Blacklisted by the Hoover Institute! The ignominy!

[Dogmudgeon]

I was trying to find a copy of Tom Moore's paper on how global warming will be a Boon to Man, but the server informed me of the following:

You are not authorized to view this page
The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page.
HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

Since I can't get in at all, contacting the Web site administrator is out of the question, isn't it?

Assuming that this isn't just some boneheaded sysadmin's mistake, let me pose a few questions:

• How did they get my IP address?


• Are they really so craven as to ban people who may disagree with them?


• What's in Moore's paper that libbruls such as myself ought never to read?

The last time I was on a blacklist, it was from the National Honor Society (!). None of the teachers who administered the program could figure it out, but the next year, after I won some kind of a scholarship, I was off the list. I guess this is a step up from that.

--p!

[Selatius]

1. You can email the administrator, still.

* How did they get my IP address?

Assuming this is a harmless accident, they probably banned your address because your address or some address very similar was used in an attack on the server. Some mask their IP addresses and use dummy ones to launch attacks.

* Are they really so craven as to ban people who may disagree with them?

Hoover institute is an institute that incubates strategies to sell corporatist ideas to the public and the rest of the business community. Your guess is as good as mine about them wanting to hear voices of dissent.

* What's in Moore's paper that libbruls such as myself ought never to read?

If it's the usual spiel about helping the poor and asking those with the most money and power, the ones with the most responsibility to society, to be responsible for the weakest and poorest among us, then I'm guessing it's something like that.

[greiner3]

2. Looks like they caught you trying to access a back door;

Here's a link to the document;

http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=86

Global Warming: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
Author: Thomas Gale Moore
Product Code: 5662-X
ISBN: 5662-X
Pages: 75
Binding Information: Essay
Availability: In stock.
Price: $5.00
Qty:

Contrary to the doom and gloom scenarios that environmentalists propound, both evidence and theory suggest that global warming would in general be beneficial, Simple logic indicates that most of modern humankind's activities would be unaffected by a warming of five to nine degrees Fahrenheit. Agriculture and some services might actually benefit. Moreover, past history shows two periods that were significantly warmer than today, and during both eras mankind flourished. The first epoch, which has been dubbed by climatologists the "Climatic optimum," brought temperatures that were as warm as the median prediction for the next century. During this period, Homo Sapiens shifted from surving in small tribes through hunting and gathering to settled farming communities and from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. During the second warming, the "little climate optimum, " Europe enjoyed the High Middle Ages and went on one of the largest building sprees ever recorded.

$5.00? For one sided, doubtable scientific results and just plain crappy talking points, the neocons should be paying people to get their message out to the people. I'm waiting for the other side to come out with talking points regarding nuclear fallout and how it would benefit us should they deem it necessary to really nuke Iran and/or N Korea.

edited for spell check after the fact!

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Well, you're in good company...

It seems I am also persona non grata at Stanford. I'm guessing it's just a balls-up, since it's fairly unlikely they're tracking down godless liberals in the South Pacific and banning them from reading how great climate change is. :tinfoilhat:

[dipsydoodle]

4. Sometimes these things are complete cock up

but the unfortunate thing is that they can be difficult to correct.

I had a similar problem with the banjo-l group which is hosted by virginia.edu. My providor starting bouncing all incoming daily digest emails due to some obscure issue which they never seemed to be able to pin down. They alleged that someone must have made a spam complaint against that site. Eventually banjo-l struck me off due to the bounces and I gave up in exhasperation.

[mcscajun]

5. I got the same 404. I'd be curious to know if anyone from DU

can get to the site. It may be that it's not the individual IP, but the referring site, DU, that's being blocked.

That's pretty easy for the webmaster to do, and would be intentional.

[mcscajun]

6. Getting your IP address is easy. Any web administrator can code for it.

It's as simple as Javascript.

http://javascript.internet.com/user-details/ip-address.html

Want to see it in action? Go to this site, it'll tell you all about yourself (your browser self, that is):
http://gemal.dk/browserspy/ip.php

There are many other items your browser is "giving away", see them at: http://gemal.dk/browserspy

[Buzz Clik]

7. You have the wrong url

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Thanks, everybody!

And a special 'thanks' to the DUer Who May Wish To Remain Anonymous who gave me access to a copy on her on-line storage account.

And a big ol' TIA to anyone who posts here-on-after.

I have been able to read Mr. Moore's paper in all its blazingly "scientific" glory. I remember reading a shorter version in the 1990s; getting to read the piece in full has been like seeing the Director's Cut of Battlefield Earth.

I entertained the idea of writing a reaction piece to it, but after giving it some thought, I decided that my time would be better spent cleaning the bathroom. Moore's arguments have gotten no better in the decade or so since the fruits of his labors first saw light. Although many of his arguments have simply been disputed, refuted, and booted, even the nuts-and-bolts aspect of the piece leaves a lot to be desired. First, he started writing an advocacy paper, then slid into a wholly inadequate and teacherly Review Of The Literature, ending with a waltz into a patch of sticky rhetoric and the spectacle of performing public verbal fellatio on industry.

It was similar to the recent paper "debunking" Wally Broecker's well-substantiated theory of thermohaline current involvement in climate change. It was Yet Another Case of Debunkery by Assertion and Political Animus. In this case, the debunking was performed over an indeterminate number of dinners of Italian food and moderately expensive wine, courtesy of the Department of Earth Sciences' expense account. (The voucher for which, I am sure, has already been submitted.)

Sure, we've done stuff like this, too. Scientific hit pieces, I mean. But at least us libbruls usually manage to make a strong case before flapping our gums. When the Right does it, much too often all we get is a display of political gingivitis. Somebody really ought to let these clowns in on the secret that there are few things more pathetic than pimping deliberate untruths (synonym: lies) while invoking the mojo of Science. (Although the modern Republican Party has given us many things to consider that ARE more pathetic.)

--p!
I hereby apologize to teachers, oenologists, Italian chefs, clowns, pimps, sufferers of gingivitis, and John Travolta.

Well, maybe not Travolta.