Shorter Tim Blair

Tim Blair, The inconvenient truths about Al Gore’s hot-air footprint:

  • Al Gore is fat.

Note that this was a column in the Daily Telegraph, so presumably there was an editor who could have saved a lot of ink and paper by trimming Blair’s column down to just 11 letters.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.â„¢ Acknowledgement copied from Sadly, No!.

Update: James Massola promotes Blair’s column in The Australian.

Comments

  1. #1 SteveC
    November 2, 2010

    Forgive me for thinking he was the maker of the movie and subject of this post

    He isn’t and I forgive you. Tim Blair made him the subject of his illiberal and preposterous rant, which is the subject of this post by Tim Lambert.

    And if I read the OP correctly, it’s the bizarre fixation on Gore (not to mention the Greens and “greenies”) that the Murdoch press regularly gives in to that’s Tim Lambert’s real target. So if you really want not to be associated with “this Tim Blair asshole”, try stopping yourself sounding exactly like him.

  2. #2 Mike
    November 2, 2010

    Alright Isabel, if my “scent” was wrong, then so be it and I unreservedly withdraw the remark.

    It’s just that, you know, expressing a personal dislike of Brayton and PZ generally comes from certain corners and political persuasions, so you can probably excuse (or at least understand) my slant there.

    Alright, let’s start again:

    Al Gore’s lifestyle is not austere and energy-conscious enough to set a good example to us lower class people while he urges action over climate change.

    Do you actually have any other point to make? Any at all? Why are you here? Why is everyone (except yourself apparently) misunderstanding you?

  3. #3 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    SteveC

    You were almost convincing until your last line-I sound “exactly” like Tim Blair? After I said the film should be shown, it’s irrelevant that AL Gore is fat, Al Gore is correct, global warming is real, we should reduce carbon emissions and use more public transportation and plant trees and Tim Blair is an asshole?

    Wow. That’s the internet for ya!

    I agree with his characterization of Gore as a hypocrite. Therefore I am now exactly like him. Oooookay.

    Listen I could give a shit about AG. But this OP is weak and disingenuous. THAT’S what I am saying.

    Goodnight.

  4. #4 SteveC
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel, anyone ever told you you’ve got extraordinarily long toes?

    So I said “exactly”. So scrub “exactly”. Better now? Got the point yet?

    Get over your fixation with Al f***ing Gore. There’s more to life, there really is…

  5. #5 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    Michael,

    I’m curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him “get the word out” so *other* people will cut consumption. You know, those people not rich enough to buy carbon offsets.

    Also, I have asked numerous times for evidence of the effectiveness of the offsets. Anyone?

    Mike,

    it isn’t that he’s not austere enough, it’s that he is over the top greedy and wasteful.

    Whether he is being used or is a self-appointed spokesman is not relevant: he is in the public eye (he used to be vice-president and made a famous movie on the subject) so it is hardly “bizarre” that assholes like Blair focus on him. And hardly unexpected that his own lifestyle would be called into question.

    Okay I will look forward to all your replies and insults in the morning.

    Sweet dreams of a better future to you all!

  6. #6 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    Haha just saw this after hitting send and have to reply – *I* am fixated with Gore now? I couldn’t care less about the guy. Saying he’s a hypocrite = fixation? Well I don’t know what the fuck you are on about with the bizarre toe fetishizing – you are obviously obsessed with me. Get over your sick fixation!

    You guys are hilarious:)

    Please stop so I can get some sleep!

  7. #7 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    > I’m curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him “get the word out” so other people will cut consumption.

    I’m curious how you listen to someone who has multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms and think they’re the doberman’s doobries, but when someone does this and offsets their usage by buying eco power, pay for higher insulation and reduced use and says that you should do so with your one swimming pool and bathroom home, you get all pissy.

    I also fail to see why this makes the science wrong.

    Just because Evel Knivel rode a motorbike over a canyon etc, would he be the WRONG person to tell you about safe driving?

    Would it make you immune to crashes in a car at 120mph?

  8. #8 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    frank, it’s more like the liberal elitists like Isobel (since it is the liberal elite who hate wealth and the wealthy) are making a big issue of how someone who is wealthy IS A BAD MAN and will remain so until they become poor.

    Quite how she gets on with Rush who thinks anyone like Isobel who hates the rich is a nutcase is anybody’s guess.

  9. #9 Michael
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel,

    Do you not understand or are you just ignoring the issue of net effects?

    If i was to buy solar panels for my domestic electricity generation, you would criticise me as a hypocrite for the large carbon footprint of the PV panels?

  10. #10 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    > IT FUCKING DOESN’T MATTER.

    If, by “it”, you mean whatever you’re complaining about Al Gore about, then yes, it fucking doesn’t matter.

    If Al Gore ground up cute puppies and ate them live on stage, it wouldn’t make Climate Change not happen and it wouldn’t mean you could ignore the exhortations to cut waste in energy and find better ways of using the energy you can get cleanly.

    Your hate against Al Gore who is

    a) rich
    b) has turned upper-class traitor

    doesn’t matter.

    Your posts don’t matter.

    Are you going to reduce your waste?

    THAT MATTERS.

  11. #11 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    > And yes people do seem to be denying his hypocrisy,

    We haven’t yet heard the hypocrisy, except that he is both rich and not wasteful and asks that others waste less too.

    Apparently, for you, the rich cannot tell the poor what to do. EVER.

    > or diminishing it,

    See above.

    > or throwing strawmen at me. (I am jealous of his riches etc).

    You are and they’re not strawmen.

    You have stated explicitly that he cannot tell working people to reduce waste because he’s rich.

    You hate the rich.

    Or at least the ones who campaign for less consumption.

  12. #12 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    And, again, since our newest hateraid drinker seems to have forgotten her own words:

    > The article talked about his entire lifestyle which is far more damning.

    Al Gore lives a rich lifestyle and this is damning.

    Isobel hates the rich.

  13. #13 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 2, 2010

    OK, Isabel, let’s make this simple for you:

    re you a troll, or a concern troll, or just an idiot?

    (Oh, and if you reply with ‘Waah! You’re calling me a teabagging neocon!’ then you’ve just exposed yourself as a concern troll who’s also an idiot.)

    * * *

    Wow:

    > frank, it’s more like the liberal elitists like Isobel (since it is the liberal elite who hate wealth and the wealthy) are making a big issue of how someone who is wealthy IS A BAD MAN and will remain so until they become poor.

    Clearly Isabel isn’t an “elitist”, because she sounds so folksy, and she speaks for the little troll guy.

  14. #14 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    > Clearly Isabel isn’t an “elitist”, because she sounds so folksy, and she speaks for the little troll guy.

    This is EXACTLY why she’s a *liberal* elitist. She’s “talking for the little guy” as if they can’t talk for themselves and they need someone to do it for them.

    Bah.

    She thinks she knows what’s good for them and doesn’t even care to educate herself.

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel:

    I’m curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him “get the word out” so other people will cut consumption. You know, those people not rich enough to buy carbon offsets.

    I think I see what (one of) your problem(s) is. If someone is rich and leads a lavish lifestyle then even if he ensures that he does not generate emissions then he has no right to tell poorer people to stop polluting the atmosphere because it will cost them money. Among these “poorer” people, Isabel includes Australians in general. I can’t quite figure out how this is anything other than wealth envy. (Real “poor” people, of course, hardly generate any CO2 emissions at all.)

  16. #16 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 2, 2010

    Wow:

    > This is EXACTLY why she’s a liberal elitist. She’s “talking for the little guy” as if they can’t talk for themselves and they need someone to do it for them.

    I beg to differ: that just makes her a self-appointed spokesgoon. (Like, um, Al Gore. Except much dumber.)

  17. #17 Wow
    November 2, 2010

    > Like, um, Al Gore. Except much dumber

    Do we have anything on the avoirdupois issue for Isabel? :-)

  18. #18 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    ” IT FUCKING DOESN’T MATTER.

    If, by “it”, you mean whatever you’re complaining about Al Gore about, then yes, it fucking doesn’t matter.”

    My posts were moderated and out are of order. I meant the analysis of his offests.

    “I’m curious how you listen to someone who has multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms and think they’re the doberman’s doobries,”

    I would always think they are a greedy asshole in todays’ world. Who needs all that to be comfortable? No one.

    “I also fail to see why this makes the science wrong.”

    So do I. Your point?

    “You have stated explicitly that he cannot tell working people to reduce waste because he’s rich.”

    Liar. I said he’s a poor excuse for a (self-appointed) spokesman because he’s not reducing his own waste asshole.

    “. If someone is rich and leads a lavish lifestyle then even if he ensures that he does not generate emissions ”

    Okay I missed how he ensured this. How did he do it?

    “and doesn’t even care to educate herself.”

    About what? I know quite a lot about global warming (I am a science grad student) and I said I looked for evidence that offsets are effective as claimed, couldn’t find any and asked for your help. How is that “not caring to educate myself”?

    I’m disappointed. All those messages, all ignoring the points I brought up and all you can come up with is I hate the rich (based on me thinking one person who does not practice what he preaches is a hypocrite) and I am dumb. >yawn<

    ALL I said is the article is correct about the hypocrisy issue, Gore is indeed a spokesman in the public eye (was VP, wrote famous book and made famous movie) and it is hardly “bizarre” that his political enemies would “fixate” on his hypocrisy. I would counter that anyone who couldn’t predict this outcome is pretty dim themselves.

  19. #19 Doug
    November 2, 2010

    Sorry I went away for a while so did not respond to Isabel earlier.

    I think that the issue of consumption by Americans as compared to most of the world has been addressed. My point is that compared to the poorest inthe world we are all hypocrites, but that is not a reason to do nothing.

    And no you are not discussing how we might address climate change you are discussing your hatred for Al Gore. That is not the same thing and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    You need to move on and think about what needs to be done not necessarily who is saying it.

  20. #20 Rattus Norvegicus
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel,

    With regards to Al Gore, a few points:

    1) He is not asking people to live in caves. He is pushing greeening of the economy — increased use of renewable energy, decreasing demand through recycling, stuff like that.

    2) It is true that in 2006 he used a lot of electricity. He does have a large house. This was before he had completed the green renovations on his house which is now a showcase for green technologies.

    3) In 2006 the company which supplies power to Nashville did not have a green energy switch, it now does a he pays extra for green energy. I know for a fact the PG&E has a green power program, since I purchased power through that program while I was living in Northern California. I suspect that the power used by his Montecito mansion is supplied through that program.

    4) At the time I researched this claim, he got his offsets through his investment company, Generation Investments. They invest heavily in companies developing renewable generation capacity and technologies. I suspect that his offsets are effective.

    Yes, Al Gore is rich. But he does seem to be doing the things which he is promoting in his talks and through his work with the Repower America program. This makes him not a hypocrite, but rather an example of how you can live a greener life w/o impacting one’s lifestyle — exactly the message which he is promoting.

  21. #21 adelady
    November 2, 2010

    Rich people are powerful people. They’re also very afraid of losing the rich lifestyle.

    Having a rich man upfront on how to live that lifestyle while also being carbon neutral / friendly is a great propaganda item against the “You want us all to live in caves” theme song.

    Rich people matter. Their opinions and their decisions matter. The more of them take up Gore’s approach the better off we’ll all be. Rich people’s decisions affect the way the markets go. They affect where the technology goes.

  22. #22 Mike
    November 2, 2010

    OK, I think I’ve got it now. Isabel, you seem to have the following message:

    I hate Al Gore. He leads an opulent wasteful lifestyle and he’s a hypocritical ass.

    and

    You guys are asses too.

    and

    Tim Blair is also an ass.

    which could all be neatly summed up as:

    Everybody’s an ass.

    No-one hates you Isabel. I think we’re mostly just trying to work out what you’re trying to say, and I fully concede you’ve had me totally confused at various points as to what side of the fence you’re sitting on, or even if you’re on one at all.

    Disliking people who have big houses or lots of money is pointless. Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a team effort whether you’re rich or poor (while poorer people have less capacity to do this, it’s irrelevant to the principle – every bit helps), and I think Gore has clearly made efforts to do that. Articles like Blair’s though, never let facts get in the way of a good story, and your contempt for Gore is, I believe, both misplaced and somewhat irrelevant.

  23. #23 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    “Rich people matter. ”

    Best response yet. As long as you don’t care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool.

    I never once implied I dislike or hate anyone. He is not making any sacrifices, and yet he asks others to do so. Can you make the changes you want in green energy and infrastructure without caring about public opinion? If so (and I don’t agree) cool.

    But saying those against the changes are “bizarrely fixated” is ridiculous.

    “(while poorer people have less capacity to do this, it’s irrelevant to the principle – every bit helps)”

    No. Your comment is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

    And I would still like to see those stats. I’ve heard Americans are 5% of the pop and use 25% of the energy. Same would apply to classes within the US.

  24. #24 Michael
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel,

    Your comments seem to assume much. How do you know Gore “is not making any sacrifices”? I’m not so in tune with his life to know one way or the other.

    At any rate, I think his arguments are not about sacrifices but primarily about renewables – and he walks the talk on that.

  25. #25 jakerman
    November 2, 2010

    Isobel writes:

    >*”Rich people matter.”* Best response yet. As long as you don’t care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool.

    I don’t see any logic in Isobel’s follow up inference of: *”As long as you don’t care about public opinion, and feel it is not important, cool.”*

    >*[Gore] is not making any sacrifices, and yet he asks others to do so.*

    He is trying to break the lock-step link between CO2 emissions and the economy. You seem under the impression that Gore trying to achieve another goal that requires some unclear, unstated sacrifice.

    Perhaps rather than fallaciously calling Gore a hypocrite (for failing to meet your unclear standards) you could simply argue that Gore is not striving for some other goal than you value.

    What sacrifices do you want him to be making? What is your goal that is not shared by Gore?

  26. #26 frankis
    November 2, 2010

    By now I think I’d like from Isabel some actual analysis, with a decent reference, of just what Gore is or is not doing to reduce his own CO2 emissions. I’m as sceptical as Isabel of the (multiply fatally) flawed concept of CO2 offsets itself and even more sceptical of the offsets lobby generally, but can Isabel actually prove her case against Gore?

    Just beware, btw, Isabel that more than a couple of links in one comment, or use of expletives such as f**k, are likely I think (is this true?) to see you in moderation limbo.

  27. #27 Chris O'Neill
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel:

    I’m curious how the multiple swimming pools and nine bathrooms per house help him “get the word out” so other people will cut consumption. You know, those people not rich enough to buy carbon offsets.

    . If someone is rich and leads a lavish lifestyle then even if he ensures that he does not generate emissions

    Okay I missed how he ensured this. How did he do it?

    Oh so that’s what you’re really worried about. Then why, pray tell, did you need to start complaining about how well off he is? Why are you obscuring your message?

  28. #28 Rattus Norvegicus
    November 2, 2010

    frankis and Isabel,

    Could either of you respond to my comment which pointed out that he is not a hypocrite?

  29. #29 Isabel
    November 2, 2010

    Rattus,
    Sorry I did not respond to your link. I am glad no one will have to change their lifestyles. I did not realize that, especially as heating bills are not the only aspect of a rich lifestyle. I will spread the word among my working class friends.
    Isabel

  30. #30 jakerman
    November 2, 2010

    Rattus, its becoming clearer as this thread progresses that clarity is not Isable’s ally.

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    November 2, 2010

    On the matter of posts being moderated out of order, this is not the case.

    If one uses key words or too many links one’s post can be held in moderation, but once released they go onto the thread in the chronological order in which they were submitted.

    If one’s posts do not make sense it is merely because one has said or done something in a particular post that means it will be delayed.

    The final order of posts, once released from moderation, is entirely the poster’s responsibility.

  32. #32 adelady
    November 2, 2010

    I rather suspect that all this fuss is about different visions of what a lower energy lifestyle / community might look like. It does not mean sacrifice in any real sense of the word.

    In terms of selling it to the public at large, I think rather than advocating the get your fingers dirty activities I like, growing veg, keeping chooks, etc. it might be worth another look at a seriously technologically modern way of life. The Jetsons was a fun cartoon concept – and the idea that wealthy societies could live in communities powered by silent, invisible distributed solar in roads and buildings, with a bit of wind and geo to cover the gaps, in Mediterranean style climates would look like Jetson-style magic to earlier generations.

    Other climates need more wind and tidal, but it’s still possible.

    We do need to “sacrifice” in terms of trivial consumption of shoes and car ornaments and food wastage, but there’s no reason to sacrifice personal comfort or daily mobility.

  33. #33 Rattus Norvegicus
    November 2, 2010

    Isabel,

    When I was in Nor Cal, the green option was about a 10% premium. Let’s take that as a baseline.

    I am one of the working class. I live in an 800 square foot apartment. I drive a 10 year old economy car. Which I dearly hope to be able to make last another 10 years. I make 36K a year, which is considerably below the US national average. Working class enough for you?

    My power company does not offer a green energy option, but let’s take the 10% premium I paid in CA as an example. When the heater is off, my power bills are currently about $40/month. 10% premium for green power means 1.25 fewer beers per month at happy hour. Ouch. During heating season, my bills go up to about $140/month (leaky windows that I can’t get my landlord to fix, and in MT, that is expensive, although she did replace the bad windows with good ones on a neighboring apt which had heavy exposure to the record hailstorm we had here in June). A 10% premium is about $14/month. This is about 5 fewer happy hour beers a month. Bear in mind that I go to happy hour every f’in day. I would gladly pay this if I had the option.

    The cost to “go green” is quite small, even in the cold, cold clime of MT. Of course if you have chosen to buy an oversize house it will cost proportionately more, but then nobody made you buy that house. Lots of families (like mine) raised their kids in much smaller houses than have been popular in the US up until now. Of course lots of people who bought bigger houses than they could afford are in bigger problems right now…

    Of course when I lived in Santa Cruz, many of my friends lived in smaller houses and chose to spend there money on admittedly lavish things like sailboats, but that is a, oh what do you call it? A lifestyle choice.

    I wrote to Al Gore’s press operation and I’m waiting for a reply. When I get it, I’ll post here.

  34. #34 frankis
    November 3, 2010

    Rattus @ 118 & 126: the Gore story as you’ve presented it is much the way I’d understood it, but I’m not as keen a Gore scholar as Isabel (I am a fan of his film though). Thanks for your efforts there. On offsets as a general proposition I’m super sceptical as I mentioned.

  35. #35 jakerman
    November 3, 2010

    >*On offsets as a general proposition I’m super sceptical as I mentioned.*

    More so for some than others for me. I am pleased that a rich person like Gore is investing in Green Tech rather than other options for rich to spend money.

    Early adoption is costly but helps nurture a market reachable by wider population over time.

    James Hansen lamented recently (last year of so) that we may need to wait a decade for the strength of evidence of the risk os AGW to overcome political intertia. In the mean time I’m willing to ally my self even with rich people who back the cutting edge of green tech.

    I’m a big fan of his movie and his Paul Revere like efforts to raise awareness.

  36. #36 frankis
    November 3, 2010

    I’m keen to hear Isabel’s critique jakerman because like you I’ll be pretty much giving Al a big fat “Pass” if for him “offsets” means investing in clean energy technology and renewables. Come along please Isabel we wait with ‘bated breath …

  37. #37 Dave Surls
    November 3, 2010

    Here are some helpful hints fat boy offers to the hoi polloi…

    “Buy fresh foods instead of frozen”

    “Seek out and support local farmer’s markets”

    But, when it comes to their personal dining habits, the Gores prefer to feast on patagonian toothfish, which are caught in Antarctic waters, then frozen and shipped all the way around the world to amuse the palates of uber-rich energy hogs…like the Gores.

    “The youngest of Al Gore’s three daughters, Sarah Gore, 28, married businessman Bill Lee in Beverly Hills on Saturday, family spokesperson Kalee Kreider confirms to PEOPLE…”

    “…The Gore family hosted a rehearsal dinner for 75 family and friends the previous evening at Beverly Hills’ Crustacean restaurant, a longtime favorite of the Gores.”

    Crustacean’s executive chef, Helene An, created for the wedding-eve party a six-course tasting menu that included Chilean sea bass…”

    LOL. Avoid frozen foods and shop for local products, eh?

    Spare me.

    The only point Tim Blair was trying to make is that Al Gore is a huge, gigantic and utter hypocrite…and there is no question whatsoever that Blair is exactly right.

    And, no amount of disingenuous defelection by guys like Timmy Lambert is going to change the fact.

    Deal, lefties.

  38. #38 frankis
    November 3, 2010

    Dave Surls hasn’t that particular talking point been debunked?
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/joining\_the\_dots\_on\_an\_antigor.php

    If you were getting your worldview from avid following of Tim Blair rants you wouldn’t be expected to be keeping up with progress in the real world too much, I’m sure. Perhaps Dave you can get out of gaol on this one as your name doesn’t seem to appear in comments on that particular Deltoid thread, but I bet you’re not going to retract or apologise or substantiate your bleats of “hypocrite”, are you? Go on – why not surprise us!

  39. #39 Rattus Norvegicus
    November 3, 2010

    I can’t say that I’ve heard much from Al Gore about being a locavore. Being a locavore is a minor win.

    But I’ve never been much of a fan of “Chilean Sea Bass” aka toothfish — something which used to be considered a junk bycatch fish. I don’t eat seafood unless I am in a place which has a fishing industry, and if it ain’t caught local, I don’t eat it. Fish that isn’t off the boat just is not fresh enough for my taste. When I lived in Santa Cruz, I would eat Albacore, shark if it was being caught locally, salmon in season (once gaffed off the boat, cleaned in front of me and from there to the kitchen and to my plate, can’t get any fresher…) I’d eat shark when it was available and calimari during season. Lots of people have a tolerance for seafood which is less than fresh, but like I said, I have not heard Gore say “be a locavore”.

    For example, the Repower America site says nothing about being a locavore. Quit setting up strawmen, you’ll come off better.

  40. #40 Dave Surls
    November 3, 2010

    “Dave Surls hasn’t that particular talking point been debunked?”

    Since I made no comment concerning the endangered species status of the toothfish…it’s hard to see exactly what your link is supposed to be “debunking”.

    It’s certainly not “debunking” anything I said.

  41. #41 Chris W
    November 3, 2010

    I just don’t get haters like Blair and Surls. Al Gore’s youngest daughter gets freakin’ MARRIED … and like a raft of unflushable turds, denialists bob up from around the S-bend foaming at the mouth about a millionaire spending his money on a family celebration and eating farmed toothfish !! FFS, the guy can’t let his hair down once in a while ??

    Isn’t the whole idea that we don’t have to retreat to the caves to try and counter AGW, we just need to make more intelligent choices about how we live our lives to reduce the adverse impacts we’re having on the planet ??

  42. #42 Wow
    November 3, 2010

    > Isn’t the whole idea that we don’t have to retreat to the caves to try and counter AGW,

    Isn’t it odd, too, Chris, that so many people who hate ecological warnings prattle on about how the greenies want them to live in stone age caves, yet THEY are the ones insisting that other people live in squalor.

    Of course, when someone comes along who DOES live like that, they’re derided as “nuts”.

    Both projection and a double-forked two faced lie.

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    November 3, 2010

    Isn’t the whole idea that we don’t have to retreat to the caves to try and counter AGW,

    The denialist position is that you’re a hypocrite unless you live in a cave and are self-sufficient or are otherwise living a primitive life. They then say they don’t want to live like that.

  44. #44 Wow
    November 5, 2010

    > They then say they don’t want to live like that.

    Then they say you’re a nutjob for living in a cave, so your position MUST be wrong.

    (you forgot that piece, Chris. I wish I were joking…)

  45. #45 SC (Salty Current)
    November 9, 2010

    [Children's books these days](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/speaking_of_mental_illness.php):

    “As you can see from the hockey stick graph,” Mr. Snore announced, “The earth will be consumed by fire within months if we do nothing.” As the elves shivered in the cold, Mr. Snore continued, “Because of elf-made global warming, the ice caps are quickly disappearing and there are no more polar bears!”

    At this, an elf in the crowd protested, “But Mr. Snore, this is the coldest year on record and we are sitting on polar bears.”

    With an angry scowl Mr. Snore responded, “You poor little elf, it is obvious that you have not been told the truth. You see, when it comes to elf made global warming, the debate is over!”

    When Mr. Snore had finished his speech and boarded his private jet for home, the elves left with their polar bears. As they walked past the home of Liberal Claus, they could not help but notice smoke billowing from the chimney and the light of a raging fire dancing in the windows.

  46. #46 Wow
    November 9, 2010

    Well, salty, when the ice at the poles are gone, where are all the polar bears going to go? After all, isn’t one of the many mantras of denialists “we just have to learn to adapt” and polar bears would adapt by moving where there’s lovely food and warm caves.

    I.e. your house.

    So I hardly see how sitting on polar bears *disproves* AGW, but maybe your great intellect will allow illumination on this score…

  47. #47 SC (Salty Current)
    November 9, 2010

    So I hardly see how sitting on polar bears disproves AGW, but maybe your great intellect will allow illumination on this score…

    Huh? Did you follow the link?

  48. #48 Wow
    November 9, 2010

    It’s rather dangerous to do so when spots has spread tunyurls to what might be goatse’s site for all the sense he makes.

    So no.

    If that would lead me to a different interpretation, then sorry. However you share some blame for it: context would have been helpful. There are many idiots who also have scienceblogs sites.

  49. #49 SC (Salty Current)
    November 9, 2010

    It’s rather dangerous to do so when spots has spread tunyurls to what might be goatse’s site for all the sense he makes.

    So no.

    If that would lead me to a different interpretation, then sorry. However you share some blame for it: context would have been helpful. There are many idiots who also have scienceblogs sites.

    Wow, Wow. I share the blame for your jumping to absurd conclusions? The context was provided. That’s obviously a quotation. If you hover over the link, you’ll see that it’s to a post at Pharyngula (perhaps you’ve heard of it? – the biggest Sb blog by a mile) with the title “Speaking of mental illness.” (Not to mention that I’ve posted here in the past.)

    Ease off the trigger, there.

  50. #50 MFS
    November 9, 2010

    My experience of Pharyngula is it’s always worth a read. PZ Myers writes excellent stuff.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    November 9, 2010

    Children’s books these days

    Anyway, the conclusion is that some childrens books these days are written by politically-motivated nutcases. The climate science denialism was one thing PZ Myers didn’t mention. He occasionally takes on the climate science denialists who tell you to, “come over to our blog and we’ll explain everything to you”. Riiiight.

  52. #52 SC (Salty Current)
    November 9, 2010

    The climate science denialism was one thing PZ Myers didn’t mention.

    That’s why I did.

    He occasionally takes on the climate science denialists who tell you to, “come over to our blog and we’ll explain everything to you”. Riiiight.

    Yes, and often when they post there, I’ll send them (dare them to come) here, where I know they’ll find information…and be pummeled. :) At least one actually has, and I think he did stop with that particular line after the responses. (Don’t get me wrong: there are great commenters willing to set them straight there, but countering AGW denialism is the specialization here, as countering pseudomedicine and antivax lunacy is at Orac’s.)

  53. #53 Wow
    November 10, 2010

    > I share the blame for your jumping to absurd conclusions?

    No, salty. But only because they weren’t absurd conclusions.

    In what way was your post indicating anything other than repeating how it’s all a fake?

    If you don’t like it, tough.

  54. #54 SC (Salty Current)
    November 10, 2010

    No, salty. But only because they weren’t absurd conclusions.

    In what way was your post indicating anything other than repeating how it’s all a fake?

    If you don’t like it, tough.

    Wow, what is wrong with you? There was a link in my post, to the most popular blog on this site, that was easy enough to follow (you could also have clicked on my name and gone to my blog, where you might have noticed Deltoid on my blogroll).

    Look, just acknowledge the obvious – that you lazily jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I recognize that the number of denialist trolls here makes for reasonable suspicion of commenters unfamiliar to you, but in this case a few seconds’ checking would have put it to rest.

    Sheesh.

  55. #55 Wow
    November 10, 2010

    Salty, what’s wrong with you? You seem unable to read what you wrote, never mind what I wrote.

    I remain flummoxed and perplexed.

    Maybe you’re just in denial.

  56. #56 Wow
    November 10, 2010

    Salty Chocolate, have a look at spots:

    > this sea surface temp is a worry pinocchio !

    > http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

    > The temperature on 11/08/2010 is

    > 529.24 deg F warmer than this day last year

    > hhmmm….. temp data ?????

    > Posted by: sunspot | November 10, 2010 5:23 AM

    over on thread 55.

    Your post had a link and copied the atrocious story.

    spots posts links and copies the atrocious story.

    Added to which you could very easily still be a fifth columnist who is merely extremely pissed off that he’s not under cover far enough. After all, as I remember reading recently in New Scientist, when you copy the lies, even if to debunk them, the lies get more eyes and gets more believed.

    This may be your aim.

    Or, alternatively, you seem unable and unwilling to accept that you could EVER be at fault for ANYTHING and that any problems are PROOF that everyone else is wrong.

    What an aberrant mentality.

  57. #57 SC (Salty Current)
    November 10, 2010

    Your post had a link and copied the atrocious story.

    It was a link to friggin’ Pharyngula, assclam, with a title that should have been at least suggestive.

    Added to which you could very easily still be a fifth columnist who is merely extremely pissed off that he’s not under cover far enough.

    Oh, easily. All of it over lo these many years – my activism, research, dissertation, teaching, thousands of comments on Pharyngula and other science blogs (including here), and blogging – all of it merely a ruse to ensnare the unwary until I can…post sneaky links that look like mockery on behalf of my corporate overlords.

    The only thing worse than a paranoid loon is a lazy paranoid loon. I won’t be responding to you further. (Oh, and I’m female.)

  58. #58 Wow
    November 10, 2010

    What is “pharyngular” and in what way am I supposed to know you did so?

    > with a title that should have been at least suggestive.

    > 143

    > Children’s books these days:

    > > “As you can see from the hockey stick graph,” Mr. Snore announced, “The earth will be …

    Suggestive of what?

    Are you saying it is impossible for this to mirror some of the many posts by tin curtin, sunspot etc which contain pretty much the same copying of an atrocious piece of work verbatim as if this is somehow devastating to the IPCC’s case?

  59. #59 SC (Salty Current)
    November 10, 2010

    Gah. I can’t resist.

    What part of THERE WAS A LINK AT THE BEGINNING OF MY POST @ #143 do you not understand? You can mouse over it and see what it’s to. Pharyngula, once again, is the biggest Scienceblog by a wide margin; it’s also one of the most popular science blogs on the planet. Look at the “Most Active” list on the right of the page once in a while. I was referring to the title of the post I was linking to: “Speaking of mental illness.” You could at least have clicked on it before responding – would have taken far less time than it did to scribble your little comment. Or you could simply have asked for clarification.

    Damn, but you’re an idiot.

  60. #60 Wow
    November 10, 2010

    Yes you could.

    Off topic, you’re confusing me with someone who cares.

    It’s not in the slightest ever your fault, is it. And you call my words absurd…

  61. #61 SC (Salty Current)
    November 10, 2010

    Nut.

  62. #62 Wow
    November 11, 2010

    Well, the first step is to recognise the fact, salty. You can begin healing yourself now.

  63. #63 Michael
    November 11, 2010

    Wow, you occassionaly engage in ‘friendly fire’ incidents.

    Can happen to anyone, plagued by trolls as we are here at Deltoid, but you unfortunately seem resistent to acknowledge the error.

    Otherwise, your contributions in troll smiting are invaluable.

  64. #64 Wow
    November 11, 2010

    Hmm, Michael. Friendly like this:

    > your jumping to absurd conclusions?

    ?

    Salty posts something that states that ecos are terrifying and indoctrinating children.

    And NOTHING about that could possibly be interpreted as supporting that idea? And anyone who does so is SOLELY AT FAULT!!!

    Salty balls here is not friendly, he’s an arse.

  65. #65 Wow
    November 11, 2010

    Note that MFS is also having problems with salty here.

    Yet, strangely, not salty’s fault in either case…

  66. #66 Wow
    November 11, 2010

    Note that MFS is also having problems with salty here.

    Yet, strangely, not salty’s fault in either case…

    PS when you state:

    > but you unfortunately seem resistent to acknowledge the error.

    Yet salty balls here insists that this:

    > However you share some blame for it: context would have been helpful.

    is absolutely and inescapably wrong and he is NEVER AT FAULT!!!

    Are you sure you’re not shooting a friendly yourself?

  67. #67 Wow
    November 11, 2010

    PPS in what way is this:

    > If that would lead me to a different interpretation, then sorry.

    Not an admission Michael?

    But no, that’s ignored, isn’t it. Salty ignores it and spews venom then you try with the two-faced “moderate” approach. Is this a good cop/bad cop routine you two have going on?

  68. #68 SC (Salty Current)
    November 11, 2010

    1) As I’ve mentioned, I’m female. Stop referring to me as “he.”

    2) You seem to have some real issues with paranoia, to be perfectly honest, and I’m not trying to insult you now. I’ve read many of your comments here, and agree with Michael that you otherwise make good contributions, but you really should think about this.

    3) MFS and I are simply having a conversation. How that translates into MFS “having problems with” me here, I have no idea.