World Politics

[Anonymous]

True enough when the government gets into corporate welfare.

What choice does government have? Corporations fund the campaigns of many people running for state elections and all people running for national elections. We have the best government money can buy, and that is a telling statement.

 

[Anonymous]

it's the other way around.

WE pay, and they (the few ceos, cfo, execs ) live in mansions do minimal work worth questionable value and get multi-million $ bonuses ( even while running the company into the ground)

You absolutely could not be more wrong.

Corruption is the culprit, not big business (don't forget about political corruption either). Big (and small) business makes the average person's life so much better in every imaginable way if for no other reason than providing a product or service that people will pay for and in turn providing you an opportunity to be self sufficient (a job). Take five minutes and look around you. There are more than 5,000,000 business's in the US (not sure where you are from) that make products and provide services that probably enrich your life immeasuably. Of those, how many CEO's behave the way you describe? The answer is not very many. Do they do damage? Yes. Should we as a society have more will to properly punish these bad apples? Absolutely.

Without business you have no money in your pocket to buy what's being sold. Big govt has no ability to tax unless business generates revenue. Big govt has no ability to tax your income unless you make one.

 

[Anonymous]

The question is whether it is a civilization worth living in?

You swerved right in to a topic I was discussing with a (liberal) friend. The subject was happiness;

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/05/05/why-conservatives-say-they-are-happier-than-liberals.html

"Conservatives aren't known as a jolly bunch. What makes them feel so happy?
Half of the difference between conservatives and liberals is demographic. It has to do with religion and marriage, which is more frequent among conservatives. The real question is why is the other half unexplained? Conservatives have a different orientation. Conservatives think there is a lot of opportunity in America. A lot of liberals feel this way, too, but conservatives overwhelmingly believe if you go around and work hard and persevere, you're going to get ahead, as opposed to you are a victim of circumstance or oppression and you are screwed in life. Again, that might be right, but it's not happy.
Plenty of liberals' reaction to that would be, "Well, ignorance is bliss."
That, of course, is the fox and the grapes. It's Aesopian. The Republicans get out their big foam fingers on this, and Democrats say it's all baloney anyway. They say, "You would be depressed if you had any idea what's going on." Again, I don't think it's like that. My own feeling is that conservatives are a lot more optimistic about what opportunities are out there for them."

Could be an explaination perhaps. Or not.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You absolutely could not be more wrong.

Corruption is the culprit, not big business (don't forget about political corruption either). Big (and small) business makes the average person's life so much better in every imaginable way if for no other reason than providing a product or service that people will pay for and in turn providing you an opportunity to be self sufficient (a job). Take five minutes and look around you. There are more than 5,000,000 business's in the US (not sure where you are from) that make products and provide services that probably enrich you life immeasuably. Of those, how many CEO's behave the way you describe. The answer is not very many. Do they do damage? Yes. Should we as a society have more will to properly punish these bad apples? Absolutely.

Without business you have no money in your pocket to buy what's being sold. Big govt has no ability to tax unless business generates revenue. Big govt has no ability to tax your income unless you make one.

Clearly spoken - everyone focus's on the guys who make the news, those who do it right do not sell newspapers. Of course I do think everyone pays when the government decided to bail out businesses who did not have a good business model but your logic is inescapable - no business = no taxes = no civilization.

 

[usedtobefast]

What choice does government have? Corporations fund the campaigns of many people running for state elections and all people running for national elections. We have the best government money can buy, and that is a telling statement.

what about italy? we did not invent any of this.just perfecting the greed, if one
can do that.

 

[Anonymous]

Most thieves and crooks are happy...for a time...then at some point the bill becomes due...

 

[rhubroma]

Today big business both pays for, and provides the means of, civilization.

No civilization, at least that of the Western World, is a state of combigned socio-cultural and political forces generated over a long historical period from Greco-Roman antiquity to the present. It is a shallow act of excessive hubris to think that in today's market-based capitalist regime, the highest attainments in man's philosophical, political (from the Greek polis), civil (from the Latin civis), artistic and even religious expressions can somehow be replaced by big business and the market - as if civilization is something we buy at the shopping mall.

In short our times have replaced Kultur with the individual pursuit of wealth, with the result that dreams are thought to be fullfilled only by how much I can purchase with the bucks I have earned, and are no longer wrapped-up in the ideals of making my existence more beautiful with the things I contribute to making civilizaton an expression of the best collectively we can produce as humans. In this sense, Classical Athens, Renaissance Florence, Nineteenth-Century Paris -even Twentieth-Century Mannhatan- succeeded in contributing more to civilization while being less economically robust and with infinitely more class, than today's obsessed consumer world and financial based age has with its endless miles of shopping disticts and discount emporiums that are supposed to make us "happy."

Looking at society today, richer than any of the past, it seems to me that we live in a world of devastating contradictions. As people seem less happy in their excess, as if theyare choking on the foul air of useless consumption without the pure oxyginated breeze of invigorationg culture. Poor ol' civilization.

 

[Laszlo]

I guess that is the difference between people who feel their culture is well represented and aquired at walmart as opposed to those of us who prefer to go to places where you can wander around, go from shop to shop and what you may buy is considerably more special and unique than the chinese crap that breaks as soon as you get it home.

 

[Anonymous]

You swerved right in to a topic I was discussing with a (liberal) friend. The subject was happiness;

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/05/05/why-conservatives-say-they-are-happier-than-liberals.html

"Conservatives aren't known as a jolly bunch. What makes them feel so happy?
Half of the difference between conservatives and liberals is demographic. It has to do with religion and marriage, which is more frequent among conservatives. The real question is why is the other half unexplained? Conservatives have a different orientation. Conservatives think there is a lot of opportunity in America. A lot of liberals feel this way, too, but conservatives overwhelmingly believe if you go around and work hard and persevere, you're going to get ahead, as opposed to you are a victim of circumstance or oppression and you are screwed in life. Again, that might be right, but it's not happy.
Plenty of liberals' reaction to that would be, "Well, ignorance is bliss."
That, of course, is the fox and the grapes. It's Aesopian. The Republicans get out their big foam fingers on this, and Democrats say it's all baloney anyway. They say, "You would be depressed if you had any idea what's going on." Again, I don't think it's like that. My own feeling is that conservatives are a lot more optimistic about what opportunities are out there for them."

Could be an explaination perhaps. Or not.

No, I am happy. It is my family and friends who are important and my happiness is not based on the things I have. I guess if your idea of happiness is an $8000 bike, this is the country for you now. It used not to be, but materialism is our culture now. Gotta have the newest and fastest. Only I know a lot of MISERABLE conservatives now. See, their money supply was cut off or slowed to a trickle. I also wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh or anyone who listens to him a "happy" person judging by the things that come out of their mouthes.

As to the oppressed being more miserable. I would suggest that the oppressor might have more things, but that immorality like that has a price. I have known a lot of Republican assholes who would tell you they were happy, but I would just call that denial. Walking around angry and rich doesn't really qualify in my book.

I would like to go back to something I said in the first paragraph, that being materialism as a culture. It will be one of the main reasons our country will fail. And make no mistake, our country will fail sooner or later. History clearly shows us that.

 

[Anonymous]

No, I am happy. It is my family and friends who are important and my happiness is not based on the things I have. I guess if your idea of happiness is an $8000 bike, this is the country for you now. It used not to be, but materialism is our culture now. Gotta have the newest and fastest. Only I know a lot of MISERABLE conservatives now. See, their money supply was cut off or slowed to a trickle. I also wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh or anyone who listens to him a "happy" person judging by the things that come out of their mouthes.

As to the oppressed being more miserable. I would suggest that the oppressor might have more things, but that immorality like that has a price. I have known a lot of Republican assholes who would tell you they were happy, but I would just call that denial. Walking around angry and rich doesn't really qualify in my book.

I would like to go back to something I said in the first paragraph, that being materialism as a culture. It will be one of the main reasons our country will fail. And make no mistake, our country will fail sooner or later. History clearly shows us that.

The few wealthy people I know are really miserable (especially the children).

The point of the book review was to suggest the power of optimism versus pessimism.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

No civilization, at least that of the Western World, is a state of combigned socio-cultural and political forces generated over a long historical period from Greco-Roman antiquity to the present. It is a shallow act of excessive hubris to think that in today's market-based capitalist regime, the highest attainments in man's philosophical, political (from the Greek polis), civil (from the Latin civis), artistic and even religious expressions can somehow be replaced by big business and the market - as if civilization is something we buy at the shopping mall.

In short our times have replaced Kultur with the individual pursuit of wealth, with the result that dreams are thought to be fullfilled only by how much I can purchase with the bucks I have earned, and are no longer wrapped-up in the ideals of making my existence more beautiful with the things I contribute to making civilizaton an expression of the best collectively we can produce as humans. In this sense, Classical Athens, Renaissance Florence, Nineteenth-Century Paris -even Twentieth-Century Mannhatan- succeeded in contributing more to civilization while being less economically robust and with infinitely more class, than today's obsessed consumer world and financial based age has with its endless miles of shopping disticts and discount emporiums that are supposed to make us "happy."

Looking at society today, richer than any of the past, it seems to me that we live in a world of devastating contradictions. As people seem less happy in their excess, as if theyare choking on the foul air of useless consumption without the pure oxyginated breeze of invigorationg culture. Poor ol' civilization.

All of the past civilizations you mention have certainly created a concept of civilization, but I doubt whether you would truly find them culturally superior if you looked at any of the following concepts:

1) slavery
2) government support for the poor, elderly, unemployed, poor health
3) speaking of health, child survival rates, life expectancy
4) Safety for business interests or travel
5) Communications, exchange of ideas
6) Employment, Education, upward mobility

Go back to ancient Greece, Rome, Charlemagne's Europe, Florentine Italy of the Renaissance - and you would find the same human emotions (including depression and anxiety), the same environmental complaints (try to find a forest close to an ancient city), and the same consumer driven economies (with the exception that very few had the means to buy and the selection was extremely limited).

If you consider civilization to be some romantic ideal you would have been sadly disappointed living in those ancient cultures; none of the stated societies would have had the means to achieve that ideal for any but the elite.

On the other hand our crass, business supported society has enabled the poorest child to obtain an education, employment, FOOD, and the potential to succeed and move into the elite classes economically, socially, and intellectually.

Perhaps you can tell that I see the romantic view as having a small amount of fact dressed up with massive doses of fictionalized idealism.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

While looking at articles about conservative happiness I ran across a George Will commentary discussing the studies regarding conservative happiness and it's likely basis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202012.html

 

[Anonymous]

More curious behaviour from the UEA scientists.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

"Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said."

There's more;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

"There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

"The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU. "

A real good way to shut the other side up. Pretty hard to get studies and opinions 'peer reviewed' when your 'peers' are this corrupt.

 

[Anonymous]

While looking at articles about conservative happiness I ran across a George Will commentary discussing the studies regarding conservative happiness and it's likely basis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202012.html

Funny, I found this explanation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox

 

[Anonymous]

Turns out that the claim that this group of scientists are capable of squashing peer reviewed material is a bit overstated. Who would have thought those opposing the idea of climate change would ever exaggerate something?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/energy-environment/30iht-green30.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

Again, the majority of scientists studying the phenomenon believe there is a link to human activity. This conspiracy you suggest (and first became popular after a fictional book by Michael Crichton, State of Fear) involves an enormous number of people, and the only leak they have ever had is this one. Now, call me crazy, but a small number of scientists acting in a way that is completely contrary to the scientific method just doesn't cast doubt on all of the rest. It is like saying Larry Craig and Mark Foley indicate that the majority of Republicans are homosexuals and get their jollies sending dirty emails to underage boys.

 

[Anonymous]

Turns out that the claim that this group of scientists are capable of squashing peer reviewed material is a bit overstated. Who would have thought those opposing the idea of climate change would ever exaggerate something?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/energy-environment/30iht-green30.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

Again, the majority of scientists studying the phenomenon believe there is a link to human activity. This conspiracy you suggest (and first became popular after a fictional book by Michael Crichton, State of Fear) involves an enormous number of people, and the only leak they have ever had is this one. Now, call me crazy, but a small number of scientists acting in a way that is completely contrary to the scientific method just doesn't cast doubt on all of the rest. It is like saying Larry Craig and Mark Foley indicate that the majority of Republicans are homosexuals and get their jollies sending dirty emails to underage boys.

Hmm, it seems corruption is everywhere, even at the IPCC;

"No individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of that panel, wrote in a statement late last week."

Well, um, Rajendra, I guess we can just stop asking questions now that you've made your statement.


I think David Holland and Pat Michaels will/do disagree with the esteemed IPCC chairman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

"These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don't believe they can ever be wrong."

And,


"Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: "There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

"This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude."

 

[Anonymous]

Hmm, it seems corruption is everywhere, even at the IPCC;

"No individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of that panel, wrote in a statement late last week."

Well, um, Rajendra, I guess we can just stop asking questions now that you've made your statement.


I think David Holland and Pat Michaels will/do disagree with the esteemed IPCC chairman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

"These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don't believe they can ever be wrong."

And,


"Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: "There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

"This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude."

Okay, then discount him. You still have to believe in a massive conspiracy that only a couple of emails have revealed. So the great majority of scientists studying the issue are corrupt and bent on squashing any opposition so that they can get rich off of the profits made by corporations that already exist and will just move into the arena when they can profit from it even though many have supported defiance of the theory with tons of money.

Fact remains, the great majority of scientists studying the phenomenon believe that humans contribute significantly to the problem. Don't act like that is not the fact here. People who oppose the idea always act like they have a massive amount of scientific evidence produced by just as many scientists as the other side, when in reality, they represent a fraction of those who do believe in the link. Propaganda is the only way to seem bigger, so have at it.

Also note that Mr Holland does not offer any postulation that counters any of the science involved. All he does is cast doubt on the character of ALL of the scientists studying climate change based on the inappropriate activity of a small few. Hmm, propaganda 101. Sorry, I will still take the majority opinion on this one considering all of the relevant information on the actual phenomenon suggests that there is a strong correlation for a link based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can pretend that they have said it is law and that they all work for evil corporate interests bent on destroying the world economy so that the planet will be saved from something that isn't even possible. Hey, we all have to choose a side.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh yea: Holland = Cato = Koch. Wow, Koch have an engineer willing to go on record against climate change. Who woulda' thought?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

There might be a reason that the scientists attempting to fact check the data might feel a little frustrated. A couple of comments from the linked article below:

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."

"It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

"In a statement on its website, the CRU [guys with the stolen emails] said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

"Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

[Anonymous]

There might be a reason that the scientists attempting to fact check the data might feel a little frustrated. A couple of comments from the linked article below:

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."

"It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

"In a statement on its website, the CRU [guys with the stolen emails] said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

"Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Why aren't more of them out there compiling their own data and using it to make a case? Because it is easier to attack something than it is to produce your own work?

 

[BroDeal]

Oh yea: Holland = Cato = Koch. Wow, Koch have an engineer willing to go on record against climate change. Who woulda' thought?

The good old Cato Institute. When Frontline did a show on global warming skeptics, three out of five of the skeptics later turned out to be funded by Cato. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Scott and Central should get right on the case.

 

[BroDeal]

Time to start debating Scott style. Look. An article to support my view.

Conservative political crazies plot to destroy the ski industry. In this case a Republican, who learned the ins and outs of climate science when he was a realtor, plans to hold the world's first "legitimate debate" on global warming. I wonder if Joe the Plumber will be in attendance. I'm sure he learned just as much about the climate pretending to be a plumber as Gary Herbert learned while selling houses.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iAkyA533wvI43cgpW80y4OMpRRFQD9C8LSC81

But even as world leaders descend on Copenhagen next month to figure out a way to reduce carbon emissions blamed in global warming, the industry is still grappling with leaders in some of their own ski-crazy states who refuse to concede that humans have any impact on climate change.

Chief among them is Republican Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, who says he will host what he calls the first "legitimate debate" about man's role in climate change in the spring.

While the world's leading scientific organizations agree the debate was settled long ago, the former Realtor who took office when Jon Huntsman resigned to become U.S. ambassador to China maintains that it wasn't.

"He's said to me that the jury is out in his mind whether it's man-caused and he thinks and believes that the public jury is still out," said Herbert's environmental adviser, Democrat Ted Wilson.

Herbert's reluctance to acknowledge that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming quietly frustrates Utah ski resorts that depend on state marketing money, but it openly infuriates industry officials elsewhere who liken it to having a debate about whether the world is flat.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The good old Cato Institute. When Frontline did a show on global warming skeptics, three out of five of the skeptics later turned out to be funded by Cato. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Scott and Central should get right on the case.

Perhaps when they get caught destroying evidence and the careers of those who do not agree with them. However, for now I find that I have a great deal in common with the political viewpoint of the Cato institute (I will certainly take them over institutions such as Acorn and the IPCC).

 

[BroDeal]

Uh-oh. Someone in flyover country actually read more than a few carefully chosen e-mail. excerpts.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6685

But take a deeper look, and it's not at all clear that any of that is going on. The scientists writing the emails routinely talk about double and triple checking their data.

There are examples of discussions on how to correct items they've got wrong, and many, many cases of explanations of why criticisms are not valid.

The writers talk about finding new, more efficient ways to run data, and do call these new methods "tricks." This is a term which has been widely criticized and which does appear throughout the emails. But there's no evidence that they were doing anything tricky with the data itself. In fact, they seem to revere the data.

--
What is really hilarious is that the flat earthers are hanging their hats on cherry picked e-mail statements taken out of context rather than the computer code, which looks to be a kludgy mess.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

What is really hilarious is that the flat earthers are hanging their hats on cherry picked e-mail statements taken out of context rather than the computer code, which looks to be a kludgy mess.

There are a thousand emails - I am sure we will be hearing about them for some time to come but right now I am wondering how this could be taken out of context:

"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

AND

"Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj