Monday, December 22, 2014 ... /////

Cutting ties with Klaus: CATO jumps on the totalitarian PC bandwagon

...and the knee-jerk Russophobia...

The Czech media informed us about the article

Vaclav Klaus, Libertarian Hero, Has His Wings Clipped by Cato Institute (The Daily Beast)
by James Kirchick, a Berlin reporter of the Haaretz and a few other left-wing news outlets. The text is dedicated to the divorce between Václav Klaus and the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank. Václav Klaus became a Distinguished Senior Fellow in March 2013 and he was silently "fired" sometime in September 2014, apparently mainly because CATO joined the new wave of the mindless Russophobia that is crippling almost the whole mainstream foreign policy discourse in the U.S. these days – while Klaus knows what he is talking about in this context, too.

In February 2007, after I translated an interview with Klaus about global warming that became the main story of the day at the Drudge Report and was mentioned by Fox News and other sources, our then president invited me to Washington D.C. A group including me, Klaus, and several prominent U.S. climate skeptics had a lunch together. It was actually my first – and (so far?) only – visit to the U.S. capital. I liked it and saw lots of the sightseeings, too.

One of the buildings I visited – because of a talk by Klaus – was the CATO Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue. This is a nice address to remember. You know, in Cambridge and Greater Boston, I would both live and work meters from another Massachusetts Avenue as well so I was distracted by the idea that it's actually the same Mass Ave ;-) – a grand hypothesis that hasn't been "safely" falsified for me yet but feel free to do it LOL.

Klaus used to frequently speak at the CATO Institute but this won't be repeated for quite some time, if ever. During the recent year, I have watched (at klaus.cz) some polemics between the former Czech president and Andrei Illarionov, a Russian economist who has been an aide to Putin before they parted their ways and a lovelorn Illarionov became one of the top haters of contemporary Russia.

Incidentally, Illarionov's name has appeared in TRF blog posts in 2004, 2005, and 2008, due to this man's global warming skepticism (I am not sure whether he turned his coat on this issue, too).

Illarionov's claims about Ukraine were nothing else than an average man's mixture of all the nonsense, unbacked emotions, and brutal oversimplifications that so many people in the West absorb from the mass media these days. I guess that Illarionov must know how lame his comments are – but he is probably making a nice income by selling these things. Klaus – and his aides – have argued against those attitudes using arguments that are similar to some opinions of Klaus' that have been previously discussed on this blog. See e.g. Why does Illarionov repeat anti-Klaus lies? from June 2014 if you want to get a flavor of these tense exchanges.

Andrei Illarionov almost certainly had a much greater influence on the CATO Institute than Klaus did. And through his spokesman, Klaus says that he has never had any conflict, not even a tiny one, with the CATO Institute – except for his confrontation with Mr Illarionov. So he blames Illarionov and no one else for his and CATO's divorce.

I have no reason to doubt that Klaus is describing his previous relationships accurately. Everything I know about this particular story is consistent with the idea that the deteriorated relationships were due to Mr Illarionov. On the other hand, my broader experience with the political life in the U.S. suggests that many people inside CATO were probably implicitly supporting the proposals by Mr Illarionov.

You know, while no one in the U.S. Academia except for the well-known ideological trash – the likes of feminists, reverse racists, Shmoits, and similar rotten stuff – has ever behaved in an unambiguously hostile way towards me, I have learned very clearly that almost none of the people who should have had the courage, the ideological compass, and the moral values to stand on my side has ever done so and I've heard quite some terrifying stories about many "people with a human face" – including the GOP members at Harvard – who supported the villains behind the scenes.

America has been so thoroughly contaminated by the politically correct totalitarian ideology that one simply can't trust the people just because they are members of the GOP or the CATO Institute or similar organizations and institutions. Most of them are parts of the problem, too. For all those reasons, the despicable behavior of the CATO Institute towards Klaus doesn't materially surprise me.

The Daily Beast journalist is yummy, too. I have spent decades in democracy and more than one decade as a conscious child or teenager in communism. So I can distinguish the character of the press, too. Kirchick's text is far closer to the communist propaganda than to articles in the media of the free world.

For example, he repeats the term "Russian aggression" twice, probably convinced that repetition can turn a lie into the truth. The events in Ukraine since the end of 2013 cannot be described as a "Russian aggression" by any stretch of imagination. It's an internal conflict – that has also polarized the whole world (which may be even more harmful than the internal events themselves) – that could arise due to the difficult political and ethnic situation in Ukraine and the unfulfilled hopes surrounding the post-communist reform process. But the reason why the problems erupted at the end of 2013 was the interventionism pursued by some important players in the West which included the U.S. government and the top politicians in the EU.

I don't want to repeat all the history and logic of the Ukrainian events – because I am afraid that whoever hasn't been able to see the basic points by December 22nd, 2014, probably suffers from a cognitive defect that is so crippling that he or she has almost no chance to get it ever. Instead, I want to mention some of the sins that Václav Klaus – and also Ron Paul – are accused of by the left-wing journalist.
Cato’s decision to separate itself from Klaus is laudatory, but curiously late.
Oh, so it's "laudatory". Nice. Why? Aside from Klaus' "heresy" of not being turned into a brainwashed moron concerning the Ukrainian events, we can see:
This source [at CATO] also cited Klaus’s “attitude toward personal rights, gay rights, for libertarians an essential part of the ideology” as well as his associating “very openly with far right parties and organizations.”
Quite a bizarre justification given the fact that
[t]he mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles.
How can "gay rights" be an "essential part" of CATO's ideology if CATO should defend a limited government and individual liberty while gay rights is a collection of recent-era socially engineered special advantages for a group enforced by a government that obviously has to grow to take care of all these new "rights"?
A severing of ties would no doubt come as a crushing blow to Klaus, who prides himself on being a contrarian and enjoys touting his affiliation with prominent institutions outside his tiny home country.
This sentence just highlights the fact that most Americans lack the basic education in geography. Czechia is not a "tiny country". By pretty much any criterion one picks, the Czech Republic is the average member of the EU – and also the average country in the world.

If Klaus "prides himself on being a contrarian", I guess that his being turned into a heretic by a mainstream think tank is another reason for pride, isn't it?

The Daily Beast also tries to disagree with the very basic fact that the annexation of Crimea was a move forced on Russia. How can someone deny this self-evident fact? There was a complete havoc in Ukraine and government buildings were being hijacked one after another. Crimea where the Russophones represent a clear majority was able to resist but needed to work hard on some guarantees that its government buildings wouldn't be hijacked by the people of the coup, too. They were really just defending the legitimate status quo in Ukraine. It's Crimea, and not the rest of Ukraine, that is the more legitimate successor state of Ukraine as we knew it in 2013.

They defended their independence of the coup forces, organized a speedy referendum with a clear result, and asked Russia to reintegrate Crimea into its territory – where it has belonged over 95 percent of the second millennium. Of course that it was unthinkable that Russia would say No. These polarizing events wouldn't have occurred if there were no coup in Kiev (and other cities in Western and Central Ukraine) and for that reason, it is obvious that the reintegration of Crimea was a forced move.

Another "sin" of Klaus was that he visited a May 9th Victory Day party at the Russian Embassy in Prague. What a crime! You may have missed it, Mr Kirchick and others, but on May 9th, 1945, the Red Army has liberated Prague – and along with it, an overwhelming majority of the Czechoslovak territory – from the Nazi regime that was an existential threat for our nation. Why shouldn't an important politician visit the Russian embassy on that day? Of course that we have tons of cowards without spine who won't go there just because a radical new form of anti-Russian fascism has become very popular and many people love to align themselves with arbitrarily pathological attitudes if they become popular and able to help their careers – but Klaus has never been one of these spineless creatures.

Another alleged "sin" of Klaus was that he visited the American Institute in Ukraine. Wow.
Klaus espouses inflammatory views on a variety of subjects, some of which Cato happily embraced.
Inflammatory views? LOL, that surely sounds even more dramatic than "antisocialist views" that used to be criticized in the communist press. Why don't you just say the same thing in a neutral language, "politically incorrect views"? They include climate skepticism and Euroskepticism. Again, I don't want to discuss it here again.
[Klaus:] "This is something I had experienced in the communist era but not in so-called free Europe."

No one, of course, was “repressing” Klaus or preventing him from “expressing his views,” something he does with abandon.
Oh, really? So the views are "inflammatory" and the ex-president is fired from an institute due to them and won't be invited to give talks, and Mr Kirchick calls the move "laudatory", but no one is repressing Klaus or preventing him from expressing his views? Have you completely lost your mind, Mr Kirchick?

I have been exposed to those things for years and I must say that the totalitarian attitudes expressed by the PC movement, feminists and similar -ists, are structurally isomorphic to what I have experienced (as a teenage dissident) during communism – except that in contemporary America, these anti-freedom views are being promoted with much more vigor than what I remember from the 1980s when communism was already emptied, decaying, and no one had really believed it anymore. The contemporary American (and other Western) SJWs and similar holy warriors defending the political correctness are probably closer to the communist activists in 1950s when people were still excited by that dangerous ideological trash.

Klaus' extra "sin" was that he has denounced a homosexual pride march and the ideology of homosexualism. He also participated at a meeting:
One of the main speakers was Vladimir Yakunin, head of Russian Railways, longtime friend of Vladimir Putin, and one of the first Russian officials to be targeted with international sanctions following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March.
This is really cute. It must be so bad that Klaus has attended the same conference as Yakunin. Let me tell you something. Klaus' successor, the current Czech president Miloš Zeman, is a close personal friend with Mr Yakunin. It must be shocking for you, right?

But there is nothing shocking about it at all. Zeman and Yakunin are sort of "similar people" – two men who understand economy well, who have lived in the Soviet bloc, and who entered business or politics in the early 1990s when democracy and capitalism began to develop in both countries. Because of the history that Czechia and Russia has shared to a large extent, some differences notwithstanding (of course that I do think that we are well ahead of Russia, and we have always been), we understand each other. These two men could meet and become friends, too.

There are thousands of relationships like that in our part of the world. The fact that Czechia was reintegrated into the family of Western nations doesn't mean that our relationships with folks in the rest of the former Soviet bloc have evaporated. After all, their fate was somewhat analogous to ours. Someone in the U.S. may impose sanctions against Mr Yakunin and similar men and then be surprised that he has friends across Europe but there's nothing surprising about these things at all and the only person in this paragraph who is a complete loser and moron is the guy who has imposed the sanctions against the Russian Railways that have nothing to do with the Ukrainian crisis, even if there were something seriously wrong about the Russian attitude to the tension. At any rate, the (highly counterproductive if not downright insane) U.S. sanctions have absolutely no legal impact on the events in Europe and Russia and because we are a sovereign nation, there clearly is nothing wrong whatsoever about Zeman's meeting with his close friend Yakunin or Klaus' talk at a conference with Yakunin.

The article in The Daily Beast also criticizes Klaus for his "ties with the European far right". That's just silly. He has been a right-wing politician so of course that he is closer to some right-wing parties than most left-wing parties but in Western Europe, he is arguably closest to the UKIP which is no "far right" party at all. According to its mission, the CATO Institute should be rather close to UKIP but it's not. Like the words "racist" etc., the words "far right" have been used for so many rather ordinary if not "centrist" people and organizations that they have become meaningless.

One more crime by Klaus:
In 2007, Klaus was awarded the Pushkin medal from Putin.
LOL, that's really bad. Pushkin must have been a mass murderer of some sort, right?
The following year, when Russia invaded and occupied its small neighbor Georgia, Klaus was the only European leader to blame the Georgians, a position all the more striking coming from the president of a country that itself was invaded and occupied by Russia.
The 2008 conflict was self-evidently started by an attack of Georgia against Russia. Moreover, Czechoslovakia wasn't invaded and occupied by Russia but by 5 Warsaw Pact armies including the USSR which was a federation consisting of 15 states including Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia. What's crucial here is not just that Russia wasn't alone – that it was an invasion of the whole bloc even though Russia was its largest nation – but especially the point that the invasion didn't take place because of some Russian national interests or some intrinsic "evil Russian character" but as a defense of the (non-diluted) communist ideology.

Klaus is apparently not the only "sinner":
On one side are isolationist stalwarts like former presidential candidate Ron Paul, a regular presence on Kremlin-funded propaganda network RT, whose think tank espouses Russian talking points on a variety of issues ranging from Crimea to Syria.
I guess that Ron Paul's name is already written on some blacklist of stalwarts who dare to talk to a "propaganda network". It's Russian-funded but it reveals the information that actually matters, from all sides, and in doing so, it beats not only hopeless PC networks like MSNBC but even some rare oases of sanity such as Fox News, at least when it comes to international politics.

It's organized by the Russian government but the shows are operated mostly by Americans and they know damn well what they are talking about. It's just different Americans who may be labeled as heretics in their home of the brave and the country of the free, right?

You may say that Kirchick is just another tendentious yet irrelevant left-wing inkspiller. However, the problem is that people like this have pretty much hijacked virtually all mainstream media and political or Academic etc. institutions in the U.S. – and maybe even organizations that should know better, such as the CATO Institute. It's sad and another reason to be happy about living in a relatively free country. Given this completely irrational hysteria ironically combining the most radical forms of the "social justice warfare" for the conceivable and inconceivable new "rights" of all minorities you could think of with the anti-Russian xenophobia reaching the proportion of the anti-Semitism of the Nazi Germany of the 1930s, I would be afraid of my very physical safety if I were in the U.S.

One may see that the anti-Russian social engineering that certain people decided to initiate in Ukraine is creating quite some havoc in the West, too.

snail feedback (29) :

Klaus should be very happy to be placed in the same company as Dr. Paul, who is also not looked upon favourably by Cato.

That said, Cato abandoned actual libertarian ideals when it forced Murray Rothbard out after Koch, Crane, and Clark chose to promote the shutting down of nuclear reactors in the United States and wanted to compromise on many of the issues that libertarians had supported. Why was this done? Because Charles Koch, who can be a decent guy on many issues, wanted to have more power and influence in Washington.

We have to also note that Cato supported most of the meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan and has attacked Ron Paul even though his economic and foreign policy predictions have been proven to be correct. While some of the people who work for it are libertarians they quietly avoid disagreeing with the Cato leadership when they stray from libertarian policies.

Personally I have very little faith in anything the oozes out of the Daily Beast so I'm in the process looking for other and much more credible sources...

reader RAF III said...

Lubos - Please don't tempt me like this. I could barely resist telling you that - 'Yes, indeed, Massachusetts Avenue begins and ends in Boston, winding through every state before returning '.
Merry Christmas!!!

The two Mass Aves are roughly parallel, SE to NW, and perpendicular to the line between Boston and DC. Perhaps the Mass Ave signs mark two edges of a 400 mile wide invisible avenue.

Disappointing to hear. There are lots of good people at Cato and they do important work. Of course, not being a libertarian myself, but rather a libertarian leaning conservative, there have always been issues with which I have diverged from Cato. That being said I really wouldn't have expected this. I guess most people in the US are so isolated from the actual facts of what's going on in Eastern Europe that almost no one, even people you might expect to, is even aware of the other side of the story.

It's frightening, actually.

As far as historical parallels go, this reminds me more of WWI than WWII, however. Which is actually more frightening when you realize it was the first World War that shaped the entire subsequent century-and continues to still have ramifications, ie see the Islamic State.

WaPo, CNN, Huff Po, NYT, Daily Beast... I fail to see any significant differences. They are a notch above daytime shows and local news, that's about it.

Their split of topics:

Politics, Entertainment, World, U.S., Tech, Health, BeastStyle, Women, Books

is, ahem, interesting.

They should be sued for having Women at the same level as Books and Tech. Also, what about Homosexuals? That's discrimination!

A depressing tale.
It seems that the entire US leadership , no matter whether red or blue, has a completely blinkered view of the world.
One might have thought that after the obvious disasters our policies have produced, both at home as well as abroad, that there might be some critical reappraisal. One would have been wrong, evidently.
Werdna is quite correct unfortunately, this kind of hubristic bullheadedness is very reminiscent of pre WW1 Europe.

And, when it comes to crazy murderer Brinsley, we can read:

"Perhaps it’s no surprise, given his long criminal record, that he showed a disdain for the government"

Ahh, that nails it.

reader Gene Day said...

Obviously, if CATO even pretends to be a think tank (the word “think” does actually mean something) they should welcome Klaus with open arms. Let Illarionov and Klaus debate whether Hitler’s takeover of Austria is comparable to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. That would be fun to watch.

"WaPo, CNN, Huff Po, NYT, Daily Beast... I fail to see any significant differences"...

Well personally I see them all as blatantly dishonest to their collective core - not so much that they're delivering outright lies but in lies of omission...

and people, too.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Gene, I agree they should have been happy about the links, even or especially when it comes to foreign policy. He's a theorist of a sort but he's also been a great practician. How many fellows do they have who were signing a medium country's entry to NATO etc., who divided a country peacefully (is there really anyone else in the world who led a similar process?), who actually speak Russian and understand what's shaking there, yet who are completely neutral - something normal in Central Europe.

The comparisons of Putin to Hitler are... well, not worth a comment.But if one only talks about the specific comments you mention, I would be willing to say that they were not that infinitely far away.

Of course it was bad that the Third Reich grew when Austria was incorporated - and that was the problem. The current Russia isn't a Nazi state in any sense so of course that this problematic content is absent.

On the other hand, if one looks at it purely geographically and from the viewpoint of people's desires, the Anschluss was totally natural. The whole separation of Austria from the other, Switzerland-excluding German-speaking lands (the latter got unified around 1871 etc., under Prussia) was a bit of an artificial process. The support for Hitler in Austria was pretty much the same as it was in Germany (and similar to the support for reunification among the Crimeans), and Hitler himself was really Austrian, after all. So if I filter away all the superdangerous content of the Third Reich, I do think that the unification of Germany and Austria was natural.

After the war, the re-separation was mostly imposed on allies, as a tool to discourage a German-speaking aggressive hegemony over not-just-central Europe. And Germans and Austrians got used to their being "two different nations" again. But I would say it doesn't have too deep reasons.

This was one of 5 questions - others were Ukraine, Spanish Civil War etc. - I would ask my classmate, a history professor (who was insanely good in history already at the basic school) during the basic school reunion a month ago. George Stočes would emphasize that the traditional interpretation of the "nation" in Europe was territorially based – much like what Americans still use today – not cultural/racial. People lived on the same territory under the same feudal, spoke different languages, and considered themselves a nation.

The rise of the nation states is linked to the 19th century or so. Of course, it's an explosive question which of the two setups, which of the two interpretations of a "nation", is the more modern and refined one. In Europe, the nation states are so inseparable from the transition from the 18th or 19th century to the 20th century that we must view the cultural/ethnic nations as the more modern concept. It could have been a path in a wrong direction, too. Those things can't be changed easily.

reader Luboš Motl said...

A fascinating Klaus video I just ran into minutes ago - the first "before the Velvet Revolution" video with him I saw:

(Klaus-related segments have Czech subtitles that have to be activated)

It's on Austrian TV, on November 12th, 1989, five days before the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia started. He was there as a "national economist and forecaster" and was saying he couldn't forecast how quickly the reforms would accelerate etc. He said that the market economy was the only possible outcome, Czechoslovakia's economy was OK but with the system of that time, it couldn't survive the year 2000, that the reforms in Czechoslovakia were slow not only because of politicians but because there's insufficient popular demand among the silent majority, and that he was preferring a smooth, crisis-free path to the market economy that must be carefully built because it may otherwise bring lots of problems.

Extremely reasonable and it's fun to see how these intelligent views lived in a "grey zone". On one hand, he was presented as a legally kosher guy, not a dissident, on the other hand, he was self-evidently completely independent of the communist regime.

The same video with German subtitles in the whole hour:

Czech can't be an average country when Russia is 200 times in size.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Mike, yours is a really, really lame comment.

First of all, you reveal your complete ignorance of geography by calling a country "Czech". The word "Czech" is an adjective. The official English name of the country is Czechia.

Second, your argument is logically wrong. If Russia covered almost all territory of the world, a country with 1/200 of Russia's area would be "above the average" country (by territory) because there are over 200 countries in the world.

Third, one must distinguish which kind of average we talk about - arithmetic, geometric, median - and what quantity we use in the first place - area, population.

Taking the medians - i.e. the rankings - Czechia is 117th out of 249

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area

by area, which is (a ranking) very slightly above the average, and 84th by population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

which is (a ranking) somewhat more clearly above the average but still close to the average. One gets a similar result when using the geometric averages because the countries are sorted pretty uniformly on the log scale.

On the arithmetic scale, taking arithmetic averages, it's a bit different. The land area on Earth is 150 million squared kilometers. Divide by 249, you get 600,000 squared kilometers, and Czechia is almost 8 times smaller than that. But countries with that area, like Ukraine, are near the 50th place, clearly above the middle of the ranking.

But the relevant quote by the writer - and mine - was clearly referring to the population because that's what decides on whether a nation feels too small for someone, which was the context. 7 billion over 247 is about 28 million, which is just 2.6 times the population of Czechia. This factor may be considered very close to 1, given the high spread of the populations. A factor of 2.6 only corresponds to the change of ranking by 35 countries or so, small relatively to 247, and not changing Czechia's place near the middle qualitatively.

Some methods put Czechia somewhat above the average, others below the average, but all these deviations are statistically insignificant and support the claim that Czechia is the ultimate average country on Earth.

You are way off. I was thinking in terms of arithmetic average, and I am starting with less than 200 countries.(Sporcles uses 1997 including Palestine). That is why I compared with Russia at 200 times.
I didn't think you meant population since the country is about less than 20 million.

I am aware that Czech is the adjective but have never seen Czechia. Of course I am used to writing Czechoslovakia.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I know that you have never seen the word Czechia. That's one of the dozens of reasons why I am saying that you are completely ignorant about geography and you should better shut up and not talk about things you have no idea about.

I have to wonder why you have such a grudge against someone whose main contribution is to further the art of measuring the climate, whatever their politics. A more cynical person than myself (and lesser, to be honest) would think you're worried that the evidence towards global warning would increase with new measurement tools. If you find fault with his work, he'd be the first to want to know where he went wrong and fix it.
How can you expect science to reach a correct conclusion on something if you exclude those who disagree with you? Scientists are supposed to do battle with studies, experiment and hard work (of which Gerrit has done plenty). Hyperbole and personal attacks are for the daily governmental bunfights that politicians engage in.
In case you didn't know, a lot of the brightest scientists are decidedly quirky. That quirkiness doesn't detract from what they happen to be very good at, despite what lesser people think. Communist or fascist it matters not, what matters is the science.

Bitching! I would rather have enjoyed reading criticism on the idea than the persona. Shame!

Hello there! Thank you for this amusing post. I feel honoured that you went to check out my (15 year old) home page and my (not so old) PhD thesis for discussion material. At least you're not misquoting me in that part, like you do where you attribute particular scientific views to me in your first paragraphs.

I didn't realise until now that I didn't get my PhD thesis for scientific contributions, but for my political activism. That's why I had to show my socialist party membership card at my defence, of course¹! And somehow I must have misunderstood my colleague scientists whenever we were discussing politics over coffee or lunch. Clearly we all agreed, for if politics are not approved by the Party, Greenpeace, Ted Kaczynski, and the pleasant postgenderists of Deep Green Resistance, one will never get succesfully passed the panel during a PhD defence.

And oh, the crime of linking to other people's work in the introduction of my thesis! "A bogus ecological paper" (better known as the 4th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) indeed compiles a vast body of science attributing climate change to human activities. I do apologise for not replicating all this science, but being a parrot and accepting the main conclusions as they are. After all, citing other papers implies the inability to think critically and independently. By the way, did you use "ecological" as an insult here?

And clearly, modelling the climate is very simple. More uniform surface temperatures, less extreme precipitation. That's why we don't see intense rainfall in the tropics, because temperatures are relatively constant there. Clearly, a more uniform global temperature means we can finally use those classroom models with an isothermal atmosphere. Great! See also https://xkcd.com/793/

I look forward to our next focussed discussion on elements of physics of the climate system. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the Earth Science Stack Exchange ? It might be contaminated by "dishonest left-wing extremists" already, join before it's too late!

best regards,
Gerrit Holl.

¹One friend who did his PhD in southern Germany had to declare he had never been a member of the Communist Party, in order to get admitted as a PhD candidate. I guess this university cannot possibly produce climate scientists?

how incredibly childish of you, you cannot simply debate, you have to resort to nasty name calling, such as parrot. can you not act in a professional manner when dealing with a scientist? you may not like his results, but to attack like this is truly pathetic, shame on you

reader Luboš Motl said...

The problem isn't that someone who is a communist or a socialist or environmentalist activists or another crap like this gets a PhD in a scientific discipline.

The problem is that PhDs in your discipline are being distributed for these political attitudes - which also means that no one *else* can get it.

That's why your degree is just a joke and I certainly don't recognize it.

"The problem is that PhDs in your discipline are being distributed for
these political attitudes - which also means that no one *else* can get
it."

That's an interesting claim. Extraordinary I would say, even. And remember what Carl Sagan said about extraordinary claims, so I am curious to hear your evidence backing this up. Moreso because Gerrit essentially brought up some (weak, but nonzero) evidence to the contrary already...

"A coincidence? I don't think so. I think this is an example of the way
how people like you fraudulently manipulate with discussions, texts,
everything. At any rate, I banned them immediately."

Maybe, just maybe, it's indeed not a coincidence. But to infer from that so directly that there's fraudulent maniuplation going on? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Maybe think harder, there may be other explanations.

"At any rate, I banned them immediately."

Because, of course, silencing dissenting voices is the right way to respond if you suspect others of doing just that. That's not a way toward scientific progress, now is it?

And oh, I'm a logician, not a physicist or climate scientist, so I'll refrain from commenting about the physics and climate science involved, and just focus on your dismal reasoning instead.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Joost, everyone who follows this at some level knows that this whole global warming hoax is an ideologically-driven pseudoscience and over 90% of the current climate science community was hired from the selection of left-wingers and corruptible individuals with the very purpose of spreading or maintaining or resuscitating this hysteria.

There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that climate change is natural and safe. It's been natural and safe for 4.6 billion years.

What is extraordinary is the claim by individuals like you that a gas that makes 0.0004% of the volume of the atmosphere - and that used to be 10+ times higher at various points of the geological history - may pose a threat to the planet or ecosystems that hasn't existed for millions or billions of years.

It is you who is making these insanely weird claims and who would need extraordinary evidence. In reality, you don't have any evidence whatsoever.

Banning and suppressing trolls that introduce just noise, lies (usually 100 or at least 97 times repeated lies), and dishonesty is a vital prerequisite for the scientific research or reaching the truth, so of course that I banned you immediately as well.

I think that the "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" related to the claim that climate scientists are all on hired because they are on the far left, not the claim that there is no anthropogenic climate change. It is indeed a strong claim that climate change is partly caused by humans, and that's why there is a large body of evidence summarised in the IPCC reports.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I am sure that you know that I am right and you are wrong but if you are really honestly clueless, why don't you read some literature about the subject e.g. this?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762