Moving Domains

Hey guys. I have a registered domain I use for various purposes. You may have seen it in links like: where I uploaded a live copy of the leaked Skeptical Science forum. The domain, ( isn’t very different from this site’s domain (, but it is one I pay for and manage myself. That means I have far more control over it than I can have when using a site through WordPress.

That increased control means I can customize the site’s appearance and functionality far more than I currently can. I like that. I also like the idea of only having to manage one domain. As such, I am currently in the process of trying to move this blog to the other domain.

I don’t know if this will work out as my previous attempt failed spectacularly, but the transfer seems to be working better this time. If you don’t mind, would you go over to the new site and see if it works? You can find it here:

Also, if you have any ideas for how to change the blog to make it make it better, I’d love to hear them. I am no longer limited to the pre-installed WordPress themes so I can go with any theme we might want (or even make changes to themes to create something entirely new). It’d even be possible to make any other features one might want on a web page, even ones not related to blogging. It’s just a matter of deciding what to do and sitting down and doing it.

That is, if the site works. For all I know it may blow up in half an hour.

Tim Ball is Hitler

There is generally little you can do to make yourself look worse in a conversation than compare someone you dislike to Hitler. Dr. Tim Ball should consider this. I just saw a post he uploaded a few days ago to Watts Up With That? which says things like:

The response must counteract all the issues detailed in Adolf Hitler’s cynical comments, but also the extremely commendable motive of saving the planet, used by the IPCC and alarmists.


From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those changes caused by humans. This effctively sidelined natural causes. The computer models produced the pre-programmed results and everything was amplified, and exaggerated through the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue, and on such a scale, but also because most didn’t know what was being done.


When you understand what Adolf Hitler is saying in the quote from “Mein Kampf” above, you realize how easy it was to create the political formula of Agenda 21 and the scientific formula of the IPCC.

Which sounds pretty ridiculous. I mean, he’s basically comparing everyone he dislikes to Hitler, right? Wrong. The quote Ball refers to, which was included in his post, was written by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf. A moment’s thought would make it obvoius Hitler was not referring to his own actions. Alternatively, one could just quote the full paragraph (Ball’s excerpt begins with the third sentence and excludes the last sentence):

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true in itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Hitler was calling the Jews liars. Hitler was saying there was a massive conspiracy by the Jews to unfairly blame Erich Ludendorff for Gemany’s loss in World War I. So when Ball says of the quote:

Do these remarks explain the comments of Jonathan Gruber about legislation for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare? Do the remarks fit the machinations of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed in their 6000 leaked emails? It is instructive to know that Professor Gruber’s health care models are inaccessible, protected as proprietary.

The author of the quote was a leader whose lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the deaths of millions of people. In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result, the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming, then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change, energy, and environmental policies.

Realize he’s comparing everyone he dislikes to the Jews. He’s trying to take the moral high ground by saying, “You horrible people are lying, conspiring Jews and I am the righteous Hitler!”

Comparing other people to Hitler is almost as bad as it gets. About the only thing worse is comparing yourself to Hitler. If you want to do that Dr. Ball, go ahead. You’re Hitler.

On a happy note, I guess this means two major climate blogs on opposite sides of the debate can finally reconcile. Watts Up With That? apparently wants to support Hitler, and Skeptical Science is filled with people who like to play Nazi dress up:


They’re a perfect pair.

I’m Confused About Coral, or Maybe John Cook Is

My last post mentioned I had decided to read a book John Cook was a co-author of, Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. I quickly found a significant amount of the book had been copied and used in another book by Cook’s co-author (Haydn Washington’s Human Dependence on Nature: How to Help Solve the Environmental Crisis). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an eBook version of it, and I didn’t care to spend $40+ of my own money for a physical copy.

Global Warming and Sexism?

After my last post discussing (proprietor of Skeptical Science) John Cook’s tendency to fabricate quotes, I got an e-mail from a reader suggesting I review the quotes in the book he had written, Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

I hadn’t realized Cook had written a book. Intrigued, I decided to do as the reader suggested. I ordered a copy for Kindle, downloaded it and opened it up. I haven’t gotten past that part though. I keep laughing every time I try. You see, this is the first page I saw:


I know global warming is more popular with liberals than conservatives. I also know the same is true for “feminism.” However, it boggles my mind to think people actually believe deniers “are nearly all men.” I’ve never seen such a claim before, and it doesn’t make much sense. After all, according to John Cook:


Cook performed a survey (which he never published) which found 55% of Americans believe there is a consensus on global warming. If nearly all deniers are men, nearly every man in the United States must be a denier. That’s the only way for what the foreword says to be true. But if that’s the case, there can’t be some liberal/conservative split. It’s really just a battle of the sexes. Men suck, women rule.

Or maybe this foreword is just stupid and wrong.

John Cook is a Low Down Dirty Liar

I’ve previously established John Cook, proprietor of the Skeptical Science website and lead author of multiple scientific papers promoting the consensus on global warming, is a liar. I’ve demonstrated dishonesty on his part multiple times, including when I showed his scientific publications are built entirely upon an intentional campaign of deception.

Today I’d like to revisit one the more baffling examples, Cook’s tendency to fabricate quotes. (more…)

A Spokeperson for the President is Unaffiliated with the President…?

I recently came across a video in which President Barack Obama takes credit for a tweet about the infamous Skeptical Science consensus paper. That tweet:

Is unquestionably wrong as it says the study shows the “consensus” is global warming is dangerous, but the study never claims to examine whether or not global warming is dangerous. All it claims to examine is whether or not there is a consensus global warming is real/man-made.

More interesting, however, is that tweet comes from the @BarackObama Twitter account whose profile specifically says:

This account is run by Organizing for Action staff. Tweets from the President are signed -bo.

The tweet in question is not signed. As such, Organizing for Action is clearly claiming the tweet came from them, not the president. It’s confusing, then, that the president would say:

In fact last year I even tweeted one of your studies in my 31, to my 31 million followers on Twitter.

In this recent speech:

What is even more confusing is the Organizing for Action group denies having any affiliation with the president. On its webpage, it answers the question, “Is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government, or funded with taxpayer dollars” with a firm, “No.”

It was always difficult to see how Organizing for Action could claim to be unaffiliated with the president while leasing the president’s name for fundraising purposes. The current situation is even more difficult to reconcile. Barack Obama gave a prepared speech in which he explicitly took credit for a tweet Organizing for Action wrote. By doing so, he indicated tweets posted by Organizing for Action under his name, whether signed by him or not, are official messages from the President of the United States.

But yet, we’re told this group is “not affiliated in any way with the federal” government. This group, which seems to official speaks for the President of the United States, claims to be unaffiliated with the government he leads.

I’ve contacted Organizing for Action to see if they can reconcile these positions. I’ll post an update if I get a response. In the meantime, we can all get a chuckle out of the President of the United States explicitly taking credit for a tweet which grossly misrepresents the study it seeks to promote.

For additional humor, we can note Organizing for Action has repeatedly been described as being non-partisan. One wonders how a mouthpiece of the President of the United States, who explicitly labels himself a member of one party, could possibly be non-partisan.

One Year

Well folks, today is this site’s one year anniversary. I can’t believe it. I never wanted to be a blogger. I started this site as a journal for random thoughts I have so I didn’t have to pester people in real life with them. Now, I’m not sure what it is.

Part of me wants to say this is just another a blog about global warming. The problem is I don’t really discuss global warming. Most of my posts have been about topics which arose from the global warming debate, but I’ve never argued anything about global warming itself. The truth is I don’t care about global warming.

Part of me wants to say this is just my online journal. Only, we all know it isn’t. I’ve intentionally used this site to exert some small influence on the external world. My most read post was the one where I directly challenged the University of Queensland to follow up on their legal threats. Clearly, this is not just an online journal.

I don’t know what this site is. I’ve written posts with the intent of reviewing fiction books (e.g. here), but I never followed through on the idea. I’ve argued a publicly praised business is actually an illegal enterprise. I’ve mocked feminist insanity. I’ve written lengthy commentaries on fundamental philosophical points, including an explanation of the “right” answer to the most widely argued mathematical issue (does .9 repeating equal 1).

I’ve written all this and more in 176 posts. These 176 posts have received 176,127 views. I don’t how “good” that is. In fact, I don’t know what to make of any of this. All I know is I made this “blog” because I thought it would be fun and interesting.

It has been.

I suppose I should sign off with a message to anyone reading this. I don’t know what to tell you though. I’m me. This site is an extension of me.

And I’m going to be around for a while.

When Fact Checkers Aren’t

I am sometimes troubled by the growing popularity of “fact checkers.” I think fact checking is great. The problem is the fact checkers becoming more and more popular don’t seem to be checking facts. For instance, Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler recently published an article “fact checking” statements by former president George W. Bush, including this one:

The man, Saddam Hussein, would have a lot of revenue as a result of high prices of oil. And even though there wasn’t, you know, a – we found a dirty bomb, for example – he had the capacity to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And so there’s – you know, it’s all very hypothetical. But yeah, I could argue that we’re much safer without Saddam. And I would argue that the people of Iraq have a better shot at living in a peaceful – a peaceful state.

The article begins on a troubling note:

The Fact Checker was puzzled by Bush’s reference to finding a dirty bomb in Iraq. It certainly sounded like he said that such a weapon was found in Iraq. But after listening to the tape a few times, we concluded that the former president, in an offhand manner, was giving that as an example of something that was not found after the United States invaded Iraq.

I find it puzzling anyone would think Bush’s statement was meant to indicate the United States found a dirty bomb. Taking out a few superfluous words in the sentence gives us the obvious meaning, “And even though there wasn’t a dirty bomb, for example, he had the capacity to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”

The meaning is clear. I don’t know why someone would have to listen to a tape multiple times to realize the words “you know, a – we found” were little more than verbal ticks. It’s obviously nothing more than someone saying, “Uh, you know” to fill some space while they’re trying to think of how to express their idea.

It gets worse though. The next paragraph of this “fact check” says:

Who knew that the United States invaded Iraq because of a potential dirty-bomb threat? That’s certainly not what the administration suggested before the war.

This is incredibly misleading. The transcript shows Bush was asked a specific question:

You talk about the current situation in Iraq and the growth of ISIS. And you look at that country today, there are atrocities. There’s violence. There’s chaos. Can you argue today that that country is a safer place and a better place than it was when Saddam Hussein was in power?

This question clearly asks if Iraq is a safer and better place due to the invasion. That has nothing to do with the stated reasons for the invasion. Those reasons could have been wrong, false or even intentionally dishonest. That still wouldn’t tell us whether or not Iraq is a safer and better place.

Bush answered the question he was asked. Kessler’s “fact check” calls Bush’s answer misleading because if he had given it in response to an entirely different question, it’d be misleading. That’s ridiculous. You can’t strip a statement of all context in order to pretend it was given in response to an entirely different question then call it misleading like Kessler does when he says:

the former president misleadingly twists the initial rationale behind the invasion

The former president did not discuss “the initial rationale behind the invasion” in this interview. A “fact checker” simply made that up. I have no idea how that is supposed to be “fact checking.”