Saturday, March 07, 2009


Not Eli's thing

Eli has managed to avoid pretty much the entire George Will blowup. Abusing a bag of wind is only seldom his thing, or more to the point Eli prefers to pick his own bags. Those of you like Greenfyre, Andy Siegel, and Tim Lambert, who are really into it will appreciate this interview with Will just posted at the Pittsburgh Tribune by way of Tom Yulsman. As far as Eli is concerned Will is the kink of guy who thinks that he can act like a person by wearing a bow tie and talking about baseball.

Work the refs bunnies

UPDATE: Morano goes down. Don't mess with mt. It will be interesting in a year or two to see what his salary is on the 990s, but this will cost Marc an important platform. The interesting questions are whether Eli will continue getting moranograms and what made this happen. Was it something that finally ticked Barbara Boxer off enough to make the Earth move or a bigger salary or what. There is important reporting to be done here.

16 comments:

greenfyre said...

OMG ... he just can't stop lying, can he? Thanks for that one.

Anonymous said...

Will is not only in denial about global warming, he is actually in denial about the ramifications of being called on his BS by "internet-based fact checkers", including scientist(s) at the Arctic Climate Research Center (U of Illinois), which Will gave as his source for the claim about sea ice.

The latter posted this statement on their web site:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.


Will apparently actually believes that all the blog posts, emails and even the rebuttal from scientists are nothing unusual (who knows, maybe they aren't for him):

Form the article linked to by Eli above
"
Q: Is there any big lesson that you've learned from this encounter with the global-warming people?

•A: This is not a life-changing experience. This is just another encounter with another interest group doing interest-group politics. This strikes me as a very minor event.

•Q: In your career or ... ?

•A: In the week! In the week! This is just not a big deal. I've written 5,000 columns and a lot of them have caused ruckuses bigger than this. "

Will obviously does not recognize it, but this really represents a watershed.

A Siegel said...

I'd say that Will's audacity is simply amazing, but that would be such an understatement.

And, well, publishing the interview without disclaimer, without editorial notes, without warming readers of his falsehoods? Clearly, the problems do not end with the Washington Post and The Washington Post Writers' Group.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the Washington Post is in denial just like Will.

And their huge financial losses show it.

Their newspaper is going right down the toilet and they don't even recognize it might have something to do with the very same internet that is challenging Will's BS.

Anonymous said...

Roger Pielke Jr. has a post up trying to "splain himself and his policies.

Here goes....

RPJr: they cannot engage me on the substance, and instead resort to the strategy of “attack the man,” probably indicates that they feel that they cannot win an argument on the substance of the matter.

Pot/Kettle/Black. Are you being serious?

RPJr: I was once invited to write a paper for publication in the Cato Institute’s journal Regulation.

How much money did the Exxon Mobil funded Cato pay you for your thoughts on climate change?

RPJr: I have testified before Congress at the request of both Democrats and Republicans. Whenever I am invited to testify I recognize full well that the invitation is offered because there is some expectation that my views are somehow politically useful to the party doing the inviting. This is of course how politics in the U.S. Congress actually works, and it goes for every witness ever invited, including scientists and other academics. Thus, I take care in my prepared remarks to clearly spell out my views and their policy implications, based on my expertise and experience. I have never been told what to say, nor has my testimony ever been critiqued or edited beforehand by staff. When I testify you can be sure that my views are my views.

Basically an admission that you were compliant with Republicans using you to undermine a hearing on the Bush Administration's politicization of science in the corporate interest. Good for you!

And so we can all be clear. It is common Hill practice that all written testimony is first approved by the committee. Whether that resulted in you making any changes or not to make the Republicans happy is unknown. We'll take your word on it.

RPJr: People who argue that I have claimed to be an “honest broker” are not telling the truth....

This is true! But you insinuate it nonetheless with your pattern of haranguing other scientists such as Naomi Oreskes, Evan Mills, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt,Jim Hansen...etc...etc...

RPJr: My policy is that anyone who is written about here on this blog has an open invitation to respond, and we will publish their response unedited as a main line entry.

First bait them, then offer a chance for defense on your home territory. Brilliant.

RPJr:Do recognize that discussing people’s actions or words is not an “attack” even if that discussion is critical at times.

Unless the focus of the discussion is the actions or words or Roger Pielke Jr. In that case, it's personal and ad hominem.

RPJr: if you ever notice something that you think is inappropriate, just let me know and we’ll deal with it.

Please print out this comment. Put it in your wallet. Pull it our every ten minutes. Read closely. Repeat for the next thirty days.

And please stop it with the Royal We nonsense.

Anonymous said...

they cannot engage me on the substance, and instead resort to the strategy of “attack the man,” -- RP, jr

Perhaps if there actually was some substance to Pielke's arguments, people would take him seriously.

It's clear that RP has really lost credibility in the latest round of Gore Wars and is trying desperately to salvage what is left of his career.

It's actually rather pathetic.

what he does not seem to realize is that it makes no difference what the public thinks of him.

What matters is what scientists think of him.

EliRabett said...

No there is a whole separate science policy world out there which feeds into politics and as long as he would be invited in by one of the parties he is ok.

However, with the self radicalization of the Republicans wrt reality as the smarter rats leave the sinking ship, RPs straddle about the reality of climate change will hurt him, as they become increasingly unhinged

Anonymous said...

there is a whole separate science policy world out there which feeds into politics and as long as he would be invited in by one of the parties he is ok."

true enough. There is a whole network of "science policy experts" are Washington (eg think tanks) who get along just fine without the acceptance of scientists. (thank you)

but pielke is an academic and I seriously doubt he would ever be satisfied in such a situation (eg, in one of those think tanks), since he seems to fashion himself as "above the frey" and clearly relishes the scientific aspects of science policy.

Pielke needs scientists to take him seriously (ie, to consider his arguments legitimate)

Anonymous said...

Pielke only published one peer-reviewed journal article last year. How can scientists take someone like that seriously?

Mus musculus anonymouse

EliRabett said...

Tom Yulsman is beating up pretty good on George Will.

http://www.cejournal.net/

Life is not as simple as Eli.

Anonymous said...

Tom Yulsman is a bit of a flake. It seems like his main job is to act as an RPJr proxy warrior. Keith Kloor is not far behind.

Mus musculus anonymouse

Anonymous said...

The effects of global warming my pale in comparison to those of
ocean acidification

Brian Schmidt said...

Great news re Morano - he will find that "guy with a website" might not seem as authoritative as what looks like a Senate Committee report to the uninitiated.

OTOH, he may have some more time on his hands. I agree those 990s would be interesting.

I don't think there's anything Boxer could do to can a top aide from the other party, however (unless there's some weird etiquette breach they all still take seriously).

Brian Schmidt said...

2006 990 here:

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521462893/521462893_200612_990.pdf

The E.D. made 40,000 less than Morano's current salary, so Morano may need to cut expenses by reducing his carbon footprint.

Better still would be if Morano got paid nothing, and was the climate field analogy to Alberto Gonzalez and David Addington.

EliRabett said...

Wingnut welfare has a habit of upping the ante. Besides which the ED was only 40% full time.

bi -- International Journal of Inactivism said...

"Moranograms"? I must find a chance to use that word some time.

-- bi