When Your Kids Think For Themselves »« Teacher Suspended for Forcing Kid to Say Pledge of Allegiance

Steve King Rewrites History

One of the hallmarks of wingnuttia is that once a story is released into the wild, it will continue to be repeated no matter how thoroughly it is debunked. Even when the person originating it admits that it’s false, another wingnut will still repeat it as true later. Ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Steve King:

KING: And then when we get to George W. Bush, he was accused of 16 words in the State of the Union address that they said was a lie and they’re still attacking him for that. And Jan, I will tell you, I have had hands-on evidence that what George Bush said in that State of the Union address was the truth and he was still punished for it.

What he’s referring to here is George W. Bush’s claim that Iraq had bought yellow cake uranium from Niger. It’s false. It was based on forged documents. The person the Bush administration sent to investigate the claim told them it was false, but they used it anyway. Hey, they were trying to sell a war and facts just didn’t matter to them. A few months later, the White House was forced to admit that the claim was false. And here we are, a decade later, and a sitting congressmen is still claiming it’s true.

Comments

  1. MikeMa says

    Once again we have a case where lying, rather than ending a political career, promotes it. I suppose kudos go to King for understanding the limits (or lack of limits) to which he can go without accountability. A true GOTP politician.

  2. macallan says

    So he accuses everyone of doing exactly what he’s doing? Is he begging for a Bryan Fischer award?

  3. raven says

    This phenomena is hardly limited to “wingnuttia”.

    http://www.forbes. com/sites /jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

    Forbes is a rightwing nutcase and Looneytarian site. You can be sure they never ever tell the truth unless it is an accident.

    You would be better off citing the voices in your head or what you allegedly found in a fortune cookie. It’s not credilbe at all. Since Murdoch bought the WSJ, it isn’t either. Fox News in print.

    Lancifer, you need to find a new delusion to babble on about. Global warming isn’t coming. It’s here. The adults are now trying to figure out what to do about it.

  4. raven says

    I realize this is OT but it is related.

    I used to have to sometimes deal with HIV/AIDS denialists. You know HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because neither exists.

    That is pretty much gone.

    1. The HIV denialists who were HIV+ are just about all gone. They all died…of AIDS. They had lengthy protracted illnesses that were ultimately fatal.

    2. The treatments for HIV/AIDS have gotten so good that we don’t really know how long they will extend lifespans. It’s decades at least, maybe longer. There isn’t much to be gained by denying reality when you can take a few drugs and live a few or many more decades.

    3, It’s the same with global warming. It’s here. It’s happening now. The big debate iamong the adults is what we can do about it. If anything. Lancifer is becoming the last of a literally, dying breed.

    Ironically, as it turns out, what we will do is nothing but adapt. It will cost around a trillion USD this century. I once tried to calculate how many people would died before we did anything about rising CO2 levels. And couldn’t do it.

    At this moment, maybe 20,000 people are dead in the Philippines from a gigantic typhoon. :Our weather is becoming more extreme worldwide, a prediction of global warming. Who cares? I’m guessing a hundred million dead won’t do it. They won’t all die at once. It will take up to billions dead before we do something. And at that point, it won’t even matter. Climate change has momentum that reaches out for millennia.

  5. colnago80 says

    Re raven @ #7

    I am afraid that Sir Lancelot is like Peter Duesberg, who continues to claim that HIV is not a cause of AIDS. Or Bryan Josephson who continues to claim that PK and ESP are real phenomena, even while he continues to support the notion of cold fusion. Sir Lancelot will continue to deny that global warming is occurring or claim that it is inconsequential. Sir Lancelot is a textbook example of a pretty smart guy who has brainwashed himself into ignoring the evidence.

    By the way, speaking of the typhoon that just devastated the Philippines, here’s Sir Lancelot’s hero, Anthony Watts, with a string of bogus claims about the severity of the storm. But that’s what science denialists do, lie through their teeth.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/11/09/wuwt-science-denialist-blog-hits-new-historic-low/

  6. billyeager says

    It will cost around a trillion USD this century

    Hell, the US has spent more than that in half the time waging the ludicrous ‘War on Drugs’. Stop funding that money-hole, which only serves to support the militarisation of your law enforcement agencies and the privatised incarceration industry, and you’ll be able to throw it at environmental science and technology. You might actually start spending your nation’s tax-dollars on shit that’s worthwhile.

  7. says

    I can’t remember when it was in one of the comment threads, but I think that Raven’s $1T figure was countered by Michael Heath with something on the order of several $100T over the next century. I’m prolly off the mark but I think $T1 is a pisshole in the rapidly melting glacier.

    This link:

    http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/cost/cost.pdf

    is to a study done in 2008. I will assume that the costs increase exponentially as we begin to see obvious results like dead people in countries that are either quietly starving to death of getting killed for their refusal to do so.

  8. says

    I notice that Lance isn’t lying about the warming itself; he’s only lying about how a few people talk about other people’s claims about the warming. He knows damn well the warming is real — and that it’s man-made — and all he can do now is grab a few straws here and there to attack the credibility of as many environmentalists as he can, which ain’t that many.

    AGW denialism just hasn’t been the same since that big honkin’ manufactroversy about leaked emails from East Anglia got debunked.

  9. Doug Little says

    lancifer @6.

    The methodology of the paper is freely available and so are the conclusions. The reason the paper was written is that a majority of Americans believed that there was not a scientific consensus that a) climate change was real and that b) humans were causing it. The paper shows that there is indeed a consensus for these two points. What has the deniers up in arms is that a lot of those papers don’t quantify the severity of the human contribution. The author of the paper has this to say about that.

    We fully anticipate that some climate contrarians will respond by saying “we don’t dispute that humans cause some global warming.” First of all, there are a lot of people who do dispute that there is a consensus that humans cause any global warming. Our paper shows that their position is not supported in the scientific literature.

    Second, we did look for papers that quantify the human contribution to global warming, and most are not that specific. However, as noted above, if a paper minimized the human contribution, we classified that as a rejection. For example, if a paper were to say “the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century,” that would be included in the less than 3% of papers in the rejection categories.

  10. Synfandel says

    timgueguen wrote:

    Another one still floating around is that some of the 911 hijackers entered the US through Canada.

    I remember hearing that one on an American news channel. Specifically, they came across the Ontario-Vermont border. I’ll give a thousand dollars to anyone who can show me that border on a map.

  11. caseloweraz says

    OT but necessary: I note that Lancifer cites the work of the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor: specifically, a May 2013 James Taylor claptrap essay in Forbes. I’m sorry; that’s redundant. Let me rewrite it: specifically, a May 2013 James Taylor essay in Forbes.

    Taylor in turn cites a report in Popular Technology which claims that a study by Cook et al. misrepresented seven scientific papers (all by climate contrarians.) Seven out of 12,000 papers. That’s a 99.942% agreement on AGW. But no matter; the PT authors conclude that mainstream scientists are wrong about climate change.

  12. dingojack says

    Just lucky Global Warming is ‘crap’, eh Lancy?
    This is totally imaginary, and so is this. Wheeew!
    I bet all those imaginary people who lost imaginary homes, businesses, livestock, pets (and in some case their imaginary lives too) are just soooo relieved it’s just a fucking game!
    @@
    Dingo

  13. says

    billyeager “Hell, the US has spent more than that in half the time waging the ludicrous ‘War on Drugs’.”
    We need to get Tough on Heat by stopping foreign temperatures from blowing Drugs across our borders and poisoning our children!

  14. abb3w says

    Mandatory social psychology reading: Prasad et al, (doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00280.x). King’s pontificating seems almost certain to fall within what they refer to as “inferred justification”.

    In contrast, lancifer seems to be engaged in Attitude Bolstering and Social Validation, while the responses to him seem a mix of counterargument and source derogation. The overview of persuasion resistance methods from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5) is another wonderful read. To give the devil his due, none of these behaviors is unique to either side of the political spectrum; contrariwise — yes, there is some data to suggest they are not equally distributed among either side of the political spectrum.

  15. freehand says

    Lancifer – “You caught us in a helluva lie, so here’s a lie claiming that you guys do it too.”

    For anyone in the reality-based culture who wants to know the methodology of that 97% paper, here’s a link:
    http://skepticalscience.com/how_97.html

    Lancifer of course is not really interested in finding a liberal lie; they are readily available, even though it’s hard to find one to match most of the Tea Party crowd. He wants instead to argue reality away. Talk about pissing into the wind…

Leave a Reply