinner at the top.)

    Perhaps John will nominate me for a Nobel (or Ignobel), and I shall join the illustrious company of at least one other contributor.

  18. Donald Oats
    February 28th, 2009 at 18:56 | #18

    How many *new* glaciers have there been lately? Exactly. :-)

    Rhetorical argument aside, measurement of whether a glacier is in some sense growing or shrinking is often tricky, due to seasonality among other reasons. However, incredibly accurate measurement of mass variation is possible now with the GRACE satellite pair. Some good work on such measurements has been described in Scientific American, and of course may be found at the GRACE website “Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment”. Tony G, it is worth a look.

  19. Tony G
    March 1st, 2009 at 17:49 | #19

    Re Ken @ 105;

    Your link just confirms the “conjecture” I mentioned @ 87 it states;

    “To date, observational records are too short to pin down the exact size of the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases” ;

    and

    “There remain many uncertainties in our simulations of the climate,but evidence for the water vapor feedback—and the large future climate warming it implies—is now strong”

    Qualifications like ‘Uncertainties’ and ‘implies’ is not science Ken, it’s guessing.

    To regurgitate what was mentioned above, some glaciers are getting bigger and some smaller,

    this is confirmed by Donald’s and others excuses;

    “measurement of whether a glacier is in some sense growing or shrinking is often tricky, due to seasonality among other reasons.”

    You can assert that glaciers are getting smaller due to AGW, but the fact remains some are getting bigger and some smaller, AGW is basically BS.

    Donald, you mysteriously ran away from this post, all I asked for was some ‘scientific’ data indicating that the atmosphere is in fact getting warmer. From there we can at least surmise the microscopic increase in atmospheric carbon could be doing *something*. If you at least had that, you might even be able to stumble upon causation, but unfortunately you first need to work out and quantify what the effect is (if any) and you guys haven’t got a skerrick of evidence of that as yet, just a few dubious extrapolated temperature models..

  20. jquiggin
    March 1st, 2009 at 20:39 | #20

    Tony G, your pronouncements on science have been amusing for a while, but they lead me irresistibly into the temptation of snarkiness, against which I preach. So I’m going to have to ask you to drop the topic of AGW.

    There are plenty of other blogs where you can go on to your hearts content, and some where you will find a less derisive audience than here.

  21. Tony G
    March 1st, 2009 at 23:33 | #21

    Fair enough John,

    Unlike your AGW pseudo-science that makes no predictions, it was predictable you would have to retreat crying Touché at some point. Given the deficiency of evidence on your side of the debate, undoubtedly you were not surprised to have no other option, except to snark. Another thing you should consider, is that the calibre of that deficiency being so large, dictates, you will always be forced to disengage by intellectual pygmies such as myself.

    Your only option is censorship of dissenters. Hopefully one day you understand that censorship won’t make you right, especially before it is realised that the cataclysmic climate changes aren’t occurring.

    Sure, Tony. See you at the Nobel Prize awards. Meanwhile, I have a blog to run here. Absolutely nothing more from you on this, please.

  22. Donald Oats
    March 2nd, 2009 at 03:48 | #22

    Hi Tony G,

    Covering a few of your questions in no particular order are the following books – read them and you’ll be up to speed on climate science. A detailed explanation here is beyond the realm of the possible, so it seems…

    A.S. Monin “An Introduction to the Theory of Climate”, D. Reidel Publishing Company (1986), is old but factual. From this book it is clear that water vapour and CO2 interactions wrt greenhouse effect were heavily researched ages back. Also, page 42 gives an estimate for CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect of about 8K – hardly microscopic, Tony.

    A general understanding of planetary climate science is covered by Raymond Pierrehumbert, the first draft of which he has kindly provided here.

    A detailed understanding of atmospheric radiation processes, which of course covers water vapour, ice crystals, clouds generally, CO2 etc, may be gained from K.N. Liou “An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation”, 2nd Ed, Academic Press (2002).

    A relatively mathematically free explanation of the processes and their measurement, and the use of proxy climate data, is covered by William James Burroughs “Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach”, 2nd Ed, Cambridge (2007).

    And the Realclimate website covers a huge amount in its archive section.

    Regards,

    Don

    Please, no more replies to Tony G. I don’t think reading lists are going to help here. JQ

  23. Ken Miles
    March 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 | #23

    In deference to John, I resist the massive urge to comment on Tony’s line “Qualifications like ‘Uncertainties’ and ‘implies’ is not science”.

  24. Chris Warren
    March 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 | #24

    Censorship of dissenters is never wise.

    When you get so far down in a thread, truely no-one’s listening.

    I like to see deniers in all their colours. You can play with them.

  25. Mike
    March 2nd, 2009 at 14:46 | #25

    Tony G at #5 said:
    >> Godwin’s Law was invented because left wingers, social democrats and socialists have a phobia about this name; “National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party,” [Nazi Party]<<

    This follows Jonah Goldberg’s bizarre book ‘Liberal Fascism’. Because Hitler cynically used the word ‘socialism’ in the title of the NSDAP, socialists and by extension social democrats and US liberals are therefore fascists, and by a perverted inversion, Hitler was really a socialist/social democrat/liberal!

    But unlikely as it seems to Goldberg or Tony G, Hitler’s use of ‘socialist’ in the title of the NSDAP was rank deception by a completely cynical, extreme-right politician. It was a ruse to lure working class voters away from the Social Democrats and its falsity was illustrated in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives, when the SA leadership, the supposed left wing of the NSDAP, was liquidated on Hitler’s orders. This followed the persecution of the real German left in 1932-3, when the leadership of the social democrat and communist movements were interned or shot or fled the country in the months after the Nazis came to power.

    For people like Goldberg and Tony G to claim that the real Left is somehow contaminated by the ‘S’ in NSDAP, is repeat a wicked calumny and to line themselves up with Hitler’s deceptions.

  26. paul walter
    March 2nd, 2009 at 15:11 | #26

    Alana, what disturbs me is, on a number of Howardist issues and hobby horses, the new government failing to act decisively in the way promised before the last election.
    While our new PM hobnobs with the editor of the Government Gazette, presumably awaiting further riding instructions from the grey emminence himself, who remains well offshore, that caricature that is the minister for communications, following Glen Milne’s bidding last election, continues to undermine the cyber world and public broadcasting alike.
    And across the board from environment, corporate affairs , infrastructure selection and financing and industrial affairs and aboriginal issues, to name but a few, policy failure continues as equivalents of the ABC’s retained “balance” policy from Alston’s time, continue.
    So its perhaps not such a surprise that meglomaniacs lke Albrechtsen and flat earthers like Windprattle and Brunton ramped up rather than eased up- and it shows up even in current affairs blogs, long after the subsequent discrediting of neoliberalism and intellectual monoculture authoritarianism.

  27. Alice
    March 2nd, 2009 at 20:46 | #27

    Paul,
    Why Devine is still being employed to write with that silly grin, the same old, same old – add to that Peter Saunders (the CIS Saunders not the SPRC Saunders). Do you know I got so excited that they actually published something by the good DR that I wrote an congratulated him before…shock and horror I realised it was yet more propanaganda from the CIS (article “living off the public teat” – a general whinge about welfare recipients and a boot into the single mothers). So embarrassing. I should have known by the title but I didnt read it. I just saw a nice photo, Peter Saunders name and congratulated the good DR Saunders. I thought things were on the up in the Australian media. I then had to retract congratulations. Damn it, I thought realism was making a return in the media….but not till old Rupe makes his exit, Im afraid.

    These bods (piers, miranda, albrechtsen, p.(CIS) saunders, gerard all have the same look….. pinched insincerity and fake smiles…..the pay must be good).

  28. Alice
    March 2nd, 2009 at 20:52 | #28

    Yes, Paul, what you say worries me about the conservative approach to the removal of Howards bad measures. It didnt take long for Howard to whack the extremist changes in (rumour has it Tony Abbott was holed up with Brendan Nelson around about the time we went to Iraq writing the new legislation as fast as it could be churned out with a senate majority) but maybe thats the key as to why it cant be wound back as fast. I trust Rudd to get to it, but a senate majority was a powerful weapon of Howards. Are we being too impatient here?

  29. Alice
    March 2nd, 2009 at 21:22 | #29

    #128 Paul Walter ..I forgot to mention I changed my name mid conversation to Alice.

    Alanna

  30. paul walter
    March 2nd, 2009 at 21:35 | #30

    Alice, I hope you are right about Rudd et al “getting around to it”. Personally I have doubts whether a group of squeakey clean fundys eager to please foreign intelligence orgs; also with their knickers in a knot over topics as diverse as sex and funding sources and processes for infrastructure are quite as enthusiastic as you think.
    Saunders writing about the public teat?
    That sounds new. What ever happened to the “good” Peter Saunders?
    One understands Murdoch’s po-faced little features editor with the Slavic sounding surname and pro Israel sympathies is doing Tony Jones’ “Oprah” show this week.
    But I enjoyed Media Watch tonight, runnings its specula over the murk that was Daltons latest life style atrocity, with the babies and no- nonsense “nanny” and so forth.

  31. paul walter
    March 2nd, 2009 at 21:43 | #31

    Alanna/Alice, I already knew it.
    Just, don’t be Alice when you are Alanna, or Alanna when you are, well you know, or you will become tangled in your transgresssions and sybsequently end up choking on your own contradictions. Remember Bobby Burns’ injunction,
    “What a tangled web”, etc.
    Also remember the likes of Albrechtsen, Devine and others we have discussed are professional liars (they get paid for it, as well as the enjoyment). Also you’d have to be pathological, I’d guess, to lie that seamlessly.

  32. Alice
    March 3rd, 2009 at 06:41 | #32

    True Paul – they are definitely pathological liars and I am not. Its not in the gene pool. I practise with little ones (eg no, I wont do the extra marking because someone else has decided to bludge. Ive booked a plane ticket) but its taken decades of practice to get even those polished.

  33. Alice
    March 3rd, 2009 at 06:58 | #33

    Paul#130. Give Rudd a go. Is he not a huge improvement on the prior model? The good DR Saunders is still there at SPRC but it seems only the bad Saunders (CIS) makes it into the news, with no research, no evidence, just the usual rubbish propaganda (“welfare – why should we pay for it? Make them work harder”) funded by the usual bunch of selfish top hatted lunch chums………you know how it goes. Meaanwhile the good DR does the real research and gets no coverage. Same old media in Australia.

  34. paul walter
    March 3rd, 2009 at 20:17 | #34

    A country gets the leader it deserves.

Comment pages
1 2 3 4740
Comments are closed.