Here’s a spot the hard-working climate mafia missed

spanda cover

Split the whole into two to engender polarities, spanda endures its course to fulfil its vocation, its call to manifest and to be manifested. Along the same thread, born on a different plane, emerging from the primordial androgynous chasm, each engendered side keeps its heavenly or earthly signature, paralleled – in the twin-fissured dimension – as a pro-tension, a gender advocacy to further differentiate. Having been the first signature gender-wise, the pivotal function of sex is ensuing. The vocatio attracting force generates and emanates form the fulfilled wor[l]d of consciousness, while a counterforce repels it. I am not me, I am you.

“u’r beautiful, show ur light: nûr upon nûr … do u like to play the game of life? ;-)” “beauty is the light that shines forth from within – i like playing my game with life because we are players.” “LOL, Gr8! ttyl.” “ok, i’m offline, bye bye.”

Thus begins the editorial of an academic journal. If you feel queasy about the phone text mysticism, these should be quelled by a professor of psychiatry from the Johns Hopkins University in the next article, expounding on psychedelic experiments with the coming Apocalypse and Mayan astrology:

About fifty minutes into the session, I started experiencing strong activation in the lower part of my body. My pelvis was vibrating as enormous amounts of energy were being released in ecstatic jolts. At one point, this streaming energy swept me along in an intoxicating frenzy into a whirling cosmic vortex of creation and destruction.

In the centre of this monstrous hurricane of primordial forces were four giant herculean figures performing what seemed to be the ultimate cosmic sabre dance. They had strong Mongolian features with protruding cheekbones, oblique eyes and clean-shaven heads decorated by large braided ponytails. Whirling around in a frantic dance craze, they were swinging large weapons that looked like scythes or L-shaped scimitars; all four of these combined formed a rapidly rotating swastika.

So, what’s special about this clearly unique…journal? Answer: it published one of global warming’s most influential papers in recent years.

Not only that, the paper was cited by the IPCC. Not only that, the paper became the basis for the IPCC report’s headline conclusions.

Surely, you must have heard on the news how academic assassins descended from the rooftops like a ton of bricks and shut down the journal, for daring to defile their science and smuggle stuff into the IPCC. Or not.

What happened was something else entirely. This is how one of the world’s foremost environmental pressure group Greenpeace got its material published. It allowed the author, a Greenpeace member, who incidentally was an IPCC author on the same chapter, to get his own paper cited.

It didn’t stop there. The authors ported the same material to a different journal, a slightly more respectable one that would balk at publishing dreams of energy-radiating pelvises, for duplicate publication. An offence that earns five-year author bans in some quarters.

Yes, this whole thing happened, and right under the noses of activists like Mark Lynas and the members of W.O.W.S.A (World Organization of Willie Soon Antagonists) who are otherwise busy sniffing for patterns and delivering horse heads to journal editors’ sleeping quarters.



  1. Joshua

    Shub –

    Following Anders’ request to take the discussion elsewhere, and wanting to respond to a comment you made over there, I thought I’d drop a response here.

    Unfortunately the ‘crushing’ derives little if any from factual information and comes mainly from calls to delete comments, scrub grafitti, send complaint letters, in general, from a crescendo of righteous indignation. How factual is the crushing rhetoric of ‘snake oil salesman!’

    I am guessing that you’ve probably read that I am not in favor of “moderating” comments – but: (1) the behaviors you describe occur on both sides of the debate, (2) your description is over the top and fails to acknowledge that there are legitimate issues in play and, (3) your description is completely one-sided and thus, inaccurate.

    If you acknowledge the veracity of what I say there then we have something to talk about.

  2. Shub Niggurath

    Hi Josh
    The description is not over the top.

    This is badgersouth’s comment stream, and this is not even the whole of it:

    The description is not one-sided. Show me commenters on the thread asking for andphysics, or anyone else to be shut down as badgersouth did:

    Let us be clear: I use ‘shut down’ as short-hand for all the different types of overt and covert delegitmization that is carried out. I don’t see any point in discussing the semantics of it.

    You, or badgersouth don’t see the negative effects of such behaviour owing to the synergy between your position/s and the direction of your criticisms.

    Others see it. Let them reply back. The badgersouths will get taken care of automatically. That is the yin and the yang of it. Instead, as Andrew Adams notes in his comment, standing to one side of it and propping barriers of censorship builds up the negative energies until it blows up.

    Expressing criticism of an ‘opponent’, especially one whose legitimacy you question and whose right to expression you question, is not an easy job. andphysics took it lightly.I don’t think he’s fully clear himself why he doesn’t want Andrew Montford on the TV or radio. I have a lot of people whose guts I hate being on TV, radio, newspapers or blogs. The route to rationalize and formalize a personal irritation into a qualified form of palatable media criticism, is a slippery one. Intolerance breeds intolerance. And that’s what happened.

    To be further clear, the above should again be interpreted in the spirit of its context and its scale, i.e., a bunch of online blog comments. andphysics has to be commended for his open-mindedness and ability to change his mind. He got ticked off and blocked me and then reversed the changes.

  3. Joshua

    Shub –

    You, or badgersouth don’t see the negative effects of such behaviour owing to the synergy between your position/s and the direction of your criticisms.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but w/r/t me, you are wrong.

    The reactions from folks like badgersouth are in response to some real issues. But, as I have stated many times, reactions such as his are overreactions. That they are overreactions does not eliminate the real problems.

    We see exactly the same dynamic on the other side of the debate. In fact, we see overreactions in your own comments and responses, not the least instructive of which are your comments and responses to me.

    IMO, the point is to being open to look at the overall dynamic and learn from it, rather than doubling-down and participating in/reinforcing precisely the same pattern.

  4. Shub Niggurath

    “The reactions from folks like badgersouth are in response to some real issues”

    Really? What issues? What issues forced badgersouth to go around posting content-free calls for scrubbing comments?

  5. Joshua

    Obviously, I didn’t say that he was forced to do anything. If you construct straw men, then we can’t have a fruitful discussion.

  6. Shub Niggurath

    What issues did he respond to by adopting the observed behaviour/tactic/tic/action?

    I say this as badgersouth has several comments doing the same thing. He’s doing it on another thread in the same andphysics blog. He is a moderator for the Skepticalscience blog. For an SKS mod, everything looks like a nail?