Comments

  1. #1 Rick Bradford
    August 18, 2011

    Looks from that clip like children’s TV is getting worse every year in Australia.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    August 18, 2011

    Rick Bradford.

    Your comment typifies those of the anti-science, anti-logic ideology that pervade the denialist Body Ignorant – make a comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and pretend that you’ve just brought down the Tower of Babel.

    The trouble is that you yourself have no idea of what it is about which you speak. Just like the Strawman in the Wizard of Oz, whose namesake approach to rhetoric you rely upon…

    Back to the subject of this thread, Dan Ilic does a pretty good impression of Alan Jones – almost good enough to warrant a threat of suit.

  3. #3 Mike
    August 18, 2011

    It’s a great impression of Jones, but a bit of a soft send-up by normal Steaming Toad standards I reckon.

    Alan Jones has said so many mind-numbingly stupid things about climate that even the most junior high school student would double over laughing at, that there is surely far more comedy material for a skit than appears here.

    For all his fast-talk, Jones is not too bright on the science stuff at all. Much like Bolt (though it’s unlikely anyone will ever exceed Bolt’s level of thickness).

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    August 18, 2011

    Jones is not too bright on the science stuff at all

    Steaming Toad mentions that Jones was a Maths teacher but I only recall that he was an English teacher and football coach.

    As for that Bradford ignoramus, he has a penchant for proving himself stupid by saying things like the Arctic sea ice was forecast to have disappeared by now when it was actually forecast to disappear by 2040.

  5. #5 Alan
    August 18, 2011

    Jones and Bolt are neither stupid nor ignorant, they know what they’re doing is propaganda, and they get paid handsomely because they’re good at it.

  6. #6 MFS
    August 18, 2011

    >”Jones and Bolt are neither stupid nor ignorant, they know what they’re doing is propaganda, and they get paid handsomely because they’re good at it.”

    Sadly I think so too.

  7. #7 Mikem
    August 18, 2011

    I agree that Bolt is not stupid in a psychopathic sense, but I’d disagree that he is particularly bright in an academic sense. He doesn’t understand a lot of scientific facts and has little ability to apply rational thinking processes. However he knows exactly how to tap into fears and prejudices, and manipulate people’s opinions.

  8. #8 Billy Bob Hall
    August 18, 2011

    I thought this one was very good (for a change). Score 8/10 from me.

  9. #9 Rob Davidson
    August 19, 2011

    What about Piers Ackerman?

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    August 19, 2011

    >What about Piers Ackerman?

    I have a suspicion that Ackerman might actually be stupid.

    At the least, he is a scientific ignorant.

  11. #11 Rick Bradford
    August 19, 2011

    @Bernard J.

    Thanks for pointing out that it is the ‘denialists’ who are anti-Science and anti-Logic.

    For a moment there, I thought those labels might best apply to the ‘alarmists’ who have just suggested that space aliens might be more likely to wipe out humanity because of our greenhouse gas emissions.

    Probably best to put on your Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie before you read the report, though.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    August 19, 2011

    >For a moment there, I thought…

    See, that’s your problem right there.

    You’re attempting to do something for which you are woefully intellectually ill-equipped.

  13. #13 jamesc
    August 19, 2011

    @Rick Bradford

    AACK AK AKK AAAKAKAKKAK AK AK AK AAAAKAK AACK AAKAK

  14. #14 Sean
    August 19, 2011

    For anyone interested in what Rick is giggling about, here’s a link…

    http://sethbaum.com/ac/2011_ET-Scenarios.html

    It doesn’t look like any climatologists were involved in the paper, and I don’t see any climatologists screaming and shouting that we need to reduce greenhouse emissions so that aliens don’t destroy us. There are more than enough reasons to reduce them before we worry about aliens. But I guess you guys have grown to expect this sort of stuff from Rick, haven’t you?

    Here’s a quote from the paper: “Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our
    expansion is changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth. While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our
    expansive tendencies.”

    Hardly alarmist but it looks the media decided to latch onto this angle as a way to sensationalize the paper. It’s really a small part of the paper too.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    August 19, 2011

    Thanks for the link Sean.

    The initial premise – encountering extraterrestrial intelligence – is about as likely as encountering worthwhile intelligence in the climate change Denialati.

    However, if the vanishingly small probability of such an encounter (with an ETI) eventuates, the paper gives a good summary of alternative scenarios. Of course, the likelihood is small – about as likely as meeting worthy CCDI, and of subsequently having the Denialati overturn their ideologies and accept a need for action including a price on carbon…

  16. #16 Bozo
    August 19, 2011

    Where does Rick Bradford find the strength and courage to get up each morning, put on the clown suit, go out to do battle for the internetz? And what does he get out of it – merely the respect and affection of his peers at Deltoid?

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    August 19, 2011

    JamesC.

    [Perhaps you were a little subtle for some](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDzjyENTbZw&feature=related)!

  18. #18 KiwiInOz
    August 20, 2011

    Alyin Jones, perhaps?

  19. #19 lord_sidcup
    August 20, 2011

    Barford is just peeved that a scenario involving Ayn Rand devotees from outer space rescuing humanity from “eco-Marxism” didn’t make it into that report.

  20. #20 Derek
    August 21, 2011

    “However, if the vanishingly small probability of such an encounter (with an ETI) eventuates, the paper gives a good summary of alternative scenarios”

    Well at least you guys know how to close ranks!
    No climate scare claim to absurd that you won’t support it!!
    You are hilarious.
    (and sad)

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    August 21, 2011

    Why is it that so many denialists can’t do even basic logical deconstruction and parsing of straightforward English?

    Me:

    >…vanishingly small probability of such an encounter…

    Derek:

    >No climate scare claim to absurd that you won’t support it!!

    Two points Densrek.

    1. my use of the term “vanishingly small” hardly constitutes “support” for a “scare claim”
    2. my use of the phrase “vanishingly small probability of such an encounter” was referring simply to the chance of contacting an ETI. I said nothing of, and gave no “support” to, the notion that an encounter with an ETI would occur as a result of changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere.
    3. The only thing here that is “hilarious and sad” is your misunderstanding of, and/or misrepresentation of, my actual comment.

      By your demonstration of your own ineptitude, you are an idiot.

  22. #22 Sean
    August 21, 2011

    Oh good grief, Derek. Did you not read the quote I provided? The paper doesn’t say aliens will destroy us because of global warming. It says “rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth.”

    Global warming would just provide a means of detection. The reason for destroying mankind would be to prevent a destructive, expansive species in the universe. Again, read the paper and see for yourself what a small part this mention of global warming is. Not to mention, expansive tendencies includes a lot more than just greenhouse gas emissions.

    Now please point out where Mike Mann, Jim Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones, or any other climate scientist is using aliens as a way to scare people into action.

  23. #23 ChrisC
    August 22, 2011

    Derek @ 19

    Well at least you guys know how to close ranks! No climate scare claim to absurd that you won’t support it!! You are hilarious. (and sad)

    Ahem…. if I may…

    The paper is silly and bizarre. The Earth’s temperature is rising due, for the most part, to rising concentrations of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The increased concentration of these gases is due to human activities. The paper is still silly. There, are you happy? Get off your soap box, you’ll fall and hurt yourself.

    Now, here’s Alan Jones on today’s ["Convoy of no consequence"](http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/truckies-gather-for-anti-gillard-protest/story-fn7x8me2-1226119356045).

    tl;dr? The reason that about 500 people showed up instead of the much hyped 9000 is because the AFP, in league with the Gillard government, the RAND corporation and the reverse vampires, stopped a convoy a million billion kilometers long from entering the People’s Republic of Canberra. And also they didn’t want alot of participants anyway. So there.

  24. #24 rhwombat
    August 22, 2011

    Chris: parrot > turkey. Sic transit Gloria’s Monday?

  25. #25 lord_sidcup
    August 22, 2011

    Regarding Barford’s latest tilt at windmills, the aliens report was just a bit of fun and had nothing to do with NASA. The authors didn’t expect it to make the news or be taken seriously:

    So here’s the thing. This isn’t a “NASA report.” It’s not work funded by NASA, nor is it work supported by NASA in other ways. It was just a fun paper written by a few friends, one of whom happens to have a NASA affiliation.

    [Some important points of clarification](http://paleblueblog.org/post/9110304050/some-important-points-of-clarification)

  26. #26 Sean
    August 22, 2011

    lord sidcup @24

    That makes more sense. We can argue how silly it is to discuss these scenarios, but it was pretty obvious from the start that the media was blowing it out of proportion and that the deniers were being misleading about what the report actually said.

  27. #27 Martin Vermeer
    August 22, 2011

    Sean and lord_sidcup: if Freeman Dyson and Enrico Fermi were not afraid to look silly by engaging in this kind of speculation, it probably wasn’t silly. Probably.

  28. #28 Billy Bob Hall
    August 23, 2011

    Tim ! Are we winning the internet yet ? :-)

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2011

    Apparently [Alan Jones thinks that being asked by a reporter whether he's getting a fee for appearing at a rally is inappropriate and insulting](http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-news/joness-offstage-rant-at-reporter-2576060.html), and he gets the crowd to join in with his disdain.

    Ironically for someone engaged in a lot of business propaganda, he appears to calls the SMH “The Morning Pravda”, and he says he and the crowd are “talking about the death of democracy”.

    Anyone think the rhetoric is slowly ratcheting up towards Tea Party style memes?

  30. #30 Vince whirlwind
    August 23, 2011

    Alan Jones is a fool.

    The fact that only 500 people turned up to listen to his blither is a cause for optimism.

  31. #31 Rick Bradford
    August 23, 2011

    > Regarding Barford’s latest tilt at windmills, the aliens report was just a bit of fun and had nothing to do with NASA.

    Oh, just a bit of fun, eh? Peer-reviewed fun, as well. Taxpayer-funded fun. That’s okay, because being Left/Green means never having to say you’re sorry.

    And the paper clearly states its affiliation up front: “…NASA Planetary Science Division.”

    > The authors didn’t expect it to make the news or be taken seriously.

    Oh please. Explain how people publish a report but don’t expect or want it to get publicity.

    Plus, if it hadn’t had the NASA imprint, The Drudge Report and Guardian might have left it alone. Well, Drudge might have.

    It’s time y’all learnt that this blind cult-style defending of everything which promotes the AGW scare, is what is turning people off your movement in their millions.

    Your arrogance and self-righteousness is receiving its verdict in the court of public opinion.

  32. #32 Wow
    August 23, 2011

    “Taxpayer-funded fun.”

    Yes, like the internet. Tax-payer-funded.

    Listen, YOU were the one that brought that paper up. Now you don’t like it?

    “Explain how people publish a report but don’t expect or want it to get publicity.”

    The same way as The Onion make a claim about Spaghetti being grown on trees on April 1st and assume that people won’t take it seriously.

  33. #33 Martin Vermeer
    August 23, 2011

    Your arrogance and self-righteousness is receiving its verdict in the court of public opinion.

    Eh, there are higher courts, and they don’t respond any better to arrogance and self-righteousness…

  34. #34 Sean
    August 23, 2011

    I’ve noticed that still none of the deniers can point to any actual climate scientists warning us about aliens destroying us because of global warming.

    Oh and Rick, you’re a liar: “* NASA did not fund or otherwise sponsor this study. One author, Shawn Domagal-Goldman, is a NASA employee, but this study was conducted in our spare time using no funding from NASA or anyone else.”

    I guess being Rick Bradford means never having to admit you’re wrong.

  35. #35 Scribe
    August 23, 2011

    Dick BradFUD excreted:

    … turning people off your movement

    A “movement”, eh? Is evolution also a movement, Thick Dick? It’s quite crafty that, to label science as a “movement”, as of it exists as a political lobby group, or an option, a choice among many. “You can choose to believe Science, or you can join the Teabaggers’ Party!” I hear you yell. Perhaps I should add “y’all!” to the sentence, to make it more Bradfuddy.

  36. #36 zoot
    August 23, 2011

    Not my idea, but maybe we should find out what it would cost to have Mr Jones speak in favour of the carbon price. I’d contribute to a fund.

  37. #37 Scribe
    August 23, 2011

    what it would cost to have Mr Jones speak in favour of the carbon price.

    A three dollar bill? Just saying …

  38. #38 lord_sidcup
    August 24, 2011

    @Rick Bradford

    Did you read the link I provided? Did you even read what I wrote?

  39. #39 marcusj
    August 24, 2011

    Rick doesn’t have to read anything you write. He knows what a terrible, terrible person you are. He just knows.

Current ye@r *