Imre Salusinszky in a column in the The Australian declares that global warming is dead because:
last year was the coldest year since 2001.
Apparently he doesn't read The Australian which just five days earlier reported: "2010 warmest year on record".
Salusinszky's logic is this:
According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia's coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can't be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.
It is unclear whether the problem is that Salusinszky is ignorant of Geography (he thinks that Australia covers the whole planet) or English (he doesn't know what the words "global" and "planet" mean).
Salusinszky's blunder is so obvious that surely nobody could be fooled by it, right? Oh, right, there's always Tim Blair.
- Log in to post comments
I left a scathing comment - let's see if they publish it.
Ha! And now, we give you... global warming and cooling at the same time!!
Debunk that, socialists!!!
:)
I read that column and I think it was 100% irony. Now I'm French and I don't claim I can detect irony with any accuracy. Not there. Nor here.
Salusinszky may be taking the piss in some kind of ironic ploy to get us waministas hot under the collar. Typical of The Oz. Either they are denying climate change or calling it a big joke.
More confirmation bias from NewsCorp pundits. Chris Mitchell seems to have jettisoned any semblance of quality control on the anti science arguments he is will to push onto his audience.
Little wonder that despite is position with a monopoly on national press that the Aus is still selling so poorly, and losing influence the more they serve up this trash.
Still, I fear their loss of credibility cannot be completed fast enough.
'Total core meltdown' indeed.
After years of having scientists openly ridiculed, everyone thinks they're an expert, don't they? Imre Salusinszky is embarrassingly lazy in his confused, veiled criticism, even for a layperson.
Even if the world had experienced its "coldest" year since 2001 (itself one of the hottest years on record), that would still have been meaningless noise as far as the temperature trend is concerned.
He then burbles on about free trade and genetically modified crops, and about how we can now give them "due attention". What? I must have missed the bit where we decided to put them on hold. Who, precisely, was arguing that we had to wait for global warming to "finish"?
At last Dr. Inferno unmasks
I posted a counter argument as a comment to the article.
----
The Bureau of Meteorology also tells us that "2010 was one of the hottest years on record for most of the Perth Metropolitan area". Thus global warming is confirmed and the faux sceptics have been defeated. "And now we will never have to hear anything [from them], ever again."
Says Chris Mitchell:
>The Australian's editorials on climate change "would make it clear that for several years the paper has accepted man-made climate change as fact.
*Right*.
I suspect Salusinszky's piece is a parody though it is not particularly funny.
If Salusinszky had bothered to read the Bureau of Meteorology's [actual press release](http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110…) that reported that Australian land surface temperature was the lowest since 2001, he would have seen that it also reported that the sea surface temperature for the Australian region for 2010 was the warmest on record. Ir added that 2010 was the warmest decade on record for both Australian land and sea surface temperatures.
Exactly. What's he's trying to do is say "Ah ha! You warmists who claim a hot year equals global warming are wrong and I will take the piss out of you with my genius satirical abilities that got me fired from ABC radio!"
However, as we all know, that isn't the argument at all.
I dunno. He might be on to something - I just took the rubbish out here in England, and it's pretty nippy.
So, let's look at the facts: coldest Aussie year for a few years, chilly evening in mid-winter in England... yup, that's the final nail in the global warming coffin and no doubt!
I sometimes wonder if part of the problem isn't a simple misprision (convenient, if not intentional) of the word "global". We're all saying this:
They hear this:
Why else would anyone ever pen something as inane as "Since logic tells us the planet can't be getting hotter and colder at the same time"? At some level, Salusinszky has just got to be thinking something like "it's not 'global' warming unless all parts of the planet are getting warmer all at the same time."
I figured it had to be a joke. Whether the Australian's editors realised that is another matter. Shades of the Windschuttle science hoax I think.
Re " last year was the coldest year since 2001."
In Australia !!
It would be tempting to dismiss this as satire were it not published in The Australian.
Imre doesn't seem to have written much at all on climate science per se, though he's covered climate policy at the state (NSW) level a fair bit. His [profile of Michael Costa](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/michael…) a couple of years ago suggested sympathy with some familiar denialist talking points Costa trotted out. Otherwise, it's quite possible he's not really looked at the issue in any detail and doesn't actually realise how much of a hole he's dug himself with today's effort.
Ahh, but we will, Imre, we will. And by "we", I mean "you".
It's satire, but not as you or I know it, Jim.
I have more hair on my back than any year previous. Since it's impossible to gain and lose hair at the same time, we know that male pattern baldness is over.
Unless Imre is sending coded messages for help, just blink in morse code Imre!, it looks like he got rostered on for this week's climate denial column. And, knowing stuff all, stumbled across a factoid which supported his position and ran with it. Standard procedure conservative humour is
1) Make up shit to try and get away with it.
2) When called out on it
3) say "I wuz just joking!"
4) Sulk.
The peanut gallery on Tim Blair's Daily Telegraph blog is praising this article.
I've been suckered into engaging them. It's kinda fun (for a while), but then kinda crazy too. It's a weird world out there, with some extra weird (and not too bright) people in it. That's for sure.
"... Or he is English" Kindly apologise straight away please for that Anglophobia. I happen to be English. If you want to know what your sentence feels like and sounds like - substitute the word "Jewish" for English. It may give you a clue. Its a pity because I've heartily agreed with your posts so far. Perhaps you should think about getting out of the way of people who can write about global warming without descending to rascism.
Not what Tim said, which was (my emboldening): is ignorant of ⦠English (he doesn't know what the words "global" and "planet" mean).
Tim was clearly speaking of the language.
Tim,
He's taking the piss, for goodness sake.
Miles Taylor @23: you sure you're English? (and the word you thought you wrote was racism)
But... but... but...
____ _ _ ___ _ _____ ___ _ _ _
/ ___| / \ | | |_ _| | | ____/ _ \| | | |
| | _ / _ \ | | | || | | _|| | | | | | |
| |_| |/ ___ \| |___ | || |___| |__| |_| |_|_|_|
\____/_/ \_\_____|___|_____|_____\___/(_|_|_)
Since logic tells us that conservatives can't do humour, we can confidently pronounce that Imre's article is not satire and that he really believes what he just wrote.
Good point, pough. Or someone overheating their car and claiming the air conditioner was nice and cool.
Drum roll...
And 20xx is the coldest year since xxxx.
Replace x with numbers of your choice.
global warming is the greatest HOAX!!!!!!
^ More satire
But who would blame him for not reading that rag?
And you also gotta love the way Salusinszky arranges the sequence of events:
Dead and buried first, and then beaten? He's really thinking he's beating a dead horse, apparently.
[Miles Taylor](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…):
Perhaps you "should think about getting out of the way of people who can read and parse English - what Tim said was:
I apologise if I have decended into sarcasm...
Does this mean that the newspaper is going to be renamed The Australian Planet?
Saluzinsky is nothing more than a cynical sophist.
Phillip IV said:
Assuming you're not from Australia ... Actually, in addition to the flogging a dead horse allusion, this was obviously a local reference to Tony Abbott's description of the unpopular Howard-era industrial relations policy, when it was raised as back on the agenda for the 2010 election:
Dead, buried and cremated
Political tragics here would get the reference as Abbott has had pretty much all the mainstreamish positions on what to do about climate change.
David @14, where are you? My garden is giving me the screaming ab-dabs at the moment, because everything seems to think it's spring. (I have bulbs and primroses in flower, herbaceous perennials up, and buds breaking on shrubs.) One good frost will flatten the lots. (This is Oxfordshire, in a fairly sheltered microclimate.)
I'm just imagining someone waist-deep in water on the Titanic and upon seeing a wooden door float past them. "Logic dictates that this ship can't be floating and sinking at the same time, therefore we're all safe."
Sorry, grammar no sense make in that last post. Me preview button more must use.
re 40, also humans can't be getting poorer and richer at the same time, so there's no recession!
...dude, this is kind of similar to saying 'Christians are persecuted in America'.
Is comparing Global Warming deniers to Holocaust deniers (as in "Their telling a lie lie, and they know they're telling a lie) still considered a Godwin?
Better comparisons are with other forms of science denial - evolution denial, ozone depletion denial, bio-diversity loss denial, HIV/AIDS denial, smoking/lung cancer denial...
Some AGW deniers try to infer Holocaust denial from accusation of AGW denial, so maybe they must be the ones guilty of a Godwin, albeit by attempted projection.
Denying facts does not make one a Nazi: it makes one a denier.
So no, not a Godwin.
By yours truly: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6603/30006774.png
stripey_cat @ 39 - I'm down in Devon and, yep, we're getting the same seasonal craziness. A few weeks of sub-zero and then - BOOM! - it's almost t-shirt weather. It's not good at all - the small creatures are not going to do well out of this if we get a few days or weeks of balmy weather and then another 'normal' cold spell hits them. :(
Glad you've called Imre on this - satire is one thing, but appallingly bad satire is another thing entirely!
Days until "The Aus" goes bust: any guesses?
You lot must be kidding. Stay with the white coats behind closed lab doors 'cause there is little point in most of you watching Shakespeare or any other playwrites works - it would be totally lost on all of you.
I predict that 2010 is the coldest year since 2050. Therefore reverse global warming is not happening.
John Pollard, wondrous defender of the English language .. I think you meant "playwrights'". Spelling and grammar both incorrect.
JamesA @ 40:
... and we thus conclude there is no iceberg. From this it follows that the polar ice cap is not melting. Therefore, Al Gore. QED.
Shorter John Pollard (50): Saluzinsky wrote Shakespeare's sonnets, therefore climate change is a hoax.
Donald #49:
Days until "The Aus" goes bust: any guesses?
About two days after the paywall goes up? Bring it on... :)
John Pollard is right. In future times they will read this drivel aloud on stage to howls of laughter from the audience.
>>*Donald #49: Days until "The Aus" goes bust: any guesses?*
>About two days after the paywall goes up? Bring it on... :)
IIRC, the Australian is already a non-profit earner for Murdoch. Its run as a subsidy in order for Murdoch to influence national policy. Its one of his gifts to the world to provide the servive he sees as keeping the "socialists" at bay.
Some might call this service of monopolistic, anti-competative, plutocratic, disprotionate influence as keeping democracy at bay.
Could Salusinszky be relying on the advice of Lord Monckton who in January 2010, assured ABC radio listners that âthere has been very, very sharp global cooling on all measures since 2001â.
Lord Sidcup,
>Some AGW deniers try to infer Holocaust denial from accusation of AGW denial, so maybe they must be the ones guilty of a Godwin, albeit by attempted projection.
LOL. Just try and accuse a climate "contrarian" of a Godwin immediately after they play the 'denier' = 'holocaust denier' card. The fallout will be immense.
Favourite comment from the article:
> Sanchez of Melbourne Posted at 1:10 PM January 19, 2011
> This is the most retarded thing I've read all day. 2010
> was the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD for the world. Australia
> forms a part of that world, but only a simpleton would
> take it a definitive sample. Are you a simpleton Mr
> Salusinszki?
@58 - or try referring to them as "denialists".
I just (quite accurately) referred to one as a denialist on a blog and got a right royal dummy spit. "I refuse to read your argument any further, as calling me a denialist indicates it is worthless".
Uh huh. Whatever...... But it's OK to call me a leftie Al Gore-loving warmist, isn't it?
Uh, Mike, by this point in the argument you've already called them a denialist. You're then supposed to point out that they've Godwinned themselves ;-)
I've spent quite a bit of time considering what the most apt term for denialists of this type is. Contrarians, naysayers, agnosophists/agnotologists, delusionals it's all good but flawed.
The problem is the diversity in the rawnks. Some are plainly unhinged or oddballs. Some are simply reckless liars hurling their nonsense like ammunition in a culture war. Some are probably like the cyber equivalent those kids in year 9 who think it amusing to pretend to flatulence at the rear of the room. Others are explicit defenders of the asset values held by fossil fuel traders, or have an interest in products made more viable by cheap fossil fuels. And of course there are those who see it as a useful wedge issue in the tribal politics underpinning control of governance. The fact that all these people are on similar turf (let's call it astroturf) doesn't make them all the same, though the populist packaging can make it seem so.
It occurs to me that the term refuseniks might be apt. It has a Cold War resonance. They are simply against everything climate science says or implies for public policy. As a bonus, if you emphasise the first syllable and make the "s" sibilant it is a pun on waste which is what they favour dumping free.
@ Fran #62, no way is "refusenik" apt here (for me anyway), not just because of the political connotations (google the term). I cannot see any way in which the assorted rag-tag bunch you describe above deserve to be associated with "conscientious objectors" to a totalitarian regime.
"Apologists" is much nearer the mark.
Fair point SteveC ... bearing in mind the anti-semitic connotations (which I'd not considered) ...
I'd merely been thinking of a collective name for people on the other side of the Cold War -- the opposite of peaceniks and liked the pun with refuse.
Oh well, mea culpa, sorry to those offended and back to the drawing board for a term.
Many apologies for my previous post. I reread it again (I read the original about 4x to make sure I hadn't got it wrong), but ,er, I got it wrong. Missed that crucial "of" Two hypotheses:
1. I badly need reading glasses; or,
2. I'm an idiot
Allow me to cling to (1) please.
Once again many apologies. But, truly, its cheering to know the original post was actually OK - and not what I construed it to be. Perhaps I was displaying my own confirmation bias? I shall let the screen zoom control be my friend in future.
Miles' orginial comment left me confused. But his clarification more than madeup for that.
Fran @ 62, SteveC @ 63: I tend to think "denialist" carries the appropriate meaning; "contrarian" perhaps if you need to be a little more diplomatic. The term must be pejorative, in order to reflect the inherent intellectual dishonesty, but not so over-the-top that it becomes personal abuse.
Nonetheless, such labels will inevitably generate anger, because ordinary people identify with the various celebrity denialists.
So, I think it's best to reserve "denialist"/"contrarian"/etc. for those who formulate attacks on the scientific process, its results and its protagonists, not those who simply disbelieve AGW based on what they've heard. Being fooled by a charlatan does not make you one yourself. We ought to be careful to distinguish between them and their victims, as best we can.
There's also a risk that people will see the words "denialist" and "warmist" (or "alarmist", etc.) being flung around and lazily conclude that: (a) there are merely two opposite ideologies battling it out, and (b) the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. (I suppose the only answer to this is simply to continue to be proactive in debunking denialists.)
How about "slow learners"?
Denialist is a perfect term. "Skeptic" holds connotations that a person may have legitimate scientific concerns when in reality they are almost always - *always* - politically driven.
> "contrarian" perhaps if you need to be a little more diplomatic.
Except the contrarian takes the opposite position, whatever that position is.
Please count the number of "contrarians" who post on Deltoid against AGW and on WUWT *for* AGW.
It'll be a big round number.
> So, I think it's best to reserve "denialist"/"contrarian"/etc. for those who formulate attacks on the scientific process, its results and its protagonists, not those who simply disbelieve AGW based on what they've heard.
Got any clues as to how to tell the difference, Dave?
When someone has "heard" "It's been cooling for the last 12 years" and repeats it, what is it that makes them think that they KNOW this is right when they haven't even looked at the statement made?
To my mind, the reason why they believe it is because they want to attack the science because they're in denial.
So denialist is still an appropriate term.
Wow @ 71, it can certainly be hard to tell the difference at first glance (and there is a bit of a fuzzy line) but I think we ought to try.
The reason I think we should make a distinction is because it's precisely those people who've been misled by Monckton, Watts, etc. who we are ultimately trying to win over. Clearly we won't win them all, and the people who pop up in blog comments to make snide remarks would probably be the last to be convinced.
However, surely our beef is with those who put the misinformation out there in the first place. Those who parrot it can be irritating, but aren't really the main problem. As for those who merely believe it (for whatever reason) - sure, we could call them all sorts of things, but what use would it be? We don't gain anything by antagonising them.
> The reason I think we should make a distinction is because it's precisely those people who've been misled by Monckton, Watts, etc. who we are ultimately trying to win over.
If it were possible, these people would have *investigated* the claims of "No warming for 12 years".
They've been misled because they WANT to be led there.
If instead of proclaiming what they've been told and instead asked if it were true, then they would get a very different answer and exactly the one you wish to be made.
I mean, really. If the IPCC say there's global warming and then someone else says that someone in the IPCC says it's been cooling for 12 years, then why aren't they at least a *little* bit confused and wonder if the IPCC is being misrepresented?
To fail to do so is to show the same level of offence to the IPCC as you say is shown by early diagnosis of "denier" to them.
But apparently, this isn't a problem when deniers do it.
PS:
> However, surely our beef is with those who put the misinformation out there in the first place.
Uh, these people who have been "misled" are putting the misinformation out there.
So our beef IS with them.
I think that's an oversimplification. All people start from a point of ignorance, and this includes ignorance of who the experts are.
Yes, you can argue that the regular readers of Monckton, Watts, etc. should investigate their claims, but the fundamental problem is that they've identified Monckton, Watts, etc. as experts. All the other problems follow from this.
Very few of us (I assume) actually investigate all the things we're told by experts, because we just don't have the time - that's ultimately the whole point of having experts. We trust them.
I haven't personally verified the global temperature data, for instance. When I hear of a dispute, I reach into my cognitive toolbox, pull out my trust-o-meter and decide that the scientists are the best bet. But that's not necessarily obvious to someone who isn't acquainted with the scientific process.
In the public climate change debate, you have to really know what you're looking for before you can start to seriously challenge Monckton, Watts, etc. Their fabrications can be very elaborate and compelling, unless you've also found and identified the true experts in the debate.
The distinction lies in the degree of culpability. M&W recklessly or intentionally pollute the public debate. Many of their followers are, at worst, guilty only of naivety and ignorance. I'm not saying that we can't challenge them, but we shouldn't necessarily assume they are acting in bad faith.
> All people start from a point of ignorance, and this includes ignorance of who the experts are.
Except by repeating what they've heard as if true, they aren't starting from ignorance, are they. They're starting from perception of knowledge.
If they want to think themselves knowledgeable, why should I assume otherwise? They know themselves far better than I do.
> The distinction lies in the degree of culpability.
the ones parroting AS IF TRUE the denialist mantras are just as culpable.
> Many of their followers are, at worst, guilty only of naivety and ignorance.
No, *at best*, guilty of only naivety and ignorance. However the ignorance is willful. It's not like they haven't heard that people may lie to them, is it. So not checking and PRESUMING it right is willful ignorance and propaganda.
Like I said, if they asked rather than stated, this might be a bit different. It's almost never done that way, though, is it. Almost always it's "there's been no warming for 12 years".
"Deniers".
The term ,"Denier" perfectly encapsulates how these people express themselves over the science of climate change and the societal response to it. Any dummy spits about its use should be ignored for the greater good.
Personally, I'm fond of the term [Lysenkoists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).
@Wow: We might be talking about rather different groups of people here. I know there are a lot of loud, obnoxious voices parroting and further distorting the noise coming from denialist blogs. I understand and agree with you that these people should know better.
I'm more concerned with what I assume is the silent majority - the people who simply read that stuff, casually, and perhaps don't have the time or impetus to verify it, but have no particular reason to dispute it.
I don't have a lot of time for the winged monkeys, because I suspect they only play a minor role in the overall dissemination of denialist ramblings. You may argue that they are just as guilty, but they're clearly not as effective.
Without the key players at the centre, the denialist movement wouldn't be much more than a loose, ineffectual gathering of tin-foil hatters - merely one exhibit among the many varieties of conspiracy nutters.
I've used "denialist" pretty often as a way to slightly soften the term "denier", though lately in arguments I lose patience and just call them "deniers" or "lying deniers". Another good one is "deniosaur" which brings in images of the dinosaurs going extinct. I forget who coined that one.
Denialati is my preferred option.
Shut up.
My preferred option is not printable in this blog. The word that properly conveys my contempt for deniers is offensive on more than this level.
How about "retards"?
Because they really, really are.
Vince:
I used to work in mental health and I don't like the word retards at all. We have surely moved beyond a context in which turning intellectual disability into a variant of being subhuman is acceptable.
The other problem with the variants of deniers is that at least some (and almost all of those with some scientific credentials) of the group we are talking about don't actually formally deny radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, or even that humans are adding to atmospheric inventories. They just claim it's either not that significant to humans or we have no rational choice but to adapt. They are rejecting good public policy but not the science in toto.
So deniers & etc don't cover the whole group.
How about some variation on 'ratbags', as in 'anti-science ratbags', raving or otherwise?
Well, the least Salusinszky did was proving Poe's law.
AND hereâs the warmest year claim
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/wmo-2010-warmest-but-no-statistic…
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.
interview with Prof Carter included
What are we arguing about 0.53 C above the 1961-90 mean
and check this comment by R. de Haan
The Global Warming Doctrine, the illusion of pending climate disaster, saw the light in Germany for the first time in 1986, during a dramatic press conference organized by the German Physics Society. Now 25 years later, 25 UN Climate Conferences with nothing to show for and billions of dollars of wasted tax funding, we are still waiting for the announced climate disaster to strike. The Climate armageddon of unprecedented rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, super storms, expanding deserts, collapsing eco systems and mass migration of climate refugees only exists in the UN climate propaganda pushed by our MSM and the faulty climate models from a few activist scientists, see ClimateGate and WUWT. In the real world our ice caps are doing fine, ocean levels are slightly sinking, temperatures are normal since 1880, we still have our winters, accumulated cyclonic energy is low, deserts have not expanded and we havenât seen any climate refugees from collapsing eco systems other than those driven from their lands to make place for palm oil farms.
I think itâs important every time someone like Prof Carter talks about warming he should give an amount
And I think every time Swan talks about the deficit he should tell us how much weâre borrowing each day at the moment and what the interest on that â in June last year we were paying $100 million per day interest
which is the figure which scares you the most
You know val, I wish that just once in a while someone really well-informed would come along.
Yep, tell me in what respect should I be better informed
Val, "better informed" as "informed with more accurate material" rather than "informed with lots of bullshit".
Here's some links for you to debunk the "saw the light in Germany for the first time in 1986" bollocks you've so eagerly placed in your tea-party mouth:
[Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)
Rather earlier and in a different place, moron.
That is just embarrassing. You need to read this:
[The Discovery of Global Warming](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm)
>In the real world our ice caps are doing fine, ocean levels are slightly sinking, temperatures are normal since 1880, we still have our winters, accumulated cyclonic energy is low, deserts have not expanded
The first three points are wrong.
Global sea ice is decreasing, mostly because of a rapid decline in Arctic ice. As for ice sheets, the table on this page shows that ice sheets are losing mass overall (collating the results of many studies).
Ocean levels are still rising.
Global temperatures are not normal since 1880, unless you have some different definition of normal. Temperatures continue to rise to the present by all measures.
Moving on, your other points are mostly red herrings: Winters are winters. You can still expect to have winters in 2050 - it's just very likely that, on average, they will be warmer than now. Tropical cyclones may or may not get stronger or more numerous in the future, and since their numbers are naturally highly variable it will be hard to tell. Deserts are tending to expand, but it was my understanding that most desertification is a result of land use changes and overgrazing, with global warming a possible future problem as the magnitude of the warming increases.
> I used to work in mental health and I don't like the word retards at all.
Problem is, Fran, there's someone who can find a word distasteful. But look at this meaning of retard:
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
Which is where Vince is coming from. That it has a double meaning in intelligence, or lack of it, is merely sly.
Here's a joke to show:
What do you call a Welshman with five sheep?
Pimp
[search for "pump" promounced "pimp" in welsh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celtic_languages)
But someone who has been called "sheep shagger" because they're welsh may well find this joke unfunny.
I have a comment in moderation for excessive linkage. Please read it when it appears val, though beware; it contains facts!
Anyone who wishes to know whether discussing with Val Majkus is sensible can read this piece:
WARNING: do not read just after eating and remove any liquids in your vicinity. Also remove any breakable objects.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/8101-new-retreat-f…
I see what your POV is Dave, and though I can see merit in it, it's not for me, since I don't buy this. It silences honesty by the censure of a nebulous "other" that is, to me (and purely for personal opinion reasons) offensive.
It also doesn't seem to give problems that denialists say things far, far FAR worse than any AGW proponent.
Which evidence gives me to believe that it has no effect on the "silent masses" and therefore the tone taken has to be simply a personal preference.
If you feel you get your point across with gentle language, then do so, since stridency will be uncomfortable *for you*.
I don't feel that way and giving idiots more status than they are due on the off-chance some milquetoast gets offended and decides that they'd rather see the earth burn than agree with someone "so rude".
But, but, but, Marco - val is a "fully qualified expert in Australian law", so how can we doubt him?
Wow: Over here, Kiwis are the usual butt (!) of sheep jokes, despite our flock being larger. It seems to be a universal anti-minority trope. BTW: What do you call an Australian in a suit?...The Defendant.
I'm with Fran on the nastiness of "retard" in the mouths of my kids, but, as someone who still has quite a bit to do with the mentally ill, I find it rarely used of that group. On the other hand, attributing Loughner's actions to mental illness (because it couldn't possibly be US political rhetoric) is even more offensive to those who have real illness.
My sister used to use "Special" (said in a lisping voice) to mean retard (perjoratively).
Until one day she had a child who was markedly autistic.
It no longer seemed funny.
(I think) Sun Life had a series of ads with two people in an office washroom talking about someone being fired while they were washing their hands. Behind them the sit-down cubicle door opens and an older man comes out. Obviously the one they were talking about. The older man starts singing:
There may be trouble ahead...
No problem to my dad. The next one they did in the series had someone on an operating table. The doctors look all serious and worried. The patient starts singing:
There may be trouble ahead...
This was offensive. My dad's mum had died on the operating table because they didn't use enough anesthetic (as you get older, the level that kills you and the level that knocks you out get closer together).
But people had family members who committed suicide after being sacked and that earlier version wasn't offensive to my dad.
I think the overall issue is that "denialist" has only those accurately described as such offended.
It's accurate too.
So lets keep using it.
Wow, Val knows better than your crazy "greenhouse effect".
>The ânatural greenhouse effectâ (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
IR-active gases do not act âlike a blanketâ but rather âlike a sunshadeâ. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earthâs surface.
IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more.
The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earthâs cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above.
As a consequence the very foundation of the âGreen Tower of Climate Dogmaâ crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on âgreenhouse effectsâ are worthless, and any speculation about the âimpact of climate changeâ accordingly dispensable.
Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion.
Val, seeing as you also cite Monckton frequently, are you even vaguely aware that all his work is based around the greenhouse effect being real? Or do you cling on to any denialist tosh that comes along?
Gosh, John. Really, he said that?
IR-active gases do not act âlike a blanketâ but rather âlike a sunshadeâ. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earthâs surface.
Since most of the energy from the sun comes from higher energy photons than CO2 or H2O block, how can they be sunshades?
Besides, sunshades can't be right, because they have a strap that goes round the back of the head, and I can't see a large elasticated strap going round the world at about 40N...
Actually, in regard to sheepshagger butts of jokes, the Cumbrians and the Aberdeen and Derby County supporters (Welsh, Cumbrian or otherwise) are sometimes referred to by that pejorative term (amongst other UK regions too). The "standard" Welsh reply to such English terrace goading is something along the lines of "And I was the last person before you to have your Sunday dinner".
Adult humour warning: "What, no kissing?!" is one of my favourites.
Cymru am byth.
And whilst we're on about jokes:
What do you call an Australian with 100 runs to his name?
A bowler!
> sheepshagger butts
Pun not intended...
;-)
Having read rhwombat's contribution, I was most assuredly employing paronomasia. LOL.
While we're on tasteless jokes, here's a good'un about chavs (UK equivalent of white trash):
Q: Why is a chav like a slinky?
A: They're both useless, but it's fun to watch one fall down a flight of stairs.
Hi, Val!
"The Global Warming Doctrine,"
Not a doctrine; it's mainstream science. Climatology has no holidays, hymns, nor holy sites; it has no founder's book of philosophical aphorisms; no oaths, no vows of poverty, no rituals. No required political views. Climatologists includes people of all religions and nationalities.
"the illusion of pending climate disaster, saw the light in Germany for the first time in 1986,"
Tyndall.
"during a dramatic press conference organized by the German Physics Society. Now 25 years later, 25 UN Climate Conferences with nothing to show for and billions of dollars of wasted tax funding,"
Except thousands of research papers and ongoing research projects. Scientific papers, remember, involve verifiable data and testable hypotheses. Proposed ways of dealing with GW, mostly ignored by politicians and other determinedly ignorant people.
"we are still waiting for the announced climate disaster to strike."
Global warming occurs over decades. It's here. Mass extinctions are being monitored now. Food prices are sky-rocketing from damage caused by drought. Diseases, pests, and dangerous animals are changing their ranges or frequency.
"The Climate armageddon of unprecedented rising temperatures,"
Confirmed by all measurements.
"rising sea levels,"
Confirmed.
" melting ice caps,"
Confirmed, and happening faster than expected, with greater positive effects on warming than predicted.
"super storms,"
Queensland, Australia, the US Midwest, Pakistan, India...
Minnesota, USA has had three 100-year rainstorms in the last seven years.
"expanding deserts,"
Nearly all of the North American southwest region is turning into a dustbowl. Keep your eye on the Amazon not-so-much rainforest; I give it ten years.
"collapsing eco systems"
Great Coral Reef. The Colorado pine forests have about died out. Remember polar bears?
"and mass migration of climate refugees only exists in the UN climate propaganda"
From Wikipedia: 'Across Africa desertification and a consequent decline in agricultural output is displacing increasingly large amounts of people. An estimated 10 million people within Africa have been forced to migrate over the last two decades due to desertification or environmental degradation.'
"pushed by our MSM and the faulty climate models from a few activist scientists,"
The models work. That means they fit past conditions when they have past data plugged in, and new data conforms to the models. Apparently by 'activist' you mean 'over 98%'.
"see ClimateGate
Bogus. Four investigations show no problems with the science revealed by the criminally stolen emails.
"and WUWT. In the real world our ice caps are doing fine,"
Northwest Passage.
"ocean levels are slightly sinking,"
No, they aren't.
"temperatures are normal since 1880,:
If by normal you mean "rising".
"we still have our winters,"
Warmer winters than before, and they will continue to get warmer. Of course, climatolgists never said winters would stop. There are rich people. Does that negate claims of a global recession?
"accumulated cyclonic energy is low,"
Last year's hurricane season didn't have *one* day without an Atlantic hurricane.
"deserts have not expanded and we havenât seen any climate refugees from collapsing eco systems other than those driven from their lands to make place for palm oil farms."
You have been told all this before.
Even BP and Exxon admitted this week that GW is real, and serious.
>Last year's hurricane season didn't have one day without an Atlantic hurricane.
Kermit, that ain't right
Please don't make stuff up. We like facts! :)
Fran Barlow:
How about ... willful retards, which would make clear that no one is talking about the people you used to help when you were in the mental health field.
We need *some* pejorative label for these intentionally ignorant people ...
I've always liked the term 'cleopatras', but it hasn't caught on.
This is [cute.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ieQfQUUc74) Talk to the hand type stuff.
dhogaza suggested:
Personally, I regard the word retard as now so persistently associated with the idea that people with intellectual disabilities are to be regarded as some sort of repulsive, freakish and discomfiting form of human whose interests we may discount that I think we must discard it in all contexts where it refers to cognitive accomplishment. We no longer use it in educational assessment at all -- speaking instead of developmental delay.
In a practical sense, multi-word terms where one word is more salient tend to be truncated to their most salient parts and sometimes their most salient syllable. Thus, the qualifies anthropogenic is often dropped when speaking of climate change, carbon dioxide emissions to carbon emissions. Indeed, in popular discourse the term retard is commonly elided to form a kind of aphetic portmanteau suffix -- 'tard to be added to anyone that one wants to insult. cf: the term spastic which once referred to gross motor disruptions associated with cerebral palsy long ago became a general term for a stupid or socially inept person in such common use that it also became an aphetic -- spaz in the vernacular.
These days, most people regard terms vilifying or demeaning people on the basis of ostensible ethnicity, sexual preference, sex etc as unacceptable. I'd regard terms deriding people on the basis of some form of physical impairment as inappropriate too. Calling someone a cripple is rarely done these days. Yet the language is not consistent. We still talk of being blind and/or deaf in purely metaphoric terms. I've done it myself, albeit these usages don't carry quite the culturally connotative force of retarded.
If people are willfully or reckless indifferent to reason or observable reality in the service of some misanthropic endeavour, then let us by all means call them out as misanthropic subversives of one kind or another. But retard is not an apt term, IMO.
And I note that The Weekend Australian maintains its spectacular record by having an article by Monckton today in which he recycles almost all of Val's points.
I'm always impressed by any article that contains more lies than words. Also, nonsensical sly nods to his classics education, as expected. And he describes himself as a maths wonk. Oh dear.
Re : The Denialists
Why not just call them for what they (collectively) are ?
Enemies of humanity.
Amanda, I don't think Monckton recycled Val's points; most likely the other way around. Except, as was pointed out, Monckton was recently at pains to state that the greenhouse effect does in fact exist, contrary to Val's blog science.
Val may have asked us to point out where he was misinformed, which we dutifully answered as 'everywhere' (with references), but we've had no riposte! Alas and alack!
Stu N
I'm thinking of recycled in the sense that Monckton may have said them and then Val may have said them and now Monckton is saying them again and doubtless Val will say them again. The fact that they are either nonsensical or thoroughly discredited or do not mean what they say they mean makes no difference to either them. An echo wrapped in an iteration wrapped in a repetition wrapped in denial.
The Australian is just monumentally embarrassing at the moment. Watching Hedley Thomas pretending he knows ANYTHING about dam operation is excruciating. And talking about the "now hugely controversial" operation of Wivenhoe is laughable. The only people trying to make it a controversy are on the Australian and they are failing rather dismally (thank goodness). The "now that we know exactly where the rain fell and when, we can work out how to operate the dam perfectly, so why couldn't they do that before the rain fell" indicates the paucity of the ability to understand the environment and its uncertainties that pervades the Oz right down to its bones.
And this may be the most spectacularly stupid statement in a major newspaper ever: "But politicians and many Queenslanders, still paranoid about wasting water after years of severe restrictions, are yet to appreciate that the droughts of El Nino are over." End paragraph. End point. The droughts of El Nino are over! What? Forever? Well, thank goodness the Australian was there to tell us. I'm breaking out the wellies as I write this!
If you could make decisions with hindsight you'd never lose on the horses. OTOH, if everyone could make decisions with hindsight it would be impossible to bet on the horses.
AGW or CAGW, or GW?
Do any of your understand the differences"
The differences, Louis? Yes.
Your point? No.
Louis,
You don't have any credibility here since, all those years ago, Tim discovered that you are the proud owner of the worst argument against global warming, ever.
But to answer your question, AGW is global warming due human activity. CAGW is an unscientific, undefined term used by 'sceptics' to undermine science. GW is applicable to any process by or time period over which the globe warms, on average.
Ah! Louis! You are the gift that keeps on giving!
You disappear from, and reappear on, Deltoid at just the right interval that when you do pop in to make a typical Hissink clanger, someone will link to some of your eternally-preserved idiocy for the rest of us to enjoy all over again.
I tend to avoid Marohasy (did that swamp ever rehydrate again?) and Codling (erk, shiver!) these days, so I am not acquainted with any of your recent pseudoscience, but if you do have any new theories please consider posting them here... I would love to know what your latest profound understandings of the universe and of physics emcompass.
I wasn't aware the BBC newsroom was in bed with the Guardian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-writ…
'Did that swamp ever rehydrate again?'
Yes BJ and it might be of some passing interest to you that long time regular 'warmist' Luke Walker is allowed a guest post.
He may need your assistance, so get over there quickly.
>By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
Fran:
I asked Willow Palin for your take on the use of the word retarded, and unfortunately, she said you were "so gay." Which, I think, settles that.
> Ah! Louis! You are the gift that keeps on giving!
Or, continuing the thread that this turned in to: He is the kiffed that keeps on kiffeding.
[kiffed: A little bit strange, not quite right. Against the norm. Also the feeling after having smoked marijuana; Jamaican derivative.](www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kiffed)
> AGW or CAGW, or GW?
> Do any of your understand the differences
Yes.
AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming. That warming due to human activities on the planet
CAGW: Strawman argument by the idiots on the internet
GW: Global Warming, whatever the cause
Murdoch's Number 1!:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/whos-to-blame-12-politicians…
Fran, perhaps you are struggling to accept that not all of us are your fellow comrades in the politically-correct struggle to cleanse our language and our thoughts of every word that somebody, somewhere, for some reason, finds "offensive".
Oh, I should point out that I, too, used to "work in mental health", proving your argument to be a failure on logical (appeal to authority) as well as factual grounds.
Vince said:
That's a strawman that would do any of our regular deniers proud. Change a few words and you have Sunspot.
Again, straight from the MO of our deniers ... One hasd to laugh. Where's Robbie Burns when you need him?
Vince I'd counsel against arguing for the use of "retard" to label our anti science opponents. It would be tactical disaster. And while its an accurate discription of some denialists in one context, it will be used against us by framing it in different contexts.
Language is important, it carries lots of baggage and lots of meaning. Meaning that people with different experience are senstitive to in important ways. The 'Just' use of language is especially important concerning challenging the intertia of oppression.
Jakerman, I'm not sure I agree - the Bolts and Delingpoles of this world will never admit that anybody could consider them to be retarded, which they quite definitely are.
As for "just" use of language - what is that? Sounds like more of the communist-inspired crap being served up to us by the politically-correct crowd that Fran belongs to.
The fact is that proscriptive rules on the use of language have done nothing, for example, to fix the rate of aboriginal incarceration (especially among minors). They have, however, given a lot of inner-city commies plenty of warm-fuzzy feelings at the idea of "doing something", not to mention the thrill of a hint of autocratic control, and are in the process of pauperising our otherwise rich and expressive tongue. Hence my disregard for these commies' attempts at censorship of our language.
Vince writes:
>* Jakerman, I'm not sure I agree - the Bolts and Delingpoles of this world will never admit that anybody could consider them to be retarded, which they quite definitely are.*
They just use it distract from the science and portray us as picking on retards rather than science.
Vince continues:
>*As for "just" use of language - what is that? Sounds like more of the communist-inspired crap being served up to us by the politically-correct crowd that Fran belongs to.*
Just use of language means recognizing the abusive way language is used and challenging it. E.g. calling people âretardsâ would be hurtful to some people who have been labeled retards for not fitting in for having a form of physical or mental retardation.
More broadly the movement of politically correct use of language is a movement for just use of language. I.e . challenges the language hang over of oppression such as racism and sexism. And language is both a feedback and forcing. You can invoke unjust frames with language or just frames. Language can work to either enhance or retard a cultural shift.
Iâm not a moral relativist, so I think our cultural shift away from oppression and abuse of minorities should be enhanced and not retarded by language.
>*The fact is that proscriptive rules on the use of language have done nothing, for example, to fix the rate of aboriginal incarceration (especially among minors). They have, however, given a lot of inner-city commies plenty of warm-fuzzy feelings at the idea of "doing something", not to mention the thrill of a hint of autocratic control, and are in the process of pauperising our otherwise rich and expressive tongue. Hence my disregard for these commies' attempts at censorship of our language.*
Do you think anyone who challenges unjust use of language is a âcommieâ? Do you think youâll win over people with that tactic?
Regarding your assertion that:
>*âproscriptive rules on the use of language have done nothing, for example, to fix the rate of aboriginal incarcerationâ*
-the obvious question is, is that a relevant test of its value? If that is the deciding test, then what data are we going to base this test on? I propose a simpler, more testable, and hence more relevent test. Lets ask Aboriginal Australians how they feel about being called âBongsâ, âCoonsâ, âNiggersâ, and âAbbosâ. Lets ask them how they feel about the racist myths and jokes that circulate through our society? Iâve been told by Aboriginal Australians, Vince that it hurts them deeply.
There you go Vince. Let's call Bolt, Delingpole et al "niggers"; after all, it's only a word and they won't identify with it, so no harm done. It can only enhance our arguments against their tosh.
In case you haven't guessed I stand beside Fran in this discussion. I used to work with people with disabilities and there's nothing PC in caring about people's feelings.
>*in the process of pauperising our otherwise rich and expressive tongue*
You mean by removeing abusive labels like "retard" and "Abbo"?
I don't think Shakespear nor Dickens needed either of those words used as abusive labels inorder to enrich their language.
I take it as flattering that Vince, presumably a friend of capitalism, locates recognition in our language of the ethical equality of all of humanity in communism/socialism.
It's not true of course, because the etiology of communism/socialism is in ethical humanism and related notions of reason, but it's telling all the same that he associates us leftists with the struggle for human dignity and rightists with the right to abuse others as one sees fit.
Just saw an interesting analysis by David Karoly here at the US AMS meeting and he quite conclusively showed that "The Australian" has had a pronounced trend toward more "skeptic" letters-to-the-editor and op-ed pieces over the last five years or so. He also pointed out that the letters and op-ed pieces in Australian tabloids were more in disagreement with the essentials of the IPCC AR4 results than Australian broadsheets were.
And who owns the tabloids Karoly analyzed and "The Australian"? Why, Murdoch, of course. Scumbag.
Vince, the point is that if your intent is not to offend the one being offended and there's no real reason for choosing one label over another, why use the language?
And, by the way, squawking "PC! PC! PC!" is itself PC: you're not *allowed* to be "PC" in the same way as you're not "allowed" to say "chink" about a chinaman.
Face it: YOU don't have to choose not to use the word. Sometimes the freight *you* have is what makes it *right*. Find the right replacement words for "F*k Off!". "Shoo!" definitely isn't it.
So rather than proclaiming "PC! PC! PC!", explain why you want to use that word.
Dorlomin, a regular pro-science poster on the UK Guardian CIF site recently expressed it perfectly, I thought.
"Phoney sceptics - Always offended, never embarrassed."
Wow, the point is that nobody actually is offended, we just see the commie approach of affecting offence in order to impose dictatorial restrictions on our language. People seem to have very quickly forgotten that political correctness isn't just a joke, it was a deadly serious tool of totalitarian oppression employed by the commies and now kept alive by the useless mouths infesting our Arts faculties.
Jakerman, I'd have to do some re-reading before agreeing with you, but it is possible that the same publisher who recently produced a PC-revisionist version of Twain is working on doing the same for the rest of our literary heritage.
As for what might offend abos, wogs, poms, frogs, krauts, gooks or westie bogans - the taking of such offence is today largely taught behaviour, so if we didn't have so many under-employed uniwankers projecting "offence" fantasies from their ivory towers, we would benefit by having far fewer offended "minorities".
It's OK Vince. We elitist commie wankers still think you are a reactionary, discriminatory, ill-considered turd. And we use Macs, not PCs. Slainte
Vince, I guess you must be in a better position than Aboringal Austrlians to know why they are hurt by racist language, jokes and behavior. Perhapy you can convince Aboriginal Austrlians to apprecite racist language the way that you do?
@ Vince
So offence at being called these names is manufactured offence? OK, so by your measure I could call you all sorts of derogatory names and any offence you took would be of your own making, correct? Oookaaayyy...
Your comment @129 above...
... is... is... I can't think of a word. Unfathomable will do. Are you seriously suggesting that being able to call a severely disadvantaged race a bunch of derogatory names would help keep them out of prison?
TTodayâs Oz editorial writer (29/01/11), while disparaging any linkage between climate change and the recent flooding, also struggles with broader geographical concepts. Like many myopic readers of the Courier Mail, the writer sees no further than the lower reaches of the Brisbane River. Perhaps someone could tell him or her that lots and lots of Queensland, a little of NSW and a fair bit of Victoria have been underwater lately. Their own paper even described some of the flooding as massive. Also the editorialist, despite recent meanderings, failed to mention flood mitigation in their comparisons to the 1893 flood.
But they were only following the lead of our prime minister in the denial stakes with her interview on AM yesterday. Quote âI don't think you can look at one, a bit of the weather and say that equals climate change...but â¦.I do believe that climate change is real and is going to impact on our country.â
I'm not sure if this link is quite apt here, but it's close:
Calorie cops to protect serves
Again, this seems to be part of a more general cultural position that regulation is by its nature, subversive of personal freedom, even though in this case, it does little more than sit within a paradigm of informed choice by consumers. Apparently, in its latest iteration, the basic freedoms include the right to ignorance of what you are buying. Needless to say, the food industry folk are very supportive of this type of freedom and they advertise with News Ltd. Hence, people in compliance with food labelling are, in the opinion of News Ltd "calorie cops" or "police". This seems to be political correctness, News Ltd-style.
Their first correspondent didn't miss the dog whistle either, and went straight for Blot-style slippery slope/strawman: