This from Chris Horner at PJ Media:
Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs†energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.
Professor Calzada called a terrorism expert in to handle the package. The expert evidently told him, this was a warning:
This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this story.
Update: June 26
Later reports in Spanish media and discussions in comments indicate the contents of the box which appeared to be items that could be assembled into a crude bomb were spare parts accidentally mailed in place of a report. Everyone in Spain seems to be apologizing to each other for the mix-up.
PJ media has updated there story as follows:
Update: A Spanish correspondent is following this story for us in the Spanish media; there are some reports that the underlying issue was a courier error , compounded by the less tangible threats and attacks Calzada has suffered. We continue to follow the story and will keep readers informed. — Editors.
Currently, it appears that the wording of Chris Horner’s story should been something like, “was mailed something that appears to be an un-assembled bomb” rather than “was mailed a dismantled bomb”.
Update: June 27
PJ Media has posted a 2nd update. Charlie Martin alerted me at 10:59 CST (at which time I was out running errands). The update reads:
Further update: There have been some developments since this was published. The short version is that a series of co-incidences led Gabriel Calzada to believe a package was a bomb threat. Let’s just review what Calzada was responding to: he received an unsolicited package addressed as from a “green†company. Thermotechnic. When he called to ask about it, he was told “It’s our response to your study [on green jobs]“.
It didn’t look like, or feel like, a letter or report, so at that point Calzada got a security guard to scan it — and what was inside was a cylindrical object with wires attached. At that point, the security guard got an expert to examine it, with others in attendance. The contents were a container for diesel of some sort, and some other parts. The expert saw this as a bomb threat, based on a pattern used by, eg, ETA: “This one is a hoax bomb. The next one might not be.â€
So Calzada took this as a threat based on the experts’ opinions. Remember that Calzada has been viciously attacked for having had the temerity to publish a study that questioned the economic effectiveness of “green jobs†in Spain, including having been threatened personally and professionally. It was at that point Horner wrote this piece.
Since then, especially following the controversy becoming public in the Spanish press, the company contacted Calzada; what appears to have happened is this:
* A package containing car parts was swapped for a package containing a report intended for Calzada.
* The Thermotechnic person Calzada contacted said something that was ambiguous.
* Calzada, already the subject of threats and intimidation, relied on expert opinion that it was a bomb threat.As further information became available, it became clear it was a misunderstanding based on several coincidences. Calzada has written an open letter explaining this in detail, and now agrees there was no threat from Thermotechnic.
For further discussion, read the comments.
It appears yellow badges won’t be enough. Skeptics should start wearing bullet-proof vests.
Do bullet proof vest provide sufficient protection against bombs?
Put this page (might start your printer)
http://www.libertaddigital.com/c.php?op=imprimir&id=1276395934
through google translate (crappy at times, but the only one I know)
http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en
Thermotechnic claims there was a mix-up (internally / messenger service?) and the packet was a packet of spare parts.
I’m very skeptical about the initial report.
a) sending a bomb, even if disassembled, would be a crime
b) why is the police not involved?
c) who in his right mind sends a bomb, disassembled or not, with his own address attached.
d) no mention of explosives
If you want to follow this:
http://news.google.es/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=es&hl=es&q=Gabriel+Calzada
Sadly, the original story is believable, given the level of civility in Spain currently. On the other hand, if the police has not been actually notified, I think some skepticism is advisable…
He was an economist, perhaps they were expecting the invisible hand to complete the assembly ?
lucia,
Nope, only your torso would be left intact.
bluegrue,
Who knows if the police have been contacted (or not)?
Oh … spare parts. Companies always send “spare parts” to critics. Happens all the time.
BTW, the Libertad Digital story says, Thermotechnic had sent a report on renewable energy in response to an article written by Calzada, and sent to him at his think tank Instituto Juan de Mariana. This nicely explains the bit about
Going by another article in Expansion, the packet contained a fuel filter and a piece of wire. I would not think that this constitutes a threat. If it had been an anonymous package, this would be something else.
bluegrue–
Let’s hope it is a mixup. Someone needs to interview the terrorism expert.
Artifex,
LOL. I hope he doesn’t hold his breath.
bluegrue,
Yeah, the first thing that went through my mind when reading this was: hoax. If you wanted to intimidate someone this way you don’t leave a trail of bread crumbs so the authorities can put you in prison. I smell a fish.
i have taken a look at the study by Calzada some time ago. i think it is complete bogus.
,.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
.
so i will wait a little longer on this story…
Mildly off-topic; it would be funny, if it weren’t so sad:
Google translate translates “Libertad Digital” as “ABC News” and “el Senado” as “U.S. Congress”. You can take USAcentrism way too far. Ouch!
Sod–
Could you elaborate on what’s bogus about the study?
Mind you, whether or not it’s bogus is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of what’s up with the spare parts/dismantled bomb sent with a return address issue.
Sod [46757]
All European “green energy” subsidies have been unmitigated economic disasters and are being wound down all through the EU. Germany canned its programs last year when a government study showed that for a period of some 10 years each “green” job had been subsidized to the tune of $150,000 per year[ yes, Josephine..]. The Spanish solar electricity subsidies are so lucrative that those who signed up for the scheme routinely used cheap grid electricity to illuminate solar panels at night to generate high payback “solar” electricity….
Bogus, you say?
And yes, we do know from experience in the biotech sector that fanatic antis will in fact firebomb cars and send letter bombs to those they don’t like.
Lucia,
These two posts might help explain why the study has some problems.
Of course, you could also do exactly this: send some totally harmless stuff, get the recipient to worry about it for a while, then claim it was a mix-up. At worst you could be accused of having played a practical joke on somebody you don’t like. At best, people would just believe the mix-up story.
Dr. Calzada can’t be faulted for lack of imagination.
I’m surprised more people weren’t skeptical of his story.
“The expert evidently told him, this was a warming”
Should read warning. We have already enough warming !
Julio, if you were to write a report about the story, would you write “fuel filter and a wire” or would you write “dismantled bomb”?
Yes, I know, you can threaten people by just asking “How are your children?” However, sometimes an error is just that. BTW, if you suspect a bomb, do you call an “expert” who “thinks he knows what it is” and stand around while the package is opened or do you call the bomb squad?
That Calzada reported it is a story. What we don’t know is what happened.
Similarly, the massage therapist reporting stuff about Gore is a story. We just don’t know whether she’s making stuff up or if Gore was a naughty boy.
bluegrue
Good point. There so much in the story that doesn’t make sense. If I was in his position, I’d leave the building before the ‘expert’ opened the package.
Lucia, on the source of this news http://www.expansion.com/2010/06/24/opinion/tribunas/1277399007.html says the package cotained a gasoil filter, not a dismantled bomb. The article does say it could be a warning, for a bomb, but it seems a bit way off.
What you’ve got now is pretty much a confused rumor. You can try to discuss it at this stage if you want, but I don’t see what there is to discuss; we don’t have any clue what, if anything, happened.
lucia (Comment#46778) June 24th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
I’m surprised more people weren’t skeptical of his story.
That Calzada reported it is a story. What we don’t know is what happened.
Similarly, the massage therapist reporting stuff about Gore is a story. We just don’t know whether she’s making stuff up or if Gore was a naughty boy.
—————–
True, he alleges a threat from Thermotechnic, and that’s a story. But where’s the evidence a threat was intended?
Chris Horner links to one of the spanish articles saying “(Click here for coverage on this incident from Spanish media.)”
Well, in the lead the content of the package is called a “bomba simulada”, a bomb mock-up. In the body they are more specific, the content of the package turns out to be
a petrol filter and a wire that can be attached to it.
I find it intriguing, how Horner turns this into a “Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts” (Horner’s emphasis).
The Spanish article linked by Horner calls it a bomb mock-up (una bomba simulada) in the lead and details the package contents as an petrol filter and a piece of wire (un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podÃa adaptarse al filtro). How Horner turns this into “Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts” (his emphasis) is beyond me.
BTW, I’ve repeatedly run into “500 Internal Server Error”. Am I the only one?
“That Calzada reported it is a story. What we don’t know is what happened.
Similarly, the massage therapist reporting stuff about Gore is a story. We just don’t know whether she’s making stuff up or if Gore was a naughty boy.”
I respectfully disagree. These are facts — but to be stories, they need to pass the basic test of a story, which is newsworthiness. Allegations against anyone which are not credible are not news — unless the person making the allegation is so prominent or trusted that their making an unfounded accusation would be a story in any case.
Part of journalism is presenting the facts and letting people decide, but so is reporting accurately and fairly, which requires some discrimination and care.
“Do bullet proof vest provide sufficient protection against bombs?”
Blast injuries come in a number of flavors, including penetrating trauma from fragments of the bomb or its surroundings, barotrauma from the pressure wave, and secondary impacts after being thrown. Small bombs, letter bombs being one example, are sometimes packed with nails or other shrapnel to increase their lethality. Bullet-proof or ballistic vests offer protection from fragments to (most critically) the heart and the lungs. Obviously it’s not complete protection.
“All European “green energy†subsidies have been unmitigated economic disasters and are being wound down all through the EU.”
Certainly subsidies will never be as efficient as a good stiff carbon tax. Subsidies can be expensive, but of course it’s hard to put a price on a livable planet.
I’m going out on a limb here, but when the dust has settled and this turns out to be something else entirely can we then put Chris Horner on a black list? You know, the list of ‘we don’t take this person seriously because he has been proven to have lied, disinformed and/or distorted’? After that we can add Lawrence Solomon and Jonathan Leake, for starters. We can put alarmist PR spinners on it too.
When I see the name Chris Horner I know something isn’t right. Up till now every time I have followed up this feeling turned out to be spot on. Chris Horner is a liar.
The “Dismantled Bomb Parts” bit does not come from the Spanish article Horner links to for further coverage. The call it a bomb mock-up in the lead of the article and in the body they detail the fuel filter and the piece of wire, as has been mentioned upthread. Did Horner sex up the story?
Robert–
Sometimes, the story is that allegations were made. Then, the story will be why were they made?
Maybe he just can’t read Spanish.
The internet enables many useful things, but it also allows the reporting of half-baked stories like this. Maybe in a couple days things will be clearer.
“Sometimes, the story is that allegations were made. Then, the story will be why were they made?”
I agree, but as I said, I would argue that the newsworthiness of the allegation is related to the person making the allegation, as well as whether there is any supporting evidence, etc. Simply the fact that somebody said something bad about a famous person or corporation is not enough — it’s a very common phenomenon. On the other hand, if Sarah Palin accuses Barack Obama of child molestation, that is news whether it’s true or it’s false.
With any accused person, famous or not, a false allegation can be very destructive. If a newspaper wrote that a chef was accused of mixing rat meat in his stews, the damage to that person would be significant even if the accusation is not supported and even if the newspaper later reports that the allegation has been refuted. So the journalist has a responsibility, I think, in most cases, to assess the credibility of an accusation before passing it on as news.
I wonder what the bloody thing looked like? If you were to take a fuel filter, attached a wire to it and then mailed it to the FBII, would their sense of humor win the day? I do think Chris Horner was a bit premature with this one, though… I can believe either an innocent mixup or a crude attempt at intimidation, but facts seem to be in short supply. It is much too soon to defend, accuse or speculate….
Robert– A photo would be useful here. Something peculiar was mailed. The recipient was expecting this. Clearly tensions are high possibly over disputes about the green jobs report. I suspect by tomorrow we’ll have a photo.
Certainly calling it a dismantled bomb was misleading, to say the least.
I don’t for a moment believe this was a threat in the sense that they would actually intend to send him a real bomb next time. But I find the “prank – to – harassment” (pick a point in that spectrum) hypothesis plausible, if not originating with the director of the company then with somebody farther down.
Julio (Comment#46849) June 24th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
if you were to write a report about the story, would you write “fuel filter and a wire†or would you write “dismantled bomb�
Certainly calling it a dismantled bomb was misleading, to say the least.
I don’t for a moment believe this was a threat in the sense that they would actually intend to send him a real bomb next time. But I find the “prank – to – harassment†(pick a point in that spectrum) hypothesis plausible, if not originating with the director of the company then with somebody farther down.
=====
I don’t know what happened, but wouldn’t a mix-up in the shipping department be just as plausible if the fuel filter and wire were supposed to be shipped elsewhere for a legitimate use ?
Re: Max (Comment#46850)
…yes, of course. “Never attribute to a conspiracy what could also be explained by simple incompetence” remains a useful guideline. But one should at least expect to find an invoice in the box, or some kind of an explanation of who or what the parts were intended for (always depending, of course, on the level of incompetence we are dealing with here…)
.
It can’t be. Chris Horner always tells the truth.
Julio (Comment#46851) June 24th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Re: Max (Comment#46850)
I don’t know what happened, but wouldn’t a mix-up in the shipping department be just as plausible if the fuel filter and wire were supposed to be shipped elsewhere for a legitimate use ?
…yes, of course. “Never attribute to a conspiracy what could also be explained by simple incompetence†remains a useful guideline. But one should at least expect to find an invoice in the box, or some kind of an explanation of who or what the parts were intended for (always depending, of course, on the level of incompetence we are dealing with here…)
————
For a translation of comments by Pedro Gil, owner of Thermotechnic, see post 3 at
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/pajamas-media-reports-bomb-threat-to-skeptic-economist/#more-9343
Sod–
Could you elaborate on what’s bogus about the study?
Mind you, whether or not it’s bogus is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of what’s up with the spare parts/dismantled bomb sent with a return address issue.
.
i know that it is not entirely on-topic. that is the reason, why i posted only a short reply.
.
the article is weak, and extremely biased. everyone reading it, should notice. basically he picks the lowest job creation number he could find, and then invents a method, to create extremely high job destruction numbers.
.
solar energy has made massive progress in countries like Spain and Germany, which supported the introduction. somehow, “sceptics” are trying to spin this into a disaster, while at the same time lamenting that alternatives will never provide significant amounts of energy.
.
solar should achieve grid parity in Spain soon. it will still need help, to overcome front load costs.
this is one of the few things, that i think we can be optimistic about…
.
ps: the link to his article is important, because you will learn a lot about him, by reading it.
Sod, you are a piece of work. I just finished reading his report and he picked a job creation figure higher than others but lower than what he argued was a flawed approach. His “invented” approach to job destruction numbers seemed reasonable, but perhaps I missed something: has someone else examined that problem with a more reasonable approach or is his work as ground-breaking as he claims? As for your claim of “grid parity” for solar, just what the heck does that mean? Solar power, even in Spain, still produces the least generation and does it at something like 500% the cost of conventional. The only cause for optimism in Spain is that they actually achieved their renewable goals, which surprised me, but they are still a step away from being the next Greece. Forget brevity, a detailed analysis of the flaws would be desirable…. I’d bet almost anything that Lucia would give you your own thread if you produced something detailed that we could sink our fangs into rather than ex cathedra pronouncements.
Okay, that’s it. I’m convinced. Anyone who agrees with AGW theory is either a Nazi, a Secret commie cop, a terrorist or a rapist.
Sod
Oh, I think it’s on topic. I just mean that whether or not the report is bogus doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not a package was sent, what exactly was in it, whether “dismantled bomb” is totally dreadful hash of “simulated bomb” or anything else about the bomb story.
I did want to know what you thought was bogus about the report which may (or may not) have motivated the mailing of either a simulated bomb or a report, which somehow turned into spare parts for something.
Calzada should stay off the mashed potatoes for awhile.
Members of the list
Need royal letter openers.
Whisper with a bang.
=================
All the Spanish sources either detail it as a fuel filter, spare parts or in the lead of one article “bomba simulada”. Now, I don’t speak Spanish, but I’m not afraid of using a dictionary. simulada comes from simular
So Calzada considers the content of the package to be something feigning/pretending to be a bomb. Isn’t the English expression for something like this “dummy bomb” or “mock-up bomb”? Why not translate in context instead of inventing the new expression “simulated bomb”?
BTW, “bomba” also has the meaning of “pump”, obviously wrong in this context. 😉
So to come back to the start of this comment, yes, “dismantled bomb†is a totally dreadful hash of the Spanish source. It’s a game of Chinese Whispers at work.
I wonder what sod’s reaction would have been if the recipient had been named Gore or Hansen?
Lucia, not you too…
That terrorism expert, or terrorism consultant was an “agente de seguridad” – a security guard – not someone usually employed for their brainpower (I’m sorry but it’s true). The terrorism expertise was very creatively invented due to his previously being a bodyguard in the Basque country where he’d seen suspicious packages arrive in the mail too. Well ok, but eta don’t send anyone diesel oil filters!
This is actually a quite good test of real skepticism, as opposed to the phony, “this suits my dogma”, kind of skepticism. Chris Horner abjectly fails and so do most of the WattsUp Wingnuts. The only person who spotted the hoax at Wattsup was Nick Stokes.
As Calzada is clearly more concerned with phony propaganda than reality, his study now warrants a much closer look. Mind you, intrinsically though I’d imagine 2.2 replacement jobs was about right, but since most government jobs (especially in Spain) seem to take 2 people to do a one person job, it’s not even that earth-shattering.
It’s important to know that Mariano Rajoy’s Partido Popular oppose absolutely everything that Zapatero does just on principle and it doesn’t really matter whether the idea is good or bad. Calzada is now revealed through the pages of this PP organ to be a PP mouthpiece, so he is not the undogmatic, independent energy assessor that some people lie to portray.
This screams more data,
But how to separate the noise?
Money, the ticket.
============
Re: bluegrue (Jun 25 06:23),
Sorry, I wasn’t clear in conveying my thoughts.
I agree the literal translation is different. What I’m wondering is that if you substitute “simulated bomb” for “dismantled bomb” in Horners story, does that really make any difference to any message you might think a sender intended to convey? I wouldn’t.
I think that if someone actually sent a simulated bomb, with the intention that the contents be perceived as “something like a bomb” then that person would be trying to be obnoxious in some way. Either they are trying to convey a subtle threat, sending an nasty joke or something. The same goes if it’s a dismantled bomb, or parts that could be easily turned into a bomb or what not.
So, in this sense, does the literal translation of the words matter? Or is what matters whether or not the contents of the box appeared to contain something that would make people who opened in it think, “This is inoperative, but it’s a bomb-like thing?”
Lucia,
“I’m sure we’ll here more about this story.”
Well, it’s been out for more than 24 hours now. No further mention in the Spanish media. In fact, the original story was on the opinion page of Expansion, the minorfinancial paper where Calzada writes. They haven’t even reported it in their news section. There’s no mention of police anywhere.
Just two stories – Expansion, and the on-line Libertad.
How many people who call themselves “skeptics” swallowed this story in half a gulp?
Re: lucia (Jun 25 07:16),
I thought this is a skeptics blog, so let’s keep facts and interpretation apart.
Facts:
– Calzada got a package from a company containing a fuel filter and a piece of wire.
– When calling the company, “they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.”
– The company claims it’s a mix-up, they intended to send a report of theirs relevent to Calzeda’s articles.
– Calzada did not call a bomb squad, but left the package a few days (16th-22nd) sitting in his office
– Calazada accepts that the companies boss is honest and had nothing to do with this
Possible scenarios:
– a threat
– a mix-up
– a practical joke (of the bad kind)
So there is a very strong difference to the readers of Horner’s story, whether it is called “dismantled bomb” or “dummy bomb”. A dismantled bomb still contains explosives, a mechanism that can set it off (e.g. a blasting cap) in short, lots of stuff that is still dangerous, even in dismantled form. Horner never comes to telling his readers, that it was a fuel filter. So not a single reader that only reads Horner’s article or – worse – just the headline will even consider the idea, that it may have been a mix-up or a bad joke. By talking of “bomb” you already make up the mind of the reader.
JamesG –
I agree with you that this story is a pretty good test of scepticism – there are many strange aspects to it that should set alarm bells ringing – but lets just check your scepticism out, with regard to your comments about WattsUp.
There are plenty of critical comments on the WattsUp article. SimonH – the post immediately after Nick Stoke’s comment – is sceptical, and shortly after that, Max Hugoson, Wren (short comment appears sceptical, I think), Pamela Gray, Graeme W, anna v, Dave Springer… and all of these long posted before you posted up above (unless there is a 12 hour difference between the timestamps here and WattsUp, which seems unlikely)
I’m all for scepticism and accurate reporting, and this story makes an interesting benchmark. Your post claiming only Nick Stokes was sceptical on WattsUp is just another example of sloppy, inaccurate, propagandist reporting. What is more remarkable is that your statement can be trivially falsified by anyone with access to the internet. What did you hope to achieve with that?
Spence_UK
What did I hope to achieve? Nothing! I accept your correction. I guess I just can’t stand reading Wattsup for too long now after that appalling GlennBeckian screed by Schmitt the astronaut. I humbly apologize to those other real skeptics who have stronger stomachs than I. While late, at least I seem to be the first to have unmasked the phantom expert terrorist consultant as a mere security guard.
Seems like translation is still a major problem. People use those google translators and it’s garbage out. I once saw an essay where Accounts receivable and Accounts payable were translated as Arrivals and Departures :)))
The only comment I have on the subject is that renewable energy is big business in Europe so there’s interest groups. I can see a point in certain level of subsidy for wind but solar…. what’s the point in paying 10 times the going rate for PV? Waste of money.
The Danes and the Dutch have shown the only real way to make money with wind energy: by building wind turbines for other countries. However, recession has hit them, too:
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/9070/vestas-from-profit-to-loss-in-q1/
It’s no less complicated in Finland: the Helsinki City Council is planning to heat Helsinki with wood. The alternative nuclear district heat was turned down:
http://www.fortum.com/news_section_item.asp?path=14022;14024;14026;25730;551;50776
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Burning+wood+chips+would+bring+timber+truck+rally+to+Helsinki/1135249337577
Yeah, this smells of the same stink that Ben Santer tried to push.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15176317?source=rss&nclick_check=1
“Yellow Hummer” and “Dead Rat”. Hmmm…
I’ve seen google translate reverse the meaning of a sentence into its opposite. Between my German, English and shreds of Latin that refuse to leave me, I can recognize where trouble may be and feel my way around with a dictionary. So yes, google translate is dangerous, if you take it at face value.
Jarmo
“what’s the point in paying 10 times the going rate for PV?”.
It is clearly an artificial acceleration. The more manufactured, the more the price drops. And it’s been dropping quite a lot even in the last few years. That 2.2/1 green jobs ratio would eventually have become 1/1 too. Meantime fossil fuels are going to keep going up in price. Some might call this pragmatic – especially in very sunny countries. I tried to get solar power when I was there but it was too darn expensive. There is an absolutely huge potential market but it’s an impenetrable conundrum: Nobody could buy so they didn’t manufacture more, so the price couldn’t drop and so nobody could buy.
i confess that I haven’t read all of the comments so my apologies is this has already been mentioned.
I suspect that this is not politically oriented terrorism but classic economically motivated extortion by organized crime.
Thomas Fuller has done some very interesting research into the connections btwn organized crime and recipients of massive green funding pages.
Anytime that huge funds are being doled out for poorly overseen projects you can be certain that criminal elements are paying close attention.
Re: bluegrue (Comment#46894)
a dummy bomb is still a message and a threat
Eric, what if it’s not even a dummy bomb? What if he accidentally got sent some spare parts? You might poo poo the idea but you should at least entertain the possibility. Especially in the absence of evidence.
Eric
Yes a dummy bomb would be! An oil filter, not so much :).
I guess Fuller is talking about incidents such as the Calabrian Mafia. Thing is organised criminals aren’t fussy…. they extort everyone, including fossil fuel companies and government officials. Often they even get elected as in Russia. In the past they’ve even been US presidential advisors. In fact, if it wasn’t for Eisenhower there wouldn’t even be any Mafia in Italy – Mussolini had destroyed them.
Actually I meant elected in Ukraine…..
Been reading comments now…
Interesting that this argument breaks down along the same commenter lines as does every other issue discussed here. In my mind it is completely orthogonal.
Sod and Boris… here is a bone: The contractors who are awarded the huge contracts to build wind farms and such are not typically your nice, good guy, liberal-enviro bleeding hearts. Instead they are huge construction firms with byzantine ownership & control and little oversight. These guys are motivated by money and power, and are largely accountable to no one.
They are not, like you, interested in saving the earth. A plausibly deniable threat to somebody who is on record trying to stop their gravy train is not the slightest bit surprising to me.
That said, of course this could be a misunderstanding or even Calzeda just trying to manufacture some PR…
the threat theory seems at least equally likely to me. But I don’t see why this idea threatens you guys.
JamesG & Mark
yes – organized crime is pervasive wherever there is money and little oversight.
yes – maybe he was sent spare parts by accident. He doesn’t seem to think so.
and maybe he was sent spare parts intended to look like a disassembled bomb… the sender gets to say oops, no harm no foul, but Calzada still gets the message.
I am entertaining all possibilities… one of them is seeming more likely to me.
James G:
“The more manufactured, the more the price drops. And it’s been dropping quite a lot even in the last few years.”
You just don’t get it: The price of electricity does not drop because governments have promised to pay the set subsidy for PV or wind for 20-25 years. See the UK tariffs that they pay for generating electricity for yourself (you don’t have to sell it but if you do, there’s an added bonus)
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/
Tropical countries are OK for PV but Germany or the UK? The subsidies just put money into projects that are not viable and waste money. The money could be put into projects that would yield several times more effective reductions in CO2 emissions. To give an example, in 2008 Germany produced 0.6% of their electricity with PV at net cost of 8.4 billion euros. The CO2 abatement cost with PV was over 700 euros/tonne. The market price of CO2 tonne in EU ETS is right now around 12-15 euros per tonne.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf
Eric, I take issue with Horner’s report. He simply eliminates the possibility that it’s benign from the thoughts of his readers. Three possible headlines, all with different results in the readership:
– Oil filter sent to Spanish Economist, considers it a dummy bomb threat
– Dummy bomb sent to Spanish Economist
– Dismantled Bomb sent to Spanish Economist
See what I mean?
And as I’ve said before, under the proper circumstances the simple question “How are your children?” can be a fundamental threat.
Sod:
Spain’s current unemployment rate is about 20%. I do not know how much of this is because of, or in spite of, Spain’s commitment to green technologies. What I know is that if I were the president of the US, trying to make the case to Congress that investing in green technologies is the way to solve this country’s own unemployment problem, I would certainly not hold Spain up as an example.
Nor would I if I were trying to make the case that green technologies would eventually pay for themselves. Spain’s electricity sector has managed to rake up a deficit of 18 billion euros in the past 8 years. Of course, some of this has been passed on to the consumers. The average industrial electricity bill went up about 40% in the past 6 years.
Sadly, Spain today is a much better poster case for the anti-Copenhagen crowd than for the other side.
Bluegrue:
Horner says in the report that Calzada is a personal friend. He even acknowledges the he owes Calzada a debt of gratitude. You were expecting an “attack the victim” piece?!
Fact:
Calzada was sent a mysterious box by a company that is threatened by work Calzada has published. The box contained random spare parts that sort of, my have, looked like a disassembled bomb.
Allegation:
Horner writes that upon receipt of the box Calazada was suspicious enough to call the sender and that Calazada was told by the sender that “it was their answer to my energy pieces.”
If that allegation is correct that this situation needs to be considered threat and investigated as extortion/racketeering.
Of course it was artfully done so that nothing can be proven. Oops, I meant to send flowers, not a fake dismantled bomb! How embarassing!! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge… we know where to find you.
“Robert– A photo would be useful here. Something peculiar was mailed.”
I agree completely. Also interesting would be a police report, and a quote from Thermotechnic. The “terrorism expert” should be identified by name and corroboration of Calzada’s account sought. When I was a reporter, a story like this would have those things, or an explanation of their absence (the package was not reported to the police, the terrorism expert refuses to speak on the record, etc.) If it didn’t have those things, my story would be headed for the spike.
Blogging is obviously a little different from journalism. Not all the same standards apply. How exactly it’s different in its ethos I don’t think has really been resolved. But the ethos of good, professional reporting certainly is relevant to the blogger. To paraphrase Spider-Man: With some readers comes some responsibility.
Jarmo (Comment#46926) June 25th, 2010 at 10:36 am
“The price of electricity does not drop because governments have promised to pay the set subsidy for PV or wind for 20-25 years. See the UK tariffs that they pay for generating electricity for yourself”
We have had similar similar tariffs in Washington State for PV energy since 2005(54 cents/kw if the panel is made in washington state). Seattle City Light, with 395,000 customers, has all of 150 customers with PV panels. Of course it is ‘net metering’ for the billing period. I.E. You get nothing if you use more electricity in a month then the panel produces.
Robert–
I asked Charlie Martin if someone has interviewed the terrorism expert.
Re: bluegrue (Jun 25 10:40),
The difficulty is the time line. Did the news report saying it’s an oil filter come out after Chris wrote his story? Chris typically writes editorials; in this case, he may also have discussed the story with his friend. But Chris does not ordinarily do investigative journalism. Editorials often run based only on what has been reported so far. This may be good or bad, but it’s typical.
So.. timeline of stories?
Eric appears to have made up his mind. Apparently, “it was their answer to my energy piecesâ€, is a barely veiled threat. There is another account however in which the response (above) referred to a report that was supposed to be sent. But I think we can all reject that explanation on the grounds that it doesn’t suit our politics, eh Eric?
Mark
You have to admit, something like “it is an answer to your energy pieces” is a very strange way of saying “It’s a report”.
There are many strange aspect to this story; this rather oblique description of the contents of the box sent by the solar company is one of them.
So, can we put Horner on the blacklist of ‘people we don’t trust because they systematically lie and distort’ yet?
Neven–
You haven’t shown that.
Lucia, it is indeed a little odd, though at this stage I’m not discounting further issues with translation, local modes of expression, or an inaccurate description of the conversation. And it may even be a veiled threat.
Eric, no I don’t want a “blame the victim” article. I just don’t want a possible bomb dummy/ innocent mis-hap reported as “dismantled bomb”. Write what he was sent. Write that packages like these have been used as intimidation before. Fine by me. Perhaps put the friend bit on page 1, rather than page 2. The “we sent our reply” is absolutely innocent, if (mark the if) the respondent at Thermotechnic thought that he was talking about a report they had sent.
Lucia,
the first comment to the Libertad Digital article is timestamped 24 de “Junio de 2010 a las 23:41:34:”, the Expansion article had its first comment at “24.Jun.2010 | 19:18”, all times should be UTC+2. First comments at Horner are at “June 24, 2010 – 12:37 pm”, EDT (UTC-4) or PDT(UTC-7) I don’t know?
So that’s all on June 24
17:18 UTC Expansion (reports the filter + wire)
17:37 to 20:37 UTC Horner (former time if EDT, latter if PDT)
21:41 UTC Libertad Digital (additional info on the boss of Thermotechnic)
So the Horner article comes a few minutes to a few hours after Spanish coverage detailing the package content as fuel filter + wires.
Mark–
The source was Calzada, but it appears that the head of the solar company agrees that this sort of less than clear response was given. I’m also not going by word for word translation from Google either–but it does seem there was a phone call and the response wasn’t “Why it’s a report discussing ‘X'”!
bluegrue
First, if it’s minutes, even if Horner were writing at a blog he controls, he would be writing his post and clicking “publish” before he could be aware of the new coverage. This is true despite the speed of electrons.
I’m sure every person posting at a blog has had the experience of writing a comment and discovering that between the time the began their comment when they hit submit, someone else cross posted.
Second: Horner was writing in PJ medias venue. I know for a fact that the process of getting articles up at PJ media can involve:
a) Someone writing.
b) Sending to PJ media.
c) Some editorial and approval functions.
d) Eventually, the article appears at PJ media.
I haven’t written an article for PJ media yet, but this is what happens. (I don’t know if there are exceptions where some people just write and click publish the way Zeke and I both do here!)
That PJ media process will likely be as quick as possible particularly on a breaking story, but Horner likely finished most of (a) before (d) occurred at which time the time stamp is applied. So, what you seem to have discovered is not inconsistent with Horner not knowing the things you think he ought to have revealed.
I hadn’t drawn any conclusion on the timeline. What’s the time zone of the Pajamas Media content?
Lucia, according to Calzado himself there was a mistake at the courier service:
http://www.expansion.com/2010/06/25/opinion/tribunas/1277483078.html?a=4436dfdde6d5f2eff3886f458a50724b&t=1277497819
I know you hadn’t drawn a conclusion. I’m just pointing out factors we need to consider. (I am aware that Neven above is already champin’ at the bit.)
I don’t know the time zone on PJ media. I’ll email Charlie Martin.
Marco–
Yes. I’d read similar things. I think Calzado accepts that no one intended any threat and the head of the solar company apologizes for the inconvenience of the scare.
Lucia I understand all that, but don’t you think it strange that whoever hatched the plan decided to let the receptionist in on it?
Lucia I get all that, but don’t you think it strange that even the receptionist was in on the ‘plan’?
Maybe an idea to amend your post, then?
Mark–
No one suggested the receptionist was in on the plan.
Bluegrue–
Charlie Martin says PJ media is on Pacific Time and Chris sent in his article some hours before it was posted.
Folks, as far as the time stamps go, I can tell you for certain that we had the copy from Chris before 10:38 PDT 24 June, (Z-7, thus 17:38Z) because that’s when one of the other editors first saved the draft copy. He probably had it for at least an hour, maybe more, before that.
I’m told by one of our Spanish correspondents that “box of vaguely cylindrical stuff with wires attached” (think about what that would look like on x-ray) is a “traditional” threat used by, eg, ETA.
I also know Gabriel, albeit not as well as Chris, and know that this wouldn’t have been the first death threat he’d received — just a more tangible one, if it were one. So if he was over-sensitive about it, I don’t know that I blame him. None the less, we’ve updated the story with links to the Libertad story.
And as the person who gave the final okay on the story, I can tell you that we didn’t have any of that further information at the time I okayed it, which was about 1800Z on the 24th.
Mark, you don’t seem to have read my posts. I am not the one rejecting explanations based on my politics.
In fact, if Calzada now recants that he ever perceived a threat there are two possible explanations:
1. He never perceived a threat and this was all trumped up.
2. He perceived a threat to such an extant that he has now, quite reasonably, thought better of pursuing the matter.
My mental calculus tells me do not have sufficient information to reject either possibility. 🙂
Sod:
Spain’s current unemployment rate is about 20%. I do not know how much of this is because of, or in spite of, Spain’s commitment to green technologies.
.
well, while you don t know it, i do. because i actually read the paper written by Calzada. he claims, that 50000 jobs were created and 2.2 as many destroyed. (2000-2008) this gives us a net loss of 60000 jobs.
.
and as you mentioned above, Spain is approaching 20%, and in numbers 3 mio unemployed, which is a pretty dramatic number.
.
but in comparison, those 60000 don t look that massive, do they?
.
and actually in the time period studied by Calzada, unemployment in Spain was SINKING, not growing.
.
http://www.investorsinsight.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/john_5F00_mauldins_5F00_outside_5F00_the_5F00_box/jmotb083109image009_5F00_79D4B785.jpg
Robert, I can tell you that we try very hard at PJM to get things right. In this case, at the time I read the article (my Spanish, while old and weak, was sufficient) we had Chris’s report, based directly on Calzada, and the Expansion report. Unlike traditional newspapers, we have no production deadline, and run with a story once we feel it warrants. If it’s news and we don’t know everything yet, we preface with the traditional “Breaking” in the headline.
If it’s news and we don’t know everything yet, we preface with the traditional “Breaking†in the headline.
.
i am shocked by this remark. i always understood that “BREAKING” was an indicator of current news of massive importance. (and i am pretty sure that this is the way it is supposed to be)
.
news of unclear truth and importance should rather be lead by a “POSSIBLY BROKEN” sign.
sod (Comment#47004)-What you believe “BREAKING NEWS” to mean, is not what it typically refers to in my experience, which is more like: “This is an evolving story, we will continue to update it for you as more information comes in, so stay tuned”.
Sod, you might find it useful to look up the way the rest of the world defines ‘breaking news’.
Sod and Andrew_FL–
I’ve seen it used both ways, and it appears that’s because it is used both ways:
Here’s the wiktionary definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breaking_news
Noun
Wikipedia has an article on:
Breaking news
Singular
breaking news
Plural
uncountable
breaking news (uncountable)
1. News that has either just happened or is currently happening. Breaking news articles may contain incomplete information, factual errors, or poor editing because of a rush to publication.
Here is the wikipedia defintion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_news
Breaking news or special report is a current event that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming in order to report its details. Many times, breaking news is used after the news network has already reported on this story. When a story has not been reported on previously, the graphic and phrase Just In is sometimes used instead. Its use is often loosely assigned to the most significant story of the moment or a story that is being covered live. It could be a story that is simply of wide interest to viewers and has little impact otherwise.
On “breaking news”, the definitions really aren’t distinct: we don’t bother with marking something “breaking” if we don’t think it’s unusually important, because we don’t run something with that kind of fast trigger-pull unless we feel it’s unusually important. Most stories take us several days from pitch to publication.
Lucia, as I understood it it was the reception who gave the phone ‘threat’. In order to have made the ‘threat’ the receptionist would have had to know about it, no?
Anyway it looks to have been a load of old rubbish so I guess it doesn’t matter.
Erich: I can read fine. And I know disingenuity when I read it.
Mark,
Disingenuity… Ouch! What, is my name on some list or something?
A major advantage of blogging is that you don’t have to post on everything.
A retraction would seem the right thing to do. Even one of the Spanish sources managed an apology:
“LD pide disculpas a ThermoTechnic y a Pedro Gil por el error, y espera que no tenga ninguna consecuencia para su empresa.”
Nick, a retraction, traditionally, is issued when there’s a point of fact that was reported incorrectly. I’ve just looked back at the story, which says
1) Calzada got a package
2) the package was interpreted by an outside expert as a threat meant to look like a bomb under some conditions
3) Gabriel Calzada had already suffered many threats and less violent, but still damaging attacks
4) and at the time he felt threatened.
Now, for a retraction to be warranted, we’d think one of those four items had to not have happened. Since that’s not the case, a retraction would be inappropriate.
but a follow-up story clarifying what is now known or still unknown, would be appropriate.
Here’s a pop quiz for you, Carrot Eater: why do you suppose we have a Spanish correspondent working on the story after it was first published?
Re: Charlie Martin (Jun 25 19:37),
The “outside expert” now turns out to be a security guard. I guess he was standing outside.
But the post is not about the state of mind of Dr Calzada or the people he consulted. It makes a specific accusation that Thermotechnic sent a dismantled bomb to him, and that turns out to be quite wrong. Dr Calzada said they didn’t – LD has apologized. Can that nonsense allegation be maintained here?
Carrot–
That follow up would fall under “I’m sure we’ll hear more about this story. “
Charlie Martin:
Just making sure.
lucia (Comment#47047) June 25th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
That comment would fall under “I’m quick to post allegations against greens but will not give them the same courtesy in return”.
a retraction, traditionally, is issued when there’s a point of fact that was reported incorrectly.
So you’re saying that this point of fact was correctly reported:
‘Green’ Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts
I’m saying it was correctly reported at the time, and that we’re continuing to follow the story up. I’ve got a couple of folks trying to nail down some details.
Of course, Nick didn’t exactly translate what the story says, did he? “El guarda de seguridad que lo pasó por el escáner solicitó inmediatamente asesoramiento por parte de una persona con más experiencia, que fue quien finalmente abrió el paquete delante de las otras tres personas presentes.”
In other words, “The security guard passed the package through a scanner and immediately solicited the advice of a person with much experience, who finally opened the package with three others present.”
It goes on, ‘En una nueva casualidad el azar quiso que las piezas fueran del tipo que se usan en bombas caseras, de tal forma que la persona que lo abrió, con una larga experiencia en servicios de protección concluyera lo que ya cualquiera podÃa deducir, “aquello era un aviso. Hoy te mandan las piezas sueltas y la próxima ocasión en la que te contesten podrÃan hacerlo con las piezas ensambladas”.’
Or, “As chance would have it, the pieces were of the type used to make homemade bombs. The form of the package caused a person with long experience to conclude it was a warning. ‘This time you got the pieces; next time you’ll get the pieces assembled.'”
So yeah, right now a retraction might be called for, but it’s 4AM in Spain. Let’s find out what really happened.
Re: Charlie Martin (Jun 25 22:47),
“I’m saying it was correctly reported at the time”
What was ever the correct basis for reporting that it was a dismantled bomb? The Libertad journalist who witnessed the opening described it as a fuel filter with cable attached. The rest seems to be post-processing.
Breaking news: Chris Horner overran triplet while drunk and praising free markets.
.
We will investigate further and report in a few weeks from now. In the meantime, remember: Chris Horner overran a triplet while drunk. Lawrence Solomon and Jonathan Leake sat in the back, naked.
Well we all know why they call themselves PJ media- asleep on the job. What a load rubbish from bloggers now “widely (dis)-respected for their punditry.”
It was described as a dismantled bomb parts. Was it actually a dismantled bomb parts? I suppose you could call a screw a dismantled bomb part if you wanted to. Nope. It all smacks of third rate sensationalism.
very bad story, and basically every article written about it needs an update.
.
major question at the moment: was the story complete bogus or just very badly reported.
Hey, a frightening thing happened, it got misinterpreted and misreported, and now it is getting straightened out. That’s the story.
Lost in the noise is that this man has received numerous real threats.
===================
I wonder if the mechanic will be investigated for bomb making.
Neven:
I don’t think this is appropriate behavior for adults.
.
My point exactly!
Here’s an idea. Since your rigorous commitment to journalistic ethics prevents you from issuing a retraction, maybe there’s something else you could do. Maybe there’s something like a “correction”, or “clarification”, or some word you could just make up that you could issue.
I wish I could say that Pajamas media’s reporting surprised me, but it’s par for the course for them. Their non-update update is pretty egregious.
bugs
What are you talking about? If I read a similar breaking story where a green receives a package, I’d run that too. If it turns out to be incorrect, the fact the story appeared is still a story.
Can someone translate this for Chris Horner:
.
También LD se puso al habla con Gil y éste transmitió desde el primer momento su desolación por el mal rato que hubiera podido pasar Calzada y su preocupación por lo que era una muy mala publicidad para su empresa.
.
Al final, tras muchas pesquisas, se ha encontrado al responsable. La empresa de mensajerÃa de Thermotechnic, Tourline Express, ha asumido el error. Ellos mandaron al Instituto Juan de Mariana unas piezas de coche desmontadas que debÃan ir dirigidas a un taller de coches. El resto es una historia de mala suerte, coincidencias desgraciadas y malentendidos.
.
LD pide disculpas a ThermoTechnic y a Pedro Gil por el error, y espera que no tenga ninguna consecuencia para su empresa. Del mismo modo, LD quiere destacar la amabilidad y corrección con la que Gil respondió a sus respuestas, incluso a pesar de que recibÃa la llamada de un medio que habÃa publicado una noticia negativa para sus intereses.
.
Key sentences are ‘asumido el error’ and ‘pide disculpas’.
.
Nope, Chris Horner is on my black list of unreliable sources and I don’t think he will ever come off it. The man lies and distorts to gain a certain end.
.
BTW, I wouldn’t be surprised if some green whackos would send verbal and material threats to people who promote the status quo. This will only get worse as AGW progresses and nothing substantial is done about it.
Re: lucia (Jun 26 06:51),
Lucia, you have a post up with the clear and specific charge that Thermotechnic mailed a dismantled bomb to Dr Calzada. The story was always a nonsense and has collapsed. Your post remains uncorrected.
Nick–
1) I think you are incorrect that the story was always nonsense.
2) It’s 8 in the morning here. I’ll be running an update when I learn what the current status is based on a post in English. Given the massive amount of discussion in comments here, I don’t see how some delay is a major problem.
Neven–
1) Obviously, Chris was unaware of information that had not been reported at the time that he wrote his post. It is true that bizzare disassembled stuff that could have been assembled into a crude bomb was just an odd assortment of spare parts, and no one seems to know how it was sent.
2) You are not required to consider anyone a reliable source if you think they are unreliable for any reason.
Lucia, I think the point is that it was reported with a far, far greater degree of certainty than it warranted.
Lucia,
I think what you’re missing is that nobody’s obliged to run a story when the facts on the ground are still that confused. If media outlets reported every single confused rumor that came along (edit: and reported them with undue certainty, while they were at it), then the papers would be completely unreadable. Maybe you think passing on a rumor is justified just because the rumor exists, but that isn’t how journalism operates, nor is it how your blog normally operates.
If Charlie Martin is willing to wait for the Spaniards to wake up from their sleep and sort things out a bit more before publishing a clarification, then he could also have been willing to wait a few hours before running the original story.
Same thing with you and English – if you’re willing to wait for an English language source now, then you could have been willing to wait for a real English source in the first place. By real, I mean something other than some bloggers working off of a Spanish language story (itself from a blog style outlet) which they may or may not have understood.
.
I think ‘happily unaware’ is a better description. How long will he remain unaware? Has he locked himself in a room? I’ve seen this story being replicated unquestioningly on several (pseudo-)skeptic websites already. Will Chris inform them of his unawareness?
.
.
I’m not sure, but can ‘piezas de coche’ be translated into ‘car parts’? OMG, I’m driving a bomb!
.
Lucia, you’re a smart woman. Who are you kidding? The story on PJ Media was blown out of proportion to start with, and the longer an update/correction is postponed, the more it turns into a lie.
.
Now ask yourself: why would Chris Horner lie (this isn’t the first time)?
You know, folks, get a clue. Calzada has been threatened multiple times. He received a heavy clunky package and was told “it’s our response to your study.”
It turned out the package contained what could easily be interpreted as bomb parts. (Someone asked “where was the explosive?” and we now know it contained “un envase de gasóleo”, a container of diesel, from which one could make a lovely firebomb.)
The package was so interpreted by an outside expert and by experienced Spanish journalists. (No, not just a security guard.)
It was reported in Spanish media.
It was conveyed to Chris Horner personally as well.
If you don’t think that’s a story, well, the New York Times runs with lots less.
Maybe we got burned, but again look at other organizations: they also wait until they’ve got all the pieces before they run a retraction. Why? Because you hate to get put in the position of retracting a retraction.
So feel free to complain about it, pixels is cheap; hell, comments are open on the story at PJM. But ask yourself honestly if you’d be reacting the same way if we were talking about a package received by Jim Hansen.
Yes, because the story didn’t make any darned sense as first reported. Companies don’t send mail bombs or simulated mail bombs with a nice direct return address on them. A single moment’s reflection or scepticism would have told you something was odd about the story. I suppose you couldn’t manage that.
Ask yourself honestly if you would have reported that story, if the details were so sketchy. Or, at all, regardless of how clear the story was.
Mark,
Sure. My intention when I wrote “I’m sure we’ll hear more about this story. ” was to convey uncertainty over the issue; obviously, this didn’t come off that way.
My thought was that we’ll hear more if it was a dismantled bomb and we’ll here more if it was not a dismantled bomb. Either way, there was a story being reported.
The story was already running an update at the footer of his post. What Charlie had not done (and as far as I know has not done at the time I am writing this) is write a full new post. Given that the PJ media story also has discussion in comments, I’m not sure why a more specific update is required before PJ media tries to sort out the details being brought forward both in comments (readable by the public) and by their reporters in Spain.
If a similar story appeared in the media about James Hansen, and I learned of it, I would write a post. In future, I might indicate uncertainty more clearly than writing “I’m sure we’ll hear more about this story. “. But… well.. you live an learn.
Ask yourself honestly if you would have reported that story, if the details were so sketchy. Or, at all, regardless of how clear the story was.
Yup.
Charlie Martin,
you may want to update the editors at AmericanThinker, they are running your “dismantled bomb” as undisputed fact.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/graph_of_the_day_for_june_26_2.html
Starting a fire is easy. Catching the smoke? Not so.
Neven
What would you make a crude bomb out of? Fruits and vegetables? Toothpaste and shampoo?
I could make a lovely pipebomb out of “car parts”.
Charlie has already told us “we now know it contained “un envase de gasóleoâ€, a container of diesel, from which one could make a lovely firebomb.)
Just because the Spanish Media story you are reading may think ” a container of diesel” can be described as “a car part” doesn’t mean that the material in the box doesn’t look like something one could turn into a bomb.
Carrot
I reported from an English source: PJ media runs stories in English.
You somehow missed the rest of my statement. It was in English; it was also written by a muck-raker, er sorry, think-tanker, sitting here in the US, reading or misreading bloggers, er sorry, correspondents reporting in Spanish. That’s not much of a source.
Actually, it doesn’t look like the original piece even specified the source. Maybe Horner is a personal acquaintance of Calzada so could have direct personal communication; it’s unclear if this happened before the initial post.
Lucia, just to be clear, I am not criticising you at all.
I apologize if someone else made this point. I read about a half dozen accusations of Horner lying and had to post this without bothering to read anymore idiocy.
If the package contained a bomb mock-up, a dismantled bomb, a picture of a bomb, or even just a piece of paper upon which the word “bomb” was written, the meaning behind the package would be exactly the same — it would be an easily understood threat meant to intimidate. People who think that translating bomb mockup to dismantled bomb in this story is a big lie have let their political desires drive them insane.
.
Me neither. I think it’s very good you’re bringing this up. Provided everyone draws the right conclusions concerning Chris Horner. 😉
lucia: Is there some reason that you have not retitled this section, given the facts that are available?
http://www.libertaddigital.com/economia/la-empresa-solar-no-estaba-detras-del-envio-a-calzada-1276395985/
The package sent to Dr. Calzada contained a fuel filter and a wire.
There was no fuel (diesel, gas, kerosene, butane, etc) in the package.
The receptionist’s reply was a miscommunication as she thought Dr. Calzada was referring to a written (not symbolic) response to his paper on green jobs.
The courier company has taken responsibility for sending the package to Dr. Calzada and apologized.
Early confusion of the package as being a threat can be understood, given the series of events and history of Calzada receiving extremely negative responses.
Folks who continue to describe the package as a dismantled bomb are seriously misinformed.
Ike–
I read the google translation of the page you linked.
http://www.libertaddigital.com/economia/la-empresa-solar-no-estaba-detras-del-envio-a-calzada-1276395985/
You appear to be making a number of specific claims based on information not conveyed in that article, and which, as far as I know, appears nowhere. I’m obviously not going to write any update to reflect your notion of what must be true when you are clearly reading material into the article you link. I’m especially not going to do it when Charlie is saying that his sources specifically contradict at lest some of the things you say the article reports but which it does not report.
Calzada seems to acknowledge it was an unfortunate mix-up of coincidences. And oh, he did that yesterday. Why wasn’t his friend Chris Horner informed, so he could quickly amend the premature conclusions in his alarmist title over at PJ Media? Why is “their Spanish correspondent who is following this story” not telling them to inform their readers? When will they correct their story and apologize for any misunderstanding that might have arisen? OK, forget about ‘when’.
.
Found it here (excellent piece by the way, if you want to read a good overview and conclusion).
You’re mentioned at the end, Lucia: “Lucia at The Blackboard got suckered”.
.
I’m eagerly awaiting your conclusion of this whole affair. What will you think when you read something by Chris Horner or PJ Media next time? And how will you reproduce it here?
Neven–
I read the blog you linked earlier. I’m not concerned about that.
I have not drawn the same conclusions about Chris that you have. Moreover, I think the arguments in favor of your view you have posted here make no sense whatsoever.
So far, it appears that he should have said something like “contents of the box appeared they could be assembled into a bomb”, rather than “dismantled bomb”. I’m waiting to read more.
Okay, you keep waiting. Don’t hold your breath.
lucia “You appear to be making a number of specific claims based on information not conveyed in that article, and which, as far as I know, appears nowhere.”
I made assertions backed by the facts in 3 articles. I should have provided all three links. (See below) In the case of “fuel”, the fact it wasn’t there, I can’t prove but no one other than Charlie asserts that it was there. No article mentioned fuel in the package containing parts. The poor quality of the translations may make it hard to follow.
1. The article(s) state that the package contained a fuel filter and wire (translated also as thread, cable, etc) Translation” In the box came a fuel filter and a piece of thread that could be adapted to the filter”
2. No article suggested that fuel was in the package. I can’t provide evidence for the absence of an article. That allegation came from Charlie at this blog, who hasn’t provided support for the claim and seems unwilling to revise Horner’s flawed article at PJ.
3. Receptionist confirmed package was from Thermotechnic, thinking it was a report, not parts. “The employer (employee) (at) Navarre (the receptionist) has ensured that the only thing that had been sent to Calzada was a report on renewable energy.”
4. Courier company apologizes. Translation “The courier company Thermotechnic, Tourline Express, has assumed the error.They sent the Instituto Juan de Mariana a disassembled car parts to be targeted towards a garage. ”
http://www.expansion.com/2010/06/24/opinion/tribunas/1277399007.html
http://www.libertaddigital.com/economia/la-empresa-solar-asegura-que-nunca-ha-querido-amenazar-a-calzada-1276395934/
http://www.libertaddigital.com/economia/la-empresa-solar-no-estaba-detras-del-envio-a-calzada-1276395985/
Tempest in teapot
Spilt the tea on the crumpets.
Long wait for dinner.
==============
Re: lucia (Jun 26 16:29),
“stuff that could have been assembled into a crude bomb “
“contents of the box appeared they could be assembled into a bombâ€
The journalist who Calzada brought in to witness the opening said simply that it was a fuel filter with a wire attached. No mention of any flammables.
OK, it could be used as a container, so you could put explosives in it. That’s true of many items in your kitchen. You could put anthrax in it too, or radioactive waste. Maybe even plutonium.
But it was a fuel filter.
It’s the sheer implausibility of the thing that bothers me, moreso than the description of the parts. Yes, people get mail bombs. But they don’t get them from companies, sent by courier, with the return address on there, broadcasting where it came from. That’s the implausible part that should have alerted any thinking person that there might be something not quite right about the story. But no, instead of sitting on it a bit, they ran it and sensationalised it to boot.
Carrot–
We only know the return address was to the company. But, at the time the story broke, no one can know whether or not someone might have interfered with packages and retained a return address, or whether someone might not send a package providing a false return address. There are a zillion possibilities of what might be happening that are consistent with the stated return address, and quite a few might be consitent with an un-assembled bomb.
Nick–
I’m waiting to read further stories. I get the fact that you aren’t but I am.
Lucia,
Dr. Calzada now says the shipping company got the shipments crossed, if I’m reading the Spanish-to-English translation correctly.
So it looks like this boils down to a mistake causing another mistake.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expansion.com%2F2010%2F06%2F25%2Fopinion%2Ftribunas%2F1277483078.html%3Fa%3D4436dfdde6d5f2eff3886f458a50724b%26t%3D1277525260
So, any news yet about the BOMB? I’m sending a few myself today, detonation mechanisms, canisters filled with kerosene, C4. Put the return address on it too (it’s a precision bombing). I won’t be prosecuted anyhow because we live in a police state that favours the AGW narrative to increase taxes. They like it when we send bombs.
.
BTW, Lucia, did you change fonts? This one looks much better IMO.
Neven–
I didn’t change fonts. HTML suggests fonts and your browser selects based on what’s available on your computer. Maybe you installed a new font?
WordPress had a major upgrade this week though. But I don’t think that would affect fonts.
Jarmo
The feed-in tarrifs are a means of avoiding the costly installation of batteries and ameliorating the cost of the installation of the panels. As the cost of the installation of solar panels reduces due to increased manufacture, so will the tarrifs be reduced I’d presume. Your economics assumes the future is always like the present. If that is what was assumed by those who guarantee a price for 25 years then they are at fault. In any event that seems like an empty promise. However in reality, subsidies have fallen in Europe in the last 3 years, as the technology has improved.
Whether it makes sense anywhere else, it does seem to make sense in Spain and there is a huge market opportunity. It just so happens in real life that sometimes a technology needs to be pushed by governments as well as being pulled by the private sector.
Don’t assume by the way that gas isn’t subsidized in Spain too – it is actually 3 times cheaper than in France and the UK. I haven’t yet accounted for exactly why but I do know that the government keeps a tight control over Repsol and the others.
As a side note, I think that Calzada is far more to blame than Horner. His actions suggest he may be clinically paranoid – seriously.
Fuel filter and wire
A receptionist’s reply
Exploding pajamas
Some breaking news is too hot
To wear with a straight face
The amusement of the alarmists at an academic transfixed by threats is both revelatory and damning. Hey, he’s got tenure. He’ll be alright.
Fools.
=====
Dismantled car parts? Now Chris Horner and Pajamas Media will report that they tried to run Calzada over!
Boris, that’s alarming!
And funny as hell! 😀
Whether or not he is “clinically” paranoid might depend on whether or not he has received verbal threats. If I had received overt verbal threats, I would be likely to perceive threats associated with packages. This would be rational.
BTW: I asked Charlie to alert me when PJ media posts an update. He said he would and grumbled that he was without internet all day yesterday adding “grrr”.
(I was w/o internet and phone intermittently last weekend. The outage was due to a power outage caused by major storms in Chicago. I don’t know where Charlie lives, but the midwest had major storms starting Wed, and we are having intermittent torrential rain today too. )
Re: lucia (Jun 27 09:11),
Amazing how fast these things go up and how slooowly they come down. Rain!
The original article appeared in Expansion at 11 am on the 24th, Chicago time. By 14.50 it was on Lucia’s blog, via PJM. In 3.5 hrs the object had grown from a fuel filter to a dismantled bomb.
24 hrs later, Expansion published a rueful article by Calzada. A tragic error! DrC and Thermo are now best of friends. And Libertad apologised, even though they had done the only real journalism.
But now, nearly two days after Calzada’s revision, well, gee, I dunno, haven’t seen anything in English yet … internet’s a bit slow ….
Hysteria hysteresis.
lucia (Comment#47221) June 27th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Thanks for that comment.
And Kim! I love your posts! (I posted on CA as “welikerocks” and I’ve said that before. 🙂 )
I’ve been lurking and wondering what the heck all the fascination with this report/non report is exactly; especially with the “AGW is real and a threat to the planet” crowd. I can’t wrap my head around it.
The IPCC, or CRU or Dr, Michael Mann does or gets something many folks think is exaggerated or wrong…and what? Not the same interest at all. Phil Jones brings up suicide and you don’t question his sanity?
I have a question; if you keep pushing and pushing your beliefs and ideology (see the Replication thread comments on computer models (because confidence in them is a “belief” IMHO) or take just about any comment by folks like Neven as an example of ideology) what kind of reaction EXACTLY to you expect from anybody, anywhere, anytime who does not comply? Is any reaction/behavior/opinion/words okay with you? Do you ever consider this? I do.
BTW James Hansen and even Judy Curry claimed there was a “War On Science” not too long ago -I read and heard that phrase many places. Isn’t war another word for threat- even the ultimate one? (my point: being the daughter and wife of combat disabled veterans I’d say that sort of talk was exaggerated, silly and over the top and it bugged me back then and those kinds of words could also influence violent/threatening behavior in people too!)
Filter and wire boxed danger
Threat not voiced
The siren keeps singing
There once was a media alarmist
Who couldn’t quite write where the harm is
But a box of car parts
With some rhetorical art
Packaged the correct political message
liza (Comment#47226)-They used the term because it is an Anti-Bush Democrat talking point, and Hansen and Curry both have definite left wing political views. How can I dare to say such a thing? Because I know it for a fact: Hansen openly campaigned for John Kerry, and Judith Curry multiple times brought up her hatred for Rush Limbaugh (totally unprovoked, all on her own!) at CA in discussions.
BTW, speaking of C4 above, even though you technically could not legally send such a thing through the mail, without a blasting cap it’s pretty much harmless. You could microwave the stuff, and it wouldn’t explode. Saw it on Mythbusters.
It’s not as if you can’t walk out on the street pretty much anywhere in the US and find someone who reads and speaks Spanish fluently.
We don’t even need fluent. In order to maintain the same standard, all we need is somebody who reads Spanish as well as Chris Horner.
“It’s the sheer implausibility of the thing that bothers me, moreso than the description of the parts. Yes, people get mail bombs. But they don’t get them from companies, sent by courier, with the return address on there, broadcasting where it came from. That’s the implausible part that should have alerted any thinking person that there might be something not quite right about the story. But no, instead of sitting on it a bit, they ran it and sensationalised it to boot.”
Well, this is hard to argue with, but I must say I empathize with people making decisions under time pressure. This comes up in my work (emergency medicine) all the time. On the one hand, many things cannot be put off until there is absolutely no doubt — that sort of OCD approach will do harm. On the other hand, sometimes it is more time-efficient as well as generally more successful to force yourself to keep your hands in your pockets until you have enough information. This can be very hard to do.
In the case of a story like this, I think that if it were my story, I’d want to ask myself a simple question: “If the main villain in this story were someone I liked and respected, would I consider the evidence in hand strong enough to publicize these accusations?”
I think it’s OK to err on the side of publishing and ask your readers to exercise good judgment, as long as you are policing your own bias at the same time.
Robert, you know it is immediate and bad when the ER physicians get involved. I think there are two etiologies, complementing each other to create a perfect storm of pathology. The politicians noted a bit of science that could be used to increase their power, and the scientists noted a bit of politics that could better finance their search for truth. It is the unfortunate synergy between these two mechanisms which has produced the symptoms and the signs, a paradigm with a highly unstable rhythm and poor vital signs.
===================
By the way, Robert, stay right there coding that paradigm; over in Ob they are delivering a new one.
=============
What will they think up next???
Polar cities???!
Good thing it’s only one side that has crackpots (yes Eli I’m thinking of you ;-)).
That’s hilarious. A Lovelock follower, I see.
There are crackpots to be found anywhere, but they’re a heck of a lot easier to find on the one side.
PJ Media updated:
The package included a container typically used to store deisel and other parts. (Presumably, this would include the fuel filter discussed elsewhere. )
However, I’d guess if you were thinking this was a message, the presence of a “car part” that happens to be a container for something combustible is more pertinent than the presence of the fuel filter. (BTW: I would never call a diesel container “a car part”. )
The “expert” many have been criticizing as being nothing more than a security guard was not a security guard. He was someone called by a security guard and selected based on his expertise.
So, it seems to me the “truth” fell somewhere between the stories minimizing the factors that might make receiving the box a bit scary and the PJ media story which used the word “dismantled bomb”.
It looks like this was a package whose contents an actual honest to goodness outside security guard thought could convey a threat that in future Calzada would be sent a live, assembled bomb. However the word choice “dismantled bomb” was inapt, since, those words suggested that prior to dismantling the bomb was somehow “mantled”.
It also looks like no one intended to communicate any such threat, and there was some mixup at the courier. (PJ media had discussed this mixup in their previous update available yesterday, and was also reported in an article in Spanish news sources posted after Chris Horner filed his report with PJ media.)
Carrot Eater, they also have a song. Eli wanted a song, but I don’t think he wanted that one. I am being kind to not link it, trust me. (I thought this might do in a pinch The idea of testing subjects using radioactive makeup…priceless!)
I think the pro-AGW’s are a bit easier to find just right now. Just go to footage of the G-20 summit and watch the festivities.
Carrick, you must be young. In addition to actually marketed radioactive make up,among other things radium was painted onto wrist watch dial so you could see them in the dark and, of course, there were always the radioactive baths in several Czech spas. There is a lot out there you really don’t want to know.
Street activists and anarchists protesting at G20, etc, are generally crazies.
But nobody lets them guest-post articles on RC.
Whereas, you can spend about 2 minutes on WUWT and find your fill of crackpot.
Eli has always envied Tim Lambert for the crazies he attracts. Keeps the comments going.
Eli,
The comment system here is more than just a bit buggy. Though the equivalent comment does appear above. (?)
” The politicians noted a bit of science that could be used to increase their power,”
The notion that politicians want an excuse to raise taxes and take on major campaign contributors in the oil, coal, and gas industries is just silly. Politicians look for ways to avoid making tough and potentially unpopular decisions like that.
“the scientists noted a bit of politics that could better finance their search for truth.”
Another conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. The basic physics of global warming has been established for over a hundred years — that’s quite the efficient conspiracy.
If the anti-science delusions were a baby in OB, it would be stillborn — because unfortunately, the mother can’t seem to stay off the crack.
Carrot Eater:
You mean like this crazy. 😉
Good thing that.
For what it’s worth, I don’t put RC and WUWT at equal levels. Nobody at WUWT is a trained climate scientist or even a scientist AFAIK, it would not be a fair competition.
And yet that’s the sceptic flagship.
Eli:
I’m young enough to have to take human subjects courses where these wackos show up as examples of what not to do. This year we are also saddled with research ethics training, or excuse me “Mandatory Responsible Conduct of Research Education.”
More ‘certs for the paper pushers and bean counters I suppose.
Robert @ 2:33
Politicians seek ways to avoid gaining power? A conspiracy among scientists is not necessary for them to notice funding sources. And the emails do show much ‘breathing together’. Your tests are not giving you sensible results. Try some more, or call for the specialist.
A spotless sun is crowning into existence. What are you going to name him?
=============
Mary Mallon
Yes, Ron, a long cold spell will be associated with widespread disease. As well as famine and war. Giddyap!
==================
“Politicians seek ways to avoid gaining power?”
Politicians do not share your delusion that measures to address global warming will enhance their power. In fact, they quite reasonably fear that they will cause them to lose their power at the ballot box.
“And the emails do show much ‘breathing together’.”
Sorry, the email scam has been throughly debunked by three independent commissions now. You need a new talking point.
“A spotless sun is crowning into existence. What are you going to name him?”
Sometimes I have an unwelcome moment of clarity when I realize I am wasting my valuable time arguing with people who think AGW is somehow disproved by the sunspot cycle.
Sorry, kim; record high temperatures combined with a record low solar minimum is positive evidence for the standard science, including AGW and the comparatively minimal impact of the solar cycle. Protip: try to learn the difference between arguments that support your position and those that shred it. You look kind of silly when you confuse the one with the other.
It’s over, it flatlined.
1. Correction, ‘politicians are beginning to fear that measures to address global warming that isn’t happening will cause them to lose power at the ballot box’. And you display much naivete about the progress of this whole CAGW paradigm and its political supporters.
2. You’ve been thoroughly blinded by whitewash. See climateaudit.org and Bishop Hill’s site for how poorly those commissions performed.
3. See Livingston and Penn and their supposition that sunspots will disappear in half a decade. You’ve completely misunderstood my admittedly cryptic comment about a ‘spotless sun crowning’. Ah, the perils of art.
You write as if you believe the sunspot count or the solar minimum has an immediate effect on climate. Please explicate your mechanism.
======================
Re: Robert (Jun 27 11:19),
“I think it’s OK to err on the side of publishing”
I don’t, not that there’s anything that can be done about it. We now have a grudging retraction from PJM over three days later, but you won’t see one from the major trafficked sites like WUWT and Instapundit, who also had the story up within a few hours of its first appearance in this minor Spanish newspaper. The result is “that sceptic prof who was sent a bomb by the greenies” will now be firmly established in the sceptic catalogue of victimhood. I think there’s a strategy here; there’s a long history of “erring”.
And the amount of fact checking was pathetic. The basic story line of a commercial company sending a dismantled bomb with senders name attached was unbelievable. But it was only after the story appeared that Libertad took the elementary step of asking the company what was going on. And that’s when the story totally unravelled.
So, how do you like their updated title, Lucia? Do you think it conveys what has happened well?
UPDATED: Chris Horner overran triplet while drunk and praising free markets. (Updated)
blah blah blah blah
at the end of the article: he didn’t overrun a triplet, but he was drunk and Lawrence Solomon and Jonathan Leake sat in the back naked.
I haven’t seen this variation on blatant propaganda before. I congratulate PJ Media on their reckless lack of scruples.
What a thought – do a bit of journalism and investigate your story just a tiny bit (all the more so because the storyline as reported defied common sense), instead of taking a snippet of information, sensationalising it, and passing it on as fact.
.
Very, very well put, Nick. The victim-card has been played a lot recently. Stasi, yellow badges, Spanish Inquisition, greenie bombs…
.
Lucia, do something!
So kim, how’s it feel to be the author of a comment featured for being stupid?
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/spanish-skeptic-of-warming-claims-a-bomb-in-the-mail-so-called-skeptics-caught-unskeptical/
I’m impressed with the number of WUWT commenters who did express scepticism on this one. A pretty good proportion of them smelled something weird about this. Good on them.
ce, I was shocked at the blatancy of the threat, but if you read this very thread, I was early to the theory of a ‘Tragedy of Errors’.
======================
CE, Neven, Nick, enough point scoring, it’s childish.
Andrew, I don’t mind them embarrassing themselves at the sight of a threatened academic, who spoke truth about solar energy to power that didn’t want to hear it.
The lack of self consciousness is hilarious.
======================
Enough point scoring? I still haven’t seen Lucia draw some rational conclusions. I would like to know what she will think next time Horner or PJ Media publish extraordinary claims.
.
Obviously, she still feels a certain amount of sympathy for the karma-point-people. They don’t deserve it. Not for one minute. These people lie, mislead and distort and it’s mystery to me how someone as smart and lucid as Lucia doesn’t see through it and calls it for what it is.
.
That was my last comment on this piece of propaganda poison. I’m totally fed up with it.
“And you display much naivete”
No, kim, you’re paranoid.
“See Livingston and Penn and their supposition that sunspots will disappear in half a decade. You’ve completely misunderstood my admittedly cryptic comment about a ‘spotless sun crowning’. Ah, the perils of art.”
Thinking AGW has something to do with the sunspot cycle is not confusing because it is “art.” It’s confusing because it is nonsense. The solar cycle and the greenhouse effect are distinct from one another. Learn some basic science.
“You write as if you believe the sunspot count or the solar minimum has an immediate effect on climate. Please explicate your mechanism.”
You don’t understand how different levels of solar radiation might affect temperatures. Sorry, I’m not going to explain that to you — call your third-grade science teacher. He/she screwed up bad.
Okay, last one. Another beauty on WUWT:
.
By publishing this survey and its conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is approaching a low perhaps not seen since eugenics was in vogue.
Robert @ 6:49
Are you seriously proposing that politicians have not advanced the CAGW program?
It doesn’t seem like you’ve googled ‘Livingston and Penn’ yet to see what I’m talking about with the sunspots. Meanwhile, you sound confused about the sun.
OK, so show me how different levels of solar radiation have affected temperatures. The blackboard is yours.
Well, my corner of it, lucia.
================
Re: Andrew_FL (Jun 27 18:20),
No, Andrew, it’s just reflecting on where this stuff leads to. Like this. All based on nothing.
Oh wow, that link. Disgusting.
Nick, you seem to be forgetting that he has been threatened. One out of how many threats is bogus and you want to key on that one?
If one wanted to be paranoid, one could find a rational for this episode to be disinformation by either side. On one hand, to publicize the threats he has been getting, on the other, to tar any threat with the brush from this one.
But I prefer to disappoint Robert, and believe this was a mix-up.
======================
And please, Robert, show me where I’ve mentioned ‘sunspot cycle’. Could it be that the confusion is yours?
=============
kim, he has been threatened. But in case you didn’t notice, that wasn’t the big story that so many have been uncritically amplifying from the original shoddy piece. It’s horrible that he’s been threatened. It’s also stupid that stories like these get legs in the blogosphere.
“it’s just reflecting on where this stuff leads to”
Yeah here’s the list:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2539136/posts
Seriously, you guys can’t even see how snippy, immature, and ridiculous you are being? I would at least have expected better of you Nick-I know that Neven a complete man-child, but you at least are sometimes possible to have adult conversation with. All I see is a bunch of disgusting talk about how this whole episode proves your prejudices.”Ha ha, look at the skeptics not being skeptical” “Hey, what the hell is wrong with you people not apologizing to decent law abiding leftist wackos for calling them terrorists” “I demand a retraction, and if I don’t get it, then it proves that the people not doing so are every bit the pieces of sh*t a DNC website told me they were!”
You tell ’em Andrew Fl! 😉
See Robert, here’s your problem at 3:10 PM: ‘Record high temperatures combined with a record low solar minimum is positive evidence for the standard science’. I’d like to hear about how your ‘record low solar minimum’ acted on the temperatures. Is there a correlation even between temperatures and solar maxima and minima? Please, I’m dying of curiosity, here. Slip a little juice to me, Bruce.
==================
Yah, carrot, it is stupid that the world is learning he’s been threatened. I’ve my problems with this story, but that part is OK. They hadn’t learned it any other way. And now they haven’t learned it accurately. Hmmmm. A tragedy of errors. That’s cute, why hasn’t anyone thought of it.
==========================
Re: kim (Jun 27 19:21),
“Nick, you seem to be forgetting that he has been threatened.”
Well, you keep saying it. But do you know what the threats were? Who made them? Evidence?
â€Ha ha, look at the skeptics not being skepticalâ€
.
It was slightly funny at first, so soon after CastilloGate, not anymore.
.
I don’t want you to apologize or retract. I want you to see that you are being played, Andrew.
“And please, Robert, show me where I’ve mentioned ‘sunspot cycle’. Could it be that the confusion is yours?”
Nope, that would be your confusion of the sunspot cycle with something related to global warming.
“Are you seriously proposing that politicians have not advanced the CAGW program?”
The “CAGW program” doesn’t exist outside your delusions, so your question is a non sequitur. But no, your fantasy that politicians secretly yearn to raise taxes and defy industries that donate generously to re-elect them and employ millions of people demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how democracies work.
“OK, so show me how different levels of solar radiation have affected temperatures. The blackboard is yours.”
I’m not a grade school teacher. Do the basic reading.
“It doesn’t seem like you’ve googled ‘Livingston and Penn’ yet to see what I’m talking about with the sunspots.”
You clearly don’t understand that sunspots have nothing to do with AGW. Your lack of basic science literacy, which you demonstrate in post after post, leaves me without a desire to Google your OT ramblings about vanishing sunspots.
Andrew,
The immaturity is on the other side of the fence on this one. Why you feel the need to feel defensive is beyond me, unless you feel some tribal kinship with Chris Horner and other bloggers.
The original piece by Horner was shoddy and sensationalist, and the sceptics indeed weren’t sceptical (well, some were, and I gave them their due). And then you saw the hysteresis: the story goes up without any due diligence, thought or investigating, but my, we have to be oh so careful as the story comes back down.
Maybe this upsets you, I don’t know why, but that’s simply how it is.
Robert, read back. You introduced sunspot cycles and solar cycles. I wasn’t even talking about them, let alone relating them to AGW. Bluster will not help you. What you have written is what you have written.
And you’ve apparently tried to suggest that temperatures will be cooler at solar cycle minima. Please explain that.
======================
Nick,
I’ll generally take somebody at their word if they say they’ve received harassing emails or phone calls. So I have no particular reason to doubt that Calzada has been harassed. Though it’s always more certain if it’s been reported to the police.
Nick, this has legs, inappropriate though some of them may be, because people know that this researcher was key to debunking a big push by this administration for Cap and Trade and Green Energy, and massive such efforts elsewhere in the world. It is expected that he be threatened, as, indeed, he has. Unfortunately, the most explosive, unintended, of the threats has turned out to be a great big ball of confusion.
Nick, I’ve got a great idea; ask Chris Horner about the other threats. I’m serious. Let’s hear it, subject to privacy concerns for the good Professor.
=================
Re: carrot eater (Jun 27 19:49),
But we don’t have his word. We have third-hand assertions with no reference and no details.
Re: kim (Jun 27 19:54),
No, your the one asserting the history of threats. It’s your job to be able to give at least basic information. And it won’t do to say that he said something controversial so we just know he must have been threatened.
“Robert, read back. You introduced sunspot cycles and solar cycles.”
Sorry, kim, you were the one that started in on sunspots.
” I wasn’t even talking about them, let alone relating them to AGW. ”
LOL! You do realize we can all see your posts here, right?
“Bluster will not help you.”
Clearly, you’re speaking from experience. So you want to lie about bringing sunspots into the conversation. Works for me — it tells everybody just exactly the level of discourse they can expect from you. 😉
“And you’ve apparently tried to suggest that temperatures will be cooler at solar cycle minima. Please explain that.”
“Apparently”? Did I or didn’t I? And where?
Sorry, Nick; it is Chris that is asserting prior ‘intimidation’. He even gives an example of action taken against the Professor. You don’t have to believe any of it, but that doesn’t make it not true.
====================
kim, you claimed threats, but provided no evidence of any kind. That’s on you. Learn to back up your claims with facts, and you’ll be taken more seriously. 😉
Heh, Robert, I quoted your 3:10 comment at 7:33, in which you suggest that a solar cycle minima will have lower earthly temperatures than otherwise. Explain please, or not.
You are the one who mistook my reference to the fading sunspots of Livingston and Penn and thought I was talking about the solar cycle and the sunspot cycle.
You have not listened to my story and now you are repeating back a story I did not tell. I hope the nurses have influence over you if I ever end up in your emergency room.
===============
Silly Robert, I gave you my source. Try reading it.
===================
Nick,
Calzada alludes to receiving some sort of harassment at the beginning of this, in his own words.
http://www.expansion.com/2010/06/25/opinion/tribunas/1277483078.html?a=4436dfdde6d5f2eff3886f458a50724b&t=1277690570
Not being spanglophone (is that even a word? It has to be, I insist on it) I had to rely on an online translator. But I must say that Calzada sounds every bit the gentleman; quite gracious in that article he wrote. I still don’t understand why he called in a journalist but not a policeman, but he sounds like a really nice guy.
You guys still can’t see how you are using this as a cudgel to beat people over the head with, fine. But I don’t have adult discussions with children.
“Heh, Robert, I quoted your 3:10 comment at 7:33, in which you suggest that a solar cycle minima will have lower earthly temperatures than otherwise. ”
Nope, you misread. But by all means, try and find anywhere I said that. The passage you quoted doesn’t say that at all. It may be true, but I neither said nor implied it. But thanks for playing!
“You are the one who mistook my reference to the fading sunspots of Livingston and Penn and thought I was talking about the solar cycle and the sunspot cycle. ”
So you admit you were the one who brought up sunspots, only it doesn’t count because you didn’t mean to refer to the sunspot cycle, even though that’s just the sum of all the sunspots, “fading” and otherwise. ‘Kay.
“Silly Robert, I gave you my source. Try reading it.”
Silly kim, you’re lying again. You din’t cite any source for your claim about threats (and no, “ask Chris” is not a citation.) Try harder. 😉
Re: kim (Jun 27 20:03),
All you have there is a minister asking the rector to sack him, and someone calling him unpatriotic. Well, the latter may be distressing, but it’s not a threat. And the former, if true, is wrong, but I’d like to see the evidence, and to hear Dr Calzada’s version. Chris Horner’s reputation for accuracy is not good at the moment.
Chris has overrun a triplet after drinking heavily and extolling the virtues of the free market. You don’t have to believe any of it, but that doesn’t make it not true.
Re: carrot eater (Jun 27 20:13),
Well, he mentions receiving “desagradables mensajes” (disagreeable messages), which could be an understated references to threats. But he doesn’t seem to be an understating sort of guy.
“You guys still can’t see how you are using this as a cudgel to beat people over the head with, fine.”
Yeah, it’s the people spreading slander and defamation who are the real victims here. Lest we forget. Don’t we see how it hurts them when we embarrass them with the facts in the middle of a witch hunt? Show some sensitivity, people!
Robert, I fear you may not be able to understand that but the conclusion of your 3:10 comment indicates that you believe the phase of a solar cycle has an immediate effect on temperature. I see you dancing around my request for clarification, but your avoidance of this issue is pathognomonic.
You still don’t write as if you have any idea what is going on with the sunspots leaving the visible spectrum in another half decade. Clue, this has little or nothing to do with the sunspot cycle. Please understand this before you see another patient, er, I mean before you maunder on about something about which you are ignorant.
Yep, Chris is my source. It seems there are others now present on the thread.
================
Neven, hyperbole does not become you. Nor is it persuasive.
===================
.
But apparently it becomes Chris Horner. And is very persuasive as well.
Andrew,
Those receiving the beating fully deserve it. They do shoddy ‘journalism’, spreading misinformation, so they get called out for it. That you feel so defensive about it maybe says something about you, I don’t know.
Nick,
I don’t know what kind of guy Calzada is, but the rest of that letter reads quite graciously. Understatement on that point would fit in with the tone there.
I don’t blame Calzada one bit for being jumpy. That’s perfectly fine; it’s his well-being and job that he’s looking after. The problem is with the third parties who were reporting on it; they’re supposed to lift a finger and do some objective investigating and reporting. Sure, they can mention what Calzada initially thought it was, but they have some professional duty to scratch beneath the surface, and not just pass on the panicky initial impressions of the affected person as fact. Then again, Horner isn’t a professional journalist; he’s a professional propag..er.. advocate.
“Robert, I fear you may not be able to understand . . .”
Coming from the women who doesn’t understand that sunspots and AGW are different, that’s rich. I get it: you misread the statement. So you want to bluster your way through and claim that no, I didn’t understand my statement. Funny.
Let’s take a step back. Why did you bring up sunspots right after you claimed (hilariously) that “the paradigm” was “coding”? What relationship do they think they have? What do you think the sunspot record proves about the theory of global warming?
“You still don’t write as if you have any idea what is going on with the sunspots leaving the visible spectrum in another half decade. ”
You simply don’t demonstrate the basic science literacy that would lead me to invest my time in your OT fantasies. I guess I’ll just have to be surprised along with the rest of the world when, after hundreds of years of observed sunspots, they suddenly vanish in five years.
“Please understand this before you see another patient . . .”
I’ve noticed this about the anti-science crowd: they love to fixate on whatever biographical details they can get about a person. You must have dropped a couple dozen medical references since I mentioned my work in passing. Why? Is it just the tactical necessity for anti-sciencers to avoid the science and push the conversation towards ad hominem?
Dang, the spam filter ate my lengthy response, Robert. Maybe it’ll be there in the AM. In the meantime, for your own sake, google ‘Livingston and Penn’ and read up.
===============
And yep, you will be surprised, along with the rest of the world, when they suddenly vanish in five years. But I won’t be, and it won’t be so sudden; it is happening already.
================
I goggled the paper
Apparently NASA pages are for “anti-sciencers”!
“it is happening already.”
Sure kim, that’s why we had three times as many sunspot-less days in 2009 compared to the last six months. To an untrained eye, it looks like a normal emergence from the solar minimum, but it’s really one last blast before sunspots disappear forever.
Keep digging, Robert; the hole you are in just swallowed two ambulances. Why are you so resistant to seeing what Livingston and Penn are noting?
============
And why do you ignore the obvious clues to the illness of the patient. There is little to no relationship between the fading sunspots and the sunspot cycle.
Where’s my 2X4? Where’s my real doctor?
===============
Robert you didn’t read the paper.
“Keep digging, Robert; the hole you are in just swallowed two ambulances.”
kim, you lied about bringing sunspots into the discussion, still can’t answer the question of what this OT subject has to do with global warming, and your constant allusions to my work are hard to understand except as an expression of your own insecurity. So who’s digging?
“Robert you didn’t read the paper.”
Give me a reason to. kim can’t even explain why she brought it up or what she thinks it means (let alone post a citation). So why should I read it? Her science credibility is nil.
CE-“Those receiving the beating fully deserve it.”
Grow up.
Robert-You know what? ____ You and the horse you rode in on. You are a ridiculous hack who thinks that everything is fodder for how correct you and your political views are. Your enemies are devils, your allies are angels, and your word is holy ____ing writ. You don’t even deserve to be called a child. You’re a jerk.
In the missing comment, I said that the Doctor metaphor is apt because you are not listening to me.
A reason? Google is your friend, but you are your own worst enemy.
===============
And thanks, liza, for the earlier comment. I’m glad I amuse you; I certainly amuse myself.
============
Poor Andrew. He can’t bear to see his tribal kinsmen be criticised for their shoddy work, so he lashes out.
You should read the paper because “fading sunspots” which is what kim said, doesn’t mean the same as “minimum number of sunspots” or “sunspot cycle” which is what you said too.
“A reason? Google is your friend, but you are your own worst enemy.”
That’s not a reason, kim. Not even close. What do sunspots have to do with this discussion? What do you think the paper proves? What is your point? And why don’t you post a link, if you think it is important? Again, when someone has not been consistently honest and has not displayed a grasp of basic science, my interest in googling their vague allusions is slight.
kim (Comment#47327) June 27th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
That’s what counts!
I so want to make a joke about some people laking or losing their magnetic personality (like the sun at the moment!) but I don’t know how to do it without being rude.
Ha ha.
I wonder if this whole story is one of those Wag the Dog things… some drama to distract from the fact that Tipper threw Al Gore out on his ass because he was flying around the world in luxury jets trying to bag anything with a pulse instead of being a better father to his drug addict son.
oh for crying out loud.
What’s the citation of the sunspot paper we’re supposed to be reading, and why are we supposed to be reading it?
Nope, I’ve been consistently honest, and I’ve displayed a grasp of basic science. It is you who have misunderstood me. Now please explain your 3:10 comment about the earth’s temperature at solar minimum.
==============
carrot eater, do you really not know about Livingston and Penn? They claim that the sunspots are on a decline curve to disappear from the visible spectrum soon. This, of course, does not mean that the solar dynamo fails, only that the magnetism of the spots changes a little, enough to take them out of the visible spectrum.
The big question is whether or not this will have any climatic effect. There is some evidence that the spots also faded, or changed significantly, during the Maunder and Daulton Minimums, but supposedly there were vulcanic albedo changes then which might have caused the cooling noted then. There is isotope evidence for continued dynamo action during those minimums, somewhat arguing against a climatic effect.
All this Robert doesn’t know. His refusal to become curious about it is disheartening. I’m pleased that you are curious.
===================
MikeC (Comment#47332) June 27th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Seriously! LOL
“why are we supposed to be reading it?”
Um because it’s SCIENCE baby!
here’s a link that NASA has:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/
It even has a pretty chart!
“Nope, I’ve been consistently honest, and I’ve displayed a grasp of basic science.”
Proof by assertion, huh? Sorry, your posts are there for all to see.
“Now please explain your 3:10 comment about the earth’s temperature at solar minimum.”
What part do you not understand?
“All this Robert doesn’t know.”
Yes, the things you miss out on when you don’t get your marching orders from WUWT. Above you made the cryptic comment:
” Your tests are not giving you sensible results. Try some more, or call for the specialist.
A spotless sun is crowning into existence. What are you going to name him?”
But, even after you got over lying about bringing sunspots into the conversation, you’ve never explained why you brought up the sunspots or what you think they have to do with AGW.
“Um because it’s SCIENCE baby!”
What’s the tensile strength of a one-inch bar of tungsten? That’s SCIENCE too. Why is this specific article relevant to the discussion we were having? What do you think it shows?
Yeah, Robert, there’s a better explanation in my missing lengthy comment. But I am certain that I’m wasting my time with you.
Your 3:10 comment was a giveaway. It is the sort of comment made by people who have such a poor understanding of the action of the sun on the climate that they will argue that high temperatures at a time of solar minimum proves something about the lack of solar effect. Show me the correlation between the solar cycle and temperatures. I’ll not even ask for causation, yet, just correlation.
=========================
The question is grand, simple, and unanswered. Do Grand Solar Minimums cool the globe? We are perhaps about to find out.
=============================
No Kim, I didn’t know of this work; not the sort of thing I read about. Let’s see here.. they’re saying sunspot magnetic field is decreasing, and is decoupled from the solar cycle.
They put a line through it; who knows if that trend will continue or not.
Why are the data so noisy after ~2002, and so smooth before that? What’s going on there?
It’s quite difficult to sniff out. there’s a paper somewhere that claims they did. I forget what they did; it was more complicated than just a FT.
Well, to the first order, it’s obvious. If you change TSI by enough, then the climate simply has to respond. Given that insolation is the main energy source here on Earth, there is no choice.
And Robert, I never denied bringing sunspots into the conversation; I denied bringing sunspot cycles or solar cycles into the conversation. You brought them in, granted it was from a misunderstanding of my cryptic comment. But why have you refused to acknowledge what the record shows? You are all bluff, bluster, and ignorance. If you expect to be an advocate for your side, you need to learn a little more and tighten up your rhetoric to something other than ‘Liar, liar’.
==================
ce, did you read the link? They started intensive work around 2002. It’s also quite clear that the trend may not continue, they even give a reason for it.
I believe that this is what happened during the Maunder Minimum, when spots got large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric. The globe also cooled then. Whether the cooling then was from the solar minimum, or from albedo changes, is the question I expect the next century to answer. Sure, it’s speculative, but gamechanging if so. We’ll welcome anthropogenic global warming if we’re headed into a century of cooling.
And yes, I understand the first order forcing of TSI. It was Robert who thought that forcing would show an immediate response, hence the question I had for him of correlation, which I knew he couldn’t show.
==================
I don’t believe the active regions are decoupled from the solar cycle, ce; it is the visibility which is decoupling. The dynamo persists. What will be the climatic effect? We don’t know.
=========================
Ugh, which link? I skimmed something from EOS 2009, Livingston and Penn. There’s apparently a preceding paper from 2006; I can’t tell what I’m supposed to be reading. I don’t see anything about ‘intensive work’ starting around 2002; are you just saying there’s much fewer observations before 2002?
Robert simply said the minimum in the solar cycle didn’t cause low temperatures here on Earth. Which is perfectly true, so I have no idea why you’re taking offense to his statement.
If you had clearly said what the heck you were talking about in the first place, or soon thereafter, you’d have saved a lot of pointless typing.
Anyway, there’s an awful lot of speculation here. First, it’s speculation to extrapolate their line. Then, it’s unclear what difference it would actually make to TSI if you could extrapolate their line. So I don’t know what you can really take away from this, beyond wait-and-see. But that’s always sort of true with the sun; it’s not as if we can predict with any confidence whether there will be a long term secular trend in TSI, can we?
Try Liza’s link at 10:05 PM.
=================
No, that’s not what Robert said. Read it at 3:10 PM.
Yes, Liza’s link answers some of your questions. Sure it is speculative. It’s not the least bit unreasonable though, and gamechanging if true.
==========================
Naw, most of the pointless typing came from trying to get Robert to google ‘Livingston and Penn’. I mentioned them early in an attempt to halt Robert’s confusion, but, as you can see, he has the hardheadedness it is hard to believe is useful in the Emergency Room.
=======================
kim (Comment#47348)
For some reason, the solar cycles are supposed to disprove AGW.
..
or, given that what you were saying had nothing to do with anything being discussed here, you could have just said what you were talking about, and why, instead of playing games, telling people to google things.
carrot eater (Comment#47351) June 28th, 2010 at 5:20 am
yes it did. this whole thread is about certain people telling everybody else how to think, feel, understand, believe and react a certain way to one little bit of news of a guy who dared to point out how un productive the whole “green job” fantasy is to the economy; in a very complicated drama filled (guilt, damnation and sin based apparently) follow the money time in history (all because of a belief in computer model predictions regarding a certain gas in our atmosphere) Oh behold the tolerance of the left!
Nick even suggested that skeptics keep some kind of an a honorary victimhood list and this troubled online “media” report matters to it. And this man, I can’t even remember his name, with the box full of wires and parts sent to him will become a poster child! (gee, please name one other person on this list you imagine because I can’t think of one) For that matter, how can the skeptic’s victimhood list ever compete with AGW’s vicrim list? With those cute POLAR BEARS front and center? Don’t be silly!
Also see the link I gave for “all things caused by global warming” for further nonsense from the media… but that’s okay right?
So what of the sun? kim asked Robert: What name would you call him too if he didn’t cooperate with your idea of how it is all suppose to be? How is the sun supposed to behave? Please tell everyone!
Be warned because the “further information” link from that NASA page says :
“Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be…The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.”
With that sort of elastic reasoning, you could somehow argue that anything and everything was related to the previous discussion.
Oh behold the tolerance of the left!
I guess that leftist tolerance doesn’t extend to bad journalism. How intolerant of the leftists! Don’t they know that even bad journalism deserve a break?
Ok carrot, if what I said doesn’t make any sense or isn’t proper.
What is the discussion exactly? And why are you interested? And what is the point and what exactly is the correct thing to say. Please oh please gosh explain how it is supposed to be!
Maybe just maybe some of us have been bombarded with BAD journalism for YEARS AND YEARS already, and we don’t get our news from just one place either and don’t believe everything we read; and this is nothing compared to that-and your reactions here are just one big Drama Fest of Boring. LOL
Nick, Neven,
Calzada has challenged the “orthodoxy” accepted by the current (so-called socialist) Spanish government, and as a result he is probably being subjected to a form of semi-official bullying and harassment similar to the one experienced by James Hansen under the Bush administration. People are people everywhere, and no political party has a monopoly on bullying.
As for threats, Michael Mann claims that he has received lots of them, and I am sure he is telling the truth, quite apart from whatever my opinion of his temperature reconstructions may be. I don’t see why you can’t at least grant Calzada, or his personal friends, that much credibility, whether you agree with their politics or not. I can tell you this, these are certainly not good times to be convicted as an ally of capitalism in the court of public opinion in Spain.
Since so many of you seem to think that making a mistake in reporting a story is a hanging offense, fine, be that way. But don’t expect me to cry foul when your side makes “mistakes” in their reporting. I’ll act as immature as all of you-It will prove I’m right and all of you are wrong! Haha! I’m going to be a smirking, snarky, cheeky bastard!
My problem with you little children is that you insist on insinuating malfeasance, you insist on snickering like school boys, at an error in reporting a story. The reporters don’t get the benefit of the doubt because “they deserve it”-and why? Because they aren’t in your tribe. That’s ridiculous, petty, and it makes you impossible to have mature discussion with.
This is the last time I’m going to say it: Grow Up. If you don’t see the error of your ways by the time you make your next reply, then stuff it, because I won’t be bothering to play the part of Principal anymore.
On a slightly lighter note, our host has her own badge now:
Lucia
This may be the flaming ___hole. I’m getting a feeling Andrew_FL wants to distribute a few of those badges.
And finally a sticker for Eli’s Atomic Hairdryer
I’m unfamiliar with atomic hairdryer. Is there a solar hairdryer? Or windmill or hydro hairdryers?
Retraction Pajamas Media Style
1.Keep the headline and add “updated.”
UPDATED: ‘Green’ Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts (Updated)
2. Keep the story, and note at the end that it didn’t happen.
Of course a reader who didn’t get to the end would think it did happen.
Lucia, for me anyway it’s a reference from MST3K (Mystery Science Theater 3000.)
If you missed it, I included this in reference to Eli’s remembrances of the good old days
Max–
The story happened. However, the word “dismantled bomb” went beyond what happened–it was parts, including a container for something flammable– were received. A security expert working in Spain interpreted this as a possible threat, as packages are sent by Basque terrorists in Spain and these are intended as threats.
I don’t know the standard practice for newspapers carrying clarification. My impression is when the hard copy of the New York Times does needs clarification, they are often provided in a later issue in interior pages and not necessarily collected together to make the easy to find. I think The Chicago Tribune, Sun Times and other papers are generally similar. (Although, I think once when one of Chicago papers mistakenly mis-identified a photo of a guy as “Tony ‘ the clown’ Lombardo as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lombardo I’m not sure I remember exactly what happened though.)
Andrew, the only one acting like a child is you. Now put your toys back in the buggy and have a little think about what you’ve done.
AndrewFL
You are pretty utterly wrong.
This was never a simple mistake in reporting. It was shoddy reporting from the beginning, with a secondary embellished report rushed out the door by a ideologically motivated person sitting at his computer in the US, and then uncritically amplified by blogs.
Anybody with half a brain could tell from the beginning that the story didn’t quite make sense, as reported. Including half the commenters at WUWT. What would a real journalist do? First, he wouldn’t take the initial impression of the affected people as simple fact. Instead of saying they received a dismantled bomb, you say he received some parts that he interpreted as being a ‘mock bomb’. Use the scare quotes to emphasise that it was unconfirmed. Then, since there was a handy return address on there, you pick up the darned phone and call the sending company, and piece together what the heck happened.
On both counts, this is extremely simple journalism. Not doing so was not a simple mistake.
Nice conspiracy theory, yup, that’s what it is, they purposely put out a false story. It was a mistake, it was a crime! Libel! Slander! Take it court guys. Similarly, Mann is guilty of fraud. I can say that because we no longer are required to give people the benefit of the doubt. All “mistakes” are purposeful acts of megalomaniacal crazies.
Or does that only apply to your enemies? Of course.
Reading and logic not your strong suit today, Andrew?
The only person who came up with a conspiracy theory was MikeC, bizarrely going the other way. Nobody else is alleging conspiracy; just incompetence mixed with being too eager to sensationalise a story that apparently agrees with their prejudices; a lack of critical thought. Critical thought that even many WUWT commenters had. As for giving the benefit of the doubt – you’d think a real journalist would have called up the company for comment, to do some investigating. Or at least not reported that the package was literally a dismantled bomb, but rather some pieces initially interpreted as such by the recipient and a friend.
These are pretty much the facts lay bare; you have a problem with this, but nothing but an emotional response. If you are so small that you can’t recognise obviously shoddy “journalism” by somebody you apparently have some ideological kinship with, that’s quite sad.
Another sacred ox is Gored
With a Horner to the gut
It’s too much for the Mann
So no Jonesing for a ‘but’
You donna’ have to Ike it
The Leake is already spilt
You canna’ longer Stokes it
This story is done kilt
CE-” Nobody else is alleging conspiracy” Bullshit. You and several others are condemning these individuals of willful disregard for journalistic standards for ideological reasons. What you are saying is that you believe these people are guilty of malfeasance. You are continually insinuating that this disqualifies them as credible in general. You and others are all making comments to the effect that the people who made the mistakes (and they were mistakes, not your conspiratorial notions of deliberate attempts to mislead) are lower than low, human shit, and right wing assholes. This kind of gratuitous crap is the only think that “deserves” being beating with a cudgel of nonsense.
Andrew_FL–
Tone down your language. 🙂
shoddy journalism >= death threats
Nobody’s defending any death threats to anybody.
Andrew … conspiracy and malfeasance are two different things. I think all the AGWers are trying to say is that the story was trumped up by an ideologue who took advantage of PJs less-than-journalistic ethic to propagate a story that was quite obviously flawed, at best. The rest of the echo chamber gang didn’t necessarily conspire, they just uncritically ran with a story that fit their narrative. Some of them probably honestly believed it too.
Ugh, whatever. I’m moving on. I suggest everyone else do so too. Obviously the other option is not productive.
lucia (Comment#47384) June 28th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Max–
The story happened. However, the word “dismantled bomb†went beyond what happened–it was parts, including a container for something flammable– were received. A security expert working in Spain interpreted this as a possible threat, as packages are sent by Basque terrorists in Spain and these are intended as threats.
I don’t know the standard practice for newspapers carrying clarification. My impression is when the hard copy of the New York Times does needs clarification, they are often provided in a later issue in interior pages and not necessarily collected together to make the easy to find. I think The Chicago Tribune, Sun Times and other papers are generally similar. (Although, I think once when one of Chicago papers mistakenly mis-identified a photo of a guy as “Tony ‘ the clown’ Lombardo as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lombardo I’m not sure I remember exactly what happened though.)
————
There was not a bit of truth in Pajama Media’s headline “‘Green’ Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts.”
The company did not threaten the Professor.
The Professor did not receive a package of dismantled bomb parts from the company.
The Professor mistakenly received harmless parts due to a shipping error.
Pajamas Media has recently added “no threat” to the headline:
“UPDATED: ‘Green’ Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts (Updated: No Threat)”
Regarding the photo of Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo, is that the real Tony or a person mistaken for him?
Max–
When listing the untruths in the story, you should stick to things the story actually reported.
If I recall correctly, a photo of a man who was not Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo ran in the paper and the caption said that person was Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo.
lucia (Comment#47441) June 28th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Max–
When listing the untruths in the story, you should stick to things the story actually reported.
Regarding the photo of Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo, is that the real Tony or a person mistaken for him?
If I recall correctly, a photo of a man who was not Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo ran in the paper and the caption said that person was Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo.
======
Now I wonder what the other guy looked like.
Lucia, PALEEZA ! When listing the untruths, I was referring to the the headline, not the story.
The headline is absolutely false. Sure, some of the words in the headline are true(e.g., Dr. Caldeza is a professor) but all together those words make a big fat lie.
Make that PALEEZE, rather than PALEEZA.
Okay, back to the conspiracy theory, that this was all a wag the dog thing to distract from Tipper throwing Al Gore out on his butt because he’s flying around the world on luxury jets trying to bag anything with a pulse rather than being a better father to his drug addict son… ummmmm… if carrot eater couldnt tell that was a joke then perhaps a bag of car parts would be more understandable.
Oh, and once again, everyone missed what the car parts were all about… it means he was threatened with being car bombed… and the return address was to let him know why he was being threatened… and if Horner screwed up the translation (or didn’t understand what was happening like everyone on this blog)… then it’s his problem
Re: Max (Jun 28 22:53),
“Sure, some of the words in the headline are true(e.g., Dr. Caldeza is a professor)”
Not even that – he’s actually the Director of the Instituto Juan de Mariana, which is a libertarian/right wing think tank. It’s true that he gives a course at the King Juan Carlos University, where he holds the rank of Associate Professor.
Any warmers willing to condemn death threats?
Any death threats against Calzada or anybody else are disgusting and condemnable.
April 2010
“Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.â€
-Gene Hashmi, the communications director for Greenpeace India
Green Peace.org
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
-Check out the lame disclaimer and the comments after. (Even Willis chimed in) I also googled and could not find this discussed on any AGW blogs. Guess you all just missed it?
Liza,
That’s also horrible, and if that’s the kind of rhetoric that will come from Greenpeace India, we don’t need Greenpeace India.
But, it looks like they’ve admitted error, are contrite, and retracted it, while putting it somewhere else so you can judge it for yourself in the original context.
They allude to not having acting on it very quickly, which is bad, but from what I see now, it looks like they’ve cleaned it up responsibly and an ounce of humility.
Why just ‘warmers’, MarkR?
Don’t feel like ‘luke-warmers’ should disclaim death threats?
I think we can all agree that death-threats are beyond the pale and wrong.
Ron–
Good point. I intend to pretty much post on any death threats, bombs &etc. I read of while the story is still pretty fresh. It’s sort of like the “Godwin” rule. I’m not going to do searches to find stale stories, but I’ll post if it’s fresh. I’ll post even if things are a bit ambiguous because contrary to some people’s notions, I think discussion is the blog equivalent of fresh air and sunlight and so, is a better response to threats— even ambiguous ones and even ones that turn out to only be perceived threats.
I never commented GreenPeace’s threats because I didn’t even hear of them until they had been retracted– possibly long after. If it’s been discussed at a bajillion blogs for more than a week, and the threat has been disclaimed, I figure it doesn’t need any more fresh air. (I don’t have problems with other people bringing it up. I just don’t feel the need to write a post about it one way or the other. )
Of course, if I condemn any death threats, although, I’m not sure “disclaim” is the right verb for what I am doing. I don’t think anyone ever thought I was associated with the claim, so I’m not sure I can disclaim it. I can nevertheless condemn any and all death threats.
carrot,
Yeah it is horrible. So you could say there are horrible behaviors on both sides of the debate-so in a way I’d be careful claiming you’ve got a consensus. lol
There are millions of people belonging to greenpeace. I don’t think the guy who made those statements admitted an error and I don’t see where his position with the org was terminated-or where his rantings about “right wing” people are retracted either; so I don’t trust that they’ve “cleaned up” anything which is ironic since they claim they are all about cleaning up messes that humans make (I don’t believe it anymore…too much far left political ideology involved).
I have another beef about shoddy journalism BTW. NOT REPORTING things such as this; which I wouldn’t have known about until I got curious because of the venom I’ read in this discussion and looked up “threats” regarding the whole AGW debate.
And BTW that “d” word not allowed in the comments here; is alive and well all over the place still. Even the “cute Beatle” just used it. Who knew he was such a dork? (edit add on: my husband says how he got raked over the coals by his young ex wife showed it LOL)
I didn’t mean you lucia or any blog really, in my comment about shoddy journalism…just the MSM in general.
Amplifying stuff that doesn’t make any sense doesn’t add sunlight, it only spreads confusion.
If you feel compelled to pass on any half-baked rumor or story that comes your way, the least you could do is add some editorial comment noting that you’re passing on a half-baked story based on some guy sitting at his desk in the US translating a story from the Spanish, with no other English-language outfits reporting it yet, with every alleged fact in that story or headline being unconfirmed by police. As bad as the real media are, you might read one of their articles to see how they handle use of language while the facts are still very murky.
I found a carrot “bomb” scare:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8099561.stm
I don’t think so, but instead, just in case somebody missed something else that was happening in Europe on the same day, here’s a potentially relevant story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/25/greece-bomb-kills-security-minister-aide
Now, it’s true, Spain is not Greece–yet. But it’s not like it doesn’t have a tradition of home-grown terrorism all its own.
In terms of economic crisis, or internal security/civil unrest/student protests/lawlessness/domestic terrorism?
In terms of the latter, I thought ETA was as bad as the 17 November guys.
Carrot–
I have never said the PJ media article made no sense when it was posted. I knew it might be revised or updated and factors were puzzling. But that’s not the same as not making any sense.
As I previously said, I thought the ending “I’m sure we’ll hear more about this story. ” conveyed that the story was tentative. I thought we’d hear one way or the other. Obviously, this sentence didn’t convey that to some people. I’ve also already said that in future, I’ll be more explicit about information being tentative.
Well… back when the Chicago Tribune identified “Tony ‘the clown’ Lombardo, they just identified the person in the picture as Tony. 🙂
That’s all I’m asking for – that you make such caveats more explicit in the future. In particular, your headline – for as long as it’s very unclear what the package actually was, it’s inappropriate to just flat-out say dismantled bomb. That’s where you use words like ‘suspicious package’, ‘alleged’, ‘possible’ and you use the scare quotes. Not doing those things implies some level of fact, that you are passing on. Now, I think sometimes the real media overdoes it with the scare quotes – just look at the front page of the BBC at any time, and about half the headlines and one-sentence summaries have something in quotes to signal reported speech that isn’t necessarily confirmed yet, or speech that is only the opinion of some specific actor. But on something like this, where it’s obvious that it isn’t yet established what the package was, you can’t have definitive language in the headline.
Of course, you do what you want; I’m just telling you what I think are basic reporting standards.
(addendum) The question mark you put up helps, but I didn’t remember seeing that question mark when I first saw the page. If it was there the whole time, then that’s good. I didn’t think it was.
re: Spain vs. Greece
I meant in the context of the economic crisis and the civil unrest that was behind, at least, some of the recent violence, including the firebombing of a bank in Athens last month. I guess it’s still not clear whether the most recent bomb incident is related to this or not.
But the Spanish economy is hurting too, and the society is very strongly polarized, with each party blaming the other for anything and everything. Civility is in short supply. I certainly do not see any “green” or anti-globalization groups sending actual bombs yet, but insults and more or less veiled threats can be found all over the political spectrum these days. In this climate, I think anybody who has taken a public, controversial stance, could feel a little apprehensive if he were to receive a mysterious package.
As for ETA, they certainly are as bad as they come, but I do not think they have a position on climate change or green energies yet 🙂
I liked your carrot bomb story.
I don’t understand the protesters in Greece. The country is bankrupt. You can be upset it came to that point, but now that it is at that point, everybody has to make some sacrifice.
Carrot– There was no question mark when I first posted. There should have been, but there wasn’t.
Carrot–
I also don’t understand the protesters in Greece. Some people appear to not understand that money to pay people working in the public sector and to pay retirees etc. has to come from somewhere. When it becomes clear you can’t pay money back, people won’t lend you any more.
Illinois is going to at the point were we have to face this issue too.
carrot eater (Comment#47471)-You don’t understand them because the Greek protesters are totally irrational. You’ll give yourself a headache trying to “get” their thinking.
Naturally, somewhere = Germany.
Well, I’m not an expert on Greece, but I can imagine–for instance–the anger that we have seen in the US directed at “Wall Street” literally exploding… somewhere on Wall Street.
Then there is probably an anti-globalization component to it–people who are angry at the IMF and EU regulations, think Greece should go it alone, etc.
And there could also be a populist component along the lines of “why should we (the poor people) pay? Let “the rich” pay!” (however you define “the rich”, of course).
In short, the same kinds of things going on everywhere, only worse because people are more desperate.
“Some people appear to not understand that money to pay people working in the public sector and to pay retirees etc. has to come from somewhere.”
Valid, totally valid. But there’s another side to it. Unions — whether public sector or private sector — fought hard and bloody battles for the right to organize and collectively bargain. Once they had that, they, like any other group of people with something to sell, got the best price for it they possible could. That means the best salaries, the best health and retirement benefits, the safest working conditions, etc. This gets agreed upon in the form of a contract, agreed to voluntarily by both parties.
Here’s the part where I get baffled and a little indignant. Everybody knows that a free market purchases efficiency and innovation at a cost, and that cost includes some people getting stuff that seems in excess of what they deserve. Speculators make billions. Defense contractors make billions. Credit card companies make fortunes off service charges — banks make fortunes off of overdraft fees.
These things bother a lot of people. But they put up with them — because, well, we had a contract with that company, and if they used the system to get rich, so be it. We all benefit from a system where a contract is a contract, so there you are.
I don’t understand why of all the people who succeed in making a good deal for themselves — CEOs with their golden parachutes, cell phone companies with their hidden charges, politicians that become “consultants” — there is this great anger among some against people for getting to retire early or see their doctor without a copay. We accept for capitalism to work the CEO of BP needs his yacht, but people who made their employer promise them a living wage are the greedy people driving the system into bankruptcy. Detroit made shitty cars for thirty years, but no, they went bankrupt because a line worker can send his kid to college. Please.
I agree, in a budget crunch you have to look at everything. But I wish people would not vilify workers for having done what everyone expects the boss or the owner to do — strike the best deal they can.
I’m not angry at unions for negotiating what they thought was a good deal with their companies. I’m not saying the unions shouldn’t strike the best deal they can. Then those companies should be on the hook. But if those companies go do go bankrupt, then what?
‘
The question of whether or not the government should step should not be based on whether those in the unions were greedy, but based on some standard for what the government does. I certainly don’t think the government should step in an guarantee 100% of whatever a company promised a union anymore than they should step in and pay Discover if I rack up credit card debt and default on Discover.
The government should have reasonable provision in place to force companies to set aside money to fund pension obligations they agreed too, and unions might want to consider how to ensure the workers actually hold some of the funds they are planning on for retirement. Both are required to minimize the risk that a company will be unable to fulfill its obligations when workers who traded labor now for future promised retirement benefits begin to draw the their benefits. In principle, the first is done, but in practice it seems companies were willing to defer really worrying about fulfilling promises until later.
With respect to Greece: If the government has no money, they have no money. Protesting doesn’t create money for the government. Do the Greeks think it’s going to make Germany come forward and pour money on them? Observing that Germany might not shower Greece with money isn’t making a value judgment about Greeks, labor unions or anyone. It’s sort of like observing that rain tends to fall down.
“The question of whether or not the government should step should not be based on whether those in the unions were greedy, but based on some standard for what the government does. I certainly don’t think the government should step in an guarantee 100% of whatever a company promised a union anymore than they should step in and pay Discover if I rack up credit card debt and default on Discover.”
I agree entirely. Perhaps my rant was a little OT. I thought we were talking about government workers protesting unilateral changes in their contracts, not private sector workers protesting the terms of a bailout (without which they wouldn’t have a job.)
An employee is like any other creditor who is also a supplier. Obligations are subject to modification in the event of bankruptcy or the equivalent, taking into consideration that without your employees, there’s no business to save.
“If the government has no money, they have no money. Protesting doesn’t create money for the government. Do the Greeks think it’s going to make Germany come forward and pour money on them?”
I’d hazard a guess that they think not everyone is going to be protected equally, and that they may benefit from pressuring their government to direct relief funds their way. We don’t have that tradition of street protests in the United States, which is why our the bulk of our bailouts went to Goldman Sachs and General Motors, with only a trickle left over for millions of people who lost their jobs or their homes.
Robert–
I thought we were discussing the Greeks specifically rioting. The austerity measures in Greece evidently involve this:
No one here said those who dislike pay cuts are greedy. It’s only been said that protests aren’t going to create money to pay money the Greek government doesn’t have.
Uh, the bailouts went to Goldman Sachs et al. not because we don’t have crazy rioters who burn bankers alive. They went to the people they went to because those people were well connected. Look at the current administration, do you have any idea how many people working there used to work for Goldman Sachs? How many still do? It’s quite a few!
The Greek protests are not just “street protests” but violent riots. We don’t want that here in America under any circumstances.
“Uh, the bailouts went to Goldman Sachs et al. not because we don’t have crazy rioters who burn bankers alive. They went to the people they went to because those people were well connected.”
You’ve just illustrated my point. The powerful are readily able to pressure the government — call it being well-connected or whatever you like. Europeans tend to get more pressure from the street.
Who was burned alive?
“The Greek protests are not just “street protests†but violent riots. We don’t want that here in America under any circumstances.”
Speak for yourself. Without violent revolt, there wouldn’t be an America.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
I have no problem with a little bit of rioting in a good cause. We didn’t get women’s suffrage or the Civil Rights Act without some broken windows. 😉
Here’s an example of someone:
http://libcom.org/files/liveimages_foto-haber_yunanistanda-ofke-dinmiyor_r12162430%5B1%5D.jpg
And a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk8CyZSmP5s
I suspect that several of the pics I am finding are of the same riot control guy, so I won’t post every one of those.
“Speak for yourself. Without violent revolt, there wouldn’t be an America.” “I have no problem with a little bit of rioting in a good cause.”
War as a last resort for achieving political ends is quite a bit different than this. And even then, the situation is rebelling against democracy, instead of for it.
Let the record show that you are with Lenin “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”?
But if you think only good can come from terrorism, One wonders how you would have felt about the original KKK, or, What the Heck I’ll bang the Godwin Gong, The Beer Hall Putsch! Oh, those weren’t “good causes”? Says who, you? Violence is almost never an acceptable answer.
The latter statement you made disgraces the memory of all those who pushed for change by peaceful means. The Civil Rights Act a product of violence? You are telling me it was the Black Panthers, not Martin Luther King, whose efforts led to that? I don’t recall violence being a cornerstone of the Suffrage movement, either. Was there violence? Oh, sure. But was it necessary for achieving the goal? Did it even help? On the former point, it absolutely was not necessary in those cases, and on the latter point, I am of the opinion that to the extent that militant elements existed in those movements, it was to their detriment, not their benefit.
“Let the record show that you are with Lenin “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggsâ€?”
Way to skirt Godwin’s Law, Andrew. Let the record show that you are with slave-holders, apartheid thugs, and the people who spit on women demanding the vote.
Let the record show that you are with Stalin, Mao, Nicolae CeauÅŸescu, and the rest of the bloody tyrants who ruled in the name of public order. They thought opposition to themselves was “terrorism” too, of course.
It’s funny you want to play the Godwin game when you’re trying to demonize popular protest and slander your political enemies as “terrorists.”
The old saw among totalitarian thugs left and right is always that the people in the street represent “terrorism.” Your line of thought come straight from the Caesers via Stalin and Mao.
” I don’t recall violence being a cornerstone of the Suffrage movement, either.”
They killed a lot more than three people, you may be sure. The last time somebody died at the hands of protesters in Greece was 1991. (How many tens of thousands of civilians have been murdered by the US and its allies in that time?) The idea that violence is a “cornerstone” of the Greek protests is nonsense.
“I am of the opinion that to the extent that militant elements existed in those movements, it was to their detriment, not their benefit.”
And your evidence for this self-serving (since you obviously fear popular protest) delusion is what? The reality is quite different:
“The deaths shocked many in Greece, where demonstrations have been a way of life for decades and played a pivotal role in the overthrow of military rule in 1974.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06greece.html
“The last time somebody died at the hands of protesters in Greece was 1991.”*
Prior to the incident described in the link, in which three people died of smoke inhalation after a bank was set on fire. As far as I’m aware, those are the only deaths in these protests.
I am not against protest, I am not against political movements, I am against advocating violence. You praised violence as a way of achieving social change! And when I point out that violence is bad, I’m calling for crushing of any kind of political uprising. Right.
You surely realize the irony, of accusing me of advocating violent suppression of movements by dictatorial means, when all I have done is say that violence is not the answer?
But way to extend my efforts to show how absurd your efforts to justify violence are. Public Order is not a justification for violence either. So this philosophy condemns all those people whom you refer to. In fact, I seem to recall that those people came to power by means of violent revolution! And then they defend that as the new “order” with more violence!
Come on man! Are you serious?
“I am not against protest, I am not against political movements,”
What you did was smear an entire series of protests by hundreds of thousands of people as the work of “terrorists” burning people alive, on the basis of exactly one incident when violence against property led to three deaths, with no evidence that was the intention of anyone involved.
“I am against advocating violence. You praised violence as a way of achieving social change!”
So did you, in the context of a “war.” Semantics.
I’m a realist. Any movement of popular protest includes a certain amount of low-level violence, including violence against property and the use of things like rocks and sticks against the police. I did not praise violence, but praised popular protest — whereupon you tried to demonize the protesters as violent, terrorist thugs, and associate me with Hitler (and when you accuse your enemies of burning people alive as a matter of policy and call them terrorists, you are saying rather more than “violence is not the answer.”)
“Any movement of popular protest includes a certain amount of low-level violence”
Not true.
“I did not praise violence, but praised popular protest”
You said, precisely “I have no problem with a little bit of rioting in a good cause.” Rioting =/= “popular protest” Rioting is violent.
“on the basis of exactly one incident when violence against property lead to three deaths, with no evidence that was the intention of anyone involved.”
No, that’s the incident you sited. But I get it, setting a building on fire, and a person dieing inside, is arson, not manslaughter, just arson.
“when you accuse your enemies of burning people alive as a matter of policy and call them terrorists”
As a matter of policy? I never said “as a matter of policy” I said that that sort of thing had happened. Referring to terrorists on my part has been misunderstood by you. I did not say that the entire movement were terrorists. I said that what you thought only good could come from (“a little bit of rioting in a good cause.”) was advocating terrorism. You did a little more than defend Greek protesters.
“So did you, in the context of a “war.†Semantics.”
No. I was very specific. One must truly have no other options, it is a last resort. The Greeks live in a Democracy. They have options open for them.
“terrorist thugs, and associate me with Hitler”
I actually never associated you with Hitler Per se, although you associated me with Stalin, slave owners, apartheid thugs…Hey, “thugs”! That’s a word you used! I never used it to describe anyone! No, what I did was try to get you to see how absurd advocating violence was. You flew off the handle at that point.
“Not true.”
True. Sorry, but you need to hit the books.
“You said, precisely “I have no problem with a little bit of rioting in a good cause.†Rioting =/= “popular protest†Rioting is violent.”
Rioting =/= “violence” either. It’s both a popular protest, and by definition includes some of the low-level violence I talked about. Again, the problem here is you smearing an entire movement as “terrorism” because some people in it have rioted — which is moral nonsense. Ever hear of the Soweto riots?
“No, that’s the incident you sited.”
Yes, I really shouldn’t do people’s research for them. So your basis for raving about terrorism and invoking Lenin and Hitler was A MOTORCYCLE SET ON FIRE.
“No. I was very specific. One must truly have no other options, it is a last resort. ”
That’s not for you to decide, sorry. I’m sure King George thought the colonists had other options. Popular protest and civil disobedience are part of democracy — again, it was your friends Mao and Stalin who said “Before, we protested on behalf of the people. But now the people are in charge, so protests are unnecessary and destructive.”
“You flew off the handle at that point.”
Says the guy so enraged by a popular protest he started raving about terrorists burning people alive.
I didn’t fly off the handle. I just called you on your shit. You said I was “with Lenin” and brought up the Beer Hall Putsch. That’s you, losing touch with reality. This is me, sending you a postcard from the real world. Those that stand with apartheid thugs and Stalinists shouldn’t play the guilt-by-association game. You’ll know better next time.
“True. Sorry, but you need to hit the books.”
I see, by definition, then, popular protest is violent, at least a little bit.
“Rioting =/= “violence†either.”
The definition of Rioting is “a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.” No Rioting without violence, otherwise it doesn’t meet the definition.
” So your basis for raving about terrorism and invoking Lenin and Hitler was A MOTORCYCLE SET ON FIRE.”
This man looks like a Motorcycle to you?
http://libcom.org/files/liveimages_foto-haber_yunanistanda-ofke-dinmiyor_r12162430%5B1%5D.jpg
“the problem here is you smearing an entire movement as “terrorism†because some people in it have rioted”
Quote me specifically saying that the entire movement are terrorists. You can’t, because I never did.
“I’m sure King George thought the colonists had other options.”
I don’t think that citizens of a democracy have other options, I know they do. It’s called the ballot box.
“Popular protest and civil disobedience are part of democracy”
Yes, and I never said they weren’t. Only problem is that civil disobedience is by definition not violent.
“Says the guy so enraged by a popular protest he started raving about terrorists burning people alive.”
Enraged by popular protest? WHEN DID I SAY POPULAR PROTEST WAS BAD? WHEN?
“You said I was “with Lenin†and brought up the Beer Hall Putsch.”
I see that you thought my Question mark was a typo! No, I was asking you if you were with Lenin on the idea of making an omelet. I take it you now repudiate the idea of violence. Well I would, except you keeping saying that it’s okay.
“Those that stand with apartheid thugs and Stalinists shouldn’t play the guilt-by-association game.”
Stand with Apartheid thugs and Stalinists? What, seriously, what the heck gives you that idea? That isn’t flying off the handle? Really?
You know, I can quote you, and provide evidence for where you are being unreasonable. All I hear is you putting words in my mouth.
Robert, you’re a nut.
The Athens riots were not “low-level violence”, and they were not an example of a legitimate way to seek social change in a democracy.
It is true that, even in democracies, groups of people sometimes get so frustrated that riots break out, and, to the extent that they may serve as a wake-up call to the community leaders, some good may even come out of them. But any such good is brought about by those hypothetical responsible leaders, after the fact; the riot itself only hurts people.
“This man looks like a Motorcycle to you?”
You didn’t cite the image, or provide information about who, what, or when it was, or what the circumstances were. As a piece of evidence, the value of an unlabeled photo like that is exactly nil.
“No Rioting without violence, otherwise it doesn’t meet the definition.”
And there’s no political revolution without violence either. Never once. It doesn’t mean either phenomenon is purely violent, or terrorist, as you asserted.
“I see that you thought my Question mark was a typo!”
You wrote:
“Let the record show that . . .”
That’s not a question, however you punctuate it. It’s a declaration. And then you threw in Hitler for good measure. And you try and backpedal by saying “Oh, I didn’t say Hitler’s NAME, I just referenced an armed revolt led by him.” Excuse FAIL.
“Robert, you’re a nut.”
Uh-huh.
“It is true that, even in democracies, groups of people sometimes get so frustrated that riots break out, and, to the extent that they may serve as a wake-up call to the community leaders, some good may even come out of them. But any such good is brought about by those hypothetical responsible leaders, after the fact; the riot itself only hurts people.”
You need to crack open a history book. Riots have toppled governments, good and bad, have forced governments to repeal taxes, to end (and start) wars, to enfranchise (and disenfranchise) citizens. The polyannism that mistakes the occassional — and wonderful — success of nonviolent (or semi-nonviolent, as in actuality they all are) — for a universal law of history.
Popular protests, including not only sit-ins or marches but also riots, property damage, and street fights with security forces, have accomplished many things good and bad over the course of history. In Greece, in 1975, they were credited with forcing the military junta out of power and bringing about democracy. It is nonsense to say that riots serve only as a “wake-up” call to “responsible” community leaders. (Ah, the never-varying cry of the oppressor for “responsible leaders.” Some things never change.)
Context matters, when it comes to displays of people power.
When people surged onto the streets after the disputed Iranian election, we looked on with fascination and admiration.
When people filled the public square after the disputed election in Ukraine in 2004, resulting in a re-vote, we were filled with hope that true democracy and good governance was coming to the region (wow, were we wrong).
And then when I see Greek people rioting because of completely inevitable spending cuts, while other EU countries discuss a bailout fund for them, I have no use for them. When I see anarchists or anti-globalisation or anti-GM food people protesting at G20, I see anti-social losers with no understanding of economics, just looking for an excuse to break stuff.
Robert is right that there is generally some level of minor violence that accompanies any people power movement. It’s hard to avoid; when you have excited young people in the streets, somebody somewhere is going to light something on fire or throw a rock at a policeman.
But context flavors how we view this. If it’s a street protest we view as being noble or righteous, we tend to overlook those instances as minor and unrepresentative, and we instead focus on any overzealous actions by the authorities. If we disagree with the protesters, then we emphasize the bad actors, and sympathize with the police, even if they might have used force.
While we try to forget that the labor movement was limp until it began to consort with organized crime… while we try to forget that Al Gore is anything but limp… and as the AGW movement limps about, trying to forget Climategate… La Nina continues to emerge
Very well then, I am sorry that you have grossly misunderstood me. But that’s your problem, not mine.
If you want a story to go with the picture, because you doubt, for some strange reason, it’s authenticity, Here you go, but man, I had to do some digging! Well, not really:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2008/200812/20081213/article_384368.htm
The caption of the photo is “A police officer covered in flames runs to escape during a riot in Athens, as Greek students hurled firebombs and stones at police outside parliament yesterday. It was the seventh day of violence after police killed a teenager and sparked a threat to Greece’s government.”
FIREBOMBS! Now that’s some “lowlevel violence”!
From what I have read, each event of Civil-Unrest has its very own dynamic. Some are spiritual, some are economic, some are ethnic and some are about lies and power grabs etc… They each differ in their intensity and violence. No one knows what will start the event and no one knows just how it will play out… Whether here or in say Pakistan, who gets the Big-Mo, that becomes the question, but then at that point; no one involved is asking questions… We live in interesting times; people almost got everything they asked for, have you come the the attention of a High-Government-Official, yet? Time will tell the tale. Stay tuned.
This discussion has been quite interesting and while many people have presented ideas mostly informed by their entrenched positions on the Global Warming debate I think it could also be cast as a discussion on ‘New Media’. (BTW by Media I mean mostly the news media). That the Media and our interaction with Media is rapidly changing I don’t think is under much debate. One of the aspects of ‘New Media’ is its speed – blogs and forums move reporting and discussion ahead much faster than the Old Media of TV, radio and print, even though many ‘Old Media’ organisations have ‘New Media’ arms. To achieve this speed there is a risk, perhaps best summed up by the idea ‘that is as important to be quick as it is, to be right’, with the corollary that ‘it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission’. All this means is that for ‘New Media’ it is best to get an idea out quickly even if there is a risk of error or misinterpretation because you can always correct later.
Recently in Australia we have seen the value of this approach where during our recent change of Prime Minister SkyNews (which runs an unashamedly ‘New Media’ ethos) jumped in with reports and rolling coverage so much quicker than the staid old ABC (Australian version of the BBC) and was calling the outcome at 9pm the evening before whilst the ABC was still prevaricating at 11pm, even on the ABC’s 24 news radio. Of course there was a risk that SkyNews’ sources were wrong, after all they relied on mostly projection of gossip and even taking the lack of returned phone calls as proof, but they took the risk and were first.
Lucia could have sat on this story and waited for the BBC etc to report and then discussed the report but that would be at odds with the DYI approach shown in the analysis of climate data. Waiting for the BBC etc is like accepting an argument from authority rather than running your own analysis. The ‘New Media’ seeks to break free from a top down approach to reporting and interpretation and blogs are also achieving this in the Global Warming debate. Waiting for the BBC to report is like allowing a scientific debate to only occur in a few gated journals – it’s too late for that in news and too late for that in Global Warming. The new ways aren’t smooth and tidy but the old ways are slow and restricted to the establishment. I say well done Lucia, keep up the data analysis and keep up the reporting.
So in short Andrew Kennett, dont believe anything you read on the internet until it shows up on a grown up media outlet who will at least put in the effort to fact check.
Sage advice.
dorlomin,
Nah that Old Media spin is way too slow and how often have Old Media been caught out — if Old Media really did the job as advertised New Media would have never been born. What happened here was C21 not C19 — multi-contribution, multi-viewpoint, access, discuss, real time — time to catch the wave or be swamped by it