Got no evidence? Can’t hold a rational discussion? Just call people names — smear them.

David Evans (my other half) pointed out that anyone who opposed the regulating class gets called a racist sooner or later (see those quotes at the end). Now it’s happened to him. Two weeks after getting a mention of climate “feedbacks” into The Age, he’s being called antisemitic. And on what basis? Wait for it… two years ago, on a different topic, Dr David Evans wrote the word “Rothschilds”. Then those who can’t think, but were keen to do a character assassination, leapt to use their psychic abilities, crack secret codes, and drew on their best kindergarten reasoning to call that “antisemitic”. The essay was about banking history and systematic flaws in our currency system, and there was no mention of any religion or any race. But no matter, it’s just another variation of the pathetic Holocaust denier meme. It’s what a smear-artist does — denigrate speakers to try to stop people hearing their message.

As usual, a lack of evidence doesn’t stop the rabid conspiracy-theory-spotters from writing reams of speculation about something that isn’t there and never was.  David has never mentioned anything about a Jewish conspiracy, never even alluded to it, and of course, neither have I, nor would we.

Here’s the “chain of reasoning” (I’m using the term loosely):

Are the climate models exaggerating the feedbacks?   –>   David Evans said “Rothschild” once   –> Other unrelated people who talk about the Rothschilds are nutters  –>  some nutters are anti-Semitic   –> therefore, ergo, the models are right and Earth’s climate sensitivity is 3.3C with a feedback loop gain of 0.65!

Who knew? Anyone who writes about monetary history apparently can’t mention “Rothschild” without it neutralizing not only what they say on economics, but every word they utter on every other topic. Which is bad news for Niall Ferguson. He not only mentioned the Rothschilds, I’ve just discovered he wrote two whole books on them (Vol I  and Vol II).

Not to state the bleeding obvious but you can’t discuss monetary history without the Rothschilds getting a mention.

Can we train a smear-merchant to think?

Who can say whether compulsory name-calling is deliberate or involuntary? Some people just don’t seem to be able to help themselves. For gullible followers of authority, everything in the world is assessed according to who they can “trust” to do their thinking for them —  and given how badly they reason, it’s probably not such a bad strategy. You know: Is the climate warming? — Can I see your CV?  But somewhere a minor mental handicap ends up being a modus operandi, and these activists become character-hackers. They spend hours hunting through biographies, looking for “reasons” to denigrate, smear or mock. Can they defame without achieving “defamation”, if you know what I mean?

We just wish they’d spend half the time looking at evidence that matters, satellites, radiosondes, stuff like that.

For the character-hacker, namecalling is a way to stop intelligent conversations. Did the Basel II accords increase monetary aggregates? Ooh Ooh they snort condescendingly — don’t listen to him — he’s a  “&*$%&@!” (….insert evil flaw here).

Rhetorically, most of their argument (and there is only one) boils down to declarations of victory: “bwhahhahaha! LOL!”

No evidence or reason needed. It’s a bluff.

Can we train a smear-merchant to think? No. But we can help teach good people to ignore them.

Professors who think baseless smears are evidence?

What is unnerving is how far this simple strategy of audacious bluster goes in terms of impressing those high up in the pecking order. How could any school teacher be fooled by the teenage tactic? Well, lo and behold the marvel of higher education. What does being a “professor” mean  when crude tricks are copied by people who ought not just to see through them, but to be able to train the next gen to figure them out too? People like, say “Professor” John Quiggin, member of Australia’s Climate Change Authority, and Prof of economics somewhere in Queensland. He was trying to have a discussion about climate science with a blogger (Sanjeev Sabhlok), and “thought” (I’m being generous) that an anonymous guy’s definition of a man with six degrees as a “certified conspiracy theorist/ antisemite/ tin foil hat/ nutter” neutralized the evidence from 3000 ARGO buoys and such like, and was worth emailing it as if it proves something about the climate.

Now neither of David nor I have had the pleasure of meeting Sanjeev, (we’d never heard of him just like he’d never heard of us). But we’d like to meet him now. His response to Quiggan says it all. Quiggan figures no one even needs to discuss the points David raised … because David is “a fraud and a liar” and “antisemitic” too.

Sanjeev bats it back on his blog:

“… if anyone knows who is this evil monster known as David Evans, please let me know. It may seem strange, but I’ve now got a feeling that anyone attacked by John (like Donna Laframboise) is likely to be an outstanding human being.

For instance, there is NO JOURNALIST in the world who has investigated IPCC more thoroughly than Donna. She is the world’s best investigative journalist. Or close to the world’s best. Yet, John called her a liar (before he then retracted but called her analysis amateurish).

Given John’s track record, it is quite possible that David Evans will turn out to be a brilliant nice man. I have no interest in David Evans, but given John’s charges, I might as well find out more. If he is anti-Semitic it won’t change his science (or my opinion of his science), but at least I’ll know that the science is being served to me by an evil man.”

Being a target of a smear-campaign is becoming something to brag about. ; -)

To answer your question Sanjeev, Dr David Evans is a world leading carbon modeler with six higher degrees in maths and stats, three from Stanford. He duxed Sydney Uni engineering, is doing maths research, spent 5 years at the Australian Greenhouse office and makes it possible for his wife to spend far too long on a computer in a quest to stop cheats and parasites from getting away with a rort. (Can’t everyone see the billions of dollars circling through this “crisis”?)

Does David’s stellar career make him right? No. But it means he’s worth listening to.

David predicted that they would do this, and the character-hackers performed exactly on cue:

“Annoy a member of this class sufficiently to strip away their veneer of politeness, and soon you will be called an “idiot” and eventually a “racist”.”

“If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say. Say anything that mentions or might imply race and they will also call you a “racist”.”

The most cowardly defamation artists write anonymous blogs — presumably they aren’t proud of what they write, they know their reasoning is bogus, and their modus operandi is equivalent to the schoolyard bully. They don’t want their normal careers muddied with their transparent attempts to stop people having a reasonable conversation.

For the record,  for what its worth (which is not much) one of my lifelong best friends is Jewish —  I learned to cook Kosher,  and how to keep Shabbat, and I’ve been a welcome guest in Jewish abodes in New York, London, Melbourne and Perth. And what has that got to do with anything?

Other posts about name-calling:

• “Conspiracy theorist” – just another form of namecalling from the class who want to be Global Rulers
• How arrogant art thy name-callers?
• Lomborg: uses irrational name-calling and denies the evidence
• The Branch Carbonian Cult