Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True?
It’s time for Glenn Greenwald to retract, and apologize for, a flat-out misstatement about me he made this morning.
Here’s Greenwald, this morning, on my blog, speaking to me:
Your “day job” didn’t seem to prevent you from spewing all sorts of moralizing and self-righteous condemnations over the Evil of The Deb Frisch Comments.
. . . .
You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irr[e]levancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.
This is a flat-out falsehood. And the only question is whether it’s a knowing lie, or whether Greenwald just popped off with this assertion without having the slightest idea whether it was true.
Let’s roll the tape, shall we?
Clearly, the most prominent obnoxious conservative loudmouth around these days is Ann Coulter. Regular readers know I have been scathing and relentless in my denunciation of Coulter. The next several quotes are from me, on this blog, about Coulter. I’ll highlight some parts, for emphasis:
We’ll start with this:
Shut up, already, Ann. Just shut up. After your recent remarks joking about assassinating Justice Stevens, dontcha think it’s time to cool the assassination jokes for a while — as in: forever?
Conservatives, it’s our job to call her out on this. This woman has proven herself incapable of engaging in serious discourse without constant “joking” fantasies about violence against government officials. I denounce her comments about assassinating public officials — jokes or no — and I encourage other conservatives to do the same.
and move on to this:
Ann Coulter (whom I have said many times I don’t like) has said yet another stupid thing, using the term “ragheads” to describe certain Muslims.
My initial impression is that this is about as strong evidence of the repugnance of Ann Coulter as anything I’ve ever read by her.
I hate it when left-wingers define my beliefs according to some stupid thing Ann Coulter said.
or this, re her “Jersey Girls” comments:
I do not believe these women are immune from criticism. I just think that Coulter’s criticism went way, way over the line — and it’s part of a larger pattern.
She said the women are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” That is venal and nasty.
or this, a post titled “Why I Don’t Like Ann Coulter, Volume 14“:
She is the Ted Rall of the right.
(Hint for Greenwald: that is not a compliment.)
I have said on many occasions that I do not like Ann Coulter.
Which, I think it’s fair to say, is true.
My rhetoric is not limited to Ann Coulter. I have said:
I am conservative but not doctrinally so: for example, I am pro-gay rights; in favor of a “beyond all possible doubt” standard for death-penalty cases (and am very concerned about innocents on Death Row); anti-Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and other conservatives whose rantings give sensible conservatives a bad name.
That’s not the only time I have whacked O’Reilly. In this post, I called him a “humorless and self-absorbed blowhard.”
In this post, I called conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage a “moron.”
When a general said it was a “hell of a lot of fun to shoot” men in Afghanistan “who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” I took a terrible beating from my commenters for condemning him, saying: “[L]ike it or not, we are waging a public relations war as well as a military war. Comments like this hurt the public relations war badly.”
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Mr. Greenwald, you owe me a big fat apology and a retraction. Try to muster some sincerity when you deliver it, mmmkay?
UPDATE: More dishonesty from Greenwald here.
Betcha he weasels. Betcha a dollar.Kent (005e8f) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:08 pm
He has a few options.
1) Ignore me. That is what he has tried so far.
2) Clintonian parsing of “you.” Doubt it — unconvincing even for him.
3) Gentlemanly apology. (HA! Included for humor purposes.)
4) A weak “I’ll acknowledge I did not fully research that claim” together with a counterattack or other weaselly attempt at distraction.
I vote #4.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:10 pm
Begging your pardon. But in one of your posts you linked to, you had this to say about her: “Coulter has very strong opinions, and I often agree with her and admire the forceful and humorous way that she states her position.”
[Whoa. Give the full context. I start the post by saying: “I have said on many occasions that I do not like Ann Coulter.” Later I say: “Coulter has very strong opinions, and I often agree with her and admire the forceful and humorous way that she states her position. But that doesn’t come close to making up for her tasteless comments about killing leftists. If these are her idea of jokes, she needs to stop telling them.” — Patterico]
Isn’t that equivocation, qualification, defense, inadequate condemnation, etc?
Well, maybe not, to a fair person. Let me ask it this way. If, say, a liberal blog had qualified its condemnation of a vile leftist figure — say, Frisch (assuming arguendo it is reasonable to call her a “liberal figure”) — wouldn’t you have condemned that site?
I respectfully submit that either you actually think Coulter is swell (eh, not likely), or that your condemnation of certain others is not entirely fair.
[I respectfully submit that the point is that Greenwald said I haven’t denounced vile right-wing rhetoric and that it is a flat-out lie, or a completely irresponsible and unresearched falsehood. — Patterico]
By the way, I linked to, but never complimented you on, your takedown of Los Angeles Times sock-puppetry. Well done.Ex-Fed (999091) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:11 pm
You make several good points once again, Patterico.
I agree with Ann Coulter’s opinions on issues usually and admire her courage… but openly calling for, even in jest, government officials’ assination (after all, you are one of these so this must particularly gall you) is abhorrent… and, for example, the Jersey Girl comment about enjoying their husbands’ deaths is just nasty AND dumb… they are enjoying their lives now that their husbands have tragically passed away and this is a good thing.
They are trying to do something they see as important.
I disagree with them 100% about their views, etc… but to say that because they lost their husbands, they must now mourn forever and never live, including pursuing their political and ideological objectives, is just nuts.
And it’s petty.Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:21 pm
But the point is that Greenwald is a liar or completely irresponsible.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:22 pm
One of my pet peeves as a blogger is when some wag comes along and accuses me of failing to do X, Y, or Z, and it turns out that I have in fact done X, Y, and Z on more than one occasion. It’s annoying enough when it’s a commenter, but when it’s from a blogger, especially a blogger who’s been around the block a few times, it’s particularly irksome.
You’ve condemned people on the right on numerous occasions. Mind you, you shouldn’t be required to–this isn’t some sort of Stalinist exercise where we must denounce ourselves or our titular allies just to prove our purity. Even if you had NEVER condemned ANY figure ou the right, Greenwald would already be in thin ice.
But when in fact two minute of research, or just asking around, would have netted him the information that you HAVE done this MANY times, he just looks like a jerk.Dean Esmay (6a005a) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:25 pm
I vote either 1 or 4, but most likely 1.
I wasn’t one of the fortunate ones who had the Great One grace my blog with his presence in an attempt to refute anything I said. Instead, a few FOGGs (Followers Of Glenn Greenwald) loyally substituted as proxies. He’s made statements about my comments at other blogs, however, and when challenged on his dishonesty regarding those statements, you can hear the crickets chirping.
You’ve really nailed his dishonesty as it relates to his unjustifiably taking you to task over ‘who will Patterico condemn and not condemn’. There’s really no way he can wiggle out of what you’ve written here, so I’m leaning strongly towards #1.Sister Toldjah (7ce608) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:29 pm
I’m sure that’s your point, Patterico, but I haven’t been following it and don’t even know who Greenwald is. You’ve established credibility with me so I’ll buy that, just don’t know anything about it.
Anyway, so I’m talking about Coulter, who I actually find interesting! Greenwald doesn’t do it for me in either a negative or a positive sense.
Off topic, but did you get my email about solving that technical matter> If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can email me using the address I provided to sign on here if you like.
I’ll leave that up to you.Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:31 pm
Could you please explain why you think Patterico is “not entirely fair” in his condemnations, who he is condemning “not entirely fair(ly)”, and why it is equivalent in this case?
Since you are approximately the 1 billionth Leftist to try to make an equivalency stick in this whole sorry Frisch aftermath, let’s go with your “example” …
I believe the bulk of the criticism here and elsewhere was aimed at the particular comment of Dr./Mz./Professor Unemployed’s that dealt with the fantasy of rape and murder of a toddler. She has said plenty of vile things in the past (from a reasonable person’s perspective), and merely objectioable things (from a conservative’s point of view), and not many people haved cared, left or right – not many condemnations from either side. She can’t get her political opinions taken seriously by anyone, so – what the hell (at least I hope it was a what the hell moment, I’m still not convinced) – she goes and threatens (mob style, no less!) a 2-year old. Then her entire Ouvre of postage was taken into account.
When Ms. Coulter writes about a Jon Benet Ramsey fantasy regarding someone’s toddler, and the right doesn’t fry her for it, let me know; otherwise, you’ve just lost your equivalency argument.
“(assuming arguendo it is reasonable to call her a “liberal figure”)”
I think that’s what bothers Liberals the most: Not the fact that a kids life may be (May be!) in danger, but the fact that some people will (do) look at her and say “aha! What a quintessential Lefty!”
For whatever it’s worth (little enough) I don’t believe that she is representative of most Lefties, but unfortunately, too many of them have joined in trying to minimize and camoflage her offenses.Abraxas (828688) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:34 pm
I think the thing I find most intriguing about Greenwald’s rant is “…the higher echelons on the Right…”
Makes it sound like he thinks there’s some sort of fixed organization over here and that all the writers on the right side of the political spectrum are part of it and coordinate their messages. You know, directly following orders from
SatanKarl Rove, and all that.
If I were still writing about politics, and if this rant had been directed at me, my answer would have been this:
I am not part of any “echelon”. I’m just a guy writing what I feel and think about. What others whose politics resemble mine say has nothing to do with me; I defend their right to speak their minds but my silence regarding specific statements of theirs should not be interpreted as endorsement.
For the most part, silence on my part means either that I don’t know about it, or that I don’t care, or that I can’t think of anything interesting to say. I certainly don’t spend my time policing every blog belonging to someone whose politics is similar to my own in hopes of somehow making everyone cleave to the party line — which doesn’t exist anyway.
I am responsible for what I write, but I am not responsible in any way for what anyone else writes, no matter what their politics. I am not obligated and not interested in trying to police anyone else’s expression, and I always greatly resent it when anyone else tries to police my expression.
If I have not commented about anything Misha said, it’s because it has nothing to do with me in any way.Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:36 pm
I am more interested in this: is Greenwald a liar? Or is he just a guy who makes stuff up without checking first?Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:37 pm
I regularly read Greenwald and find much of his writing to be insightful and informative, especially pertaining to executive excesses. In this case, however, he did not practice proper due diligence and misrepresented you. I agree that he owes you an apology, and I hope he delivers it.unceph (cf1c65) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:38 pm
This is all the result of assymetrical standards of evidence, Pat. Please don’t try to hold them to unreasonable standards. It just demonstrates how violent and depraved you are.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:44 pm
Patterico, it’s sorry to see you fighting with this vomitrocious bag of pus. Anyone who reads you regularly knows you’ve condemned Coulter’s extremist rhetoric. You’ve given specific cites for those who don’t. You’e proven your point many times over to anyone with a modicum of fairness. Making threatening statements about kids is criminal at best, more likely a sign of a deep sociopathy. The lowest of the low. Anyone who doesn’t get that by now is hopeless. You asked apologists for Frisch, have they no sense of decency? Sadly, no!Bradley J. Fikes (e619fc) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:46 pm
Like a Townhouse distribution list, only for the Right! Maybe someone should start that so that the Right side of the blogosphere can keep up on who they’re supposed to be condemning. But then, that wouldn’t be very right-like, would it?
I do see the crux of the problem now. We’re not getting The Memo on this side of the see saw, and Greenwald isn’t familiar with that state of affairs so he’s misinterpreting it.Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:46 pm
Patterico’s outrage at suggestions of political violence by right-wingers appears and disappears capriciously. Consider the following post of Patterico’s, where he doesn’t think Coulter’s violent ideas are so bad at all.
Patterico: “I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.” 6/22/06
And when commenter CraigC wrote in response: “Here’s the little missive I sent:
You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldn’t piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack that’s successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building.
PIGS. FUCKING TREASONOUS PIGS.”
Patterico replied with: “I understand the emotion, believe me. I didn’t quite go the “Ann Coulter was right” route, but (as I said in the post) I understand the temptation. I, like you, am totally enraged.
I want to see an independent prosecutor looking into both the NYT and LAT stories.”
Patterico once tried to claim that Coulter’s McVeigh remark was a joke, but it’s clear from the two rageaholics conversing above that humor is the furthest thing from their mind.
And if we take a look at the following exchange, we can see that Patterico is pleased by Misha’s violent fantasty about hanging judges. This, by the way, would be the very same Misha of whom Patterico said: “Well, for starters: I don’t read the guy. His over-the-top rhetoric has never appealed to me.”
Emperor Misha: What’s wrong with summarily executing them? It’s quick and it saves a lot of money in the long run. Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing those long black robes flapping in the wind would be.
Comment by Emperor Misha I — 1/26/2004 @ 2:32 pm
“Them” in this case would be judges. Patterico’s outraged condemnation of this comment on his site, check it out here:
Patterico: “Also gratifying was receiving comments from folks who run great blogs, like the comment from Spoons, and another comment from the always controversial Emperor Misha I. And it’s always great to hear from luminaries like Smash, Xrlq, and others. You know who you are.”
Is Patterico a liar?
[Actually, croche, you are, having once made up a story about how I blew $100 on a sushi dinner to show I am an elitist — when I don’t even eat sushi. So yes, you’re a liar. As to your point here, yes, in January 2004 I occasionally read Misha, and quickly tired of him and his over-the-top, silly, Michael-Savage-like ranting. — Patterico]m.croche (c42b77) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:48 pm
I question the timing.™Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:49 pm
Read the quote that opens this post. He has been going around pretending that his post was ironic, yet he says in that quote:
Was he lying then or is he lying now?Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:49 pm
Lefties are a funny breed… in Canada, I’m watching a left of center former Deputy Prime Minister Liberal Party type writing for a marginally right-of-centre newspaper and increasingly take intelligent, courageous, and common-sense positions as she thinks more on issues: Sheila Copps. Who would have thunk it?
I view leftism as largely a temporary state. Leftists of decency tend to abandon it by degrees as they age.
A perfect example is a man you’ve never heard of named “Tommy Douglas”. He was voted the “greatest Canadian” by multiple surveys.
He’s considered the founder of our socialist national medicine, which is why he topped those surveys. He’s the ultimate hero of the Canadian left and a villain of the right. And he’s a villain for good reason. In his late 20s, he wrote what has to be one of the worst thesisis in history about eugenics that would have made a Nazi proud.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the bank. He met Hitler in 1938 when he travelled to Germany and came back convinced that he was a mad dog who needed to be stopped. He volunteered for military service and was turned down because of his health.
He then became crucial in going to Ottawa and convincing the Liberal Prime Minister of the day to override their position on conscription, which was important for our war contribution. And in that war, our contribution, particularly for the first two years before your country had joined, was hefty.
In his later years, as premier of one of our provinces, he refused to sign eugenics legislation that was similar to that in force in a neighbouring province and, the opposite of his hideous eugenics/sterilization labour camp plans of his youth, he worked to improve conditions for the mentally ill in his province.
Most people remember him for socialized medicine, but I remember him for more. He even admitted before his death that central planning wasn’t completely successful and that they did too much removing of market forces in our medical system.
Why the long story? Well, it’s interesting in its own sake… but the moral is that decent lefties tend to distance themselves from leftism as they mature.
I doubt Frisch will be in that category.Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:50 pm
I used to look at Misha’s blog on occasion, back in January 2004, when that comment was left.
I since became disgusted with it. The guy is just wacky. He’s like Michael Savage: a moron who you can’t take too seriously.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 7:58 pm
Patterico, your profile has increased exponentially in recent months with your exposure of Michael Hiltzik as a fraud, consistent props from Hugh Hewitt, and very recently, being named the “Blog of the Week” by Powerline.
As a result, the jackals, vultures, and pigeons are all trying to share some of your face time on camera.
After all, how many third-rate, young, angry, gunslingers attempted to make a name for themselves by trying to bait Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickock, or Matt Dillon into a fight ?
But you absolutely should continue to defend your name, and the truth.
Unfortunately, many of your adversaries don’t concern themselves with such peripheral abstractions, as, uh, facts and logic—they simply want attention by gunning for one of the big dogs, and the accolades it may elicit from the Kos Kids and the other Jim Jones kool-aid drinkers among the left-wing blogosphere.
I mean, even “a.d.a.” came unhinged several days ago when he revealed how upset your post about waffle cones made him.
And waffle cones aren’t even a key component in our ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ !Desert Rat (d8da01) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:02 pm
You are absolutely right.
Because wanting possible violations of the law examined by “…an independent prosecutor looking into both the NYT and LAT stories” is so very indicative of a rageaholic.
And being “gratified” at being noticed by another blogger invalidates his claim of not reading said blog … how?
And believing someone (or some institution) is dangerous to the safety of the United States is indicative of over the top rhetoric … again, how?
Look, Patterico can defend himself far more ably than anyone, it’s just that I can’t believe the roaches coming out of the woodwork (that’s you Croche – someone condemn me before I insult again!) attempting this absolutely ridiculous game of moral equivalence.
Read what you wrote. Read it aloud to yourself. Understand what an absolute pygmy it makes you.
(no offense to pygmy-Americans, dwarfs, dwarves, little people and/or the vertically-challenged intended)Abraxas (828688) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:03 pm
Just so you don’t feel alone. Less than three months back, Glenn Greenwald pulled the same crap on Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit). Totally disregarding Instapundit’s central point, whether we are at war on the President’s “whim” or by Congressional authorization, he tried to make hay with the difference between an Article I declaration of war and the current authorization by Congress for the use of military force. This is Glenn Greenwald’s modus operandi. He trims the truth to fit whatever thesis he is promoting.nk (f58916) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:08 pm
And once I mocked someone for insisting that there was a scientific concensus on global warming. For that I am heartfully sorry. No matter that he called me a f***ing idiot. I should have just let it go.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:12 pm
I punned on someone’s silly handle in a vulgar manner, just because he said something that I regarded dumb. Excuse me, please.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:14 pm
There is a scientific consensus on global warming. It is excellent for fundraising.
Just like global cooling, acid rain, and planetary starvation were when I was growing up.Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:15 pm
I condoned Treacher’s humor, and even tried to emulate it. Forgive me; I know not what I do.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:16 pm
I c*ckslapped a troll at Protein Wisdom. How may I expiate it?Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:17 pm
I’ll let you in on a nasty secret.
I used to watch O’Reilly too.
All the time.
Sometimes you get tired of people.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:18 pm
I doodled Mohammed cartoons gleefully, whilst civilians were dying in Iraq. I am a shamefully warped individual.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:19 pm
While Cindy Sheehan fasted, I ate a chalupa. Is there no end to my selfish gluttony?Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:20 pm
Damn you, Dan Collins!
Did I do that right?Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:21 pm
Dan Collins, you’re killing me.Anwyn (c5b81b) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Yes, but please do not enable my viciousness. I am weak.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Oh, punish me, leftysphere, for I have transgressed! In my thoughts and in my words; in what I have dissed and in what I have failed to diss! Correct my sinful nature! Wash me, cleanse me, heal me!Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:25 pm
Calm Down GG…
We all can get carried away sometimes when posting. And judging from his reply, I’m afraid all the attention today may have Glenn Greenwald (GG) a little rattled. There’s, I assume, a typo in the headline: Right-wing tempter tantrums…. And…Riehl World View (72c8fd) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:26 pm
That’ll be 3 Hail Sheehans and 1 Our Fatwa.
Call me in the morning.Abraxas (828688) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:27 pm
I think O’Reilly’s a decent guy and what he’s done with Jessica’s law is fantastic.
He’s on the right side of most issues. But when he doesn’t understand what is going on, does he admit this?
No, he raises his voice and blusters. So, despite the fact that you never ever could have secured your border with several divisions of troops (and you don’t have the troops to spare) without a physical barrier, you now have the national guard on the border.
And instead of training and completing their annual exercises while your country is at war they’re wandering around the desert talking together on walkie talkies bored out of their skulls.
Because you had to “do something”.
Military experts pointed out to O’Reilly and others this approach wouldn’t work (without a physical barrier).
Just one of many, many, “O’Reilly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but there he goes,” examples.Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:28 pm
Patterico is obviously a giant douchebag. Look out, wingsnuts, IT’S GOING TO BLOW!!!lurking (12575d) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:28 pm
Wait, Glenn Greenwald is a dishonest clown? I never knew!mh (5b638c) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:28 pm
Any idea where I can get one of those smart hair shirts, like Sullivan wears?Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:29 pm
Bears r us?Abraxas (828688) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:30 pm
You might want to check your basement. Greenwald’s been blowing for a while.Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:31 pm
Holy sh*t! I did it again! Woe am I!Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:32 pm
I thought douches flow not blow? Are you sure you’re not thinking about your (above 19-years old, adult) sister?Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:32 pm
P.S.: Patterico, don’t bother wasting your time with Greenwald. There are honest, serious lefty commentators out there, but Greenwald’s not one of them. Really, don’t waste your time.mh (5b638c) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:33 pm
Bwahahahaha, Mephistopheles! Give me back my soul!Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:34 pm
Repent, brothers! Repent! It trolls for thee!Dan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:37 pm
Exeunt, carried off bodily to TexasDan Collins (7afef3) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:38 pm
For whom the Dan Trolls?Abraxas (828688) — 7/12/2006 @ 8:42 pm
Once, in a far distant time (’bout an hour ago), I said that the Palestinians deserve to get booted out of Palestine and scattered around the world.
And I’m proud of it.Alan Kellogg (fef87f) — 7/12/2006 @ 9:33 pm
[…] I highlighted that last quote in an earlier post for a different reason: to show that he lied or was inexcusably sloppy in accusing me of failing to condemn outrageous statements on the right. […]Patterico’s Pontifications » More Greenwald Dishonesty (421107) — 7/12/2006 @ 9:55 pm
I thought it was pretty clearly irony and satire, and the reason that you met with his displeasure was your critique of Sadly, No bloggers for being somehow insufficiently anti-Frisch.
My point was that few, and not you, could stand up to the standard you were setting. That was the point of my reference to your Coulter comments.
Neither side has any interest in dancing when the other side tells them to dance. Neither side has any interest in having the other side write the script for them. It’s bullshit whichever side does it — and both frequently do.Ex-Fed (999091) — 7/12/2006 @ 10:26 pm
Here’s where I’m sure I get branded as the evil baby-hater, Abraxas: I don’t buy the meme that her despicable comments about JG’s kid are inarguably, obviously worse than the crap that Misha or Coulter dish out.
I haven’t read a single thing she’s written that I agree with. Her ideas are repulsive and her writing voice sounds like a borderline-normal 13-year-old on LiveJournal. But frankly, I don’t buy her ugly comments as true threats, as opposed to despicable trolling — ugly stuff calculated to get a reaction.
Which is more dangerous? Consider the audiences. Misha and Coulter claim they are polemicists engaging in humor and hyperbole. But, IMO, what people like them are doing is normalizing violent rhetoric, moving it closer to the mainstream, and playing to audiences that may take it seriously. Figures on the left have done the same. Coulter has a vast audience, Misha less so, though both many orders of magnitude beyond the pathetic Frisch. Which is more of a threat to society? I don’t think anyone’s going to be arrested in a bell tower with a rifle and Frisch’s book in their bookbag.Ex-Fed (999091) — 7/12/2006 @ 10:36 pm
Wait. Hold on a second while I find in your quote of Glenn Greenwald any mention of Ann Coulter……..
You quote Glenn as saying the following: [cut and pasted from your post]
Your “day job” didn’t seem to prevent you from spewing all sorts of moralizing and self-righteous condemnations over the Evil of The Deb Frisch Comments.
. . . .
You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irr[e]levancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.
And after you quote Glenn, you stumble all over yourself to prove to everyone that you hate Ann Coulter.Todd Andreasen (1fc1a2) — 7/12/2006 @ 11:49 pm
Glenn didn’t mention Ann Coulter. What’s your point?
Total bullshit. If words have meaning, that is.
Right?Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/12/2006 @ 11:51 pm
There is no longer any debate on Global Warming, you numsculls. There isn’t a single scientist with any credibility who denies the human influence on climate change. The only “scientists” who claim that there is still doubt about whether humans do or do not contribute to climate change are employed byTodd Andreasen (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:11 am
Jesus, if G.W. told you the sky is red you’d not only believe it, you’d call for the execution of anyone who argued that it’s blue.
A Blogging Pet Peeve…
I normally try to stay out of blogwars (he says as he does that very thing twice in as many days), but …Dean's World (fa8fba) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:16 am
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh… the sweet, sweet nectar that is unintentional leftist irony! 🙂Kent (005e8f) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:19 am
OK, I see that I spelled numbsculls wrong. That’s called a typo.Todd (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:26 am
Would you like to debate my point?
NO takers? Then I’ll leave you with this, from one of the world’s leading experts on the subject. This is the guy you heard about on the news (or not) that the government tried to silence through intimidation.
It’s not an easy read for a layman, myself included, but at least I’m willing to accept that there are experts in the world who know more about their chosen field than I do.
Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario
By James Hansen et al.
Global warming in recent decades has taken global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (Mann et al. 1999). There is a growing consensus (IPCC 1996) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of Earth’s energy balance with space (Hansen et al. 1997). Specifically, GHGs reduce heat radiation to space, causing Earth to warm. There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (IPCC 1996, Hansen et al. 1998).
Climate models driven by “business-as-usual” GHG scenarios for the 21st century yield a global warming of several degrees that would almost surely have detrimental effects on humans and wildlife (IPCC 1996). Such GHG scenarios can leave the impression that curtailment of global warming is almost hopeless. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to 95% of 1990 levels by 2012 (Bolin 1998), is itself considered a difficult target to achieve. Yet the climate simulations lead to the conclusion that the Kyoto reductions will have little effect in the 21st century (Wigley 1998), and “thirty Kyotos” may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level (Malakoff 1998).
We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario that emphasizes reduction of non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. This scenario derives from our interpretation that observed global warming has been caused mainly by non-CO2 GHGs. Although this interpretation does not alter the desirability of slowing CO2 emissions, it does suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed.
Figure 1 shows estimated climate forcings since 1850, measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2). We separate carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and ozone (O3) in Figure 1, because they are produced by different processes and have different growth rates. We associate with CH4 its indirect effects on tropospheric O3 and stratospheric H2 to make clear the importance of CH4 as a climate forcing.
Fig. 1: Estimated climate forcings between 1850 and 2000.
Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others. Forcing by CH4 (0.7 W/m2) is half as large as that of CO2 and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of atmospheric aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols.
Aerosols cause a climate forcing directly by reflecting sunlight and indirectly by modifying cloud properties. Forcing by atmospheric aerosols is uncertain, but research of the past decade indicates that it is substantial (IPCC 1996). The aerosol forcing that we estimate (4) has the same magnitude (1.4 W/m2) but opposite sign of the CO2 forcing. Fossil fuel use is the main source of both CO2 and aerosols, with land conversion and biomass burning also contributing to both forcings. Although fossil fuels contribute to growth of some of the other GHGs, it follows that the net global climate forcing due to processes that produced CO2 in the past century probably is much less than 1.4 W/m2.
A corollary following from Figure 1 is that climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) is nearly equal to the net value of all known forcings for the period 1850-2000 (1.6 W/m2). Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century.
Observed heat storage in the ocean provides a fundamental consistency check on the estimated climate forcing. The ocean is the only place that the energy from a planetary radiation imbalance can accumulate, because of the low thermal conductivity of land and the limit on ice melting implicit in observed sea level rise. Global ocean data (Levitus et al. 2000) reveal that ocean heat content increased 2*1023 joules between the mid-1950s and the mid-1990s. The simplest interpretation is that the change of ocean heat content, and the implied planetary energy imbalance, are a reflection of the net global climate forcing. Observed heat storage (Levitus et al. 2000) is in good agreement with results in global climate models that use the forcings of Figure 1, thus providing empirical evidence for the sign and approximate magnitude of the net climate forcing of Figure 1.
Fig. 2: Climate forcings by individual greenhouse gases: (A) CO2, (B) CH4 and N2O, (C) CFC-11 and CFC-12, based on trace gas data available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory.
Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates
Atmospheric amounts of the principal human-influenced GHGs have been monitored in recent years and extracted for earlier times from bubbles of air trapped in polar ice sheets.
The growth rate of forcing by carbon dioxide doubled between the 1950s and the 1970s (Figure 2A), but was flat from the late 1970s until the late 1990s despite a 30% increase in fossil fuel use. This implies a recent increase of terrestrial and/or oceanic sinks for CO2, which may be temporary.
Figure 2B shows that a dramatic growth rate change has occurred for methane. Factors that may have slowed the CH4 growth rate are recognized, as discussed below, but most of them are not accurately quantified.
The growth rate of the two principal chlorofluorocarbons is near zero (Figure 2C) and will be negative in the future as a result of production restrictions imposed by the Montreal Protocol.
The Three Largest Climate Forcings
The largest anthropogenic climate forcings, by CO2, CH4 and aerosols (Figure 1), pose the greatest uncertainties in attempts to project future climate change.
Coal and oil are now about equal sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Coal is the source of potentially large future emissions, as its known resources are an order of magnitude greater than those of either oil or gas. The flat growth rate of CO2 forcing, despite increased emissions, is at least in part a reflection of increased terrestrial sequestration of carbon in the 1990s. The prognosis for future sequestration is uncertain, but it is unlikely that a flat growth rate of CO2 forcing can be maintained without a flattening of the growth rate of fossil fuel emissions, which have grown 1.2%/year since 1975.
The decline of the methane growth rate (Figure 2B) is due to some combination of changes in the sinks for CH4 (primarily atmospheric OH, which is affected by chemical emissions) and the sources of CH4. The primary natural source of CH4 is microbial decay of organic matter under anoxic conditions in wetlands. Anthropogenic sources, which in sum may be twice as great as the natural source, include rice cultivation, domestic ruminants, bacterial decay in landfills and sewage, leakage during the mining of fossil fuels, leakage from natural gas pipelines, and biomass burning. Global warming could cause the natural wetland source to increase, but if warming causes a drying of wetlands, it might reduce the CH4 source.
Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols may be the largest source of uncertainty about future climate change. The approximate global balancing of aerosol and CO2 forcings in the past (Figure 1) cannot continue indefinitely. As long-lived CO2 accumulates, continued balancing requires a greater and greater aerosol load. This, we have argued (Hansen and Lacis 1990), would be a Faustian bargain. Detrimental effects of aerosols, including acid rain and health impacts, will eventually limit aerosol amount, and thus expose latent greenhouse warming.
We do not have observations that define even the sign of the current trend of aerosol forcing, because that requires the trends of different aerosol compositions. The direct aerosol forcing depends on aerosol absorption. The indirect aerosol forcing also depends on aerosol absorption, which affects both cloud cover and cloud brightness.
An Alternative Scenario
We propose a climate forcing scenario for the next 50 years that adds little forcing, less than or about 1 W/m2 (see Figure 3). The next 50 years is the most difficult time to affect CO2 emissions due to the inertia of global energy systems. The essence of the strategy is to halt and even reverse the growth of non-CO2 GHGs and to reduce black carbon emissions. This will mitigate an inevitable, even if slowing, growth of CO2. By mid-century improved energy efficiency and advanced technologies, perhaps including hydrogen powered fuel cells, should allow policy options with reduced reliance on fossil fuels and, if necessary, CO2 sequestration.
Carbon dioxide. This scenario calls for the mean CO2 growth rate in the next 50 years to be about the same as in the past two decades. Is this plausible? We note that the CO2 growth rate increased little in the past 20 years while much of the developing world had rapid economic growth. The United States had strong growth with little emphasis on energy efficiency, indeed with increasing use of energy-inefficient sports utility vehicles. This suggests that there are opportunities to achieve reduced emissions consistent with strong economic growth. In the near term (2000-2025) this scenario can be achieved via improved energy efficiency and a continued
Fig. 3: A scenario for additional climate forcings between 2000 and 2050. Reduction of black carbon moves the aerosol forcing to lower values.
trend toward decarbonization of energy sources, e.g., increased use of gas instead of coal. On the longer term (2025-2050) attainment of a decreasing CO2 growth rate will require still greater use of energy sources that produce little or no CO2. If renewable energy systems are to play a substantial role by the second quarter of the century, it is important to foster research and development investments now on generic technologies at the interface between energy supply and end use, e.g., gas turbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaics.
Methane. Our scenario aims for a forcing of -0.2 W/m2 for CH4 change in the next 50 years. This requires reducing anthropogenic CH4 sources by about 30%. Reduction of CH4 would have the added benefit of increasing atmospheric OH and reducing tropospheric O3, a pollutant that is harmful to human health and agriculture.
CH4 produced by rice cultivation, perhaps the largest anthropogenic source, can be reduced by cultivar choice, fertilizer choice, and use of intermittent irrigation, which has the added advantage of reducing plant pests and malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Ruminants offer potential for emission reduction via dietary adjustments, as the farmer’s objective is to produce meat, milk, or power from the carbon in their feed, not CH4. CH4 losses from leaky natural gas distribution lines could be reduced, especially in the former Soviet Union, which is served by an old system that was built without financial incentives to reduce losses. Similarly, CH4 escaping at landfills, in coal and oil mining, and from anaerobic waste management lagoons, can be reduced or captured, with economic benefits that partially or totally offset the costs.
The pollutant carbon monoxide (CO) contributes to increased CH4 and O3 through its effect on OH. A small downward trend of CO has occurred in recent years, apparently a result of pollution control in Western countries. More widespread use of advanced technologies that reduce CO emissions will help achieve CH4 and O3 reductions.
Chlorofluorocarbons. If CFCs are phased out according to the Montreal Protocol the forcing by controlled gases will be about 0.15 W/m2 less in 2050 than at present. Uncontrolled gases, some of them substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, are likely to increase and cause a positive forcing of about that same magnitude, with the largest contributor being HFC-134a. The Protocol, which has been a model of international cooperation, recently approved $150M for China and $82M for India, the two largest remaining producers, for complete phase-out of their CFC production. This should make the net change in climate forcing by these gases over the next 50 years about zero. If the phase-out were extended to include additional gases, such as HFC-134a, and destruction of the accessible bank of CFC-12, a negative forcing change of -0.1 W/m2 seems possible.
Tropospheric ozone. Principal precursor emissions of tropospheric O3 are volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Primary sources of the precursors are transportation vehicles, power plants and industrial processes. Business-as-usual scenarios have O3 continuing to increase in the future (IPCC 1996). Because O3 in the free troposphere can have a lifetime of weeks, tropospheric O3 is a global problem, e.g., emissions in Asia are projected to have a significant effect on air quality in the United States. High levels of O3 have adverse health and ecosystem effects. Annual costs of the impacts on human health and crop productivity are each estimated to be of the order of $10B/year in the United States alone.
The human and ecological costs of this pollutant suggest that it should be a target for international cooperation in the next half century. Air pollution in some Asian regions is already extreme, with high ecological and health costs. Unlike the Kyoto negotiations on CO2 emissions, which cast the developed and developing worlds as adversaries, all parties should have congruent objectives regarding O3. Analogous to the approach for CFCs, sharing of technology may have mutual environmental and economic benefits.
Aerosols. It is often assumed (IPCC 1996) that aerosol forcing will become more negative in the future, which would be true if all aerosols increased in present proportions. However, it is just as likely that aerosol forcing will become less negative, e.g., if sulfates decrease relative to black carbon. Black carbon reduces aerosol albedo, causes a semi-direct reduction of cloud cover, and reduces cloud particle albedo. All these effects cause warming. Conceivably a reduction of climate forcing by 0.5 W/m2 or more could be obtained by reducing black carbon emissions from diesel fuel and coal. This might become easier in the future with more energy provided via electricity grids from power plants. But quantitative understanding of the absorbing aerosol role in climate change is required to permit reliable policy recommendations.
Aerosols, unlike GHGs, are not monitored to an accuracy defining their global forcing and its temporal change. They must be monitored globally because of their heterogeneity. Measurements must yield precise aerosol microphysics and composition information in order to define the direct forcing and provide data to analyze indirect effects.
Business-as-usual scenarios, which have an additional human-made forcing of about 3 W/m2 in the next 50 years, provide a useful warning about the potential for human-made climate change. Our analysis of climate forcings suggests, as a strategy to slow global warming, an alternative scenario focused on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon (soot) aerosols. Investments in technology to improve energy efficiency and develop non-fossil energy sources are also needed to slow the growth of CO2 emissions and expand future policy options. The increase of climate forcing would be less than or about 1 W/m2.
A key feature of this strategy is its focus on air pollution, especially aerosols and tropospheric ozone, which have human health and ecological impacts. If the World Bank were to support investments in modern technology and air quality control in India and China, e.g., the reductions in tropospheric ozone and black carbon would not only improve local health and agricultural productivity, but also benefit global climate and air quality.
Non-CO2 greenhouse gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing. There are economic incentives to reduce or capture CH4 emissions, but global implementation of appropriate practices requires international cooperation. Definition of appropriate policies requires better understanding of the CH4 cycle, especially CH4 sources.
Climate forcing by CFCs is still growing today, but, if Montreal Protocol restrictions are adhered to, there should be no net growth of the CFC forcing over the next 50 years. A small decrease of the CFC forcing from today’s level is possible.
Tropospheric O3 increases in business-as-usual scenarios, which assume that CH4 increases and that there is no global effort to control O3 precursors. The human health and ecological impacts of O3 are so great that it represents an opportunity for effective international cooperation. At least it should be possible to prevent O3 forcing in 2050 from exceeding that of today.
A description of how this study has been reported in the news and received by the scientific community can be read in Discussion of “An Alternative Scenario”.
This webpage is an abbreviated version of an article by James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas published in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.. Many additional references are available in the original paper for unreferenced assertions in the discussion here.
Carbon dioxide will become the dominant climate forcing if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.
Indeed, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use declined slightly in 1998 and again in 1999, while the global economy grew. However, achieving the level of emissions needed to slow climate change significantly is likely to require policies that encourage technological developments to accelerate energy efficiency and decarbonization trends.
Climate forcing due to aerosol changes is a wild card. Current trends are uncertain even in the sign of the effect. Unless climate forcings by all aerosols are precisely monitored, it will be difficult to define optimum policies.
We argue that black carbon aerosols, via several effects, contribute significantly to global warming. This suggests one antidote to global warming, if its impacts begin to increase. As electricity plays an increasing role in future energy systems, it should be relatively easy to strip black carbon emissions at fossil fuel power plants. Stripping and disposing of CO2, though more challenging, provides an effective backup strategy.
References:Todd (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:45 am
Bolin, B. 1998. Science 279, 330-331.
Hansen, J.E., and A.A. Lacis 1990. Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: An assessment of their relative roles in global climate change. Nature 346, 713-719.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. Matthews 1998. Perspective: Climate forcings in the industrial era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95, 12753-12758.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy 1997. Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831-6864.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, and V. Oinas 2000. Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97, 9875-9880.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1996. Climate Change 1995. eds. Houghton J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Malakoff, D. 1997. Science 278, 2048.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes 1999. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762.
Wigley, T.M.L. 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2285-2288.
My point was that few, and not you, could stand up to the standard you were setting. That was the point of my reference to your Coulter comments.
But with all due respect to you, your point is bullshit. I continue to believe that Coulter has very strong opinions, and I often agree with her and admire the forceful and humorous way that she states her position. However, she is totally batshit crazy out of control and too often makes conservatives look stupid. So I’m sick of her.
You can go off and quote the first part of that paragraph and leave off the last part if it makes you happy. But that wouldn’t make me the tool, it would make *you* the tool.
Nice job trying to equate me with your pal Greenwhatever, who is dishonest, though you resist admitting it.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:51 am
Um, Todd, have you ever heard of a link? Our host has little buttons at the top of his comment submission apparatus here that let you post one. Saves a lot of cutting and pasting, not to mention bandwidth.
You do realize that nobody’s going to read through all that text, no matter how relevant to the debate at hand it may or may not be, right?Sean M. (db71f3) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:58 am
I’d like to see Patterico in a debate with Greenwald. In person, one on one. What do you think, Patterico? Your facts against his. I’m sure Glenn wouldn’t object.MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:59 am
You’re right, Sean, I should’ve created a link, rather than posting the whole article. I did a ctr+a and then pasted without realizing how big that article was. Sorry for taking up so much bandwidth.Todd (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 1:09 am
That said, lots of people feel comfortable dismissing science that they think is inconvenient. I wanted to illustrate how vast the knowledge of America’s bests scientists is and that we should respect them, not ridicule or dismiss them.
I’d like to see Patterico in a debate with Greenwald. In person, one on one. What do you think, Patterico? Your facts against his. I’m sure Glenn wouldn’t object.
My first question would be: why did you say something false about me, and why are you ignoring my demand for a retraction? I thought you were all about debate and honest confrontation. (Snicker.)
That would be my first question . . . that is, if I thought it was worth my time. Serenity now.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/13/2006 @ 1:11 am
Ok, this is good. Now, instead of telling me what you would ask Glenn, and the snickering, ask Glenn.
[I did. Don’t you get it? He’s ignoring me. Because he has no answer. He can counterpunch, but he still has to admit he screwed up. I don’t think the arrogant prick has it in him to admit he’s wrong about anything. But rational people notice that. And if he doesn’t apologize, and if he ever disparages me again, why, I’ll throw it back in his face. Again and again. Unless I can get this “Serenity Now” concept to actually work. And I’m not positive I can. — P]MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 1:15 am
Huh. I followed your “Serenity now” link, but I didn’t see anything other than that you hate Glenn and think he’s a liar, but you don’t offer any evidence to support your claim.
I don’t know you, or Glenn, for that matter. What lies has he told about you?
[Judas H. Priest on a popsicle stick. Friendly hint: sometimes people read the post *before* they comment. Good night. — P]MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 1:29 am
I did read your post, but, I admit, I haven’t read any others. I stumbled across your site tonight by accident. I’ve seen a lot of recent posts around the blogosphere regarding someone named Deb Frisch, whom I’ve never heard of.MplsDog (1fc1a2) — 7/13/2006 @ 2:02 am
Apparently this Frisch person wrote a really innapropriate comment on someone’s blog.
Did you post a comment about this Frisch person? If so, what was the nature of your comment? I ask this because, from reading this post, I gather that Greenwald was commenting on that, not your opinion of Ann Coulter.
Patterico – why do you give the slightest consideration to what this goober thinks? Without you he’s just another liberal braying the party line on moral relativism. He’s quite busy choking on a gnat after swallowing a camel. Give it a rest. The guy couldn’t follow a simple syllogism without a Seeing Eye dog. Your pointing to facts isn’t going to cure his blindness…it’s only going to drive up his hit count. You feel guilty for taking his lunch money in grade school or something?Pat Rand (d0f45c) — 7/13/2006 @ 4:18 am
I am deeply, profoundly offended by your posts.Dwilkers (a1687a) — 7/13/2006 @ 5:16 am
I agree with Ace, Patterico. Move on. Somehow this guy (who I have never heard of, and could care less about) sucked you in. Unsuck yourself, there’s a war out there.Rick O'Shay (f41eca) — 7/13/2006 @ 5:48 am
[The following Glenn Greenwald comment, which Greenwald has been spamming all over the place, contains yet another lie. He says Patterico deleted a comment that pointed out his former praise for Misha back in January 2004. (Patterico used to watch Bill O’Reilly, too. Tastes change.) Greenwald’s accusation is flatly untrue. Patterico did not delete the comment. He approved the comment from moderation. Patterico explains more fully in an update to this post. Greenwald has no apology for his misstatement about Patterico, choosing to rely on this distraction to evade responsibility for his misstatement, which Patterico now believes was a knowing lie and not just irresponsible. — Xrlq, with permission from Patterico]
As I learned from my comments section yesterday, it turns out that — while denying the central point of my post: that you condemned the Deb Frisch comments with such melodrama and flamboyance, you ignore equally bad rhetoric coming from people like Misha — you knew of evidence which proved that point completely, but you concealed it. Namely, Misha came to your little blog here and, right here, in front of your anti-bad-discourse nose, he advocated the summary execution of judges. And, of course, you attacked him for it the way you attacked Deb Frisch, because – as you’ve been screaming for the last two days everywhere you can go – you are not guilty of the inconsistency and double standards of which I’ve accused you, which makes me a “liar.”
Oh, wait – no, you didn’t condemn him. In fact, you did the opposite. When you saw Misha advocating the murder of judges on your blog, you wrote a whole separate post in order to expressly welcome him to your blog.
And now that this behavior of yours has been revealed (by a commenter whose comment you shamefully, though understandably, deleted), you suddenly decide that you want to end your obsession with writing posts about me, calling me a liar and douchebag, and other assorted high-level and oh-so-piercing attacks.
I think it’s clear who the liar was all along — that would be person who claimed it was a “lie” to apply the point of my post to him, even though there probably is no blogger to whom that point applies more thoroughly, and then suddenly decided he didn’t want to talk about it anymore once conclusive evidence of his dishonesty emerged.
If I had the power to invent a fact to rebut your hysterical obsession over the last couple days, I don’t think I could have invented anything better than the fact that Misha spewed his violence-inciting rhetoric right here, in front of your face, and you then WELCOMED him to your blog. Isn’t it time to hear again about how much you hate Deb Frisch and her horrible comments, about how much you lament attacks of that sort? You’re in a perfect position to dole out those lectures. Your history definitely entitles you to lead the charge against hateful rhetoric — obsequiously welcoming those who urge the execution of judges is a great qualification to lead the charge against Bad Rhetoric.
Yeah, great – you write posts about how you don’t like Ann Coulter. Congratulations. Even Michelle Malkin does that. My point never was, as was painfully clear, that every single blogger to whom I linked never once, in their lifetime, condemned someone on the Right for excessive rhetoric. Most people on the Right love to do exactly that with, for instance, Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter to show how very fair-minded they are.
The point was that those who engaged in the condemnation rituals aimed at Deb Frisch overlook and even condone far worse behavior from the opinion leaders in their party. The primary, but not only, example I cited was Misha. And despite your petulant and shrieking denials that this applies to you, it turns out that you are the Poster Child for the very hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty which I was highlighting.
Apology and retraction, indeed. I wouldn’t hold my breath for those if I were you. But I will give you credit for one thing – you picked an excellent time to declare your obsessive battle to be at an end. And a rather ignominous end it is.Glenn Greenwald (7a0fe5) — 7/13/2006 @ 6:41 am
The point was that those who engaged in the condemnation rituals aimed at Deb Frisch overlook and even condone far worse behavior from the opinion leaders in their party.
Glenn, did you have to get Markos’ ok before posting that sentiment?
Get off the “opinion leaders in the party” schtick.
Deb has a history of eggregious cyberstalking which has escalated into her arguably criminal behavior towards JeffG (who has become the object of obsessive behavior from the lot at S*dlyNo!).
Sadly, yes, I realize the nuance of the affair escapes you.Darleen (81f712) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:08 am
Patterico: “[Actually, croche, you are, having once made up a story about how I blew $100 on a sushi dinner to show I am an elitist — when I don’t even eat sushi. So yes, you’re a liar. As to your point here, yes, in January 2004 I occasionally read Misha, and quickly tired of him and his over-the-top, silly, Michael-Savage-like ranting. — Patterico]”
Yep. I mistakenly attributed a comment made by Davyd ab Hugh (if memory serves and with apologies for any misspelling) to Patterico. Since I don’t read every post of Patterico’s, and since I generally avoid reading his comments (he has a good deal in common with the poo-flinging monkeys he affects to despise), I didn’t discover my error until a couple weeks ago, when Patterico decided that Ann Coulter’s ideas about McVeigh and the NY Times weren’t so crazy after all.
When I did, I promptly apologized to Patterico and his wife in comments. For some peculiar reason, I’m not finding the apology in a quick google search. So just to make sure that all i’s are dotted and t’s crossed, let me reiterate:
Patterico’s quite right. I mistakenly attributed someone else’s comments to him in the quoted post. I sincerely apologize to Patterico, Mrs. Patterico, and Patterico readers for the error.
(Should I get a screen-shot of this for the records?)m.croche (c42b77) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:21 am
I didn’t discover my error until a couple weeks ago, when Patterico decided that Ann Coulter’s ideas about McVeigh and the NY Times weren’t so crazy after all.
I brought it up again and again and again and again.
If you are going to accuse me of lying about the comments that I approved, croche, then I am going to call you a liar about not seeing it.
If you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, I will with you.
Decency goes both ways.
Look at the update to the post Greenwald is a Douchebag. I explicitly note that I HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH COMMENTS IN RECENT DAYS.
Anyone who has been reading here regularly over the past several days has been watching me pull out my hair over it. It didn’t start with you and Sev, and it may not end with you.
So no, you don’t need a goddamn screenshot, unless my spam filter acts up again. WHICH I CAN’T CONTROL.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:27 am
[…] Patterico has been suckered by this dishonest liberal wet smack into a flurry of posts (and there are several more — just scroll around a bit), but the nuisance was worth it for this headline: Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? […]Cold Fury » Blog Archive » What it’s really all about (6f4592) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:30 am
You have no idea how frustrating it is to come home, see comments like yours in moderation, approve them while thinking “They’re sure going to have a field day with this” — and then to be accused of having taken them down.
I take the honest act of putting the comments up, and then this happens.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:32 am
Actually, I found my apology. It was on 6/23. Comment #10.
I wonder how Patterico could have forgotten about this apology, which (rightfully) was so important to him.m.croche (c42b77) — 7/13/2006 @ 7:53 am
You made the assertion time and time and time and time again without apology. It was only after I told you that I would NEVER EVER let you forget about it that you apologized.Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/13/2006 @ 8:00 am
More nectar above, this time from GG?
“… a rather ignominous end ….”
Yes, he failed to capitalize the “r” and misspelled the only word with more than two syllables, but still! Does the guy know how to coin a phrase, or what?!
“A Rather ignominious end.” I like it.
😉jim (a9ab88) — 7/13/2006 @ 8:11 am
This is getting bizarre. If I’ve got the story straight, and correct me if I’m wrong, I made a mistaken remark at the end of March in comments about Patterico and a $100 sushi dinner. Patterico spotted the mistake and indignantly asked for a retraction. Since I don’t read all of Patterico’s posts (life’s short, after all), and since I read even fewer of the comments(life’s much too short), the matter escaped my attention until Patterico resuscitated, in no spirit of condemnation, the Coulter/McVeigh/NYT bombing idea – at which point I came across Patterico’s demand for a correction.
I apologized, on 6/23. Patterico clearly read the long-sought-after apology, since he responded to other points in the post. Did he read it and forget it? That can happen, I suppose. It would be remarkable. At all events,I think Patterico should acknowledge the error.
But most puzzling is the claim “you made the assertion time and time and time and time again without apology.” The sushi remark was a throwaway line made in comments once. To the best of my recollection, I never referred to it again and a google search (“Croche Sushi Patterico” – try it as a variation of rock-paper-scissors) confirms me in my opinion. Is Patterico remembering something I’m not?
[Sorry. I am tired and misspoke. You made it only once. What happened time and time again is that, after I pointed out your misstatement, you continued to comment without giving one. I demanded a retraction time and time and time again. And you kept coming on and commenting, and never gave one until recently — after failing to retract many times before.
Now you come on and claim you never saw my repeated demands for an apology. You want me to give you the benefit of the doubt. I can do that if you do the same for me. — P]m.croche (c42b77) — 7/13/2006 @ 8:29 am
The raging Frisch war goes on……
So, basically here’s the score as I’ve seen it:This morally bankrupt professor here at the U (yes, I live in Tucson) (yes, I realize she was commenting from Oregon) decides to start trolling protein wisdom (a conservative blog, at least in my approxi…The Warlock's Study (2541af) — 7/13/2006 @ 9:35 am
Couldn’t get the trackback for this post to work, so doing it this waysteve sturm (b5aa23) — 7/13/2006 @ 11:47 am
Retardo tells Patterico:
In other words, silence = assent, as per Greenwald’s crack source. Glenn, you’d better jump in there and have a word with your boy Retardo.
This gets funnier and funnier as time goes by.Pablo (efa871) — 7/13/2006 @ 12:12 pm
Patterico: “Now you come on and claim you never saw my repeated demands for an apology. You want me to give you the benefit of the doubt. I can do that if you do the same for me. — P]”
This is really getting childish. I apologized on 6/23, when I saw the mistake. (When I read Patterico, I generally don’t read the comments – precisely because they tend to bog down into tedious exchanges like this one.) Somehow Patterico read the long-awaited apology and then *poof* forgot all about it – which is remarkable but, I suppose, possible.
I apologized again today, when I thought perhaps the original correction had been lost in his spam-void. Just in case that’s not enough, let’s see if we can get this mountain back down to molehill proportions:
I made a dumb error, putting Daffyd ab Hugh’s words into Patterico’s on or around 3/30. Patterico rightly took umbrage. I sincerely apologize to Patterico and his readers for the mistake.
An apology on 6/23, two today – if that’s still not enough for Patterico, I’m happy to rinse and repeat.m.croche (c42b77) — 7/13/2006 @ 1:51 pm
Few online outside of the Far Left blogosphere and the Kos Townhouse consider Greenwald anything but a liar and a blowhard. I can think of numerous bloggers he has lied about and one has to conclude he does it on purpose. While Patterico deserves a retraction, no surprise he didn’t get one. He can rest assured people see through Greenwald’s BS.
One might ask Greenwald whether all he is interested in is pleasing those who already agree with him. This might help his hit counts but at the end of the day his blog will prove useless the everyone else. Over recent weeks he has blown his credibility time and time again,not just in attacks on conservative and libertarian blogs, but also dishonest attacks on liberals not on the Kos plantation, specifically a blogger for The New Republic. It has reached the the point where one has to conclude he is not worthy of respect.
I respect some lefty blogs and read them every day. Some have influenced me. It may have been possible for Greenwald to create a blog where those who don’t subscribe to his entire ideology would nevertheless read him with an open mind. This is not the type of blog he has decided to create. His blog is primarily interested in advancing propaganda for the Kos Townhouse, and does so in the style of an annoying blowhard. Perhaps Andrew Sullivan will continue to backslap his smears to the extent that they play into Sullivan’s frustration that Instapundit broke his little heart. That’s about it.LoafingOaf (71415b) — 7/13/2006 @ 2:18 pm
Dude, you ought to just ban these retards and never think of them again. The famous philosopher Henry Rollins has a great quote that I try to remember in situations like this: Just because someone wants to hand you a plate of turds, that doesn’t mean you have to take it.brett (553dfa) — 7/13/2006 @ 6:50 pm
[…] I look forward to Greenwald’s ever-so-civil response — such as his civil responses on my blog in recent days, wherein he called me a “liar,” “obsessive,” “hypocritical,” “hysterical,” “petulant,” and “shrieking.” And that was in just one comment (albeit one of which he was so proud that he posted it in five completely separate places). […]Patterico’s Pontifications » In Which I Condemn Glenn Greenwald for Failing to Condemn Some Stuff (421107) — 7/19/2006 @ 6:09 pm