Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.
Duffer – firstly, you need to tell us * what * got your bustle all akilter.
So far your versions don’t reconcile. Or are you just acting all affronted because some Californian dwarf with a bad moustach told you to and you haven’t the first clue about what? It seems that way from here.
But only then perhaps can it be determined what import your tale has.
Answer the question, David. What’s an appropriate punishment for you lot? Is this consistent with your beliefs about punishing the transgressions of others?
I’ll almost guarantee the answer to the last question is a clear ‘no’ even though you won’t admit it.
Merry Christmas to all, here is an image of the AGW snowjob
Gee, snow in winter you say? And what’s extra precipitation from 5% more moisture in a warmer atmosphere when temperatures are at about zero or below again? In those areas that snow is an annual feature, do we get more snow in relatively warmer winters, or cooler ones? And how has NH snow cover been trending, overall?
Just some questions for you to ignore.
And still none of you can bring yourselves to repudiate this man.
It says so much about you!
“Ah, right on cue, enter Bill, stage right, in his pantomime villain’s costume to frighten all the kiddies.”
@The Pantomime Villain
Here on Deltoid, you all see tremendous significance to “of the moment” events, endless posts about it being a bit warmer the usual in one place, hurricanes that are barely hurricanes, somewhere where it hasn’t rained as much as it usually does, others were it rained more.
Karen has just posted another example for you, it’s not the event itself, it’s the mental gymnastics you lot go thru that we’ve all come to watch.
A couple more cold links
India cold snap death toll climbs to 93
Eastern Europe deadly freeze leaves hundreds dead
“Temperatures in Russia have been 10 to 15 degrees below average, with -50C (-58F) recorded in Siberia.”
Can you imagine how you lot would go on if it had been 10-15 degrees above average! Go on someone, have a go at telling us all that the conditions that caused these “events” can only happen in a “warming world”, like you usually do for everything else.
Do you think it might ever be possible, just once before you die, to ever make a sensible comment Griselda?
Because as far as I can tell, nobody but nobody is interested in your malformed interpretations or misinformed opinions.
Take it over to Bishop Swill’s, where that class of tripe (Winter! Cold! Therefore no AGW!!) may get the henhouse clucking for a good ten minutes. Generalised nonsense is right up their street there.
Dear Dopey David, as I explained to you right off the bat outside of the Rightospheric epistemic bubble no-one has heard of whatever incident or person you’re on about.
So, back to my question; what sanctions is the community entitled to take against you lot? Or do you think liars should not be responsible for the terrible consequences of their mendacity? My well-informed guess is that the answer is ‘yes’ if the liars concerned amount to you or your allies. Whereas no doubt you’re in favour of capital – and perhaps even corporal – punishment for other people.
Bravo, Bill, as fine a piece of dextrous skating on thin ice as I have ever seen!
So, you have absolutely no knowledge of Prof. Pratcunt, ooops, sorry again, Prof. Parncutt despite his words going so viral on the internet that he has withdrawn them and replaced them with something more, shall we say, soothing. But you, Bill, the most assiduous watcher of all things global warming failed to spot them or any reference to them. ‘Sorry, officer, I didn’t see nuffink!’
But then, following in all too well-defined footsteps which have been trodden on many a time and oft’, you almost echo the Mad Hatter of “Systematic Musicology” by asking what “sanctions the community” is entitled to take against you Jewish filth/capitalist running dogs/AGW sceptics (delete to taste)? But you haven’t quite got the guts to come right out with it, have you , Billy? I mean, you’re itching to snap out orders to the firing squad but you can’t quite bring yourself to pull a trigger, can you?
I should add, once again, that the moral cowardice displayed by ‘the usual suspects’ on this site in failing to repudiate Parncutt’s original words damages your own cause as much as your own reputations.
Brisbane is on track to record its coldest December day in 123 years as overcast conditions continue to put a dampener on the opening week of summer.
Cloud cover and cool winds have kept things chilly in the southeast with record temperatures recorded in Stanthorpe, which recorded its lowest ever December maximum of 13 degrees.
In Brisbane not a single day this month has crept above the long-term maximum average of 29.
Sydney, (observatory Hill) is in position to record December’s coldest average maximum temperature on record. The coldest was 22.5 in 1924 followed by 22.6 in 1934 and 22.8 in 1931 and 1960. Currently at Observatory hill the monthly average is just 21.7.
lol….so now the greenhouse effect is trapping the cold in……….:)
Ps…Sydney’s hottest Christmas Day on record was in 1868, when the city sweltered to 39 C.
David, your hysteria is getting the better of you. Best to go back to the military dolls and trying to get Paulus’ army to win this time, eh?
But you’re not answering the question, are you, you mean-spirited, punitive old shit?
Also, if i ever see any reference to whatever you’re on about in the world outside your little bubble, maybe then I’ll bother to form an opinion about it. But your hysterical reaction does all seem rather hypocritical, given what a deeply authoritarian and punitive bunch you all are, don’t you think?
Karen, when is the opening week of summer in Australia? I’ll give you a hint – today is December 27th. Also, that’s an article from 2011. In fact, they both are. And it wasn’t. Are you the dopiest prat in the whole world, do you suppose?
Duffer, you STILL haven’t gotten your story straight, so what do you expect of others? Until you can clearly state what’s got your nuts in a twist, don’t expect anyone else to decipher your garbled thinking.
But, Check, it’s so easy, I’m surprised a scientific genius like you can’t manage it. Just follow these instructions:
a: Click on Google
b: Enter the name ‘Parncutt’, only try and spell it better than I do.
And lo, all will be revealed and then you will rush back here and tell us that Parncutt rates, on a good day, about level with Breivik but on a bad day somewhere between Himmler and Beria. You will also tell us – er, you will, won’t you? – that the AGW movement wants nothing to do with this despicable excuse for a human being.
I have every confidence – sucker that I am!
Well I think you have your answer David, NOT ONE of the regular alarmist commenters here, sees anything wrong in killing those who do not share their bizarre beliefs; for example the 1C/decade warming, promised to us from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Scare Stories, whilst looking at the Global temp anom and thinking WTF happened to Global Warming! The unimaginable heresy from that alone would be grounds I suppose.
Quite disturbing really, you don’t need to be student of history to understand the sort of people we are dealing with here.
Duffster: Oh, you mean he *didn’t* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?
No. Nor did he advocate mass homocide or place you under a death threat, or any of the other hysterical bullshit you are wittering on with. Go and read what he did advocate, silly man, and then get back to us. When you post a considered question, you might get a considered reply.
“Sceptics. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means…:”
Duffster, stop for one moment being an utter cretin, and try and rise up to at least moron level.
Google cannot tell me what you-the-person are cranking about, once your self-aroused hysteria fizzles out – only you can. So why be so coy about it? Surely it must be something to have got you so lathered up. Or does it perhaps sound just too stupid outside of your playpen?
Here’s an example of political sychophantry gone mad. A dumb Tasmanian politician wants to cost his state (which gets the vast majority of its electricity from hydro) many millions of dollars by supporting his party’s repeal of the Carbon tax.
And of course, you only need to execute one person for an infringement and all the rest follows as the definition of infringement is widened. And as for history, I don’t think this lot could spell the word!
And still no repudiation!
Enter the name ‘Parncutt’, only try and spell it better than I do.
My word, you’re a douchecanoe. “Google this thing, which won’t work, because I cannot or will not spell properly”.
Now, try again, Stu, and this time try not to move your lips as you do it: P-a-r-n-c-u-t-t – not to be confused with ‘Pratcunt’!
See, it’s easy when you know how!
“you only need to execute one person for an infringement and all the rest follows as the definition of infringement is widened”
Indeed David. One only need establish “in principle” that people that don’t agree with you can be executed (for heresy) and then you can go full hog and install your Climate Inquisitor General. Confessions drawn out on the rack – “I confess I read articles posted at Bishop Hill, conspired with Marc Morano, and turned my central heating on in the winter”, that sort of thing, you know, the hard core heretics that offend Holy Mother Climate Science.
“Duffster: Oh, you mean he *didn’t* advocate the death penalty for AGW sceptics?
No. Nor did he advocate mass homocide or place you under a death threat, or any of the other hysterical bullshit you are wittering on with.”
Rather alarmist isn’t he?
You’d think these deniers would be more careful about proclaiming some catastrophe wouldn’t you.
As long as you can clutch your pearls and masturbate, your little self-made fantasy should bring you off in no time at all Griselda. The indignation likely just adds a little extra frisson.
AGW denier trivialises Breivik massacre
See, here’s my headline for you, Duffer.
Parncutt rates, on a good day, about level with Breivik but on a bad day somewhere between Himmler and Beria.
This only says a lot about your level of onanistic hysteria. You’re saying this person has actually shot masses of kids? Set up Gulags and extermination camps?
No; the only reason you’d use the outrageous – and palpably absurd – phrase ‘about level with Breivik’ (adding insult to injury by going on to imply that he’s ‘worse on a bad day’) is that you’re actually not much fussed about what Breivik did, given who his targets were.
Come on, Scandeniers – are you really going to let this pompous British windbag spit on the memory of your kids merely because its politically convenient?
Come on bill, even you can work this out. The gentleman in question, on his blog for a short time at least, has found what he considers to be a “good reason” for killing people, as others have done before him, you don’t need anymore than that. Whether you think this is trivial or not is up to you.
Keep jerking Griselda, That fantasy’s got to be enough to see you through to New Year at least, before it gets old. Mayhem! Murder! Bishop! Anthony! Gnnnnnrrrgh!
Of course everyone else can ‘see it’ Griselda, just not in the same light as you paranoid, fuckheaded cranks.
Christ on a crutch, you are even dumber than our regular trolls. Okay, sweetheart. So I are saying I have to bother a professor of Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz simply because you cannot spell?
Or are you saying that a professor of Systematic Musicology is the person we should turn to to figure out the climate?
I am so confused. Please help me!
The gentleman in question, on his blog for a short time at least, has found what he considers to be a “good reason” for killing people, as others have done before him, you don’t need anymore than that.
Oh yes, do tell us all about the real and present danger denialist dunces are in.
Mann directs Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. Sitting at his desk, he tore open a hand-addressed envelope and began to pull out a letter. He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. Mann jerked backward, letting the letter drop and holding his breath as a tiny plume of particles wafted up, sparkling in the sunlight. He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. “I went down to the restroom and washed my hands,” he says. “Then I called the police.”
Do tell, GSW. Go on.
What is Karen on about? No days above 30 degrees in Brisbane for the month of Dec? This site reflects 11 days above 30. http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=40913&list=ds Down here on the Gold Coast we too are seeing very hot and humid days as well.
And still no-one here repudiates him.
Rose, Karen had the wrong year. Look at the dates that are written into the links! Remember the 2011 excitement of ‘coolest December on record’ – that started on about the 9th?
And yet the objectionable Duff still refuses to repudiate his trivialization of the Breivik massacre, aided and abetted by his Scandinavian allies.
That sad old nag, the Denier Moral Outrage high-horse, collapses under the combined weight of their noxious absurdity.
Duffer: And still no-one here repudiates him.
What do you want repudiated, Duffer? Do you want us to reject his claim that he is a professor of musicology? That’s on his site. That he grew up in Melbourne? That’s on his site. That the moon is made of green cheese?
Oh wait, the last one doesn’t appear on his site. Of course, neither do any of the statements you’ve attributed to him (in any version of the article), and which seems to be what you object to. So you want us to repudiate something he hasn’t said?
I repudiate the idea that killing all GW sceptics is morally justified. I think its outrageous that David Duff should slanderously attribute such an idea to a person who never said such a thing. Disgraceful!
I repudiate the idea that death threats are an appropriate course of action in any circumstance. I think its outrageous that David Duff should slanderously attribute such threats to an individual who has never done anything of the sort. Disgraceful!
I repudiate David Duff’s contemptible smearing of an individual availing himself of his right to free speech. Duff lying about what was said in a lame attempt to play the victim is a special kind of desperate. If Parncutt’s statements are so objectionable, Duff should have no compunction about quoting him accurately, and letting him be convicted out of his own mouth. But Duff has to lie about what was said, just so he can get in a bit of alarmist squeaking.
“Breivik … Himmler … Beria” – Is that some sort of Triple Godwin? Hysteria much?
Send better trolls!
For the benefit of FrankD who should have gone to Specsavers:
“If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.”
Don’t you just love the “jury of suitably qualified scientists “?!
And how Orwellian is “The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial.”?
Now, my little Deltoids, consider the above but replace the term ‘GW deniers’ with ‘GW advocates’ and suppose that it was written by me. Would you have something to say about it?
Yes, Dai, it says that, not what you claim it says.
Good God: actual content! And this is ‘worse’ than Breivik, is it, you palpably phoney hysteric, you?
I don’t agree with the death penalty and cannot see how a legal system can incorporate such a notion of future harms in capital cases, no matter what their likelihood or the extent of their impact. I cannot imagine any scientists wishing to participate in such an absurd ‘jury’. I also don’t believe there would be any deterrent effect whatsoever – the reverse, if anything.
When commenter Gingerbaker brought up similar notions a while ago here at Deltoid he was dealt with very bluntly indeed. One of my chief arguments is that the hysteric Right is far more likely to thrive in any drift to an authoritarian system of state -sponsored violence and populist – or pseudo-populist – vigilantism.
By way of confirmation of this it’s notable that while the obscure comments of this Professor of Musicology from Graz are being trumpeted as a very big deal – completely disingenuously, to my mind – you’ve had the likes of ‘we’re coming for you and we’re going to put you in gaol’ Monckton and the odious James ‘there just aren’t enough bullets’ Delingpole as some of your most prominent spokespeople for years without any of you batting an eyelid.
Hypocrites. That’s the word.
I also do not feel in any way responsible for the opinions of this tangential figure who is hardly a significant component of the climate debate, and the only circles in which his deservedly obscure notions have been made prominent is among insincere Denier opportunists playing at being victims in the vain hope of restoring the interest the general community has lost in them since the Climategate fiasco was shown to be a disingenuous manipulation from go to whoa.
But, I repeat; you lot are generally ‘bring back the birch’ authoritarians of the first water – given the palpable harms you are causing, and almost all in bad faith, what do you think the community is entitled to do with you? Civil litigation is inevitable – and I trust prominent Denialist entities, including major corporations, will be effectively stripped of their assets and protections allowing directors and board members will be individually sued – but do you really imagine there will be no more direct consequences?
Delingpole’s baying for blood and frantically trying to organize the witch-trials for the crime of erecting wind-turbines, fer Chrissakes – there are going to be a lot of people about in the next few decades who are going to wonder if it might not be just, after all, to simply apply your own standards of obnoxious vigilantism right back at you.
Always keen to help little ‘Wow’ let me just hint at what is required. The words you are looking for are: ‘I utterly repudiate the notion that GW sceptics should be tried and executed’. Go on, little ‘Wow’, give it a try, you know you’ll feel much better about yourself.
Bill is more sophisticated, well, frankly my cat is more sophisticated than little ‘Wow’, and thus he covers up his sort of repudiation with a ton of unnecessary verbiage. Yes, he’s against the death penalty; no, he’s sure no scientists would wish to be on a jury (although the history of scientists under totalitarian regimes is hardly promising!); and irrespective of anything like principle he worries more that it would be a recruiting agent for the “hysteric Right” (and all these years AGW advocates have insisted they are non-political!)
So Billy cannot bring himself to put the noose round anyone’s neck but he’s all for suing and thereby impoverishing any GW deniers by stripping them of their property and money. True, a difference in degree, but not one that shows Billy in a particularly strong liberal light. One senses that it would not take too much to nudge him towards, er, a final solution!
Don’t forget the deniers complete acceptance of Glenn “Not enough knives” Beck and Jim “it’s all treason” Inholfe.
So, Duffski, would you agree or disagree that a claim that the jury saw was proven with 95% confidence was “proven beyond reasonable doubt”?
You seem to know all words except what “IF” means.
Why is that?
IF you don’t understand that word, how can we know that you understand ANY other?
What Duff and GSW are engaging in is an attempt at poisoning the well, as well as to construct guilt by association.
These are fallacies of logic.
This is unssurprising, as both trolls have a long and consistent history of logical fallatio.
I wonder how Duff would react if we were to posit that hanging is too good for this pair: Australian Press Council Criticizes Climate Denier Columnists For ‘Highly Offensive’ Comments?
Which reminds me about another ‘gate, so the glaciers are growing are they:
Eli Goes Photoshopping for the New Year . Now if the animated GIF don’t work for you, it didn’t here, you can always work things mandraulically .
Whatever, Delingpole is, to use an old naval expression, all piss-and-wind, as Sir Paul Nurse once ably demonstrated. I’ll leave it for you people down-under to give Bolt the appropriate ‘tar-and-feathers’.
Who is being quiet now Duff, finished with another drive-by have you.
Whilst elsewhere deniers dirty tricks and WUWT dirty laundry exposed to public view . Pay attention at the back there you members of the troll brigade aka ‘Wendy Club’ that is Duff, Dingo, Karen, GSW, chameleon, Bolt for PM, janama, Pentax, Jonas.
What a remarkable – and truly pathetic – last paragraph. I suspect, David, that even you aren’t convinced by your own limp, slippery-slope nonsense.
And impoverishing, say, officers of the major wrecker think-tanks, board-rooms, or some members of the Murdoch Empire editorial boards? Colour me untroubled. Given the harm they’ve done / are doing / will continue to do, who could possibly say it was unjust? Where their toxic manipulations are going to have caused a lot of real harm – and real financial harm come to that – to a lot of people; why the hell should they remain comfortable and their assets unscathed? In any future hell they’ve done their part to bring about, why the hell should they not be made to both compensate for the harms they have wrought, and pay for the mitigation of further harms arising as a direct consequence?
I mean, seriously, as I keep saying, you folks are almost universally punitive authoritarians, and yet you want this kind of malignant sociopathy to get off scot-free? Hypocrites.
You turned up here with your misogynist raving (‘Pratcunt’ indeed!), abrasively demanding that we be outraged by something we’ve only ever heard of because you turned up here raving, etc.. And yet,as I’ve pointed out, you’ve been all the while cheerfully oblivious the demagogic rabble-rousing and far more influential and potentially dangerous extremism of some of your own leading lights.
And imagine if I turned up at WUWT demanding in such an abusive and hysterical fashion that the regulars condemn some obscure outrageous notion found on, say, your blog, David? Or some egregious commentary at Bishop Hill, or the odious Shub Niggurath’s? How about, say, Tucci78, whose vigilantist ravings, un-nuanced by philosophical caveats or any notion of legal niceties, seem not to faze prominent ‘skeptics’?
How far do you think I’d get?
You really are a silly old man. Let’s also recall your toxic trivializing of the real and truly terrible crimes of Anders Breivik in the course of this sordid, insincere, and histrionic process. You really ought to be ashamed, but, sadly, we’re only-too-aware you lack any such capacity.
A cold wave sent temperatures to record lows for December in 60 locations Thursday morning, the weather agency said, warning the cold weather is likely to continue over the weekend.
But … but … Karen, that just cannot be! I mean, just over the water the Chinese, to say nothing of India, are pumping out carbon gases by the zillion trillion ‘thingies’ that measure carbon gas – it should be boiling in Japan, everyone says so, er, well, everyone here says so.
And another 24 hours goes by and still no-one, not one single so-called human being on this site can bring themselves to just write “I repudiate anyone who suggests that GW deniers should be arrested, tried in court and executed if found guilty.”
Why am I not surprised?!
…well, everyone no-one here says so except Duff & Karen and hangers on.
Well now that the Duffster has actually provided the quote proving that the Professor’s comments – contrary to his several claims to that effect – had nothing to do death threats against him, mass homicide or prosecuting all AGW sceptics, I will happily comply with his request:
I repudiate the irrelevant professor’s stupid idea that passing death sentences against influential AGW deniers would be in any way productive or is in any way morally defensible.
Capital punishment is a daft idea, although I have no in-principle objection to people who have harmed others being held accountable for their actions in court, within the normal extent of tort law. In the event of illegal activity, then they should be held to account to the normal extent of criminal law. And that precludes capital punishment in any jurisdiction I care about.
Fortunately the professor has no more influence on climate change policy or legal processes than the Duffster, so really the issue is moot.
What is not moot is why David felt he had to exaggerate his case. If he had just stated it plainly and honestly, I would have posted the above days ago, and I’m sure others would have agreed (Bill and I seem largely on the same page). The interesting question now is, will David explicity resile from his false claims? Or will he just try to change the topic? I can’t wait…
Congratulations on getting the right year this time, Karen.
THREE CHEERS FOR FRANKD!
Well done, Frank, you have, with great delicacy, placed a fig-leaf over the rather nasty private parts of this blog’s commentariat.
So come on, Chek, Wow, Lotharsson, Bernard, Lionel et al, Frank has shown you how to be human, let us se if you can manage it, too.
I would like to thank David Duff for bringing to the fore this important issue concerning the need for the punishment of those promoting those calumnies which result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people not only in the future but also the recent past and now.
It is certainly something the profile of which should be raised and judging by the Internet search hits on the peccant phrase the machinery of denial is running at full tilt. Good. That Duff raises the matter here is grist to that mill.
In this manner many more will consider that an International Criminal Court should have on its statute some instrument that could be used, by making an example of a person accused and convicted of climate-forcing crimes against humanity, ‘Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres‘, as Voltaire put it in Candide referring to the execution of Admiral John Byng for his poor performance in supporting British forces on Minorca where the strategically important Port Mahon was lost. The fact that Byng was poorly supported by the Admiralty in way of fitness of, adequate rating of, and numbers of ships is another matter.
Now having used execution as an example does not mean that I am in favour of capital punishment. Even in the old sailing RN the death penalty was a last resort except for crimes that risked the safety of the ship and all those in her (very similar in essence to the issue here) I would rather the punishment fit the crime, something along the lines of the convicted being forced to endure the conditions of those unfortunates affected by ravages caused by AGW induced climate change. It would be good to see the blowhards (see below) in the media, and other organisations, served out in similar manner.
A rising level of punishment for repeat offences after being cautioned or then later ‘slapped on the wrist’ would be of value. A sight of Monckton having his nose pushed to the grindstone on community service may help here, maybe walking the streets with a sandwich board proclaiming ‘I am not a member of the House of Lords’ would do as a start. I am sure there are other suitable encouragements that could be brought against the Moranos, Basts and Malloys with others against the Watts and Bastardis, the Roses, Delingpoles, Bolts, Marohasys, Codlings. Neither should the Inhofes, Bartons, Rohrabachers etc escape censure.
Keep it up Duff.
Alas, Lionel, I can only give you ‘E’ for Effort on that one. For a start, a ‘calumny’, a lie about a person or persons, cannot “result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people”, it can only harm *reputations*. Still, I like your burgeoning literary style – “peccant”, deliciously archaic! Also, I appreciate your not-so-subtle effort to refute my contention that none of you here have ever read a history book.
Of course, with the very greatest delicacy you abjure the use of the death penalty whilst remaining fairly open-minded about any other punishment considered suitable for those with *the temerity to disagree with you*. I’m surprised your history studies have not indicated to you where that sort of philosophy tends to end, after all, you don’t have to go back very far! Also, I would urge you to beware what you wish for. If bringing down unconsidered hardships onto the heads of innocent people is to be ‘a crime against humanity’, you might wish to look harder at some of the cloud-cuckoo-land ideas propagated by various eco-warriors.
As the planet cools over the next few years, despite CO2 emissions growing ever larger, you will have plenty of time to think about it.
For a start, a ‘calumny’, a lie about a person or persons, cannot “result in the death and suffering of large numbers of people”, it can only harm *reputations*.
Try again, I had in mind the lies of the blowhards and once-upon-a-time scientists who besmirch the reputations of those scientists who are still engaged in science that informs us on how and why climate is changing and how they arrived at their conclusions and by doing so try to sway public opinion away from the inconvenient truth. Note how they do not do this through the scientific literature.
Now that is one ‘cloud-cuckoo-land‘ idea right there. You need to be careful about who you believe.
Here are a number of correctives for your crazy ideas.
And I don’t give a fig for those with the temerity to disagree with me for it is nature itself that they are trying to fool and as we have seen this last year, last ten years, the last twenty years, nature cannot be fooled. But it seems that you can with that nonsense about a planet cooling.
Go back to ogling the Daily Sport, sport.
Blowhard Trivializer of Mass-Murder in Unsubstantiated Belief Shock!
I’m wondering if any of these people that died due to climate change were climate cultist’s ?
An early Happy New Year to ALL
even yoo barnturd
I see David has not backed down from his exaggerations. I wonder why he felt the need to lie to make a stronger case?
His failure to climb down from his hysteria, along with his other dribbling, suggests he believes that people who harm others should not be held accountable, if their beliefs say its okay to do so. Who’s the “Breivik … Himmler … Beria” now?
” As the planet cools over the next few years,”
Still, I suppose its unreasonable to expect any logical consistency from someone prepared to make themselves that much of a hostage to fortune…
Yeah, but which year, Karen?
And, yes, Frank, the irony is that it’s Duff who has revealed himself as the monster who holds the lives of those he doesn’t agree with cheap. This whole ludicrous and confected outrage is one big projection promulgated by those who are themselves among the most dangerous extremists in our community. They fear others will do to them first what they yearn to do…
As the planet cools over the next few years…
Now where have I heard that before?
And how did that pan out? Must go and check…
“I repudiate anyone who suggests that GW deniers should be arrested, tried in court and executed if found guilty.”
Stupid old duffer doesn’t believe in the rule of law either.
FrankD quotes me and then adds:
“” As the planet cools over the next few years,”
Still, I suppose its unreasonable to expect any logical consistency from someone prepared to make themselves that much of a hostage to fortune…”
And what have you been doing, Frank, since you stopped wearing nappies? Why, bless my soul, you have been making yourself a ‘hostage to fortune’, only in your case you were not too fortunate, were you? As Karen’s link (see above) and almost all other indices indicate, it has been yet another ferocious winter. It is now clear to everyone who has not invested their entire adult life into forecasting global warming that there has been none, zilch, nada! I realise how difficult it is to admit error, having been wrong myself about many things, but ‘man up’, chaps, and tell it the way it obviously is, there has been no global warming worth a drop of sweat, your ‘hockey stick’ turned out to be a billiard cue, zillions of tons (or whatever) of extra CO2 pumped out by the Chinese has had little or no effect, arctic ice decreases slightly as Antarctic ice increases and those nice cuddly polar bears are still fornicating like mad (to keep warm, perhaps) as their numbers increase!
I mean, if this is global warming then it simply isn’t good enough! What I want is some global **heating**!
Anyway, through gritted teeth I echo Karen’s New Year good wishes to you all. You might all be crap climate scientists but you add to the gaiety of nations!
Yes, it wouldn’t be winter without the appearance of condescending old man Duff, ghost of science past, claiming that local snow means the globe can’t possibly be warming when the year is, yet again, on track to be in the top ten of warmest ever.
Duff, quick question, if there has been no global warming, what caused the record arctic ice melt?
it has been yet another ferocious winter
Where? It has been ferociously wet in Blighty, but certainly not ferociously cold – quite the opposite in fact. That bubble Duff lives in must be shrinking all the time.
Read Karen’s link
Answer my question Duff – what caused the melting of the arctic ice if it wasn’t the warming you claim isn’t happening because it’s cold where you live in winter? Because nothing on the ridiculous webpage Karenmackspot linked to does.
The troll’s link was not very interesting. Only a science-hater and denier would come up with:
The only people who claim to know what Earth’s climate will do in the future are fools and lairs
I realise how difficult it is to admit error, having been wrong myself about many things, …
Many things? I got the distinct impression you were never wrong about anything.
Where has Dai admitted he’s been wrong on anything?
“it simply isn’t good enough! What I want is some global **heating**!”
Is this how the deniers will continue when there’s no doubt that their past predictions are wrong and that there is a warming trend and it will continue?
Re-define global warming as “more warming than we have” and then say that this global warming doesn’t exist?
Duff wanted us to read at Karen’s link where lord_sidcup found
The only people who claim to know what Earth’s climate will do in the future are fools and lairs…
Ah yes, you see it right there Duff, another example of the calumnies I was alluding to. On that score you were saying…?
But let us complete that statement as written:
—nature keeps its own council.
Nature does what nature does to be sure but as for keeping its own council that clearly comes from a extremely parochial view of human endeavours to understand our part in things. Of course we have never managed to counter the forces of gravity, or the ravages of plagues. We have never managed to gain any control over fire or use wind power to our advantage etc. etc. etc.
And yet, stupid ignorant people like Duff are likely to drive a Porsche into a swollen ford – from 0:30 in the video .
And here is another mark of the misery that has descended upon the country – this in my neck of the woods, although local experience is small change compared to the devastation across large swathes of the country. This is all due to the over active hydrological cycle and redirected jet stream itself a mark of the warming in the Arctic that has seen astonishing summer ice melt.
As we are now there is a distinct lack of ice around Nova Zemelya and Svalbard, try a trip to here: Arctic sea ice graphs and study somewhat.
This is all called climate change and brought on by global warming a sizeable fraction of which is due to US.
Study some other literature on weather and climate if you still cannot see the link.
And it’s “nature keeps its own counsel”.
It doesn’t have a government, you know.
But it’s weird how deniers can mouth this and still assert that “it is cooling”. Really? I thought it kept its own counsel? Are you on the counsel council?
Yep, you see, it’s ultimately impossible to know that the world is warming, or that the oceans are rising.
But one ‘paper’ published by, say, the GWPF can instantly and completely ‘prove’ the opposite. No uncertainties are involved. It’s ‘obvious’!
This kind of infantile Pavlovian reaction is a hallmark of the Denier mind. The fact that many – if not perhaps most – minds are this crude – basically reactive systems for excluding the inconvenient and reconfirming initial beliefs – (and almost-certainly always have been) generally hasn’t mattered too much. But when a problem like AGW comes along…
‘Commonsense’ may well be common. But sensible? Not so much.
And what have you been doing, Frank, since you stopped wearing nappies? Why, bless my soul, you have been making yourself a ‘hostage to fortune’, only in your case you were not too fortunate, were you?
David can’t back down from his exaggerations. Instead he simple adds projection, distraction and a little infantile spite, as expected (and even predicted, in part).
A couple of days ago it was “THREE CHEERS FOR FRANKD”. But now its lame snidiness. If the Duffster were to acknowledge he was over the top with all that guff about “death threats” and “mass homicide”, I’d return the gesture. I’m not expecting to have too, but perhaps David will surprise us all by doing the right thing…
John asked me a question back up there somewhere and I failed to answer it:
“what caused the melting of the arctic ice if it wasn’t the warming you claim isn’t happening because it’s cold where you live in winter?”
to which I can only ask in reply, was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?
“to which I can only ask in reply, ”
So you won’t answer because you can’t or because you daren’t?
“was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?”
There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the “leaked” draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less than previous IPCC report climate model simulations predicted. Tamino at the Open Mind blog and Skeptical Science’s own Alex C have done a nice job refuting this myth. We prefer not to post material from the draft unpublished IPCC report, so refer to those links if you would like to see the figure in question.
…was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?
Invalid question. Why?
Firstly, because you do not differentiate between continental ice mass, including glaciers, and sea ice.
Secondly, because Antarctic Ice is not growing.
Most specifically continental ice is reducing as glacier flow increases with a spurt in acceleration each time an ice shelf collapses.
That latter is one contributor to increased sea ice, so therefore this component does not add to overall ice mass.
This is also one of the reasons why in some parts of the peripheral Antarctic sea ice has increased in area whilst in other sectors it has decreased with fluctuations in location and extent over time as seen here:
Antarctic Sea Ice 1999-2012
Here is some more:
Is Antarctica Melting?
and more general points, although answering a different, but very much related, basic question:
Part Three: Response to Goddard
So Duff it would appear that you simply repeat the idiotic mantra of others without question. I often wonder why intellectually challenged humans were called duffers you provide the answer to that question.
Now this is a must see for those who cannot grasp how polar ice loss can affect weather patterns:
SoMAS / ITPA – Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes .
And still David can’t bring himself to resile from his hysteria about death threats and mass homicide…
It says so much about him!
You have run away from this thread like the disgrace that you are once again having been shown how wrong you are.
” “…was it what caused the Antarctic ice to grow?”
Secondly, because Antarctic Ice is not growing.”
Heck, if you want to give the denier the benefit of trying to work out how in hells name they can be right, you’d get an answer “melting caused the Antarctic ice to grow”.
And it can be seen quite easily that this is true using a warm room, if you don’t mind ruining a new pat of butter.
Put the butter on a much larger flat surface.
Put the butter in the warm room (warm enough to melt butter).
Watch the butter melt.
See the butter spread over the surface.
Melting caused the butter to grow.
In spread over the flat surface.
It just so happens that Peter Sinclair is on this Antarctic ice NOT-growing ball too Next Time Someone Tells you “Antarctic Sea Ice is Growing”, Show them These.. .
Come on Duff!
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.