Wednesday, December 02, 2009
more examples of double secret super reverse moonbat climate racism...or something
kevin drum has the best debunking of the "climategate" bs that's been floating around the hardly-ever-right wing lately:
this, in a nutshell, pretty much describes the entire dynamic between contrarians of all stripes and those on the opposing side who would rely on facts to advance their agenda (ie, us).
since contrarians really don't have a point, other than stopping the reality-based community from making theirs (and thus allowing corporate/religious interests to continue in their retrogressive ways), the contrarians don't have an obligation to be logical, consistent, or even make a lick of sense.
Whether they aredebating arguing about climate change, human rights, the economy, evolution, or political agendas, all they have to do is muddy the waters when we try to make our points. they use logical fallacies, false binaries, straw men, ad hoc attacks, and other school-yard tactics to deflect attention from the actual facts involved to drag the debate to a complete halt.
for the hardly-ever-right (as for the senate repubbblicans), a draw is as good as a win. they figure if we're not allowed to prove our points, their points have been proven.
which we find quite ironic, considering their reliance on their ultimate authority, which is itself unprovable (ie, god). somehow, they believe that if they can undermine the general public's trust in science (which can be emprically tested), then religion (which absolutely can not) has won.
it's a zero-sum game for the contrarians. if we don't cross the finish line, they win by default, so all they have to do is yell louder.
(or, in the case of andrew breitbart vs. our buddy brad friedman, tweet faster.)
as near as i can tell, climategate is almost entirely a tempest in a teacup. among the stash of emails recently hacked from computers at the climatic research unit (cru) at the university of east anglia, one mentioned a "trick" for producing a nice looking graph, but the word "trick" was plainly used in the sense of "technique," not chicanery. there's nothing questionable there. another bunch of emails shows that when scientists are communicating privately they can be as catty and nasty as anyone else. it's good gossip fodder, but nothing more. another set of emails deals with outraged reaction to a particular journal article, but this isn't news. it was an entirely public incident when it happened a few years ago, and half the board of the journal resigned in protest. the emailers were determined not to have shoddy science published in peer-reviewed journals, and there's nothing wrong with that.
then there are some emails about which research should and shouldn't be included in the next ipcc report, which, again, is entirely normal. every scientist who worked on the ipcc report surely had opinions about which research was on point and which was shoddy. finally, there's the revelation that cru has destroyed some raw temperature data, but this happened back in the 1980s, before global warming was even on anyone's radar screen, and was obviously motivated by space considerations (they were paper records), not any kind of coverup. what's more, the raw data is still available from the original sources that provided it to cru anyway.
unfortunately, there are also a couple of messages that suggest an effort to destroy emails that might have been subject to a freedom of information request. that's a genuine problem, though it's not clear to me just how big a problem it is.
kevin goes on to quote george monbiot (an environmentalist science blogger), who thinks this whole mess only points up the poor performance of the science crowd in handling pr:then there are some emails about which research should and shouldn't be included in the next ipcc report, which, again, is entirely normal. every scientist who worked on the ipcc report surely had opinions about which research was on point and which was shoddy. finally, there's the revelation that cru has destroyed some raw temperature data, but this happened back in the 1980s, before global warming was even on anyone's radar screen, and was obviously motivated by space considerations (they were paper records), not any kind of coverup. what's more, the raw data is still available from the original sources that provided it to cru anyway.
unfortunately, there are also a couple of messages that suggest an effort to destroy emails that might have been subject to a freedom of information request. that's a genuine problem, though it's not clear to me just how big a problem it is.
....the crisis has been exacerbated by the university's handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond....when the emails hit the news on friday morning, the university appeared completely unprepared. there was no statement, no position, no one to interview. reporters kept being fobbed off while cru's opponents landed blow upon blow on it. when a journalist i know finally managed to track down phil jones, he snapped "no comment" and put down the phone. this response is generally taken by the media to mean "guilty as charged".
....the handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. they appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.
it's hard to argue with this. climate change skeptics have gotten fantastic mileage out of this affair, but that's only partly because technical explanations of facially damaging statements are never very convincing to the general public. an even bigger part of the problem is that a lot of the scientists involved haven't even been providing the technical explanations, leaving that up to others who are trying to get a handle on what's going on. from a pr standpoint, it's been a disaster so far.....the handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. they appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.
since contrarians really don't have a point, other than stopping the reality-based community from making theirs (and thus allowing corporate/religious interests to continue in their retrogressive ways), the contrarians don't have an obligation to be logical, consistent, or even make a lick of sense.
Whether they are
for the hardly-ever-right (as for the senate repubbblicans), a draw is as good as a win. they figure if we're not allowed to prove our points, their points have been proven.
which we find quite ironic, considering their reliance on their ultimate authority, which is itself unprovable (ie, god). somehow, they believe that if they can undermine the general public's trust in science (which can be emprically tested), then religion (which absolutely can not) has won.
it's a zero-sum game for the contrarians. if we don't cross the finish line, they win by default, so all they have to do is yell louder.
(or, in the case of andrew breitbart vs. our buddy brad friedman, tweet faster.)
posted by skippy at
10:19 PM |
blogtopia remembers jon swift
18 Comments:
commented by 
mw (Dividist), 8:47 PM PST
mw (Dividist), 8:47 PM PST
It really is a more serious matter than just some controversial e-mails. They purged the raw data, which puts a cloud over the whole thing. Will Bunch of Attytood should also be read on this.
mahakal :
for a somewhat different set of
facts than the ones you assert,
please see Thers at
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/12/no-need-for-further-questioning.html
for a somewhat different set of
facts than the ones you assert,
please see Thers at
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/12/no-need-for-further-questioning.html
Joel, Thers post has nothing to do with the fact that the raw data was dumped. Did you read Will Bunch?
The question isn't whether there is some criminal liability, but whether we have reliable data from this institution now.
yes, I read Will Bunch.
I agree with him that this could and should have been better handled. But IMHO it's primarily a problem of optics; there's very little substantive misbehavior (the email deletion was a mistake, I think).
You do understand that :
+ The raw data still exists; just not at CRU. The original recording institutions still retain the original data.
+ CRU did not and does not have the legal right to share the raw data demanded - some of the original recording institions contributed their data with the stipulation that it not be further redistributed without permission.
+ There's no evidence that any fudged data was ever presented. Anomalous, known invalid data was indeed suppressed in a graph. (It's a shame that they did not present the recent anomalous tree-ring data with an explanation that it is invalid, but it _is_ invalid.)
See Bradford Plumer,
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/another-round-the-cru-e-mails
who makes what I think is the central point: even if CRU were shown to be deeply corrupt, evidence from multiple independent sources corroborates CRU's data and conclusions.
If I forge a memo over Obama's signature that claims that Illinois has its western border on the Mississippi River, the fact that the memo is forged does not change the fact that Illinois _does_ have its western border the Mississippi River.
Similarly, even severe misbehavior by a couple climate scientists does not throw much doubt on the overwhelming evidence for AGW.
I agree with him that this could and should have been better handled. But IMHO it's primarily a problem of optics; there's very little substantive misbehavior (the email deletion was a mistake, I think).
You do understand that :
+ The raw data still exists; just not at CRU. The original recording institutions still retain the original data.
+ CRU did not and does not have the legal right to share the raw data demanded - some of the original recording institions contributed their data with the stipulation that it not be further redistributed without permission.
+ There's no evidence that any fudged data was ever presented. Anomalous, known invalid data was indeed suppressed in a graph. (It's a shame that they did not present the recent anomalous tree-ring data with an explanation that it is invalid, but it _is_ invalid.)
See Bradford Plumer,
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/another-round-the-cru-e-mails
who makes what I think is the central point: even if CRU were shown to be deeply corrupt, evidence from multiple independent sources corroborates CRU's data and conclusions.
If I forge a memo over Obama's signature that claims that Illinois has its western border on the Mississippi River, the fact that the memo is forged does not change the fact that Illinois _does_ have its western border the Mississippi River.
Similarly, even severe misbehavior by a couple climate scientists does not throw much doubt on the overwhelming evidence for AGW.
Greetings,
Unless you happen to look at the formulas and the constants being applied to the actual and/or projected data you would think this is nothing. Looking at these "tricks", however, I became outraged that such results are included in anything more than a cartoon. It is academic dishonesty at its worst.
Unless you happen to look at the formulas and the constants being applied to the actual and/or projected data you would think this is nothing. Looking at these "tricks", however, I became outraged that such results are included in anything more than a cartoon. It is academic dishonesty at its worst.
CSG:
Could you be more specific about the "trick" you find so offensive?
The email that famously uses the word "trick" refers to a method of data calibration, not to an attempt to deceive by fudging data. It's a "trick" in the same sense that integration by parts is a "trick" -- that is to say, it's a valid data transform that removes known systematic inaccuracies from the data.
Or are you referring to a different trick?
I am aware of many worse examples of academic dishonesty -- for example, J. H. Shon in physics.
Could you be more specific about the "trick" you find so offensive?
The email that famously uses the word "trick" refers to a method of data calibration, not to an attempt to deceive by fudging data. It's a "trick" in the same sense that integration by parts is a "trick" -- that is to say, it's a valid data transform that removes known systematic inaccuracies from the data.
Or are you referring to a different trick?
I am aware of many worse examples of academic dishonesty -- for example, J. H. Shon in physics.
The timing on all this smells fishy to me, like maybe it was made up by the NeverRight wingnuts.
seriously guys, are you suggesting that an industry which here-to-fore hadn't even existed, has the power to influence governments and scientists to "lie," for the only purpose of creating the industry?
in other words, you are positing a conspiracy by a "green industry" that didn't exist to create a "green industry."
even god couldn't do that!
in other words, you are positing a conspiracy by a "green industry" that didn't exist to create a "green industry."
even god couldn't do that!
Speaking for my own comments, I don't suggest any conspiracy. Bad behavior by scientists however should not be shoved under the rug, and closing ranks around bad behavior does not improve science.
Peer reviewing does create inherent biases which are not necessarily as much scientific as political, in some cases.
None of this is to doubt global warming is occurring, given that there is lots more data confirming it. But to say that this particular episode shouldn't be taken seriously or dealt with would be a mistake.
Peer reviewing does create inherent biases which are not necessarily as much scientific as political, in some cases.
None of this is to doubt global warming is occurring, given that there is lots more data confirming it. But to say that this particular episode shouldn't be taken seriously or dealt with would be a mistake.
Pretending that the controversy is just about snarky emails is hardly a debunking.
The reality is that the AGW proponents have a long history of hiding data, refusing to share methodology, stonewalling on FOI requests ( repeated in the East Anglia emails ), cherry picking data ( the Yamal tree core scandal ) and intimidating journals into not publishing dissenting or critical views. Lots of data have been lost, hidden, and not archived in violation of grant agency and journal policies. The long history of attempting to get the basic data sets that went into MBH '98 are public record and Mann sat in front of a Congressional committee and refused to disclosure statistics code. All of this has corrupted the basic data on which the uniqueness of recent warming is claimed. This is not news, even though the leaked materials confirm this history.
When the AGW people openly share data, share methodology, quit calling skeptics "war criminals" and generally act like scientists instead of propagandists, then they will start to regain credibility.
The reality is that the AGW proponents have a long history of hiding data, refusing to share methodology, stonewalling on FOI requests ( repeated in the East Anglia emails ), cherry picking data ( the Yamal tree core scandal ) and intimidating journals into not publishing dissenting or critical views. Lots of data have been lost, hidden, and not archived in violation of grant agency and journal policies. The long history of attempting to get the basic data sets that went into MBH '98 are public record and Mann sat in front of a Congressional committee and refused to disclosure statistics code. All of this has corrupted the basic data on which the uniqueness of recent warming is claimed. This is not news, even though the leaked materials confirm this history.
When the AGW people openly share data, share methodology, quit calling skeptics "war criminals" and generally act like scientists instead of propagandists, then they will start to regain credibility.
Speculating about a conspiracy of scientists is like speculating about a conspiracy of cats. It makes no sense. Every top scientist I've ever met is a legend in his own mind who wants to destroy all the other scientists so he can get the Nobel Prize that he feels he so rightly deserves. The mechanism that scientists have for doing that is peer-reviewed research in research journals, backed up by solid experimental design and data, that is fully replicable by other scientists. The fact that every contrarian anti-global-warming article in research journals has been destroyed when other scientists point to flaws in the design or point out that the data doesn't support the contrarian position advanced, while most articles supporting the global-warming hypothesis have not been destroyed is a matter of experimental design and data, not of conspiracy -- believe me, if some scientist could figure out how to destroy the global-warming hypothesis in a way that would pass peer review muster, he would, because it would be a guaranteed Nobel.
In short, speculations about a conspiracy of scientists are as laughable as speculating about conspiracies of cats. But then, the implausibility doesn't matter to the tighty righties, all they're concerned about is smearing people, not about facts and reality.
- Badtux the Scientific Penguin
In short, speculations about a conspiracy of scientists are as laughable as speculating about conspiracies of cats. But then, the implausibility doesn't matter to the tighty righties, all they're concerned about is smearing people, not about facts and reality.
- Badtux the Scientific Penguin
"in a way that would pass peer review muster"
Much hangs on this qualification.
That does not mean AGW is a conspiracy. It does mean that political factors play a role in the declared consensus.
Much hangs on this qualification.
That does not mean AGW is a conspiracy. It does mean that political factors play a role in the declared consensus.
Uhm, no. By "peer review muster" I mean that peer review can't poke holes in it, not that peer reviewers are required to agree with the conclusions. You seem to have no (zero) knowledge of how science actually works. If there is a piece of science where none of the reviewers can find any flaws in its research methodologies or in its data, it generally gets published even if EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER disagrees with its conclusions. This happens on a regular basis.
And why would the reviewers allow the paper to be published even though they don't agree with it? Simple: Because that gives them an excuse to write their *own* papers where they attempt to replicate the results of the original paper and fail, at which point they get to a) say "Booyah! Dude was a moron!" and high-five each other and publish their own paper, or b) mutter "dammit, I was *sure* he was wrong, but my results seem to back up his position" and *still* get a paper published. Point being, you get your own paper published out of the deal. Remember, "publish or perish" is the general rule in the academic world... so there is a *big* incentive to allow anything that passes basic quality control standards to be published, whether it backs the current consensus or not, because that gives more opportunities for *everybody* to publish.
In short, a conspiracy of scientists is, as I point out, as reasonable a hypothesis as a conspiracy of cats. Neither the mentality of scientists nor the incentives in their environment point towards any ability to create and maintain a conspiracy of some sort. If all you have is vague mutterings of some "conspiracy" by scientists as the reason why there is not a single paper in any peer-reviewed journal which disproves the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, then you're full of shit, and that's exactly what I'll say -- that you're a lying asshole who ought to be ashamed of yourself. Either that, or you're a fucking moron and should keep your trap shut because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Whatever.
- Badtux the Scientific Penguin
And why would the reviewers allow the paper to be published even though they don't agree with it? Simple: Because that gives them an excuse to write their *own* papers where they attempt to replicate the results of the original paper and fail, at which point they get to a) say "Booyah! Dude was a moron!" and high-five each other and publish their own paper, or b) mutter "dammit, I was *sure* he was wrong, but my results seem to back up his position" and *still* get a paper published. Point being, you get your own paper published out of the deal. Remember, "publish or perish" is the general rule in the academic world... so there is a *big* incentive to allow anything that passes basic quality control standards to be published, whether it backs the current consensus or not, because that gives more opportunities for *everybody* to publish.
In short, a conspiracy of scientists is, as I point out, as reasonable a hypothesis as a conspiracy of cats. Neither the mentality of scientists nor the incentives in their environment point towards any ability to create and maintain a conspiracy of some sort. If all you have is vague mutterings of some "conspiracy" by scientists as the reason why there is not a single paper in any peer-reviewed journal which disproves the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, then you're full of shit, and that's exactly what I'll say -- that you're a lying asshole who ought to be ashamed of yourself. Either that, or you're a fucking moron and should keep your trap shut because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Whatever.
- Badtux the Scientific Penguin
BadTux, I hope you weren't calling me names in your last paragraph. I recommend the Wikipedia article on Peer review which provides a more balances perspective on the pluses and minuses.
Wikipedia... as an unbiased source... dude, you crack me up!
- Badtux the Easily Amused Penguin
- Badtux the Easily Amused Penguin
Did I say Wikipedia was unbiased?
It's Skippy the Bush Kangaroo!
- Please Click Our Advertisers!
They need Luv, too!
blogtopia remembers jon swift
- Co-Founder of B.A.D.
Vote For Skippy!
- We Lost.
Get Over It.
- Jon Stewart Sez : "When I want news, I turn to CNN...and they...turn...to Skippy...the BushKangaroo."
- Founder, Publisher,
Editor-in-Chief
Skippy - Environmental Editor
Cookie Jill - Contributors
Jim Yeager
DBK
George
Ken Houghton
Mahakal
Brandy Betz
Pudentilla
Tami, the One True
- Cartoonist
Brett Penrose
- Skippy Alumni, They Never Write, They Don't Call
Holden Caufield
Carnacki
RJ Eskow - Sister Blogs
Skippy Jr.
The SkippyPedia
- Atom
Our Peers: Other Winners of the
Comprising The "A List of
B List Blogs" (Shystee)- Blah3
- CorrenteWire
- Cryptome
- Dependable Renegage
- Dohiyi Mir
- Excuse the Mess...
That was Just My Head - First Draft
- Main and Central
- Rising Hegemon
- Scrutiny Hooligans
- The Sideshow
- Suburban Guerilla
- Today in Iraq
- WTF Is It Now?
Some Links You Might Need
- Rough & Tumble Cal. Politics
- Your White House
- The Polling Report
- Find Your California Leglislator
- Your Senators
- Your Representatives
- Your Constitution
- Logical Fallacy Index
Community Blogs
Advertize Liberally Blogs
-
AlterNet
BAGnewsNotes
Balloon Juice
Banter Media Group
Barefoot Progressive
BartCop.com
blogACTIVE
Blogging Michigan
Blue Hampshire
Blue Jersey
BlueOregon
Booman Tribune
BRAD BLOG
Burnt Orange Report
CLAY CANE
Crooks and Liars
CultureKitchen
Cursor.org
DailyKos
Dem Underground
DemConWatch
Drudge Retort
EdCone.com
Electoral-vote.com
Elevate Difference
Empire Burlesque
Eschaton
Feminism in a Bra
Feministing
Fired Up! Missouri
First Draft
From Left Field
Green Mountain Daily
Hollywood Liberal
HorsesAss.org
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
ISOU
Jack and Jill Politics
Jack Bog's Blog
Jesus' General
Kick! Political Fun
La Vida Locavore
Las Vegas Gleaner
Lawyers Guns & Money
Left In Alabama
LiberalOasis
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Progressive
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
MyDD
Needlenose
New Civil Rights
News Corpse
News Hounds
onegoodmove
OpEdNews
OpenLeft.com
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon.net
Plunderbund
POLISING
Politics1
PrairieStateBlue
Raw Story
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Scholars and Rogues
Search and Destroy
Seeing the Forest
SistersTalk
skippy bush kangaroo
SquareState.net
Suburban Guerrilla
Susie Bright's Journal
Swing State Project
Talkingpointsmemo
Taylor MarshTexasKaos.com
the albany project
The Daily Gotham
The Democratic Daily
The Left Coaster
The Locust Fork
The Mahablog
The Newshoggers
The Political Carnival
The Reaction
The Rude Pundit
The Smirking Chimp
The Young Turks
This Modern World
Tikun Olam
Truthdig
Washington Monthly
Washington Note
West Virginia Blue
Wonkette
Young Philly Politics
Political Blogs That Do Link To Us
-
618 Rants and Raves
Agitprop
The Agonist
Allan's Perspective
Altercation
Alternate Brain
Alternet's Peek
All Things Democrat
American Airspace (Berube)
Amahchewahwah
American Politics Journal
And Yes, I Do Take It Personally
Andy Worthington
Ang's Weird Ideas
Annie's Annals Apostropher
Archy
Are You Effin' Kidding Me?
The Aristocrats
B12 Solipsism
Bad Attitudes
Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Balloon Juice
Balls And Walnuts
The Barefoot Bum
Bark Bark Woof Woof
The Barstool Chronicles
Bear Waller Hollar
The BRAD Blog
Beggars Can Be Choosers
Michael Berube
Big Brass Blog
Blast Off!
BlondeSense
Blue Gal
The Blue State
Bride of Acheron
Brilliant at Breakfast
The Broad View
Bring It On
Buddhist Jihad
Bunko Squad
Burned Over District
Buzzflash
Cannablog
Captain Dyke
Chapomatic
Chuck for
Coeruleus
Covert History
Coyote Mercury
The CultureGhost
Cynical Nation
D-Day
Dagblog
The Daily Background
Daisy's Dead Air
dKos Bloggers
Dashiell
Brad De Long
Deb's Quirky Web
The Dead Acorn
Democratic Veteran
Disguested in St. Louis
Distributorcap NY
Deep Confusion
Democratic Underground
Divided We Stand United We Fall
D.R. Scott's Pulp Culture
Drexel Democrats
Driftglass
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
Kevin Drum @ MoJo
Done With Mirrors
Drug War Rant
Kevin Drum
Down With Tyranny!
Eccentricity
Echidne of the Snakes
Electrolite
Ellen's Illinois 10th Congressional District Blog
Esoterically.net
Evil George's Personal Website
Evil Mommy
Ex Cathedra
Fallenmonk
Faux Real
Feministe
Fiat Lux
Fixer & Gordon
Fold to Combine
Folkbum's Rambles and Rants
Foreign Policy Watch
The Freewayblogger
Froth Slosh B'Gosh
Frieddogleg
The Funny Farm
The Galloping Beaver
Good Nonsense
The Garlic
GOPnot4me
The Great Endarkenment
Great Scat!
Grits for Breakfast
Group News Blog The Grumpy Forester The Gun Toting Liberal The Hackenblog by Ginger Mayerson
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/Norbizness
Harp and Sword
Bob Harris
Hartsongs
The Heretik
Hoot at the Dark
How Appealing
Howard-Empowered People
Humor Has It
HyerStandard
I Am TRex
I Don't Like You Either
Iddybud Journal
If I Ran the Zoo
I'm No One to Blog, But...
Immigration Orange
The Immoral Minority
The Impolitic
Incertus
Informed Comment
Instapundit
Internet Ronin
Instaputz
Interrobang's Internationale
Intrepid Liberal Journal
The Jaundiced Eye
Jelly Pizza
Jinky the Cat
Jobsanger
John's Blog
Jonestown
Just An Earth-Bound Misfit
Just Ain't Right
The Kenosha Kid's Blog
Kid Oakland
The Kitchen Sink Collective
Knoxviews
Last Left Turn Before Hooterville
Last One Speaks
Left Blogistan
Lawnorder
Left I on the News
Left in SF
Lean Left
Liberal Catnip
Liberal Common Sense
A Lie A Day
Like Sunday
Linkmeister
Lunaville
Mad Kane
Main St. USA
Man Eegee
Manifesto Joe's Texas Blues
Lance Mannion
Martini Revolution
Media Needle
Middle Earth Journal
Migra Matters
Mister Apologist
Mixter's Mix
Mo Rage
A Mockingbird's Medly
The Moderate Man
Moderate Voice
Modulator
Monkeyfister
Moue Magazine
My Left Wing
My Thinking Corner
My Two Cents
My View of It
The Needs of the Few
The Nefarious Lair of LGPPP, Inc.
Newsback
Newscoma
Newshoggers
Newsroom-L.Net
New Pairodimes
Nine Pearls
No Blood for Hubris
No More Apples
No Fish, No Nuts
No More Mister Nice Blog
North Shore Journal
Norwegianity
Notes From Underground
Objectivist v. Constuctivist v. Theist
Olio
OC Progressive
Ole Blue the Heretic
Only Sayin'
Onyx Lynx
The Opinion Mill
Orcinus
Ornery Bastard
Outta the Cornfield
Over the Cliff, Onto the Rocks
P!
Pacific Views
Patriot Daily
Patriside
Peace Tree Farm
Perception Managers
PhysioProf
Pissed on Politics
Play On!
Plucky Punk's Happyland
Plum Crazy
The Political Carnival
The Political Cat
Political Site of the Day
Political Critic
Politickybitch
Popehat
Progressive Blog Digest
Proof Through The Night
Pros Before Hos
prune juice media Pudentilla's Perspective
Pygalgia
Ranger Against War
Rants from the Rookery
Raw Dawg Buffalo
Reality Frame
Real's World
The Reef Ahead
Resident Bush
Rightwingsnarkle
RipCoco
Rodger A. Payne's Blog
Roger Ailes, Over and Out
Rook's Rant
Rubber Hose
Ruminate This
Rumproast
Sack of Monkeys in My Pocket
Scoobie Davis
Scriptoids
The Seminal
Shadow of the Hegemon
Shakesville
The Sideshow
Simply Left Behind
Sisyphus Shrugged
Skimble
Slacktivist
the S.N.A.F.U. principle
Snow Moon
Solarray
Southern Atlantis
Spiiderweb
The Spinning Goth
Spocko's Brain
Spontaneous Arising
Staring at Empty Pages
State of the Day
Staring at Empty Pages
Straight, Not Narrow
SteveAudio
Stinque
Stop the Press!
The Strange Death of Liberal America
Stump Lane
Survivor Left Blogistan
Jon Swift
Talking Dog
TerryFacePlace
Texas Liberal
They Gave Us A Republic... This Blog Will Self-Destruct in 5 Seconds
Tholos of Athena
Three Wise Men
To The Center
Tommyjournal
A Town Called Dobson
Joe Trippi
The Truth Laid Bear
Truth Serum
Two Ton Green Blog
Universal Health Upper Left
Unsolicited Opinion
The Van Der Galien Gazette
Vagabond Scholar
The Vanity Press
Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
Vidiot Speak
Virgotext
Vodka Pundit
Waiting for Dorothy
Watching Those We Chose
Watergate Summer
Wampumblog
The Washington Monthly
Ian Welsh
Westminster Wisdom
West Virginia Blue
Wet Machine
Where's The Outrage?
Whiskey Fire
The Whole American Hog
Why Now?
The Wild Wild Left
William K. Wolfrum Chronicles
World-O-Crap
WriteChic Press
WTF Is It Now? - tblog
Xoverboard
Zaius Nation
Zen Comix
ZenYenta
Rest In Peace
Economy Blogs (Some Link To Us, Some Don't, But These Days It Pays To Be Informed)
- The Bonddad Blog
Calculated Risk
Clive Crook
Brad DeLong
Economist's View
Paul Krugman
Marginal Revolution
Megan McArdle
Mish's Trend Analysis
Naked Capitalism
Roubini's Global EconoMonitor
Brad Setser
Supply and Demand
Media Blogs (Some Link To Us, Some Don't)
- DC Media Girl
Hotline's Blogometer
LA Examiner
MediaBloodhound
Media Matters
Media Whores On Line
Meme-orandum
Nova M Radio
Press Think by Jay Rosen
Romenesko
Soundbitten
Sully Watch
Take Back the Media
TV Newser
Barry Eisler
Science, Technology and Medical Blogs, All Linking To Us
- Anxiety, Addiction and Depression Treatments
The Biomes Blog
A Blog Around the Clock
Coyote Crossing
Deltoid (Tim Lambert)
Mike the Mad Biologist(Mike)
Pharyngula, by PZ Myers
Respectful Insolence
Wetmachine
Social Blogs, All Linking To Us
- AMCGLTD
Cheek and Bluster
Celebrity Crash
The Daily Cookie
The Countess
Easy Bake Coven
Elayne Riggs
EroticaLee1
EroticaLee2
JC's Designs
Late Nite Mash
The McVlog
Milk River Blog
Miss C Recommends
The Morehead the Merrier
Mostly True Stories
Neargh
Pop Culture Gadabout
Scott's Tip of the Day
South Carolina
Hateful Blogs, One Of Which Links To Us And We Hate The Others
Humor Blogs, Some Of Which Link To Us, Some Don't (Go Figure)
- Ayn Clouter
GWBush04
Get Your War On
Ironic Times
The Onion
Scrapple Face
Opinions You Should Have
The White House.org
Archive
- current
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
Credits
- Illustration by August Pollak
- Design by Lauren Bruce
- Skippy is not responsible for the views and opinions of any website linked to & from this page.
- All Original Material Copyrighted 2020. Just in case you aren't aware of all internet traditions, let us assure you that the writers and proprietors of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo are not responsible for the opinions, ideas, conjectures and snark of any articles linked herein.
PS None of you even noticed that all of last year we didn't even change the copyright date to 2011, so, there's that. -
Contact
Feeds
Here is a fun game. See how many logical fallacies, false binaries, straw men, ad hoc attacks, and other school-yard tactics you can find in this one post. Then count the actual facts.
We can compare notes later.