: Who is Histories Biggest Liar?


eMacMan
May 27th, 2010, 05:20 PM
This link should get you in the mood.

YouTube - Tommy Makem & Liam Clancy - The liar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXQ_hz3wZdo)

Originally I was going to make this a poll, but quickly realized the selection would then be far too limited.

Lots of names coming to mind; Either of the Clintons. The Bush inner Circle. LBJ. Trudeau. Harpo. Cretin. Any of several Israeli Prime Ministers...

So who do you pick?

Macfury
May 27th, 2010, 05:40 PM
History's biggest liars are often the worst liars--since they got caught. There may be many more bigger and better liars who have never been outed.

Stishus
May 27th, 2010, 05:43 PM
The pope(s).

chasMac
May 27th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Obvious, but Goebbels is a good pick with his development of modern propaganda. The Soviets would give him a good run for his money on that front. Cynics among us might point to religious leaders as being the worst offenders, but that probably falls more in the realm of brainwashing.

eMacMan
May 27th, 2010, 09:08 PM
The Great Gore is on the verge of pulling off a multi-trillion dollar scam.:eek:

bryanc
May 27th, 2010, 10:06 PM
a multi-trillion dollar scam.

Doesn't hold a candle to religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o). At least there's good evidence that AGW is occurring, and that it's consequences might be real.

SINC
May 27th, 2010, 10:17 PM
Doesn't hold a candle to religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o). At least there's good evidence that AGW is occurring, and that it's consequences might be real.

There is nothing "good" in terms of the AGW evidence. It is at best a mix of lies and truths as determined by "peer reviews" among scientists who are now suspect worldwide for duping the public too many times. Sorry, but their credibility is deader than a doornail. :rolleyes:

Macfury
May 27th, 2010, 10:26 PM
SINC: bless bryanc's big old heart, flush with faith in his fellow scientists. If bryanc were a schoolgirl, then AGW scientists would be Justin Bieber.

bryanc
May 27th, 2010, 10:51 PM
If bryanc were a schoolgirl, then AGW scientists would be Justin Bieber.

You'll have to excuse me for missing the pop-culture references, but what part of independent peer review are you having trouble understanding?

Some (and this is only a small fraction) of the raw data on which thousands of independent studies have been based, is proprietary. More importantly, even the proprietary data has ben vetted by independent reviewers, and with a very small number of exceptions, all the conclusions have been validated.

Your argument that climatology as a field, let alone science as a whole, has been in some way discredited because scientists did their jobs and found flaws with other scientist's work is somewhat difficult to understand. The purpose of science is to find flaws with published interpretations of empirical data, and in the case of climatology, AGW is a spectacular demonstration of the efficacy of this system. Flaws were found, and re-analysis of the data with those flaws corrected yielded qualitatively similar results. All the data is consistent with the hypothesis that human activity is affecting the global climate and that changes in how our economies are regulated may mitigate this effect. If you are aware of data that refutes this hypothesis, I suggest you document it and send it here (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/).

Macfury
May 27th, 2010, 11:34 PM
You'll have to excuse me for missing the pop-culture references, but what part of independent peer review are you having trouble understanding?

Some (and this is only a small fraction) of the raw data on which thousands of independent studies have been based, is proprietary. More importantly, even the proprietary data has ben vetted by independent reviewers, and with a very small number of exceptions, all the conclusions have been validated.


Lovely in principle, but when I see the sort of flawed garbage that has been passed off as peer-reviewed study I can only imagine it involves some sort of spelling and grammar review. Perhaps peer-review means that it has to pass a political correctness test.


Your argument that climatology as a field, let alone science as a whole, has been in some way discredited because scientists did their jobs and found flaws with other scientist's work is somewhat difficult to understand. The purpose of science is to find flaws with published interpretations of empirical data, and in the case of climatology, AGW is a spectacular demonstration of the efficacy of this system. Flaws were found, and re-analysis of the data with those flaws corrected yielded qualitatively similar results. All the data is consistent with the hypothesis that human activity is affecting the global climate and that changes in how our economies are regulated may mitigate this effect. If you are aware of data that refutes this hypothesis, I suggest you document it and send it here (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/).

They are not merely finding flaws in studies but finding flaws in the entire theory of AGW. In many cases where flaws were found in conclusions, original data has not yet been produced by the researchers who claim it is lost or are waiting for the courts to force them to release it.

It's fitting that you mention Nature. A recent peer-reviewed study on the affects of (so-called) AGW on Lake Tangayika that recently appeared in that august publication contains pure drivel.

The bloom is off this rose.

chas_m
May 28th, 2010, 12:39 AM
The Great Gore is on the verge of pulling off a multi-trillion dollar scam.:eek:

Yes, because all that money will go to him directly. Yes, it was the only way he could think of to become rich and powerful -- forcing us all back to the Stone Age. Uh-huh.

But ANYWAY, this thread is about who is the biggest liar. I suppose you could define that a couple of different ways.

If you mean who is the PHYSICALLY biggest liar, I would have to give that one to Rush Limbaugh. Not sure of his actual weight but he's one of the largest of the popular lying media figures.

If you mean who tells the biggest lies, for me that would have to go to Holocaust Deniers (as a group). Obviously Big Religion is actually more guilty of telling lies, as they've had such a head start and told such ridiculous untruths -- but there is at least a little mitigation there as not all their lies are based on malice or lust for power -- at least some of the lying is charitable in intent, meant to comfort or aid healing. Holocaust Deniers have no charitable intent whatsoever.

bryanc
May 28th, 2010, 12:59 AM
Lovely in principle, but when I see the sort of flawed garbage that has been passed off as peer-reviewed study...

You, as anyone else, are welcome to submit any criticism you have to published research papers to the editors of journals. If your criticisms have merit, you may be (as I have been) invited to review future submissions. So, in a nutshell, put up or shut up.

They are not merely finding flaws in studies but finding flaws in the entire theory of AGW.

These "flaws" have been completely refuted (in the same sense that the flaws in the evidence for manned moon landings have been refuted - there is always the option for the conspiracy theorist to suggest that the reviewers are part of the conspiracy) by unbiased reviewers.

It's fitting that you mention Nature. A recent peer-reviewed study on the affects of (so-called) AGW on Lake Tangayika that recently appeared in that august publication contains pure drivel.

Link and substantiate or retract.

The bloom is off this rose.

Nay, the fragrant blossom of science continues to to do a spectacular job of distinguishing fact from fantasy. However, those inclined to use ignorance as a shroud for their malfeasance continue to profit by hindering the progress of science and cloaking their FUD as "skepticism".

kps
May 28th, 2010, 01:01 AM
One thing about scientists is that they'll whore themselves out for praise, recognition and of course...more funding.;)

bryanc
May 28th, 2010, 01:13 AM
One thing about scientists is that they'll whore themselves out for praise, recognition and of course...more funding.;)

Yeah... right... It's really difficult to find examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graham_(epidemiologist)) of scientist (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whistleblowers)s who've made sacrifices (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060129) to peruse truth (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/10/31/democracy_now_exclusive_epa_scientist_resigns) over "funding".

FeXL
May 28th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Link and substantiate or retract.

You must have missed this one (from the GHG thread):

By the way, here is a review of that alarmist Lake Tanganyika article you posted earlier. If a study like that can be peer-reviewed and accepted by Nature Magazine, it seriously calls into question their editorial integrity,

Tanganyika Revisited | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/tanganyika-revisited/#more-19742)

kps
May 28th, 2010, 01:19 AM
Oh c'mon "c", where's your sense of Ha-Ha.

bryanc
May 28th, 2010, 01:27 AM
You must have missed this one (from the GHG thread):

Yes I did... you'll have to excuse me for reading and considering high-impact peer-reviewed science over blog-posts. I have rather a lot on my plate at the moment.

eMacMan
May 28th, 2010, 02:23 AM
The idea here is to present candidates for the biggest liar, not to defend religious icons. Gore is a politician and therefore by definition a liar, at least until proven otherwise. If you have evidence that he is not lying even though his lips are moving feel, free to present it in the GW warming thread where it rightly belongs. In the meantime his very lifestyle is proof enough that he believes he is lying. I included him here simply because his lies may prove to be extremely costly to everyone on the planet.

I do like some of the other candidates as well. Barf Limburger certainly deserves consideration based on physical size. BO's claim that the BP calamity is his first priority looks awfully feeble given his actions to date.

bsenka
May 28th, 2010, 03:28 AM
The lies Gore's telling are having the largest impact, and fooling the largest number of people around the globe, but the number of lies he's telling are quite small in comparison to many despots throughout history.

Macfury
May 28th, 2010, 04:03 AM
If you mean who is the PHYSICALLY biggest liar, I would have to give that one to Rush Limbaugh. Not sure of his actual weight but he's one of the largest of the popular lying media figures.

Well, I'd have to say that you must have a lot of self-confidence to be making a "fat" joke.

Macfury
May 28th, 2010, 09:03 AM
Charles Ponzi, the originator of the Ponzi scheme. For not only lying about the sale of international postage reply coupons, but for keeping the whole thing afloat for the better part of a year--and buying the bank in which he kept his money to keep the operation going smoothly.

chasMac
May 28th, 2010, 11:13 AM
If you mean who is the PHYSICALLY biggest liar, I would have to give that one to Rush Limbaugh. Not sure of his actual weight but he's one of the largest of the popular lying media figures.

Come now, don't let your politics enter into this. Remember the question was history's biggest liar. Henry VIII was massively obese in the latter part of his reign, and famously duplicitous. Catherine the Great needed a contraption to lower her onto her horse, such was her weight. She being a politician, and thus a liar, might make her in fact physically the biggest liar in history.

screature
May 28th, 2010, 11:24 AM
Doesn't hold a candle to religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o). At least there's good evidence that AGW is occurring, and that it's consequences might be real.

Well while, god may or may not exist, it doesn't make religion a lie. What makes something a lie is knowing the truth and then saying something else. Sure there have been plenty of lies told by various religions, but it certainly doesn't even come close to the number told by politicians.

eMacMan
May 28th, 2010, 12:45 PM
Well while, god may or may not exist, it doesn't make religion a lie. What makes something a lie is knowing the truth and then saying something else. Sure there have been plenty of lies told by various religions, but it certainly doesn't even come close to the number told by politicians.

True but religious politicians do manage to lower the bar even further.beejacon

ScanMan
May 28th, 2010, 01:21 PM
Is it lying if you're delusional?

Pat Roberston for example...I don't consider him a liar as much as a whack job. Rush as well the boy just can't help it.

They're no Goebbels, with dark agendas. Nor are they Ponzi or Madoff, compulsively orchestrating their crimes of the ages.

IMO, statements that we perceive to be lies, but are made by dopamine deficient blowhards, are hardly worthy of consideration.

In recent memory, my vote goes to O.J. for biggest liar. He's sane, with just a tinge of that ego/jealous rage thing, going on.

I think he'd make the cut.

jamesB
May 28th, 2010, 01:22 PM
Well, I'd have to say that you must have a lot of self-confidence to be making a "fat" joke.
Ouch :eek: .....that was cruel.

hayesk
May 28th, 2010, 04:02 PM
One thing about scientists is that they'll whore themselves out for praise, recognition and of course...more funding.;)

No scientist I ever met was overly concerned with praise or recognition beyond their work being properly attributed. As for more funding, for the most part, same thing. What is more likely is threatening to pull existing funding to coerce scientists in tailoring their conclusions to someone else's cause.

hayesk
May 28th, 2010, 04:04 PM
When I read this thread title, the first thing that popped into my head is Stephen Harper's "transparency and accountability" campaign.

chasMac
May 28th, 2010, 04:49 PM
When I read this thread title, the first thing that popped into my head is Stephen Harper's "transparency and accountability" campaign.

The very fact that part of the reason Harper got elected was owing to campaigning on the topic of honesty speaks volumes on what came before him. To reference another current thread; Chretien is the apotheosis of dishonesty, so much so that, in his favour, he probably got to the point where he didn't even know he was involved in deception. Harper has all too many faults; but relatively speaking lying is not one of them.