Saturday, October 13, 2007

Stalinism, climate change denial and totalitarian wanna be's

Tim Lambert at Deltoid points to the blather from a mob of denialists. Eli notes that one of them, a Scott Johnson, lead off with this beauty:

Today's award to Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years.
The interesting thing here is the use of the word cosmopolitan. While most bunnies are not old enough to remember, Eli was himself a young, though very aware, coney during Stalin's last years. Lest you are wondering who these cosmopolitans are, Eli, who remembers some of the code words, is quite unhappy to fill you in:
Rootless cosmopolitan (Russian language: безродный космополит, "bezrodniy kosmopolit") was a Soviet euphemism during Joseph Stalin's anti-Semitic campaign of 19491953, which culminated in the "exposure" of the alleged Doctors' plot. The term "rootless cosmopolitan" referred to Jews; however, since a state policy of anti-Semitism conflicted with official Marxist principles such as the fraternity of peoples and proletarian internationalism, the term "rootless cosmopolitanism" was used as a code phrase
The right wing in the United States today seeks to emulate Stalin, even to using the same imagery and tactics. Konstantin Azadovskii and Boris Egorov in an essay published in the Journal of Cold War Studies describe the tactics used by the Stalinist regime

Over the next few years almost every area of science and culture was embroiled in grandiose campaigns to do away with "groveling before the West," "anti-patriotism" (later "anticosmopolitanism"), and generally anything "non- Russian."

One simply has to exchange American for Russian in the article to understand the tactics of the extreme right in the US

The demarcation of Soviet society into "Russian" and "non-Russian" as well as "patriots" and "antipatriots" sparked tension, caused neighbors to be suspicious of one another, and evoked the specter of the "enemy." Newly available evidence confirms that this is precisely what Stalin sought. Public fear of an "enemy" suited his goals in the Cold War. Unlike in World War II, when the main enemy was unmistakably Germany, the anti-Western/anti- cosmopolitan campaigns were directed against abstract foreign foes on the one hand (e.g., global imperialism,) and against specific groups and nations within the USSR on the other.

Simply do a global replace of "the war on terror" for global imperialism. We know who today's specific groups and nations are too.

The campaign in the late 1940s against internal enemies was intended to place the blame for the continued enormous hardships of Soviet life on "fascists," "American imperialists," and other "alien elements" and to keep the populace in a constant state of tension.

But inevitably all minorities will be targetted

Increasingly, as discussed below, the anticosmopolitan campaigns took on an overtly anti-Semitic tone. There is no longer any doubt that Stalin himself was directly responsible for this policy. In private conversations he had openly expressed his desire to eliminate "Jewish influence" and to help a "native" (i.e., non-Jewish) intelligentsia gain sway in the Soviet Union. 6 Stalin's daughter, Svetlana Allilueva, later acknowledged that the murder of the eminent Jewish actor Solomon Mikhoels in Minsk in January 1948 was undoubtedly sparked by "[her] father's well-known tendency to see 'Zionism' and plots everywhere." 7 Konstantin Simonov, one of the writers who had met with Stalin in 1947, recalls that "in the very last years of his life Stalin held a position on the Jewish question diametrically opposed to the position he espoused in public." 8 At Stalin's behest, Jewish writers, artists, and academics came under attack in 1949. Everything possible was done to "expose" them, remove them, and ultimately replace them with "real" Russians of known loyalty to the regime.

Scott Johnson and Powerline are indeed Stalin's true heirs.

53 comments:

tamino said...

Very well written (as usual), and frighteningly real.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Nice pick up Eli! It is amazing how often the wingnut right is talking Stalin speak. I had noticed it often in the writings of our friend Lubos, but figured that it was a result of too much Soviet Propaganda at a young age. Every facist, it seems, is a brother in rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, what a terrible hash you are making of this.

First, there is this stuff about denialists. You may believe that AGW and CO2 and the whole thing are settled. Reasonable people believe this. But it is not so settled that 'denialist' is an appropriate term. It would be appropriate, for instance, to use the term denialist about someone who, confronted with all the evidence, maintains the earth is flat, that men never landed on the moon, the American Civil War never took place ... or for what it was originally used for regarding the Holocaust, the denial of the existence of the German program of mass murder.

The truth or falsity of AGW and the CO2 link are not in this category. You do not have to be in bad faith or a little crazy, or have a political agenda to have a contrary opinion. It is not like the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Now, you move on from this unfortunate behaviour to tarring some people on the American right with the brush of Stalinism. You may perhaps be right, but it is simply irrelevant. Both left and right engage in widespread misrepresentation of each other, both perpetually accuse each other of bad faith and try to establish guilt by association. Both seem to think that discrediting an individual is discrediting an argument made by him. Both seem to believe that the other is wicked and that virtue resides with them.

Personally, I don't care about any of this political stuff. Your own blog and this particular post are part of this problem not part of the solution. You are doing exactly what you criticize.

I do have some real intellectual issues with the science, which I do not think, on the evidence, is settled. My worries are, briefly summarized, I don't see the evidence for the CO2 effect being of the scale AGW proponents allege. I don't see any evidence for the feedback loops that would be required for it to be this big. I'm made deeply uneasy by the AGW community's reluctance and sometimes downright refusal to archive code and data. From Mann onwards, this has been a problem which is inexplicable if they are both competent and sincere. Finally I note the surface station record is far more questionable than has been represented. Basic checking, as done on the surface station project, has revealed all kinds of errors of station siting and environment. Your response has consistently been to ridicule the program, as if it were somehow absurd or immoral to want to check where data comes from.

Lately over on climateaudit we have seen another inexplicable allegation publicly disproved. It is not particularly difficult to find and update the tree ring proxies. Permission is easily obtained, the sites can be found in a couple of days. The failure to do this and show a complete series, not ones truncated at about 1980, is inexplicable and indefensible given how cheap and easy it is.

On the evidence, I don't believe the matter is settled, and this is purely on the merits of the evidence seen.

And just to avoid any of the crap that will be thrown over this post, I marched against the Vietnam War. I vote (in Europe) for a social democratic party, ie dead centre middle of the road. I have never voted for our local right wing parties in my life. I have never worked for any energy company and own no shares in any. I use energy saving light bulbs, despite some concerns about mercury pollution, and I mainly eat organic groceries. I am very concerned about other environmental issues besides warming. I favor stricter controls on agricultural chemicals. I do believe smoking causes cancer, and that evolution happened. I am not religious.

This is just reading and thinking, you cannot blame my scepticism on other positions or conservatism. I am not a 'denialist', and to call me so is evading the real outstanding intellectual issues. I just do not habitually take things on faith from people who protest too much. Not on the environment, not on money, not on politics either. Not from Mann, not from Gavin Schmidt, not from Al Gore. Not from you.

bi said...

Anonymous 4:01 PM is weird -- he actually bothered to write 8 paragraphs of entreaties for reasonableness and civility and motherhood and apple pie, but can't even be bothered to properly cite (or link to) the sources of his information on the "intellectual issues". Huh?

I hesitate to draw any conclusions about Anonymous's politics, occupation, honesty, etc. But about his "intellectual" methodology (or the lack thereof?), there's one thing I can say for sure: Res ipsa loquitur.

Anonymous said...

..but anon 4:01 did say

"On the evidence, I don't believe the matter is settled, and this is purely on the merits of the evidence seen."

If he (and I'm about 95% certain it's a he) is relying on Climate Audit for his evidence (as he seems to indicate), I doubt he has seen very much real evidence -- so he may be right in a strict sense.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Anon 401,

Even though you may be right about the lack of ironclad evidence for a catastrophic magnitude CO2 effect (and I don't think you are), your argument for civility, though perhaps heartfelt is still an unfortunate example of "high Broderism." You are appealing to the side that actually has evidence to play nice while the other side is willing to stoop to the most despicable attacks and most dishonest allegations.

Look over the attacks Deltoid assembled and Eli linked to.

Is "denialism" the most appropriate word? I'm not sure, but there is conclusive evidence of a deliberate campaign of disinformation by the energy industry and its allies.

No doubt there are many sincere individuals who doubt the evidence for global warming, and a very few of them even have some relevant expertise, but, from what I have seen, most doubt is not evidence based at all.

Bunty said...

His argument against the use of the word 'denialist' is also pretty unsound, to rejig it in a syllogism:

I am a member of group of people who don't believe (per se) in AGW.
My sceptisism is based on rational reasons (elaborated) not religious fervour.
----------------------
All people who don't believe in AGW as skeptical for rational reasons.

The conclusion being that the term denialist, hence, isn't valid.

I am quite sure there are people out there who have legitimate doubts/questions about the theory of evolution that couldn't really be called denialists either. But there's many more who can.

's the fallacy of composition, innit.

There's quite a few more in there, very nicely done as well, if the guy doesn't write spin or ad copy for a living, he really should.

Anonymous said...

[ your argument for civility, though perhaps heartfelt is still an unfortunate example of "high Broderism." You are appealing to the side that actually has evidence to play nice while the other side is willing to stoop to the most despicable attacks and most dishonest allegations. ]

You mean like calling the other side Stalinists?

bi said...

Anonymous 8:23 AM (or 4:01 AM), if you really want to discuss the "intellectual issues" behind the anthropogenic global warming theory, why don't you actually start to properly cite -- and link to -- your supposed "evidence" against the theory, so that people can look over the evidence for themselves?

Why don't you do that, instead of blowing smoke for 9 paragraphs without offering anything concrete?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you do that, instead of blowing smoke for 9 paragraphs without offering anything concrete?'

Because that's all he has, of course.

He can't argue the science so plays the "skeptic victim" card.

Anonymous said...

1) I am not arguing for civility. I am arguing that the intellectual case is not settled, and that because it is not settled in the way that the existence of the American Civil War is a settled fact, you do not need to invoke explanations of bad faith or characterize as 'denialism' statements from people that they find it not settled. They find it not settled because the evidence strikes them as....not settled.

It is exactly not like the Holocaust. I live in a place where it is possible for an individual to inspect the physical evidence for this event, and have done so. It happened, just like the Civil War happened. It is on a different level of certainty from the proposition that man made CO2 has caused and will cause catastrophic warming and that the correct course is to reduce such emissions.

2) People want to know what I have read to lead me to my conclusions. Its the wrong question, but OK, here is a partial list in no particular order. Real Climate, Climate Audit, Hansen's papers, GISS site, IPCC papers and some references, Lomborg books and articles, MBH98, Wegman and NAS reports, McKittrick article, material on PCA, Idso (CO2 Science) site, Pielke articles and site (now closed), Roy Spencer articles, Tamino, this blog, Climate Research Unit site, GISS site, Schwarz paper and two or three rebuttals....and a lot more.

Why its the wrong question: I am unconvinced, not because of having read the wrong stuff. But because of not finding the evidence conclusive. My view is that reasonable people may rationally take either side of this argument.

3) My post is not about the evidence - that is a different issue, and were I writing an article, I would give references in the usual way. My point is a quite different one. It is that I have no axe to grind in personal terms one way or the other on this debate. If anything, my politics and previous affiliations with causes place me well in the liberal camp on many issues, including environmental ones.

However, I do not find the evidence on AGW/CO2 conclusive. It does not strike me that the debate is closed. I do not think characterizing someone of this background holding this view as 'denialist' is correct or helpful. We simply take a different view from you of the weight of the evidence for a scientific hypothesis. I am not by the way using the syllogism that someone stated. I am simply asserting the existence of numbers of people, of whom I am one, who believe, based on their examination of the evidence, and without any other personal motives, that the case is still open to debate.

That is what it is right now, its an hypothesis. The link between lung cancer and smoking is proven. The assertion that doubling CO2 from preindustrial levels will raise global temperatures by about 2.5C is a forecast based on an hypothesis. It is legitimate to question both the forecast and the hypothesis, and it does not imply bad faith to do so. In fact, given the importance of the subject, it needs a lot more of it doing than it is getting.

You do not advance your cause by all this talk of 'denialism' and the personal abuse directed at people who do not find arguments convincing. In fact, you undermine your own case. The accusation of Stalinism, and the link to Soviet anti-semitism in the parent post, is a case in point. Its an attempt to produce guilt by an association which exists only in Eli's mind. I am not convinced. I am not, and never was, a Stalinist anti semite, and whether or not there are other sceptics who are, has nothing to do with the merits of the AGW case.

Anonymous said...

"People want to know what I have read to lead me to my conclusions. Its the wrong question, but OK, here is a partial list in no particular order."

Actually, people do (like me at least) not want to know what you have read, they want to know the specific arguments are that you have based your conclusions on.

Providing a list like the one you provided is meaningless and quite frankly is a cop-out on your part because there is no proof that you have read any of the stuff on the blogs and or by the people that you listed.

If I say that I am an expert on general relativity because I have read Einstein's papers, it means nothing. but if I make it an argument about some specific aspect of the theory that shows that i am well versed in the theory, it does mean something.

So, If you wish to make an actual argument based on the science, then by all means make it.

Otherwise, what you are saying means absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint.

skepticism (in the scientific sense) means something very specific. Simply doubting things does not a skeptic make.

PS it's very nice that you are concerned that "You do not advance your cause by all this talk of 'denialism' ", but who really cares? I know I don't. Your concern means absolutely nothing to me.

In fact, your uneducated opinion means nothing to me or to anyone else who has actually studied the science.

Hans Erren said...

Al Gore is effective but is he also honest?

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.

Anonymous said...

hans

Al gore is not a scientist, though you seem to hold him to the same standard that you would hold a scientist to when it comes to science.

Is that being honest?

Anonymous said...

Wow. Just wow. Rabett, whom is acts like a scientist on occasion, but mostly just spews angry thoughts (oh wait, correction, that's Marion D, aka "rage boy") and labels others who might question the science "Stalinists".

What is it with the left and labels? It kinda reminds of the of last episode of Seinfeld where his lawyer comments "you got a name for EVERYBODY, don't you", right after Jerry id's the "Soup Nazi".

This one is over the top bunny boy, time to step down from that pulpit and retire from your comfy taxpayer supported employment. You don't qualify as scientist anymore. You are now a full fledged hate monger.

Ok Dano and Marion, have at it. Kill that nasty commenter. Good dogs!

Anonymous said...

'What is it with the left and labels?'

you sure could have fooled me. I thought it was the right who had a monopoly on name-calling and other propaganda techniques.

The right's hero Ann Coulter comes immediately to mind.

And as far as over the top?

How about equating Al Gore to Yassar Arafat, simply because both have now won the peace prize.

Think that's over the top?

No, I don't suspect you do.

Hey, did you hear Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize? For his work on GLOBAL WARMING?

Al Gore is a WINNER.

You hear that? A winner.

I bet that really gets in your craw, doesn't it?

hapa said...

so -- basically -- we need to stop circumcising methane. then the problem is solved.

EliRabett said...

Gee, coulda fooled Eli, somehow powerline's "fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years." did not appear very civil. The concern trolls do need to high themselves over there and express some concerns about the level of civility.

Pointing out the intellectual roots of such discourse, is, of course, very uncivil. Sort of calling a bigot a bigot, and we know that that is playing the race card, or pointing out that workers are losing their jobs and the managers are getting most of the goodies is playing the class warfare card.

In short try that somewhere else more your speed.

EliRabett said...

hapa, the methane has already been cut off:)

Anonymous said...

Lets be clear: I agree that the remark about cosmoplitanism by some guy I never before heard of is coded anti semitism and both the guy and his organization are probably most unpleasant people. As is probably Ann Coulter, though I've never read her.

So what for AGW? There are extremely unpleasant posters and writers all over the world, some Christian, some Muslim, some of the AGW persuasion, some of the sceptical, some Republican, some Democrat, some Conservative, some Christian Democrat, some sceptical about AGW, and they post unpleasantly on lots of subjects. I don't much care, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether AGW is happening.

There is a false argument buried here which Eli and others on this forum are close to making. The argument in question is, that the science is so settled that only bad faith could lead one to doubt it, and the ethics so clear that only those with an unpleasant collection of authoritarian racist attitudes and links to corrupt corporations could possibly doubt them.

This is not true. Now, its not put directly like this most of the time, but it is very often implied, and its wrong.

Having some slight familiarity with the Stalinist left, I have to say that Eli, just as much as the unpleasant people he quotes in the parent article, is using exactly the same intellectual tactics as they did to attempt to shut up dissenters.

bi said...

Anonymous 12:24 AM, you keep suggesting that there's "evidence" that the anthropogenic global warming theory is far from settled.

Yet, despite repeatedly referring to this "evidence", again and again you refuse to, you know, actually provide this evidence.

And despite ostensibly asking for an honest inquiry into the "intellectual issues" behind the anthropogenic global warming theory, you keep giving excuses to avoid any actual discussion on the science.

All I see you doing, is blowing lots of smoke -- 20 whole paragraphs of smoke.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:03 "There is a false argument buried here which Eli and others on this forum are close to making. The argument in question is, that the science is so settled that only bad faith could lead one to doubt it,"

No, actually "Bad faith and/or ignorance"

Apparently (based on your indignation at being called a "denialist") you fall in the latter category.

perhaps rather than waste your time trying to convince Eli that he is an Evil name caller and/or that his name calling is counterproductive, you might actually take th time to educate yourself on the issue. And do try to read more than the titles of blogs and scientific papers. And don't accept everything you read on Climate Audit as gospel truth.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is precisely the problem. You do not believe that informed good faith disagreement with the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is possible. If you are not convinced, you must either be in bad faith or uninformed. This is a mistaken, and at bottom Stalinist, point of view.

Or you must take everything on Climate Audit as gospel. Which I do not do - any more than I take Real Climate as gospel either, and you've no reason to suggest it.

I am not discussing the evidence for warming because it is not the subject at issue. The subject at issue is whether the AGW community acceptss that informed good faith disagreement is still possible. Evidently at least one member does not.

guthrie said...

The question is, informed good faith disagreement on what points?

If you wish to claim that humans are not affecting the climate and that any changes that are taking place are all natural, then I am afraid you are plainly bonkers.

If on the other hand you wish to disagree about some of the precise effects, such as on hurricanes, or sea level rises, then by all means that is still possible.

bi said...

"I am not discussing the evidence for warming because it is not the subject at issue."

It is very much the subject at issue. You say your opinion is "informed". If your opinion's so informed, and then why can't you cite (and link to) precisely the specific sources that support your "informed" conclusion? Why can't you do that, and allow people to look up the evidence, and verify it for themselves that they do support your position?

Repeatedly claiming that an opinion is "informed" doesn't make it so.

23 paragraphs of blowing smoke and still counting...

bi said...

s/and then/then/
s/they do/it does/

Anonymous said...

You know what I like?

We see this again and again: the denialists have nothing.

The original 8-paragrapher above is nothing more than a rehashed "the science isn't settled" talking point from 2004, an "'informed' good faith" talking point from 2005, and a "waaaah, I don't like the denialism label" talking point from 2006.

Nothin'.

No data, testable hypotheses, rock star scientist who disagrees (instead we get the Hans cherry-picked Schneider quote [a tactic from 2001]), evidence, computer model, equation, napkin scribble.

Zilch.

Best,

D

Biker Trash said...

Eli,

Your "facts" are backward regarding Powerline.

But then that doesn't surprise me.

Best,

Biker Trash

Full Disclosure. All my work is funded entirely by the taxpayers of the United States.

Holly Stick said...

"...The subject at issue is whether the AGW community acceptss that informed good faith disagreement is still possible..."

Provide specific examples of informed good faith disagreement, if you can find any.

You claim to be informed, but you have not demonstrated that you are informed in any meaningful way. Demonstrate your depth of knowledge and describe a specific point of doubt you have and upon what specific evidence it is based.

You claim to be in good faith, but several people have asked you to demonstrate your good faith, and you have failed to do so. Put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:32 said"If you are not convinced, you must either be in bad faith or uninformed. This is a mistaken, and at bottom Stalinist, point of view."

yessirree. If someone tells me the world is flat and I don't accept it and tell them "they are either uninformed or a fruitcake (since nobody would claim the latter in bad faith)", that's "Stalinist".

You have no clue what "Stalinist" means.


"Stalinist" does not mean rejecting bogus science (flat earth, astrology, etc). In fact, it means the very opposite: accepting science under duress that is KNOWN (by scientists) to be bogus (Lysenkoism)

So, we are back to the data again (something that you are trying desperately to avoid)

please lay out your data and arguments that lead you to the conclusion that "the science behind global warming is bogus" (Lysenkoistic)

otherwise, don't waste any more of your own time (or ours).

Cynthia said...

What bothers me most about the ultra-right is that they have this annoying tendency to equate totalitarism with socialism. And yet there's nothing that says that other economics systems (outside of socialism, including capitalism) can't adopt totalitarian tactics. Put differently, totalitarism is more about manipulating one's thoughts and is less about manipulating one's pocketbook. On the flip side, socialism is less about manipulating one's thoughts and is more about manipulating one's pocketbook. It's simply wrong to assume that one's thoughts and one's pocketbook always go hand in hand.

Plus I think it's rather shortsighted for the ultra-right (at least the Judeo-Christian arm of the ultra-right) to assume that capitalism falls under the heading of Judeo-Christianity, at the exclusion of other economic systems, socialism included. So it's further wrong to assume that one's thoughts, one's pocketbook, and one's religion all go hand in hand.

EliRabett said...

Right biker, and you are trash. Naked assertion never impressed Eli much for me.

EliRabett said...

Anon 100 paragraphs, there is a cultural thing going on. Repeating you have evidence, you know, etc. doesn't do much for the Rabett Run crowd, you have to point to specific data and examples. Otherwise it is just hot ASCII and you won't get a very nice reception as you will be wasting everyone's time.

BTW, you probably did not notice but there was nothing in this post that referred to climate change, so in a real sense your remarks are not even wrong. There are lots of other posts here on climate change issues, you might try dealing with one of them

Anonymous said...

"I'm not sure, but there is conclusive evidence of a deliberate campaign of disinformation by the energy industry and its allies."

And let me guess - it's also been proven that 9/11 was in inside job, right? And JFK was done in by the Mafia?

guthrie said...

On the contrary Steve, we want to preserve all the best bits of the West, like freedom, the countryside, animals, the fine buildings built by our ancestorsthe depth of culture built up over several thousand years.

After all, it is easier to preserve it all when there are no large scale changes in the climate, with associated population movements, resource misuse, loss of land to the sea, ecological damage etc etc.

Anonymous said...

anon1:35 'And let me guess - it's also been proven that 9/11 was in inside job, right? And JFK was done in by the Mafia?'

Like the conspiracy to "cover up" the surface station data, right?

i agree, those conspiracy buffs are all a bunch of kooks.

Anonymous said...

Umm....uhh....bunny dude.....uhhh...."Cosmopolitan fraud" is a legal term. It's a type of white-collar crime. K?

EliRabett said...

Standards, such as they are, must be maintained.

Anonymous said...

Uhh....maybe you're not getting the picture....these dudes at Powerline....y'know....they're like, y'know lawyers....y'know....who talk....legalese....I mean....like.....they use terms like that the way you would talk about....like feedback and stuff...

EliRabett said...

Weak

Hank Roberts said...

Hans, you can look this stuff up, and should before attributing that quote you posted to Al Gore.

At least you didn't leave off the important part:

"... the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-it-really-really-is-2007.html

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000913revisiting_an_old_st.html

Anonymous said...

I think the hallmark of Lysenkoism is to assert some scientific hypothesis is totally proven, without citing evidence, and then when people suggest, not that the hypothesis is wrong, just that it is not proven, to demand that they produce detailed evidence.

Eli, if you are prepared to give space to a guest post, I will be happy to summarize my take on the matter, complete with references. It will take a little while to get it into organized and terse form, but I am up for it if you are.

anon100para

Anonymous said...

The flag of Israel on the Powerline Web site.

Al Gore is very likely Christian.

Your naked assertions are backwards and false.

Dano said...

I think the hallmark of Lysenkoism is to assert some scientific hypothesis is totally proven, without citing evidence, and then when people suggest, not that the hypothesis is wrong, just that it is not proven, to demand that they produce detailed evidence.

I think the hallmark of Strawmanism is to conveniently avoid the fact that we remember the talking point of 2005 was "concencus science". Now we have conveniently forgotten consensus science talking points and instead assert "totally proven".

Save your summary until you tighten up your rhetoric, lad.

Best,

D

Dr. Lemming said...

Didn't old Joe win the peace prise as well?

EliRabett said...

The editors welcome all submissions. OTOH we reserve the right to conserve electrons.

EliRabett said...

The flag of Israel wins the prize for the weirdest comment ever submitted here. Me thinks Anon 3:47 lies bleeding on the rhetorical floor. The point remains, powerline is a Stalinist re-birth.

Hank Roberts said...

Ah, so the problem is "rootless cosmopolitanism" -- specifically "rootless" meaning a person not, um, what, not third generation Amurrican?

A person not rooted in the fatherland, er, not rooted in the motherland. No, my metaphor excursion alarm just went off, strike that last ... no wait, I didn't mean that either.

Good find, Eli, utterly scary reminder where this stuff is really coming from.

Cynthia said...

News Flash: Powerline holds the number one spot just ahead of Pharyngula as the most popular blog in Minnesota! I'm a bit upset to hear this news; after all, PZ is one of my favorite bloggers, especially when it comes to blogging about the latest shenanigans involving the ID movement.

Anonymous said...

"Anon of the 100 paragraphs" said: "Eli, if you are prepared to give space to a guest post, I will be happy to summarize my take on the matter, complete with references."

Do you suppose there is enough room on the blogspot server for such a "summary"?

Speaking of which, Eli, I have a book on the Rise and fall of the Roman empire (in summary form, of course -- with references) that I would like to post here on your blog. Do you suppose that would be possible?

By the way, all this time I have been posting links to references in the comments section and I didn't realize that such links were not allowed. (even though they showed up and actually worked they were apparently not really there.)

Anonymous said...

Anon said (sort of) "I think the hallmark of Lysenkoism is to assert some scientific hypothesis is totally proven, without citing evidence, and then when people suggest, not that the hypothesis is wrong, just that it is not proven, to demand that they produce detailed evidence."

You missed the most important aspect of Lysenkoism. It was not about evidence at all.

And you are very confused. Demanding evidence is science (which could not be further from Lysenkoism)

Thousands of scientists have already provided evidence that green-house-gas induced warming is real (read the IPCC report).

If you wish to disprove a scientific theory that isw supported by a great deal of evidence (in this case the idea that greenhouse gases have led to warming of the air at the earth's surface), you need to provide evidence for that.

That's what science is all about.

Anonymous said...

The white flag on the Powerline Web site.

Al Gore is very likely Christ.

Your false assertions are naked and backwards.

Anonymous said...

Eli said about 100-paranon's request to do a guest post: "The editors welcome all submissions. OTOH we reserve the right to conserve electrons.'

Forget electrons, I'm far more concerned about saving innocent neurons.

Do you have any idea how many of them that would kill?