IT is common for Australian academics to publicly express an opinion on climate change including in our newspapers; think Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and more recently Barry Brook.
A couple of weeks ago Jon Jenkins, an Adjunct Professor at Bond University, had an opinion piece published by The Australian newspaper. [1]
The piece was critical of the accepted dogma on anthropogenic global warming with a focus on how global temperatures are recorded and ended with a comment on sustainable development:
“Science is only about certainty and facts. The real question is in acknowledging the end of fossil fuels within the next 200 years or so: how do we spend our research time and dollars?
Do we spend it on ideologically green-inspired publicity campaigns such as emissions-trading schemes based on the fraud of the IPCC, or do we spend it on basic science that could lead us to energy self-sufficiency based on some combination of solar, geothermal, nuclear and renewable sources? The alternative is to go back to the stone age.”
Interestingly Bond University has a new name for its business and IT faculties, The Faculty of Business, Technology & Sustainable Development, but apparently didn’t like Professor Jenkins’ very public opinion on the subject of sustainable development. For his opinion, Professor Jenkins received an official reprimand from the Bond University Registrar and then was informed last Friday that his adjunct status had been revoked.
No doubt he has contravened some rule or other at the University and no doubt this would have gone unnoticed if Professor Jenkins had a more popular opinion on these most politically charged subjects.
——————————–
Update: January 30, 2009
The university has now clarified its position:
“Dr Jenkins was a member of staff here for some considerable time and resigned to enter the NSW Parliament. Dr Jenkins was asked to keep an association with University as an adjunct but indicated in 2008 that serious health problems would probably prevent him taking an active role. As a result Dr Jenkins was removed from the adjunct staff in 2008.
An administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of this change in status.”
That is, an administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of his change in status until after he published the controversial opinion piece in The Australian newspaper.
Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list?
I understand he has received an apology from the Vice Chancellor for the misunderstanding.
*******************
Notes and Link
1. The Warmaholics’ Fantasy. The Australian January 6, 2009.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24876451-7583,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
well, on the other hand, this could be somehow related to the fact, that EVERY SINGLE POINT HE MADE in that piece was FALSE?!?
perhaps his use of a 6th degree polynomial fit simply made him the laughing stock of his faculty?
and perhaps this didn t combine well with his use of the term “warmaholics” for all mainstream scientists?
I have previously suggested that Ian Lowe be dismissed from Griffith University because of his contempt for the scientific process:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2005/09/chicken-little-prof-lowe-pre-empts-the-movie/
Or then again he is just living proof of what scientists have to put up with these days if they choose to speak the truth.
If it can happen to Michael Griffin….
So Bond is a private university?
What is the actual reprimand charge against him ? Are there any appeal mechanisms?
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa
He got sacked because he’s said SOOOO many stupid things.
He got sacked because he’s a moron.
An adjunct tenure is by definition impermanent so employment law remedies may not be available to the professor; that would depend on the contract; an alternative remedy, which top employees and contractors sometimes use, is to pursue damages in defamation; in any event it is a disgraceful turn of events; but what do you expect from an institution that is named after one of the biggest corporate crooks in Australian history.
When sceptics get the boot for a POV, who really are the deniers?
This a sad indictment of the ‘University’. The debauchery of proper scientific process by the AGW fraternity is nothing short of scandalous. Science has progressed by questioning currently established dogma (remember the flat earth theory which was overthrown by Colombus and his epic voyage). We are heading back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition if genuine inquiry and discussion is to be outlawed like this.
more than named after, actually established by Alan Bond.
C’mon cohenite and janama, Bondy’s mob should be the last lot to have a pathetic attitude like this.
The place has gone to the dogs since he went to gaol!
I’ll bet this lot couldn’t win an America’s Cup.
How can we determine how much funding Bond University has received or opes to receive for research that either (a) assumes a human influence on climate or (b) is focused on sustainability? (Yes, I know the two might not be exclusive but some of the research would be.)
In other words, what is Bond University’s vested interest in all this? This might explain a few things.
Facsist is, as Facsist does…… to rejig a phrase from Forrest Gump….
Jennifer are there statements from the university that we can access that set out a) under what circumstances Ron Jenkins was employed and whats his status was and b) what were the reasons the university terminated the arrangement they had with him?
Its only fair that we see the evidence tand then we can make a judgement.
Perhaps the university didn’t want to be associated with deliberate attacks on respected scientists such as Michael Mann when Ron Jenkin’s in his piece in the Australian accused Mann of carrying out a fraud and also said this of the IPCC (the whole tone and language of the article is shrill and nasty and the denialists constantly say they are above that sort of thing).
Perhaps it was Jenkin’s howler in the same article, “Science is only about certainty and facts”.
BTW Jennifer you still haven’t responded to my invitation to join with me in complaining to the ABC about their disgraceful mangling of a contribution by Barry Brook to AM the other day – you know on the same day that Art Raiche complained to them.
This is something that all would be well advised to stay away from until the facts are on the table. First, there are adjuncts and adjuncts (at least in the US).
The first version is someone hired and paid to teach classes but not as a member of the tenured or tenurable faculty. These are contracts for a fixed period of time and generally have no associated understanding that the adjunct will do any scholarly work. Adjunct qualifications can be lower than those for tenure track faculty, although not necessarily so.
The second is an honorary, usually without cost (no salary), appointment for someone, usually at a research facility (although it could be someone employed in business or another activity) to enable them to supervise student thesis research. Again this is for a fixed period of time with no expectation of continuing.
Which kind of appointment did Jenkins hold? If it was the first, when was his last scheduled class? If it was the second, what is/was his home base and was he supervising student research?
Then there now appears to be a question about what Jenkins’ academic degrees are. What are they?
That Jenkins is either clueless about statistics or disingenuous about them is clear
Deltoid has an update.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/jon_jenkins_was_not_an_adjunct.php
“I searched Bond University’s web site when his article was published and he wasn’t listed then either. I found a page from 2007 on archive.org that listed him as an adjunct professor in the school of IT. So it seems his adjunct position was terminated some time after that but before he wrote his article for the Australian. And he was never an adjunct professor of virology.”
I thought all the universities are closed over the summer break – I would expect them to reopen this week. The non academic staff would be returning and the academic staff would be reporting in in dribs and drabs over the next few weeks which is why Luke spends so much time on this site.
Well that’s how it was when I was an academic.
Spangles; all crooks ultimately seek vindication of the social ethic which they have abused when ‘aquiring’ their money; at least with Bond he started off as a ‘lovable rogue’; later he put on the airs and graces; the AGW scientists want their cake and to eat it right from the word go; they abuse science and the rigours which full transparency bring, support the suppression of transparency and still claim the high moral scientific ground; hypocrites the lot of them.
Funny – I would have written the same thing about pseudo-sceptics.
Jeremy
All the information that I have, from a reliable source, is detailed in the above post.
And if we want to put an historical context to the current state of affairs, I suggest you read ‘Science and Public Policy’ by Ansyley Kellow. The book is available through Amazons and can help put academics like Barry Brooks in some context.
That should be AYNSLEY Kellow. Sorry
Google search for Dr Jon Jenkins:
Jon Jenkins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jon Jenkins (born 17 June 1958) was an Australian politician and representative of the Outdoor Recreation Party. He was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council from 2003, when he was appointed to a casual vacancy caused by the resignation of Malcolm Jones, and he resigned his seat in February, 2007, only weeks before the upcoming NSW State election in March.
Jenkins initially left school at a young age, but later returned and proceeded on to commence a combined Law/Science degree at Macquarie University. He later diverged from this outcome, interested in pursuing a career in the natural sciences and medicine. Through his subsequent studies, he was awarded the University Prize for his postgraduate work in virology, which furthered with studies on topics such as viral coat proteins, protein structure prediction and other aspects such as AI in medicine, virtual surgery and 3D image re-construction.
Prior to being elected to Parliament Jenkins worked in private industry and at various universities and also ran his own medical education consulting business. Until recently Jenkins was at Bond University in Queensland as a lecturer where he worked on the start of the first private medical school in Australia and also in the IT school and he is still an adjunct Professor.
Jenkins is an avowed anti-Green politician, who considered the conservation movement to be usurped by extreme left political ideologues that are damaging the environment through ‘bad science’ and misusing peoples environmental concerns to implement their non-conservation related social agendas.
His present state of health has seen him resign from the University and withdraw from public political life but he is far from subdued and is still active particularly in areas related to climate change. “Dedicated to Debunking Junk Green Science”
As this is a Wikepedia entry, one question is: did he resign or was he sacked?
How would one go about measuring the co2 expelled by a volcano? Would there be a tent raised over the top collecting samples in a given time frame?
How is it that Dr T Burns of Manly, NSW (first comment on the Australian article) can say with certainty “Current volcanic CO2 output is certainly much less than man’s”?
Isn’t he just taking a piss, much like sod did in the first comment?
The Wiki article cited by Helen Mahar was started by Jon Jenkins himself and substantially reflects his input. Jenkins does title himself Dr., but it is not clear what degree he has (MD, PhD, BS or whatever).
Jen is being coy, but perhaps she can inquire.
spangled drongo January 25th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Really, calling Jenkins a skeptic just makes other (real) skeptics look bad. He’s not a skeptic, he’s a bufoon.
I’ll take Jenkins word for it that he resigned, although he could have been more effective by framing himself as a martyr. It might not be too late for that. He can say he resigned as a principled stand against the direction the university is taking toward “sustainability”.
Something to think about Jon.
As for the inquisition against climate realists, that is real and ongoing. Take for instance the hounding of Dr Kathie Olsen by the influential leftist website Talking Points Memo.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/a-loyal-bushie-burrows-into-obamas-system.php
After 13 paragraphs of calling her a climate change denier, and accusing the doc of burrowing into the government system in order to avoid the torch and pitchfork crowd, in the 14th para we find out that Dr Olsen is indeed a civil servant , afforded all the protections of any other civil servant from the predations of a partisan purge by an incoming administration.
Same reason Doc Hansen and Doc Rabett still have a job.
How appropriate that a man who misrepresented the science also misrepresented himself. At best, The Oz got it wrong, but Jenkins never corrected them.
For a rational person, this would be yet another wake-up call to the type of loonies who are attracted to the AGW conspiracy theory, but I suspect Jens credulity will remain intact.
Naught 101 is the founder of envirowiki.info – the environmentalist and social justice knowledge database,
Climate change action figure sold separately.
Olsen was a civil servant. She left the senior executive service position she held to accept a political appointment. She retained a right of retreat. She can be reassigned to any other equivalent (mostly pay) position, some in eastern northwest nowhere. Tout suite.
“How would one go about measuring the co2 expelled by a volcano? ”
Take samples of the air as a function of distance from the volcano. Do the math
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/methods/gas.php
google is your enemy.
Helen,
Jon Jenkins previously had a paid position at Bond. This subsequently became an adjunct position.
Then last week he was disciplined, and then had his adjunct position revoked on the basis of his piece for The Australian.
What is written in my original post still stands. Noone has been misprepresented.
But not an Adjunct Prof in Virology Jennifer??
At best, an ex-Adjunct Prof in IT at Bond Uni.
Jenkins Wiki page says that he resigned from Bond mid-2008. There is some suggestion that he provided this info.
What’s more likely – that Bond sacked Jenkins over an article not related to his Bond role, or that they have carpetted him for penning an article in a national newspaper inaccurately claiming a no longer existing relationship with the Uni?
The latter would conform to a strong tendency for denialists to inflate their credentials.
Like everyobe else I searched for Jenkins’ name in the staff listings at Bond and got … “Sorry, your search returned no results.”.
Dr Jenkins, if you are reading this, please know that I loved your piece in the Australian newspaper and thought the public should be exposed to more of your intellect and style.
Sadly now that you’ve been boned that wish will be denied.
Given your indefinable duties at Bond this whole affair looks more like the usual case where some champion of denialwit uber-thinking goes down in a screaming heap under the blowtorch of mild inquiry; not academic censorship by a prestigious university.
But please, Jon, in the spirit of “Nil carborundum”. Just post something and tell us exactly what you did there, satisfy Eli’s curiosity about what your academic degrees are, and … er … make it something we can v.e.r.i.f.y. That would shut us warmer-holics up for a while wouldn’t it?
I mean, once we know you weren’t just making stuff up we can get back to treating your thoughts on AGW with the level of respect they so richly deserve.
Thanks in advance,
Chris W
Thanks Jennifer. I put up that Wiki entry because other posts had called into question Jon Jenkin’s qualifications etc (ad hom) and this was all I could find. Knowing that Wiki entries can be edited by third parties, I did wonder if it had been edited. Eli pointed out it was Jon’s entry [and had not apparently been subsequently edited]. So until someone edits his CV, citing authority, what he chooses to reveal about himself stands.
Your post is about recent events, and obviously subsequent to Jon’s Wiki entry. Thanks for clearing this up. Jon’s treatment is shocking. Brings academic freedom into serious question.
Jennifer says: “Then last week he was disciplined, and then had his adjunct position revoked on the basis of his piece for The Australian.”
That’s not true. Who told you this?
Don’t be thick Tim.
Jon told her.
If you’re kicking the ‘warmaholics’, no critical thinking is required.
Jennifer –
Noone has been misprepresented
Sorry, who is Noone, and how does he feel he has been misrepresented?
“Take samples of the air as a function of distance from the volcano. Do the math”
From the USGS link http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/methods/gas.php
“Direct sampling of gases escaping from fumaroles is currently the only way: (1) to fully characterize the composition of gases discharging from volcanoes; and (2) to collect data needed to determine the origin of specific gases. Unfortunately, direct gas sampling does not provide information about the emission rates of different gases. ”
So they guess. Why didn’t you just say that Eli?
Welcome Tim Lambert.
Must be getting lonely over there at science blogs.
Hey man remember when I was calling you gluteous maximus? Just having a bit of fun, buddy.
Have you had any luck selling wind speed as proxy for tropical troposphere thermometer readings?
Ah memories.
James,
I dug out my old sailing anemometer the other day and installed it to give me temp readings and y’know, it don’t work too good.
I think it’s because its calibrated in knots.
I probably need one in metric.
So I guess what we can say about Jon Jenkins is that “…he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy…”
What a laugh, so Jennifer, what’s the real story? What actually was his position at Bond?
“No doubt he has contravened some rule or other at the University and no doubt this would have gone unnoticed if Professor Jenkins had a more popular opinion on these most politically charged subjects. ”
Yes… Of course… As we know it’s a CONSPIRACY!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Climate change is a new religion. Man-made climate change is now, like original sin, a dogma of the new church, a dogma that cannot be challenged without risking excommunication. This professor was not sacked, he was excommunicated by members of the the new green puritan church or, as I prefer to call them, the crypto-fascist neo-puritan fundamentalists.
Jennifer,
Your post,
“All the information that I have, from a reliable source, is detailed in the above post”
It seems from all the other posts, e.g. such as what Helen Mahar posted, that we don’t have reliable information about Jon Jenkins and Bond University and their interaction. So perhaps you can both enlarge on your reliable source and get us more information.
As to science and post modernism.
“And if we want to put an historical context to the current state of affairs, I suggest you read ‘Science and Public Policy’ by Ansyley Kellow. The book is available through Amazons and can help put academics like Barry Brooks in some context.”
I would like to have a look at his book sometime but Aynsley dudded himself for me on this very blog site a while ago when he replied to a post of mine using the same post modern thinking he always rails against. I remember reading it and being gob smacked at his lack of awareness in writing it. So you will have to excuse me if I won’t pay for a copy of his book. So as Barry Brook’s contribution was actually mangled my invitation to you still stands……………
Ad adjunctedness: Given how few academics are left
in the IT school, it was probably in Bond’s own
interest to have one more face on the glass
cabinet close to the entrance. Regardless, whether
that face actually was operative there. Lots of
people there are just listed, but I have not seen
them for years.
Ad Bondness: The last thing Bond wants is more bad
press. Internally they perfectly understand how
to discipline their population.
Well, since it is quite obvious that Jenkins’ academic credentials are not going to appear here, let us continue on volcanoes. There ain’t no huge amount of CO2 from volcanoes hiding somewhere in the atmosphere. For one thing, if there was, there would be a huge amount of SO2 and sulphuric acid aerosol, which are also emitted from volcanoes in proportion. Give it up
more quoting from the volcano site
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/methods/gas.php
The rate at which a volcano releases gases into the atmosphere (usually reported in metric tonnes per day) is related to the volume of magma within its magma-reservoir system and its hydrothermal system. By measuring changes in the emission rate of certain key gases, especially sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, scientists can infer changes that may be occurring in a volcano’s magma reservoir and hydrothermal system. The emission rates of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide are measured using airborne or ground-based techniques. During large explosive eruptions, sulfur dioxide gas injected high into the atmosphere is measured by an instrument aboard a satellite.
——————————
Continuous automated gas measurements can be made on a volcano directly in fumaroles, in the air near active fumaroles, and in the soil. At each gas measurement site, one or more chemical sensors measure the concentration of a specific volcanic gas, such as sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide, and these data are transmitted by radio to a volcano observatory. These sensors can provide a real-time record of changes in gas concentration that may occur on a time scale as short as a few minutes
—————————–
Soil-efflux measurements can be made in areas where volcanic gases, typically carbon dioxide, rise from depth and discharge into the upper soil layers near the surface. Dozens of measurements are needed to map areas of high gas concentration. One site where soil-efflux measurements have been made is near Horseshoe Lake at the base of Mammoth Mountain volcano in California
—————————–
Scientists face yet another challenge–acid gases, like SO2, easily dissolve in water. Thus, volcanoes with abundant surface or subsurface water can prevent scientists from measuring the emission of acid gases as magma rises toward the surface and even after explosive eruptions. Because CO2 is is less likely to be masked by the presence of water, measuring it when a volcano first becomes restless and between eruptions may be important for determining whether significant magma degassing is occurring.
—————————
Bingo
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/jon_jenkins_was_not_an_adjunct.php#comment-1351677
PhD 1989
Control of phycoerythrin synthesis in Chroomonas sp Author: Jenkins, Jon Gordon. Title: Control of phycoerythrin synthesis in Chroomonas sp [manuscript] / Jon Gordon Jenkins.
Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill ; 30 cm + insert (2 leaves) ; in pocket. Primary Material: Archival/Manuscript Material
Database: Macquarie University Library Location: Thesis Collection Call Number: QR99.63 .J46 Number of Items: 1 Status: Check shelves
We need a name for this phenomenon – where people working in one field, having reached the end, or near the end, of their career, suddenly become expert in a totally unrelated field where they have radical new insights that challenge the broad concensus in that field.
Retireitis?
Crankology?
The I-Need-A-New-Hobby Effect?
How very sad.
In time, Jon Jenkins will be vindicated of course.
Following such extraordinary action it seems that one can only pity those still working at Bond University – it might be a good time to leave while reputations are intact.
My personal experience of the politically motivated behaviour of a very senior colleague who was to become a very senior Bond University employee [more than a decade ago] suggests that rather little may have changed at Bond. I refer back to a time when I was an Associate Professor at an Australian University who challenged the University’s approach to academic fraud. Twenty years later a public apology was received – twenty years over which untold damage was done. Chin up Jon Jenkins: you are probably right, it will get very very cold, whatever ‘Kevin from Queensland’ might hope to do to ‘help’ to reduce so-called global warming. Some of us have noticed that he is at least a decade late – it is already OBSERVED to be happening (unless one is a Karoly/Pitman IPCC-type modeller of course) and without Kevin’s help! And who are Karoly and Pitman? Well they are secure in their positions as Professors in the establishment supported field of climate change [unidirectional change of course] and are members of IPCC, one at Melbourne University and the other at the University of New South Wales. They manipulate models and NEVER answer questions. Flannery on the other hand seems to be allowed to say whatever he likes, thump the lecturn and preach doom and gloom from his background as a specialist in ‘bones’ – NOT ‘climate’ – but he doesn’t lose his job at Macquarie University – far too valuable as a fund raiser I suggest.
Jenkins martyrdom is looking less so by the day.
He was an outspoken AGW denier while he was in the NSW Parliament. He actually was with Bond Uni at this time. Why wasn’t he burnt on the fires of the ‘warmaholic’ inquisition back then??
Face it guys – the most likely explanation is that Bond Uni took exception to Jenkins very public claims to be an Adj Prof when he no longer was.
I thought it was called wisdom.
Possibly, though one would expect any wisdom to more likely manifest itself in their field of expertise, rather than suddenly popping up in areas where they have none.
Probably a case of – the less you know about a topic, the more brilliant your ideas seem………..to yourself.
‘We need a name for this phenomenon – where people working in one field, having reached the end, or near the end, of their career, suddenly become expert in a totally unrelated field ..’
Flannerism?
Nah.
It’s gotta be someone who thinks that they have disproven the people who actually work in the field, rather than someone with a distinguished science background acquinting themselves with another field and faithfully articulating the position espoused by the experts in that field. You see the difference?
How ’bout Jenkins Syndrome?
Jen,
Quite interesting that the Flannerys, Lowes and Brooks publish many op-ends which seem to receive little criticism, let alone character assassination, in the sceptical blogs.
But when a lone sceptic gets published the Lambert attack dogs are unleashed, all under pseudonyms of course, and a concerted effort of ad homination is mounted against the lone sceptic.
I see “Luke” is being circumspect on this one. Well he should, being as it is, in Dr Death’s State bailiwick.
Eli,
Suggestion? You are wandering into geological areas – volcanic CO2 etc.
Find other topics to bullshit about.
Michael,
I was thinking of ‘Believes sun shines out of own arserism’, to try and encapsulate the arrogant stupidity of denialwit thought.
But, yes … JS pretty much nails it for me too.
There was a recent post at WUWT linking intergalactic cosmic rays with stratospheric temperature.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/correlation-demonstrated-bewteen-cosmic-rays-and-temperature-of-the-stratosphere/
The thrust of the discussion revolved around a chicken and egg type question of what caused what. Did a localized heating of the stratosphere (attributed to Rossby waves) cause a weak spot in the “sheilding” provided by the atmosphere, allowing more cosmic rays to penetrate and be detected by underground instruments in a disused iron mine; or was there an unusually dense storm of ICR particles bombarding the stratosphere causing it to heat up locally?
Reading through the thread I came upon a facinating tale of an intergalactic cloud of He particles detected by the Voyager 1 spacecraft as it left behind the heliopause.
The author, Nasif Nahle, uses a number of charts to compare the He flux as recorded by Voyager, to tropospheric temperatures 14 months later as the Earth impacts the intergalactic cloud.
http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_45
Jennifer, how about you give us some more facts before expressing an opinion? In particular, how qualified is Jon Jenkins to speak with authority on climate change? I suspect this is the same Jon Jenkins who was an IT lecturer at Griffith Uni on the GC not many years ago? If so, does he have climate science credentials now?
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/pubs/dcc-contractslisting-july07-june08.pdf
I wonder if this has anything to do with Bond giving Jenkins the chop.
The Fed Govt Department is throwing money around like a bunch of pirates having just captured a gold ship.
The CSIRO has its hands in the trough, as one woud éxpect, for about $30m, spread over many projects with most hidden from scrutiny by using the Central Finance Group as the contractor.
Griffith Univer has scored $22m.
Univ NSW $1.4m precipitation and trees study-now that would be interesting.
Strangest of all is the Institute of Engineers receiving $2.2m to rewrite the “Rain Fall and Run Off Handbook.” I guess that how they got bought off, and became a solid supporter of the orthodoxy despite many complaints from members.
Now if Bond was in the running for a hand out as well….
Malcolm,
it’s politically correct science.
Lysenkoism.
Louis
Lysenko would be about the only piece of scientific nuttery you don’t believe in.
When will planet X return?
SJT
Lysenko is the name of a person, so the rest of your post could be dismissed as pure nuttery, no?
Louis
When will planet X return?
The conspiracy is further deflated.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/assertions_that_dr_jenkins_has.php
“So what do you think we’ll see from Marohasy?
1. a correction?
2. silence? or
3. a claim that the registrar is covering up the real reason?”
Anyone taking bets?
I always thought it was very risky for Jennifer to run with this story before hearing the university side of it.
I can’t help thinking Noone is the real victim in all of this.
“The registrar replied:
Dr Jenkins was a member of staff here for some considerable time and resigned to enter the NSW Parliament.
Dr Jenkins was asked to keep an association with University as an adjunct but indicated in 2008 that serious health problems would probably prevent him taking an active role. As a result Dr Jenkins was removed from the adjunct staff listing in 2008. An administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of this change in status.
Assertions that Dr Jenkins has been reprimanded and/or ‘dismissed’ are without foundation.”
Doesn’t matter really, the meme is out there and alive, a professor was dismissed from a university for daring to be sceptical of global warming.
I guess when someone told JM that Jenkins had been martyred on the fires of the warmaholic inquisition, it was just too good not to be true.
The pressing question arising from this is – has Jennifer learned anything?
Like – that real scepticism applies to everyone, even to the claims of the ‘skeptics’.
The other question is – who was Jennifers totally inaccurate “reliable source”? My money is on Jenkins himself.
SJT: “Louis
When will planet X return?”
You do have a problem don’t you – any reason for your obsession with planet X?
I can’t answer your question when it returns as I wasn’t aware it actually existed to leave in the first place. Perhaps your public service coffee is a tad too strong? Or is it tea that is served on the trolley by the tea lady?
I presume your belief in a planet X spills into your climate computer coding, and that starts to explain a few things.
Incidentally, how about a properly authorised citation for the registrar’s response – knowing you and your mates it is entirely plausible that you made it up.
And, naturally, Louis was the first to be asking for a “properly authorised citation” when Jennifer made her initial assertion on the basis of a “reliable source”.
anyone disagree with the story Jenkins wrote in the Oz? I realize that the washed up Eli Rabbet and his beautiful assistant the poisonous dwarf are pedantically trying to pick at Jenkins credentials, but what about the story?
By the way the dwarf basically told people where Jenkins lives so as to completely remove any privacy that Jenskins wanted to maintain.
Bond U is on the Gold Coast, close to the NSW border, and Jenkins lives close to the border on the NSW side.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | January 25, 2009 9:51 PM
I only hope Jenkins complains to the dwarf’s university and file academic misconduct.
Jon, the venomous cherub works at UNSW.
Ra, you mean besides the fact that the use of the 6th order fit to the graph was ludicrous ,and the claim of a “completely reversed” warming by 2008 displayed a complete lack of understanding of what a trend is. Well, yeah despite that and the constant resort to name-calling, there was nothing to disagree about.
Louis it’s unlikely jenkins was the source – unless he’s playing a bizarre game, since it was probably he himself who put his illness in his wikipedia entry as the reason he was withdrawing.
I agree he’s a complete mess, if not a fraud and a liar, in his polynomial fitting charade, but I doubt he’s reduced to petty fraud of the sort a university can clear up in a day.
Nope, this is the usual Marohasy agitprop and lies. Seriously, has she ever, even once, done a story with any accuracy or truth in it?
This is is amusing, Marian Delgardo is here. Marian is of course another one of Lambert- the-troll’s sycophants that recently took pride in the fact his comments at Deltoliet resemble Ted Kazcinski’s. He’s was so proud that he went into an incoherent ramble about Ted the Unambomber that was out of your skin creepy.
Marian (he’s a boy by the way) is usually over at Deltoliet rambling on about how much he hates right wingers and angry at the world that he doesn’t have a job. Marian, you won’t get one in this climate with a media studies degree. Won’t happen fella. No pun intended with the use of the word “climate”
Lambert has managed to turn Detoliet into the biggest collection of freaks and odd balls this side of the Pacific.
Oh, by the way, Marian is a Acquarian as he himself mentions on his blog.
Ra, you mean besides the fact that the use of the 6th order fit to the graph was ludicrous ,and the claim of a “completely reversed” warming by 2008 displayed a complete lack of understanding of what a trend is. Well, yeah despite that and the constant resort to name-calling, there was nothing to disagree about.
You mean the part where he says that global temp records dating back to 1850 or so aren’t reliable and that we should use satellite temps as they are far more accurate. Is that the part you have a problem with?
Marian, what do you think seeing you have a degree in media studies science can’t get a job even in a boom, let alone in aecession and born under the Aquarius star sign?
Consider:
Fact: Jenkins was not ever an ‘adjuct professor of virology’ at Bond University.
Fact: Jenkins was not even an adjunct professor of anything at Bond University at the time he scripted the article for the Australian, nor was he afterward when this article was criticised for its poor science.
Fact: Jenkins used a completely inappropriate high-order polynomial fit to an unnecessarily truncated, and temporally limited, dataset in order to make a claim about climate that is completely counter to scientific practice.
Together these fact blow any point concerning the credibility of the article completely out of the water, and any continuation of support for Jenkins in light of these points should, quite simply, be embarrassing to those who maintain such support.
So yes, Graeme Bird (using the sock-puppet Ra), I and many others (including all reasonably-thinking scientists) “disagree with the story Jenkins wrote in the Oz”.
If you can demonstrate to us where the facts above are incorrect, we would be most entertained.
Fact: Jenkins was not ever an ‘adjuct professor of virology’ at Bond University.
Ever see those monkeys picking each other’s lice and then sticking them in their mouth. It’s called nitpicking, Bernie and you’re wonderful at it.
Look douchebag, he taught at Bond uni. There’s nothing else to the story, you nit picker.
Fact: Jenkins was not even an adjunct professor of anything at Bond University at the time he scripted the article for the Australian, nor was he afterward when this article was criticised for its poor science.
Big deal. He taught there.
Fact: Jenkins used a completely inappropriate high-order polynomial fit to an unnecessarily truncated, and temporally limited, dataset in order to make a claim about climate that is completely counter to scientific practice.
Fact, Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud and you’re a bigger fraud for not accepting it.
Together these fact blow any point concerning the credibility of the article completely out of the water, and any continuation of support for Jenkins in light of these points should, quite simply, be embarrassing to those who maintain such support.
You mean like historical temps from the 1850 may not be so accurate as satellites that began in 1970.
So yes, Graeme Bird (using the sock-puppet Ra), I and many others (including all reasonably-thinking scientists) “disagree with the story Jenkins wrote in the Oz”.
Who are you calling a sock puppet Bernard J. Then don’t be such a coward and come out of the closet.
If you can demonstrate to us where the facts above are incorrect, we would be most entertained.
What, facts like those used by your bum chum-Lambert? Oh yea, that’s right Lambert focused on the science all right. That was the science in letting everyone know where Jenkins lived: writing, what was it, 1500 words doubting the veracity of Jenkins academic credentials.
Some inquisitive scientist you turned out to be, Bernard J. More like what comes out of a real scientist’s back side.
Ever see those monkeys picking each other’s lice and then sticking them in their mouth. It’s called nitpicking, Bernie and you’re wonderful at it.
Look douchebag, he taught at Bond uni. There’s nothing else to the story, you nit picker.
sorry, you can NOT be dismissed, when you are not working there. it looks like Jennifers headline (AGAIN) was completely FALSE.
Fact, Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud and you’re a bigger fraud for not accepting it.
funny, that you would bring this up. the major difference between the two is this:
if you use a different statistical method on the hockey stick, you get the SAME result that Mann go.
if you use a different statistical method on the temperature (not the Jenkins 6th degree polynomial) you get a completely DIFFERENT result.
Mann was right, Jenkins wrong.
sorry, you can NOT be dismissed, when you are not working there. it looks like Jennifers headline (AGAIN) was completely FALSE.
Another lice picker
Oh so the Jenkins never worked at Bond?
if you use a different statistical method on the hockey stick, you get the SAME result that Mann go.
Exactly, Sod, you goose. You can stick in any sort of shit as data and it will produce a hockey stick which is exactly what McIntyre criticized him for and ripped his heart out of his chest wall. Thanks for making my point.
Boy you Lambert rags are pretty useless when not working in packs and swarming a victim.
That’s actually a good name to use…. The Lambert rags but lets not forget lice pickers.
So, how are we going with this?
“So what do you think we’ll see from Marohasy?
1. a correction?
2. silence? or
3. a claim that the registrar is covering up the real reason?”
Graeme Bird.
Is that ( 29th January 09, 11:26pm) the extent to which you are able to defend Jenkins? Rank ad hominem aspersions and irrelevant strawmen, and nothing of any actual substance?
Your inability to be able to vigorously (or even to haplessly) defend Jenkins says a lot about the quality of the case that he and his supporters have – or, to be more precise, that they don’t have.
Your engagement of puerile sniping is not going to make the awkward truth go away, and I say again, “if you can demonstrate to us where the facts above are incorrect, we would be most entertained.”
Bernie
I wasn’t that one that started the sniping , you did by lying and being a dishonest Lambert rag ( or lice picker)
I read Jenkins piece and overall it sounded pretty good to me.
1. I would agree that using 1850’s temps to determine almost exact calculations suggesting temps have been moving .65 per century is ridiculous. Using satellite temps from from the 70’s is far more accurate and taking into account the level of emissions since then the alarmist theory falls dead in its tracks which makes the idea of spending trillions to retool laughable.
2. Jenkins reiterates how the hickey stick is a fraud proven by Mcintyre’s climate audit to be dead on.
3. Jenkins explains how the models used to somehow predict the climate are unable to predict nino events to be pretty illuminating.
4. Jenkins tells how the all in theory of everything by alarmist unable to explain the additional ice in the south pole is basically unfalsifiable. Ice, Bernie, not lice, so stop licking those choppers.
5. Jenkins explains how 44 science shysters that basically act as a peer group for each others work were the ones that controlled the IPCC and basically excluded other people that may have had a differing view.
So Bernie. Stop being a Lambert rag and lice muncher and focus on what Jenkins actually said. What parts of his short opus do you disagree with?
And no nitpicking as we’re all a little tired of watching Lambert rags eat lice all the time. Show some fucking back bone for once you pathetic science worker.
Michael:
Silence.
But that still makes her better than the majority of the other anti-science vehicles.
UPDATE:
Jenkins admits that he was NOT dismissed.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/assertions_that_dr_jenkins_has.php
I just posted the following note at Tim Lambert/Deltoid’s blog. And if you re-read the above post from me, you will see that I have added an update.
Tim,
Thanks for clarifying that Dr Jenkins was an adjunct professor at Bond University and that UNTIL he wrote the controversial piece for The Australian newspaper was unaware that he had been dismissed from this position.
Given you have previously very publicly accused Dr Jenkins of deceit on this issue I suggest you now issue him with a very public apology.
Now we have official word from the university on this issue I have updated my blog. You can read the update here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/bond-university-dismisses-climate-change-sceptic/
Posted by: Jennifer Marohasy | January 29, 2009 5:36 PM
————
The time of posting as show at the Deltoid blog is incorrect at least for Australia, I posted at 9.30am January 30 Sydney time.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/assertions_that_dr_jenkins_has.php
“So what do you think we’ll see from Marohasy?
1. a correction?
2. silence? or
3. a claim that the registrar is covering up the real reason?”
Oh, a variant of Number 3 is the winner!!
Jennifers desperate conspiracy mongering continues in modifed form,
“Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list? ”
Huh?
Seems that Jens “reliable source” for the original false claim was Jenkins himself.
What a week for denialist delusion it’s been here at JMs blog. First the conspiracy that wasn’t, and then the equally wrong ‘James Hansens boss ‘ who wasn’t.
Full marks to Jen for doing more than anyone else in exposing the gullibility of the ati-AGW crowd.
Jennifer, what about the statement in your original post that he received “an official reprimand” from the university? Is that correct, because the university’s response makes it sound unlikely.
And whether or not he wrote about AGW, don’t you think the university may have noticed that someone formerly an adjunct professor is claiming in a national paper to still hold that status. There would have corrected him anyway, surely.
Oh sorry. I see over at Deltoid that Jenkins claims to have received a “terse letter”. I would be curious to see its contents, and whether others would consider it a “reprimand”.
“Given you have previously very publicly accused Dr Jenkins of deceit on this issue I suggest you now issue him with a very public apology. ” – JM
Actually Jennifer, you’ve got this all wrong too.
If you’d ease off on the ideological anti-AGW position you might find it a bit easier to pay due regard to the facts.
You blithely repeated the false allegation against Bond U, apparently without ever having the slightest impulse to seek Bond U’s side of the story.
Fortunately, others (Tim Lambert) had the decency to do what you didn’t. Lambert also contacted Jenkins prior to his post and pointed out to him that he wasn’t on the bond U list of Adj Profs. He gave Jenkins an opportunity to put his case foward, but as Tim noted, he did not get a reply from Jenkins on the matter of why he wasn’t listed with Bond U. And we need to be quite clear about this – at this point Jenkins had been advised by Bond U that he was taken off the Bond U list in 2008. Jenkins was given the opportunity to clarify the matter before the post went up. For that matter, it might not have come to this at all if you had bothered to extend this simple courtesy to Bond U.
Any chance of an apology to Bond U?? Two chances.
It’s yet another example of how the ‘skeptics’ are 100% scepticism free when it comes to challenging AGW.
Marian’s Delgardo’s back.
Marian, hows that media studies ” science” degree going?
And what are the stars saying about today Ms. Acquarius?
You douche.
Fortunately, others (Tim Lambert) had the decency to do what you didn’t. Lambert also contacted Jenkins prior to his post and pointed out to him that he wasn’t on the bond U list of Adj Profs.
Michael,
Are you on heroine?
Lambert has been harassing Jenkins , even to the point of posting where he lives in the comments section of Deltoilet. Ease up on the candy, fella.
Ra,
Sorry to confuse you with the facts.
Just to summarise,
Jennifer Marohasy repeated the claim about Bond U without ever checking for Bonds side of the story.
Tim Lambert contacted Jenkins and Bond U before posting his version of events – with the result that he got it right. Offering someone the chance to set the recod stright isn’t ‘harassment’.
“even to the point of posting where he lives ”
Northern NSW near the border is some strange kind of address. Is that the name of a town perhaps??
Has it ever entered your poor deluded mind that Lambert knows this because it’s a). common sense that a member of the NSW Parliament who worked at Bond U must live near the border, and b) that Jenkins has himself identified his general place of residence in his public statements.
Idiot.
How many Deltoilet lice pickers can there be on one thread?
Jennifer Marohasy repeated the claim about Bond U without ever checking for Bonds side of the story.
It appears her source was reasonable, as it this stage it doesn’t appear Bond has refuted the story by offering evidence.
Tim Lambert contacted Jenkins and Bond U before posting his version of events – with the result that he got it right. Offering someone the chance to set the recod stright isn’t ‘harassment’.
No, that’s not true. The weasel contacted the university attempting to ascertain details of his academic record. Lambert even went to the extent of suggesting that because he (Lambert) couldn’t find information about Jenkins PhD it didn’t exist.
As was mentioned above Lambert used 22 words about Jennifer and 1540 questioning Jenkins academic record in his first post. That’s harassment.
“even to the point of posting where he lives ”
Northern NSW near the border is some strange kind of address. Is that the name of a town perhaps??
Has it ever entered your poor deluded mind that Lambert knows this because it’s a). common sense that a member of the NSW Parliament who worked at Bond U must live near the border, and b) that Jenkins has himself identified his general place of residence in his public statements.
And telling people the geographical location of his residence is pertinent in the context of the discussion because….?
Stick with picking lice, Michael as heroine addiction is dangerous.
And look a the most recent update, Michael, you lice picking heroine addict.
“Dr Jenkins was a member of staff here for some considerable time and resigned to enter the NSW Parliament. Dr Jenkins was asked to keep an association with University as an adjunct but indicated in 2008 that serious health problems would probably prevent him taking an active role. As a result Dr Jenkins was removed from the adjunct staff in 2008.
An administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of this change in status.”
That is, an administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of his change in status until after he published the controversial opinion piece in The Australian newspaper.
Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list?
I understand he has received an apology from the Vice Chancellor for the misunderstanding.
Stop picking Lambert’s lice, Michael. Monkey’s do that because they don’t know any better. At least as far as I can tell you’re a human being and continuing to do that sort of thing is just disgusting. In fact it’s sickening.
What!, you’ve only just read that? Try to keep up.
“And telling people the geographical location of his residence is pertinent in the context of the discussion because….?”
…because a commentator wondered how a NSW Parliamantarian was working at Bond U. Lambert simply provided the information that Jenkins had put in the public sphere regarding where he lived. So much “for harrassment”. Jen breeds them thick here.
Even Jenkins acknowledges that the orginal post by JM was way off the mark,
“So if you want to blame anybody blame me.” – Jon Jenkins
What!, you’ve only just read that? Try to keep up.
Nope, lice picker. Wrong again.
…because a commentator wondered how a NSW Parliamantarian was working at Bond U. Lambert simply provided the information that Jenkins had put in the public sphere regarding where he lived. So much “for harrassment”. Jen breeds them thick here.
Will you please stop eating lice, Michael as it’s seriously disgusting.
1. He didn’t have to say anything and ignored the comment.
2. He could have simply said he may in NSW.
3. He basically gave the the exact locality.
Look, either pick the lice and don’t eat it or stay with the heroine addiction, but please stop doing both.
“3. He basically gave the the exact locality.” – Ra
Within a few hundred square kilometres!!!
That’s the kind of exactness we’ve come to expect from this place.
Nevermind that Jenkins has freely given this information out in public himself…….oh, to be a wingnut!
Michael please stop eating Lambert’s lice. If you are going to pick it, don’t keep sticking it in you mouth.
Within a few hundred square kilometres!!!
Dickhead, who lives a “few 100 k’s from their work place.
That’s the kind of exactness we’ve come to expect from this place.
No, that’s the maliciousness you expect from Lambert at Deltoilet and his lice eaters
Nevermind that Jenkins has freely given this information out in public himself…….oh, to be a wingnut!
Oh Yea, where has Jenkins publicly disclosed this information and why would you think his residence would be pertinent to the discussion?
You lice eating dickhead.
Ra,
are you drunk or something?
Quite sober, NT.
I’m worried about Michael. He demonstrates a nasty habit of lice picking and heroine addiction. Please tell me you’re not a lice picker too?
“Dickhead, who lives a “few 100 k’s from their work place.” – Ra
You might be onto something there NT.
Ra is struggling with the difference between an area (within 100 sq kms) and a distance (100 k’s from).
Though we shouldn’t be surprised at this level of denseness here, so perhaps alcohol is not to blame.
Michael
Why did you 1/2 the area from what you first mentioned?
Ra has a decent point about the lice “picking”.
giving people street directions to someone’s home over the web is an enormous privacy issue. I can’t believe you are making excuses for that sort of thing.
Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list?
and that mere possibility is reason enough for you, to keep your headline claim?
Bond University Dismisses Climate Change Sceptic
he was NOT dismissed. he was not associated with Bond, when he wrote the piece.
sorry jennifer, but this update sucks!
An administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of this change in status.”
That is, an administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of his change in status until after he published the controversial opinion piece in The Australian newspaper.
Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list?
I understand he has received an apology from the Vice Chancellor for the misunderstanding.
Sod, you vegetable, you missed this part.
Sorry, “sod”, wrong again as usual.
“giving people street directions to someone’s home over the web is an enormous privacy issue. I can’t believe you are making excuses for that sort of thing.” – Monte
Care to show where this happened?
Oh, that’s right, it was all in your imagination.
Sorry … how was he ‘dismissed’ again ?
Looks like they wanted him to stay on in some capacity but in the end he resigned his adjunct duties (?) due to ill health and as a result was taken off the adjunct list. Sure, maybe Bond didn’t tell him he was off the list through oversight … but how do you guys then conflate that into him being ‘dismissed’.
It seems a simple agreement to no longer provide services for an entirely understandable reason has been spun into him being sacked/fired/boned/dumped/canned/axed etc for not toeing some purportedly PC pro-AGW line.
Just pathetic.
Chris W
Care to show what happened: that Lambert basically told people where Jenkins lived?
Are you sharing a needle with Michael?
Graeme Bird (aka Ra).
By googling your name I was able to find that earlier last year you were “living up in Dobell approximately half the time”. I’d say that’s probably more precise than “northern NSW near the Queensland border”.
And given that electoral rolls, ‘phone books, and sheer common sense could have as easily located a NSW politician, who also worked at Bond, to the NSW/Qld border, I reckon that you’re drawing a long bow indeed.
Surely a much longer bow than would need to be drawn in wondering if you are also the ‘Monte’ character above…
… as the same google search also returns a Professor Graeme Bird (who hastens to note that he is “NOT the same as the Graeme (M.) Bird who runs the blog site http://graemebird.wordpress.com“). Curiously, that website refers to a “Direct Simulation Monte Carlo Method”.
Perhaps you might consider adding ‘Carlo’ to your gallery of sock-puppets.
Cue rabid, frothing insult frenzy.
Ra,
Forget that ludicrous side issue of yours. The truth of the matter is that Jon Jenkins was NEVER ‘dismissed’ by Bond.
Again, it looks like Bond Uni merely accepted advice from Jenkins that he couldn’t continue in an adjunct position because of poor health and quite reasonably dropped him off the adjunct list. True to form, you toxic morons start blackguarding a fine University by spinning up some shite about him being fired because non-PC opinions !!!
Sadly … Jenkins himself not only seems to have enabled the whole thing through Jen, but mutely stands by while his previous employer’s reputation is trashed and bucketed by you piss-weak ranters. Nice one Jon … just a bit too slimy for me though.
Kinda rams home what a poisonous and useless lot you denialwits are !!
Jennifer,
If he was not on the list he was not on the list. You don’t just ‘add’ a name back.
I notice you’re still picking Lambert’s head lice.
Look you idiot Bernhard. I am not RA. I suspect that RA is Joe Cambria but I do not know this. Cambria appears to have picked up some of my phraseology. This is why I suspected Ra was he. On the other hand it could be anyone. I have never claimed to live close to the NSW border under this or any other name. I have a house in Gosford and your above claim is true about last year. I still wish I lived there. But I needed the overtime to keep the house and couldn’t do the overtime and still live in the house. So it turned out that living out there became untenable.
Bird stop being so silly. I’m not trying to pretend I’m you and i’m not RA or Monte or anyone else, you delusional fool. Please stop throwing my name about because you want to get back at me.
BernardJ, you moron, you started this nonsense by worrying about who said what rather than what they said then went into some cul de sac of stupidity by linking Monte Python or whatever to the NZ sheep lover.
If RA thinks you’re a lice eater, it’s probably true judging from what i have been reading and noticing that you’re one of Lambert’s suckholes.
Now the both of you twits…. Fuck off.
Concentrate Ra, let me see if I’ve got it right:
Jenkins wasn’t dismissed, yet denialists claim he was.
He actually resigned, yet denialists are oblivious to that fact.
You waltz past, gibbering about head lice.
Just another day on Planet Denialwit I’m afraid. Give it away Sun Cod … you’re on a loser.
ChrisW
Read the update. Again. And please stop picking Lambert lice.
You’re the loser pal; disgusting example of one.
Ra is not me. And may not be Cambria. And its quite likely the case that Cambria, being a CO2-bedwetter himself, is unlikely to be virulent enough about this issue to be RA. There is no shame in being RA in the first place. But he is not me. And he is definitely not likely to be the ageing and ailing scientist, Graeme A Bird, of longstanding fame. So how about you leave my old namesake alone. As far as I know he has not offered a public position on the global warming science fraud.
But here is the thing. Its not just me who is disgusted by leftist lying on this matter of climate change. And by the refusal of people like Bernhard to argue his own case. So picking Lamberts head lice, while its a nasty sort of description, is a kind of understandable one. People can be pushed into resignation. After all resignation looks better on your resume then being sacked for some trumped up reason.
Showing up and laying down links from somewhere else, without having the courage to put your own reasoning, in your own words, into the matter…… well thats somewhat akin to the picking of headlice. And since Lambert is no scientist and is known for being irrational, misleading, given to wild goose chases, and being an evidence-free-zone, its particularly annoying for Bernhard to be basing his various defamations on heresay from the Deltoid Dwarf.
Really when all is said and done it is Jon Jenkins who will know what happened as the result of his excellent article. And we ought judge the issue, to some extent, by the degrees of separation from Jon and the person telling the story. Does Lambert KNOW Jon? Is Lambert talking to Jon?
When Larry Summers (leftist economist by the way) was booted out at Harvard for telling the truth about women being the insurance policy and men being the crap shoot (not his way of putting it) then we had all the same story on the politically correct left. He wasn’t fired they said. He wasn’t fired as the result of the statement they said. When the institutional goons are down on your case obviously they are going to have plausible-deniability and will have a file of alleged wrong-doings. Given the potential for legal action in these highly regulated days that would be obvious.
LOL The Deltoid dwarf? That’s funny.