Whose dirty tactics?

The most disgusting thing about the leaked emails and data from the Climate Research Unit (see our previous posts here and here) is how these politicized scientists have responded to be caught acting in a very unacademic way. The emails clearly show that these men acted in concert to try to get dissenting scientific papers suppressed. They wanted to get editors of scientific journals fired because they dared published papers disagreeing with aspects of their theories.

These men plotted to undermine academic freedom and their emails show them acting like self-appointed censors who would decide what the scientific community should, or should not, be allowed to read. I suspect as the data that was discovered is analyzed other problems will emerge as well. But for the time being their campaign to silence and suppress other scientists is enough to warrant the condemnation of their behavior.

So have they admitted that acted like intellectual Gestapo sent out to control the scientific media? Of course not! Instead they are crying that they are victims.

The first replies concerns the leaked information was that there was nothing there of interest and that no one really need bother reading it. The second reply was that the emails were just harmless banter that didn’t mean anything. Reading the emails themselves proves both those first replies simply are not true. A third reply has been to satirize the emails themselves hoping that by making fun of the emails they can divert attention. A fourth reply has been to trumpet what the emails didn’t say, while ignoring completely what they did say.’’

Kevin Trenberth, one of the men caught red-handed in these emails, sees a nefarious conspiracy working behind the scenes to undermine him. “One has to wonder,” he says, “if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen [it may have been leaked from within the Unit as well] and published at this time.” Trenberth calls it “a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change…”

A “concerted attempt”? But wasn’t that precisely what these emails exposed? Trenberth and his fellow warmers acted in concert in the hopes of suppressing scientific papers. They plotted on how to get editors fired by organizing a mass protest to a journal’s publisher concerning one editor and they made it clear that the accusations made didn’t even have to be true to be effective.

Consider what Andrew Revkin, of the New York Times, had to say regarding the material that has been published on-line. Revkin writes that the “documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Wasn’t it the New York Times that is famous for publishing the Pentagon papers that also were acquired illegally and never intended for the public eye?

Consider what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose a treasure trove of emails from skeptics turned up. Imagine those emails outlining how skeptics would conspire to deny warmers access to various journals. Just imagine that all the strategies the CRU emails show the warmers engaging in, were exposed as tactics for the so-called deniers. Do you honestly believe that Mr. Revkin would avoid publishing the actual content of those emails?


Revkin got some flack for that remark and he has responded. He says his remarks are interpreted as saying his paper is “laying off looking into these documents” but claims, “we’re actively reporting on and citing these documents” and cites his original story as evidence. But the original story is actually woefully deficient of quotes from the emails themselves. Most of it is letting apologists for the emails defend them, there is some vague comments about what they contain and he quotes one sentence of one email from a second-hand source.

Revkin actually never cites the documents themselves. What he entirely ignored was that the documents show these scientists to be actively engaged in a political campaign to silence dissent through various maneuvers. The entire issue of academic freedom was swept under the rug, as were the actual content of the emails. Yet Revkin pretends his original article “actively” reported on, and cited, the documents in question. Neither is true.

Revkin, who is openly and explicitly biased on this matter, writes that he prefers to focus on “running down tips and assertions related to the theft and hackings.” He wants to get the person who released the documents; he’s not very interested in what the documents actually say. Focusing on content makes his allies look bad and he hopes to cause problems for the presumed political opponents who released the material instead.

At the British left-wing Guardian, George Marshall dismisses the emails since they don’t prove any conspiracy such as taking “’marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.” Sure that was the criticism all along! This is a subtle form of the Argument from Intimidation, misstate what the opponents say, make it satirical in nature and don’t address what they do say. Marhsall saw no conspiracy, but he ignores the open planning of how to end the careers of skeptics, as well as stifle debate by stopping journals from publishing papers that have passed the peer-review process. These conspirators went so far as saying that they might have to redefine peer-review in order to stifle dissent.

While Marshall conveniently ignores planned assault on academic freedom by his friends he does find a plot however: “This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context.” What proves the “orchestrated smear campaign?” According to Marshall the proof is: “The speed with which the emails have been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable.” Remarkable? Clearly Mr. Marshall doesn’t understand how the Internet works. Speed is easy when information is of interest to hundreds of millions of people. And thousands and thousands of those individuals start looking at the material what is contained in the documents is published very fast indeed. That is merely proof of the scale of the debate on this issue, not proof of some conspiracy.

Marhsall complains that this is “an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.” Let me see if I get this. Someone exposes that climate scientists of the warming bent conspire together to suppress papers, get editors fired, and discredit scientific journals because they don’t like what they publish. That is not a dirty political tactic. However, exposing that this was being done is a dirty political tactic. The plot to deny academic freedom is not a conspiracy but someone exposing the plot with source documents is a conspiracy because lots of people reported on it.

Marshall wants the scientists exposed in these emails to go on the offensive and says that Phil Jones, who is at the center of the scandal, needs to fight for his colleagues who are “defamed and slandered by the kinds of people who illegally hack into computers. This is a desperate, last-ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate.” Please note we have no proof of a hack as of yet. It still could have been an internal leak. Without knowing the sources of the material to call it an illegal hack is merely biasing the debate, quite intentionally I might add.

But again, while Marshall whines about the defamation of the scientists exposed of using dirty tricks to suppress opposition papers he says nothing about their efforts to defame and slander their opponents. Remember these were people who said that an effort to unseat one editor should revolve around telling the publishers that their journal is now “perceived as being a medium of disseminating misinformation” and that “whether it is true or not” doesn’t really matter since it will have the same impact in removing the editor in question. But that is not a dirty trick, or defaming or slandering someone.

But consider the question of how do these emails that were released slander and defame? They only make people look bad because of what they actually say. There has been no evidence that the emails were tampered with. They were not accompanied by essays explaining them. They were simply documents released to the public and the only reason these scientists look bad is because they behaved badly. It is their own actions, which slander them, not the revelation that they acted like an intellectual Gestapo. This story is still in the early stages and more will come out.

Notice: I was asked by my colleagues at the Institut für Unternehmerische Freiheit to mention their conference on the climate change debate. It is scheduled for December 4th in Berlin. More information available here. All presentations will be in German or English with simultaneous translations available. Speakers include: Prof. Dr. Markus Kerber; Dr. Jewgeni Volkl; Prof. Nils Axel Mörner; Prof. Henrik Svensmark; Dr. Lubos Motl; Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke; Viscount Christopher Monckton; and Dr. Fred Singer.

Raping the taxpayer for fun and profit.

I fully expect the Bush bail out to become policy. It is bad policy but bad policy and Congress go together like salt and pepper.

The politicians have raised their token resistance. Minor changes will be made. Pressure will be put on the holdouts and they will change their votes assuring voters that they held out for the “best” they could hope for.

The “crisis” is one that mainly impacts specific sectors of the economy not the whole economy. And it isn’t as disastrous as the panic mongers want you to believe. More importantly the bail out is not a solution. It doesn’t address the real cause to the problem. People blame the greed on Wall Street but who are they kidding.

Exactly how did greedy Wall Street create the problem? They loaned money to people who were not credit worthy. Those people bought property that was inflated in value. When the value of the property fell and the people couldn’t pay they walked out. Why did greedy bankers lend money to people who were so risky? Because Congress forced them to.

What the Democrats aren’t telling anyone is that they pushed for the very measures that pushed banks to lend to high-risk customers. The banks were threatened with all sorts of legal action if they didn’t help implement Democratic policy -- which was to “increase” housing affordability. Then we had the Federal Reserve pursuing a policy of credit expansion to bring down interest rates to encourage the spending spree to continue. And it did -- right up until the collapse

Greedy Wall Street is certainly involved but greedy politicians were the true creators of the problem. Some like, Congressman Barney Frank, went so far as to poo-poo anyone who said there were problems with the government monsters Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

And now greedy Wall Street is certainly lining up for the bail out. Once it becomes apparent that stupid politicians will enact insane policies of distributing billions of dollars for no good reason, there will be no shortage of worthy recipients with cap in hand waiting to be showered with their share. One could argue the fools are the ones who don’t show up -- they will be net losers in the deal, funding the rest of the greedy mob.

And that is what we have -- a greedy lynch mob ready to string up the American taxpayer. This is how politics works. By the time the election rolls around I wouldn’t be surprised if the average voter isn’t repeating the slogans from Washington and commenting about how the bailout is saving America.

Politics is rape except it is done so deceptively that by the time the rape is over the victim is convinced it was her idea and, in addition, she is immensely better off because of it.

Poll on Prostitutes and Politicians

The New Zealand Herald asked its on-line readers to answer yes or no to the following: "Would you expect a NZ politician to resign if they were found to have been visiting prostitutes?" 

My reply wasn't there. I wouldn't necessarily expect the politician to resign but I would think the prostitute ought to retire in shame. 

For the record, 54% of about 2,600 respondents said that they did not expect the politician to resign. In the U.S. voters couldn't answer the question. They would first demand to know what party the politician belonged to. Republicans would demand the Democrat resign while Democrats would demand that a Republican resign. In the New York situation Republicans were baying at the moon demanding Spitzer's resignation. When Republican Senator Vitter was caught doing the same thing, and pleaded God's forgiveness and his wife's, the Republicans were the first to forgive and forget. 

When private demon are made public concerns.

Once again some prostitute has degraded herself by selling her services to a cheap, sleazy politician.

New York’s Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, has admitted that he was using a call-girl service. Allegedly Governor Spitzer, a former prosecutor who jailed prostitutes (when he wasn’t bonking them) hired a prostitute who lived in New York. She was to travel to D.C., at his expense to meet him there. He would cover the cost of her travel time, her hotel room, any room service she ordered, etc. In addition he supposedly paid extra to establish credit for future visits. All in all, he supposedly paid $4,300.

Now Spitzer, like so many politicians before him, has been caught with his pants around his ankles. He did his public weepy apology with his stoic wife by his side. He said he betrayed his family and needed time to repair that relationship. In other words he was telling the press that he was going into seclusion until this blows over.

One day here is what I’d like to see when a mess like this is exposed yet again -- and it will be.

I’d like the politician in question to issue one statement:

“I recently purchased the services of a prostitute. That action is my business and hers. It is not the concern of the media, the legislature or the public. My private life is my private life and it ought to stay that way. My action violated the rights of no one and ought not be the concern of busybody moralists or the state legislature.

In the process of this transaction I violated the trust my wife put in me. That is her concern and my concern. She is the only one to whom I own an explanation or an apology. And that too is a private matter and not for public consumption. Mind your own business and I will mind mine.”

On the other hand that presupposes a politician who respects rights

Spitzer’s real crime is not hiring a hooker and lying to his wife. His crime is something more important. It is the hypocrisy of American politics. It is the moralism of the busybodies who claim the right to control the lives of others but never assume that the laws they pass apply to themselves. It is found in the moralistic, fundamentalist politician caught in a toilet having sex with another man. It is found in the moral pronouncements of the Catholic church while it covers up the crimes of its clergy. It is found in the conservative moralist who has a gambling problem, or a drug addiction.

All of these private demons ought to be private. But the moralists, on the Right in particular, but not exclusively, have made them matters of public policy. They have invaded the sanctity of the home and pushed the most private areas of human existence into the public arena. None of this ought to be subject to legal sanction. The State has no business enforcing such private, moral decisions. Those are matters for the individuals directly concerned and not for politicians, bureaucrats, or the police.

What these politicians have done is take a matter which is truly a private, family matter and make it political and public. Yet, these selfsame moralists complain that the State is tampering with the family. Sure it is. And they started it. They started it when they made marriage a matter of state. They started it when they made the bedroom a place controlled by the regulations and rules of politicians. They started it when they gave the police the power to arrest people for violating their oath of fidelity to their spouse.

Conservatives and progressives alike are guilty. Each side thrusts the government into some new aspect of human existence. Then they whine when the other side gets control and uses this precedent for purposes they don’t like. Progressives decided that government should teach kids about sex and then got upset the Bush regime taught abstinence and lied about birth control. Conservatives don’t want government “redefining” marriage yet were happy when government defined marriage in the first place. Conservatives demanded that government engage in censoring offensive sexual material. Then they get upset if the same precedent is used to regulate hate speech.

It is time that the private life of individuals be returned to their control and made off limits to the politicians. Until the politicians do that then they shouldn’t demand privacy when they themselves are caught violating the rules they set.

Illustration: That is a quote from Gov. Spitzer which sums up his view of politics. He deserves anything he gets here.

When You're Good to Mama

Earlier today I wrote about how stupid ideas, which make no economic sense, can make political sense due to the warped incentives of bureaucratic or political management. One example which I mentioned was the disastrous use of ethanol as a means of combating global warming. Ethanol is one of those solutions that is wrong at so many levels one doesn’t know where to begin. In a nutshell it is a lousy alternative to petrol. It is worse for the environment, requires subsidies to be produced, is driving up the price of food and is increasing world hunger because of its impact on food prices.

But it makes political sense. The New York Times has just written a piece on ethanol and the Hillary connection. They told of a “Global Initiative” run by her husband, the ex-president and how the stage was filled with three of the richest men in the world and the audience packed with “businessmen hoping for a profit.”

How do you make a profit producing ethanol? You don’t. But you make a profit when you get political hacks to push through legislation to pay you to produce ethanol. Make no mistake about it, ethanol is not a phenomenon of the free market. It is the Frankenstein monster of politicians like Hillary. Anyone who thinks Big Business tends to favor free markets knows nothing about history. Big Business has repeatedly been behind political campaigns to use the State to limit competition and to reward corporations with profits that they couldn’t earn honestly in a free, competitive market.

In reality it is easier to make money through political favors than through the market. By “make money” I don’t mean these people create wealth. They do not! They destroy wealth through a process of political redistribution. But since the wealth tends to get redistributed into their pockets, and the wealth that is destroyed belongs to others, they don’t mind.

The Times told of how Hillary, as the Senator from New York, “had sponsored legislation to provide billions in new federal incentives for ethanol, and, especially in her home state of New York, she had worked to foster a business climate that favors the sort of ethanol investments pursued by her husband’s friends and her political supporters.”

The paper notes the shady connections between the Clintons and this wealth elite of business parasites. Bill Clinton is a paid “adviser” to Yucaipa Companies. The owner of the company, Ronald Burkle, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary’s political career. Yucaipa has invested millions in Cilion, Inc., a company created to reap profits by being paid to produce ethanol. They are building seven ethanol plants, two of them in New York so Hillary can show how she brought home the bacon. The New York Times writes:

Certainly Mrs. Clinton is doing what would be expected of a senator trying to stimulate a sagging rural economy in her home state, not to mention a presidential candidate mindful of the importance of ethanol in corn-producing places like Iowa. But her actions take on an added dimension when they intersect with Mr. Clinton’s philanthropic and profit-making endeavors, which have periodically raised questions as Mrs. Clinton seeks the Democratic nomination for president.

In fact this is not true at all. They seem to think government can “stimulate a sagging rural economy”. This is the old “broken window fallacy” all over again. What is seen here is the money that Hillary throws into rural New York and no doubt jobs are created. What is ignored by the Times is that the money was taken from the productive sector of the economy and poured into loss-making ventures. Hillary’s intervention created two net losses. It destroyed part of the productive sector while wasting money to produce something that isn’t worth producing -- something which actually has a negative value because it is harming the economy.

Profits can be secured in the political sector through the use of State power to redistribute wealth. The Left seems oblivious to the reality of wealth redistribution in practice. They talk about helping the poor and ignore the fact that political power almost always favors the rich. To redistribute wealth through political power only creates a situation where the poor are fleeced to benefit wealthy elites who have access to cheap politicians like Hillary and her husband.


These corporations scratch Hillary’s back with donations to her campaign and paid positions for her husband. She in turns promotes legislation that robs the taxpayers of America to fund projects which directly benefit the corporate leeches who are in bed with her and Bill. The Times writes:

Under an agreement with Mr. Burkle in 2002, Mr. Clinton was to provide advice and find investment opportunities for several domestic and foreign funds in Yucaipa’s portfolio, and would receive a share of the profits from those funds.

Ask yourself how it is that Bill Clinton has become a financial adviser? Is Mr. Clinton now some sort of investment guru hitherto undiscovered by most people? I sincerely doubt he has sufficient knowledge to direct the investments of billionaires. But he has political connections. Pay off Bill for his “expertise” and Hillary directly benefits -- she had to get the millions she loaned her campaign from somewhere. What Bill Clinton offers these “businessmen” (and I use the term lightly) was access to political power so that they could redistribute money to themselves through the raw use of political power.

The Right seems to think of Big Business as giants of industry. And certainly some corporate leaders have been such, but far fewer than the Right thinks. Far too often they are political parasites who use the State to enrich themselves. This is not the free market but the political process at work.

The Left still entertains the notion that statism, as a process, works. It doesn’t. This naive view regarding political power turns the Left into pawns in the game of corporate leaders who use them to push for legislation that reduces competition and entrenches Big Business into position.

I can’t help but remember how antitrust legislation was pushed through by Big Business who feared upcoming competitors. The Left played along thinking they were reigning in the “excess of greedy capitalism”. In reality the Left were toadies to the very forces they opposed.

When the telephone industry was deregulated a campaign against deregulation was led by two groups: the political Left and the telephone companies. The Left seemed to never pick up on this. The same thing happened with deregulation of trucking and air travel. In both cases the Left and the major corporations in those respective fields opposed deregulation. You’d think that when the Left kept waking up in bed with Big Business they’d eventually cotton on to how politics works. Apparently they haven’t. Of course the Right is equally stupid since many of them haven’t yet seen that their much praised corporate leaders are in bed with the political Left as well.

Classical liberalism promoted free markets. That was truly revolutionary and it had a major impact freeing up those oppressed by the organized forces of conservatism: the state, the feudal lords, and the church. Socialists embraced liberal goals of equality of rights, economic prosperity for all, and individual emancipation. But they found freedom too unsettling. So they concluded that the way to achieve these liberal ends was through conservative means -- the use of state power.

Thus the socialists and progressive broke away from the foundational values of liberalism -- though they continued to call themselves liberals based on their desire for liberal results. But the means and the ends must be consistent with one another. When they are not the result is contrary to the goals being sought.

By embracing statism the socialists have basically betrayed the goals of liberalism. By using state power these socialists have propped up the power elite that liberalism has historically opposed. The feudal lords have been merely replaced by corporate leaders. Liberal ends can not be achieved through the use of conservative means. If socialists and progressives wish to establish a just world they have to reject the use of state power. Until they do they will repeatedly see their icons, like Hillary Clinton, jumping into bed with corporate giants in order to plunder the hard-earned savings of working people. By the way -- if you think Obama would be better think again. He’s even more in favor of this sort of corporatism. I should also note that historically this sort of alliance of Big Business with the State was called fascism. It’s major proponent was a former editor of a Socialist newspaper named Benito Mussolini.

Note: the video above is Queen Latifah's wonderful rendition of When You're Good to Mama from the musical Chicago. I post it in honor of Hillary Clinton.