February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    February 24, 2013

    Nobody seems to find any proof of their existance [sic].

    I have plenty of proof of my existence thanks and this post is one such.

  2. #2 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 24, 2013

    Oh, no, say it ain’t so!!!

    Even Mr. Pachauri, the well-known ‘dhobi-wallah’, ooops, sorry, I mean railway engineer, in charge of the IPCC has admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years!

    Even worse, this rascal had the temerity to suggest that people have the right to question the science, indeed, that questioning was good!

    Whodathunkit?!

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2013

    Epic Fail.

    Duff is even slower than Olaus with the latest already debunked talking point. Although Duff does add his own brand of racism to the pathetic effort.

  4. #4 chek
    February 24, 2013

    Ol’ Duffer seems unaware of the fact that his ‘railway engineer’ was a Bush-era Republican placeman.

    Unfortunately for such shenanigans, he took the job seriously.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    February 24, 2013

    Once again it isn’t hard to see which sites are pushing this nonsense for all its worth, when here is some reality: Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

    FOA Duff and OP IP.

  6. #6 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    February 24, 2013

    So did he say it or didn’t he?

  7. #7 Wow
    February 24, 2013

    Yes, you did say it, Duffer, you UKIP nazi bastard.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 24, 2013

    Last 16 years trend: +0.14C/decade.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 24, 2013

    What deniers say is said and what IS said is often very, VERY different:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w&index=93

  10. #10 mike
    February 24, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    What do you say, guys, you take a break from your usual, motor-mouth, clap-trap hive-yapping for just a second or two and celebrate that the secret “crush” you sicko’s have on gulag-utopias (the foundation, as we all know, of your whole enviro-humbug drill) has just been revealed for all to see!:

    -Google: “climate depot Australian Academics: Democracy should be replaced by ‘elite warrior leadership’ in order to fight global warming” A delightful read!

    -And for a good evisceration of the whole deal, above,–from a “lefty” perspective, no less–Google: “resilience the secret of herding cats” ( Warning! This last article might be offensive to those overly-sensitive Deltoids whose frankly unattractive, spastic-temper-tantrum, spoiled-brat , little-snot, high-dudgeon reflexes are triggered by exposures of their trough-hugging, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrisies.)

    -And just for yucks, comrades, a couple of oldies-but-goodies: Google “youtube Larry Grathwohl on Ayer’s plan” and the Wikipedia article for “Richard Parncuff” (especially the entry’s discussion of “Dick’s” “Politics–Global Warming and the Death Penalty”)

    Hey Deltoids! Did you catch, amidst all that “thinkin’-big”, doom-butt chit-chat, above, that improbable business about how you wimp-toids are all poised to morph into “elite warriors” and all?!! Oh brother! I mean, like, I haven’t had such a guffaw at the expense of you macho-fakes and your preposterous, scary-dude pretensions since that “Climate Hawks” knee-slapper, laughing-stock, slicko-PR, dud-on-arrival, re-branding attempt of yours that quickly sunk into oblivion beneath waves of blogospheric, cat-call merriment. Oh brave new world!–Jeez.

    So, Deltoids, maybe you complete weenie-rejects figure if you can just repackage yourselves as “elite eco-warriors” then maybe the popular-kids and the school athletes will finally quite making fun of you and calling you a “Dork!” and all (those all too abundant scenes of your youthful humiliation are always at play in a continuous loop within your “still-angry-about-it!”, vindictive, “they’ll-be-sorry-when-I’m-a-commissar!, brain-washed pea-brains–right Deltoids?). Is that it, Deltoids?

    Or, maybe, Deltoids, it’s more along the lines that you see yourselves, when all suited up in your “elite warrior” leathers and jack-boots, as finally getting your wanker-ass laid. Right? What a joke, that last! Let’s get real Deltoids–what woman would ever want to get it on with one of you nerd-pukes knowing that at least one of your forefingers, its nail chewed to the quick, has spent its every waking moment either groping for goobers in some one nostril or another or transporting said nasal-harvest to some one creep-out, greenshirt pie-hole or another to Gaia’s greater glory! You really, really don’t want to get your booger-eating hopes up here, Deltoids.

    Hate to break the news to you aspiring “elite warriors”, but you Deltoids need to just stick with your little-sneak, tattle-tale, suck-up, chicken-little, Tim!-the-big-boys-are-being-mean-to-me!, I-just-can’t-stand-it-when-the-girls-all-laugh-at-me-when-I-ask-them-for-dates-and-then-you-see-them-later-in-little-groups-all-giggling-and-sneakin’-peeks-at-me-and-pointing-in-my-direction-when-they-think-I’m-not-looking!, whiny-crybaby, in-your-face-sell-out-parasite schtick. At least you’re credible in that mode, guys.

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    February 24, 2013

    Graham Lloyd does it again:

    Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer – following a record melt last winter – was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

    You’d think that somebody paid to write this crap would at least pay attention to what he is writing.

    Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

    I see, Graham’s angling to up his income by being given a new weekly column discussing the evidence that moon landings were faked.

    Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming.

    Does Graham Lloyd use James Delingpole and other secondary sources instead of primary sources? That would explain why he has yet again made a mistake that warrants a correction and apology, again.

  12. #12 bill
    February 24, 2013

    Can we just get rid of the under-medicated freak altogether?

    Seriously, his posts amount to nothing more than a litany of poo-based abuse – they are as devoid on content as his nappies (sorry, moron, ‘diapers’) were brimming.

    Hey mike, isn’t that your momma coming? She’s looking really cross – and is that the secateurs she’s holding?

  13. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    February 24, 2013

    Who’s mike?

  14. #15 mike
    February 24, 2013

    Vince,

    yr: “Who’s mike?”

    Good question, Vince. “mike” is the “little-guy”, you hold in such contempt, the “uppity-peasant”, the “serf-with-an-attitude”, the “helot-whose-consciousness-has-been-raised”, the “peon-who-has-you-hive-bozos-spotted”. and the “expendable-useless-eater-with-the-impertinence-to want-a-say-in-his-betters’-Philosopher-King/Cull-Master-big-plans”.

    In other words, Vince, “mike” is your worst nightmare and an inconvenience in your pursuit of your parasite, screw-you-I-got-mine, eco-aristocrat monopoly on rip-off-the-little-guy good-deals.

    Like I said, Vince, a good question you posed–and, please, if you don’t like the answer then don’t ask the question. Fair enough?

    bill,

    And, oh by the way, bill, ol’ sport, I think my comment’s calling attention to the anti-democratic character of you greenshirt creep-outs is hardly just “a litany of poo-based abuse.” But you already know that, don’t you, bill? And that’s why I so got under your skin with my previous comment and extracted from you an especially booger-brain, frantic display of your “Tim! Tim!” fearless trough-defender crybaby-reflex.

  15. #16 FrankD
    February 24, 2013

    Some goose who thinks its worth using up over hundred of our increasingly scarce hyphens to tell us two academics agree with Plato – crikey, thats never happened before!

    “The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering—every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation …”

    Plato forgot to mention that some of the sailors are working with a gang of wreckers, and will make an obol or two out of ensuring the ship runs onto the rocks. Morano is just the guy hanging up the false lights in this instance.

  16. #17 Nick
    February 25, 2013

    “mike” is more interested in being the hero in his own cartoon world. He wants to be ‘worst nightmare’ for somebody, anybody.

  17. #18 bill
    February 25, 2013

    ‘Democracy’ as constructed by morons – everyone must endlessly and uncomplainingly endure the consequences of my abusive toilet training.

    I think not. There are fetish sites all over the net. Go find one, and leave the grownups to their discussion.

  18. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Oh, I see – mike’s that imbecile who drops big chunks of drivel which I always skip over in order to get to the next comment.

    I’ve noticed that occasionally Tim Lambert edits Mike’s posts to make them more compact and comprehensible.

    Either way, back to Graham Lloyd – he will have to issue yet another correction over his repetitiion of James Delingpole’s false statement about what the UK Met Office has said, right?

  19. #20 mike
    February 25, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Any of you–even just one–of you care to take exception with the “elite warrior leadership”, anti-democratic ideas of those estimable “academics”–Smith and Shearman.

    You know, Deltoids, I’m beginning to think you good-comrade, eco-Stasi-wannabes are all bought into the top-down,hive-masters-know-best, nasty designs of the above, golden-souled gentlemen of the academy. But then, I’m one of those lost-souls that “Comrade Lew” studies all really scientifically-like and all, and who is given over to completely irrational “conspiracy theories.”

    I mean, like, Smith and Shearman are just saying “out-loud” what you hive-bozos have been saying all along behind our backs–right, Deltoids?

    Again, though, any Deltoid want to step-up and denounce the noxious views of Smith and Shearman?

  20. #21 bill
    February 25, 2013

    See the thing is, mike, that most of us just scroll right past your distasteful spatterings.

    The sum of your life – you are a skidmark in the gusset of humanity.

  21. #22 rhwombat
    February 25, 2013

    Vince@ p5#14: mike’s not a who, it’s a rather pathetic what-pathology-is-that (need to use some of the endangered hyphens before they’re all gone).

  22. #23 Andrew Strang
    February 25, 2013

    Mike seems very hurt, to have cultivated so much spite in his heart.

  23. #24 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    I don’t know who Smith and Shearman are, but from mike’s “academics”, I assume they are in fact academics, and mike is suffering a severe case of intellect-envy.

    If there’s one thing these morons *really* hate, it’s smart people. With a passion.

    They hate us because the chicks love a clever guy, and don’t much love a fat, spiteful, moron.

  24. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Guaranteed, mike is fat.

  25. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Fatter than Al Gore.

  26. #27 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2013

    Does Graham Lloyd use James Delingpole and other secondary sources instead of primary sources?

    Nah, he uses tertiary and higher sources – beautifully illustrated by our collection of trolls, Brad Keyes included – who themselves only use secondary sources at best – and even then they have a strong preference for the dodgy ones.

  27. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    I’m tempted to call James Delingpole a Primary source, though – most of what he writes is completely original and unrelated to anybody’s research.

    Unlike Graham Lloyd, who obviously logs in to Anthony Watts’ crank blog every day for inspiration (never more so than now that no Aussie climate scientist accepts his calls), that dickhead Delingpole sits down and makes up his nonsense from scratch.

  28. #29 bill
    February 25, 2013

    ‘Shearman’ will turn out to be David Shearman, no doubt, a medical doctor and the former head of the Conservation Council here in SA. He co-wrote this book 6 years ago. Move outside Denier world and actually read the authors’ notes to get the point.

    The fact that you’ve never heard of it speaks volumes for the enthusiasm with which this “endorsement of authoritarianism” was received. The central point that the longer we allow ourselves to be held back by heeding the squelchings of muck like mike, the more likely it is that measures taken to deal with the crisis will have to be draconian remains perfectly valid.

    The first I heard of it was the usual-suspects touting it predictably – here’s the egregious Alex Jones, mike’s intellectual mentor, for instance ‘IPCC Professor calls for Eco dictatorship‘. I.e. it became one of those ‘how many lies can you cram into one sentence’ exercises the Denialati are so fond of.

    This formed a pretty-good introduction to the ethical and intellectual level of Denial.

  29. #30 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Look here, Graham Lloyd’s recent article about windpower was wrong, according to the experts:
    http://www.acoustics.asn.au/forms/Weekend_Australian-Letter_to_the_Editor.pdf

    I don’t suppose he issued a correction for that one…?

  30. #31 chameleon
    February 25, 2013

    Vince!
    I am starting to fear for your sanity!
    Comments like these are just ridiculous and laughable:
    ” If there’s one thing these morons *really* hate, it’s smart people. With a passion.”
    Is that right Vince?
    How do you come to that amazing and rather passionate conclusion?
    and :
    ” Unlike Graham Lloyd, who obviously logs in to Anthony Watts’ crank blog every day for inspiration (never more so than now that no Aussie climate scientist accepts his calls), that dickhead Delingpole sits down and makes up his nonsense from scratch.”
    You have supplied no evidence for these type of comments Vince.
    Ironically, you are more than likely guilty of simply making up nonsense from scratch.

  31. #32 bill
    February 25, 2013

    Chebbie – are you mike’s mum?

  32. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    a/ Mike’s a moron
    b/ he hates us

    = intellect envy.

    Check out the halfwits busy leaving their comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog – they hate scientists, they hate all smart people.

    = intellect envy.

  33. #34 rhwombat
    February 25, 2013

    Now that little mike’s taken his quetiapine , cleaned up the furtive stains around his keyboard and returned to his nightly battle with the enuresis monster, perhaps we could return to goring Chief Murdorc Lloyd.

    Worth looking at Croakey for Melissa Sweet’s (now there’s a tautological name) commentary on Leigh Dayton’s lament:
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2013/02/24/from-the-perfect-job-to-an-endangered-species-the-demise-of-science-journalism-and-why-it-matters/

  34. #35 bill
    February 25, 2013

    Ooh, I note there’s a veritable spate of regurgitating the ‘Warmist Academics / IPCC Professors call for Totalitarian World Government’ meme across the blottosphere based on reheating this one 6 year-old non-event .

    Well, that’s groupthink for you; this dismal little exercise in recycling is the idiot meme du jour!

    See, when you don’t have any fancy-schmancy science to back you up you gotta go with re-gurg-it-ation

    Phhhht!

    Pa.

    Thet.

    Ic.

    Nearly as drearily predictable and as tendentious as Lloyd’s latest effort in the Oz.

    Meanwhile, the grownups really shouldn’t be missing this one.

  35. #36 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2013

    Does anyone else find it as ironic as I do that Brad is a walking case study highlighting the dangers of bucking the scientific consensus in a field you’re not personally competent in?

    (That, and the irony of his obsession with arguing that scientific consensus isn’t scientific evidence – which few if any subscribe to – whilst he appears to repeatedly indulge in appeals to individual authority which are far more likely to mislead those who aren’t personally competent than going with the scientific consensus – and worse still, to the authority of secondary sources?)

  36. #37 chameleon
    February 25, 2013

    I find it amazing that you comment about Brad K where he can’t engage with you Lotharsson.
    Go to the appropriate thread C****D!

  37. #38 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Amazing how you had to say that here on this thread, chubby.

    Go fuck off, you ignorant twat.

  38. #39 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2013

    I find it amazing that you comment about Brad K where he can’t engage with you Lotharsson.

    I see you’re still reliably unable to distinguish between talking about someone and talking to someone. It must be particularly challenging to go through life that way.

    BTW, if talking about someone is not kosher in your book, I look forward to your condemnation of Brad as a C****D! for talking about Mann, Schneider, Jones, Cook and others instead of talking to them. When can we expect to see your comment to this effect?

  39. #40 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    I don’t even understand why chubby has her knickers in a twist over it. It’s not like they don’t talk about other people on that thread rather than talk here.

    And Bray continues to think that he’s been especially invited as “guest speaker” on this blog, so if he’s right and wanted to, he could post here.

    But I fail to understand why chubby worries in the least about it.

  40. #41 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2013

    I’m also chuckling at the (ahem) cowardice involved in calling someone a “C****D”. Truly, self-awareness is not strong in this one.

  41. #42 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2013

    Brad’s legendary comprehension skills – and his occasional ability to type someone’s name when it’s sitting right in front of him – fail him once more:

    But your lame attempt to paint me as a C****D is pure p********n, Lothar.

    I was pointing out based on the evidence at hand at the time that chameleon was (once again) applying double standards.

    Furthermore, it’s rather interesting that Brad judges my comment based on evidence NOT on hand to anyone but Brad. That’s beyond “lame” – that’s mendacious. C’est la Brad, c’est la Brad.

  42. #43 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “Brad’s legendary incomprehension skills”

    FTFY.

  43. #44 bill
    February 25, 2013

    Gee, Mann and Jones got to experience a brush with pure greatness…

  44. #45 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Basil Brush?

  45. #46 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    C****D

    Custard?

    p********n

    Perihelion?

  46. #47 jerryg
    February 25, 2013

    Wow: I thought it was Cupid and Passion :)

  47. #48 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Well, given Bray’s penchant for making up words, it could be Carboned and pianofortedn.

  48. #49 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    And another thing,

    BBD

    I note that you have commented on Rotten to the Core and indeed Tamino has jumped on this one too.with ‘Ludeckerous.

    Now BK isn’t going to like that word ‘Ludeckerous‘, it not being in a dictionary but he will discover who Willard is if he reads through. On the way he will also discover the difference between science and pseudo-science of the Willard kind and why we discount Willard Climatology.

  49. #50 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Duffer Duff and hangers on take note:

    So did he say it or didn’t he?

    Did who say what?

    You never ever write anything with accurate and relevant citation do you Duff.

    Whatever, if it is this you are faffing about:

    Even Mr. Pachauri, the well-known ‘dhobi-wallah’, ooops, sorry, I mean railway engineer, in charge of the IPCC has admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years!

    then here is your answer Did Murdoch’s The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?.

    So in short, on the basis of lack of provable veracity of the noises coming from the arch-miscommunicator, Graham Lloyd building upon the already debunked words of another, David Rose, then the answer is probably not.

    Meanwhile the planet continues to heat up. Why do you think water is used in cooling (auto’s) and heating systems (domestic)?

  50. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    news.com.au have relayed the following article – how long before Graham Lloyd comes up with his own idiosyncratic take on this? And will he go for mis-quoting, re-interpreting, or adding-in crank commentary?

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/new-study-links-extreme-weather-to-climate/story-e6frfkui-1226585740683

    Only time will tell….

    Incidentally, I notice news.com.au doesn’t have an “environment” or a “science” section.
    I was sure they used to have one….

  51. #53 Ian Forrester
    February 26, 2013

    Here is another example of the lies, ignorance and arrogance shown by Keyes. He is a know nothing who just likes to disgree with anything anyone says.

    Back on page 4 of this thread (comment # 72: I wrote:

    I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth

    Keyes responded in his usual insulting, dishonest and completely wrong fashion by stating (page 28 comment #7 of his thread):

    Citation?

    Oh, that’s right—you just made it up.

    Well here is a list of those who have made these statements:

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22science+is+not+about+consensus%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22consensus+does+not+exist+in+science%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Anyone who checks these citations will see that they are made regularly by well know and not so well known AGW deniers.

    I wont hold my breath waiting on an apology from Keyes since that would show a sign of humility which he completely lacks.

    It is also interesting to review what is meant by “scientific consensus. That can be found here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

    Another interesting point is “scientific opinion”:

    Scientific opinion

    A “scientific opinion” is the general opinion of a professional scientific body gained through extensive research with a reproducible, unbiased conclusion soundly based upon the facts derived from the experiment. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. “The scientific opinion” (or scientific consensus) can be compared to “the public opinion” and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

    Seems that Keyes’ sphere of intellectual aptitude is rapidly shrinking.

  52. #54 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2013

    Re: Ludeckerous, this episode has the potential to provide a significant hit to Zorita’s credibility, particularly since he is being quoted saying he was happy with both the review process and its outcomes – despite reviewers publicly pointing out that their strongly negative comments were effectively ignored.

  53. #55 Stu
    February 26, 2013

    Brad is an incompetent sophist. People in the corner bar are impressed with his thesaurus skills, and he’s trying them out in the Interwebs. He was initially very offended to be ridiculed and then banished to his own thread, but DUM-DUM-DUM… cognitive dissonance to the rescue! It is now a thread he feels is in his honor, where he can make the rules, and where he can feel justified having little po-mo snits whenever his wisdom is challenged.

    He reminds me of someone.

  54. #56 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2013

    There’s simply no way this clown ever made it through a single college-level course on propositional logic or set theory.

    Back in the day I lectured and tutored some final year Comp. Sci subjects, including some with a more technical/mathematical focus.

    The number of students who were graduating despite having major difficulties with the subject was almost astounding. It did give me a useful insight though – if I were hiring for a commercial position, I would only consider the top 10% or so, as anyone scraping through the subject really didn’t have useful competence in it.

  55. #57 mike
    February 26, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Just got the chance to review the earlier, up-thread comments addressed to me, by Deltoid’s finest. Typical doltish, feckless, waste-of-my-valuable-time , phony-big-talk-act, snot-nosed, complete-loser, spastic-dork, make-mummy-proud, two-bit-freud-toid, social-reject, Deltoid-land B. S., of the sort I’ve come to expect from you improbable, creep-out eco-retards. And to think you Philosopher King wannabees are supposed to be the hive’s ace smartypants and its alpha, smart-mouth dudes. Jeez–I’m embarassed for you, guys.

    One exception to the above critique of this blog’s relevant commentary. And that’s FrankD’s comment with it’s memorable, put-down-zinger reference to me as a “goose”, no less! I’ll be honest, I was (and am) flummoxed by that one. And my somewhat lame immediate response to FrankD, reflects that.

    I mean, like, I ask you, what sort of riposte connects with a guy, like FrankD, who comes at you with that unique, hair-in-a-bun, Mary-Poppins-bad-ass invective of his? Been kickin’ it around and here’s the best I’ve got so far:

    I’m thinkin’ maybe, like, I could disparage FrankD’s Julie Andrews collection on the basis that, while complete, it’s not in vinyl? Or maybe I could correct his pronunciation of “Supercalifragislisticexpialidocious? Or just maybe, I could point out with a feigned, really unctuous delicacy and sensitivity that he can’t lip-synch “Chim Chim Cher-ee” for shit? Or maybe, even, I could just maliciously poke ribald fun at FrankD’s parasol? I dunno, but, despite their undeniable merits, I really just don’t feel like any of the above counter-zingers will really work with FrankD.

    So I mean, like, you know FrankD, guys, so help me out, will yah–what works with him?

  56. #58 bill
    February 26, 2013

    Nobody reads your crap, mike.

    BTW, Is it true you self-inflicted a brain injury while attempting an act of auto-felching? With a dirty straw?

    Anyway, how do you contend with people whose entire raison d’etre appears to be to ceaselessly pump out the shite? Ben Cubby has wondered..

  57. #59 chek
    February 26, 2013

    Whenever li’ll mike appears the first thing that springs to mind is the expression ‘waste of space’.

    But li’ll mike goes on and on and bloody on saying nothing, so ‘waste of space-time’ seems more appropriate.
    And it’s hyphenated.

  58. #60 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    If deniers weren’t so apt to deny anything they didn’t want to acknowledge, mike would be of some use: he’d be used to point out how the anti-IPCC brigade are as bad or worse than any pro-IPCC brigade.

    But mike’s antics aren’t even read by his fellow denier trolls.

  59. #61 Betula
    February 26, 2013

    “Previous studies have shown that there are 50-year-long trends in the properties of the Antarctic bottom water, and Williams said the latest study will help better assess those changes, perhaps providing clues for climate change modeling.”

    Assess? Clues for climate change modeling? I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-australia-antarctic-seals-idUSBRE91P03020130226

  60. #62 chek
    February 26, 2013

    I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

    Only the numptiest of numpties takes ‘settled’ to mean ‘everything is known’. Which is why you can always count on deniers to hit that lowliest of levels.

  61. #63 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    I thought the future was settled?

    Yes, you probably would.

  62. #64 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    Bray is busy whistling for help over in his jail.

    Poor little lamb, lost without someone to say something he can quote mine or complain “LIAR!!!” about.

  63. #65 Betula
    February 26, 2013

    Wow,
    Are you saying the future prediction for climate change may be wrong?
    Denier!

  64. #66 Andrew Strang
    Australia
    February 26, 2013

    re 58

    I prefer the sing-zing silence of the master above Mike.

  65. #67 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    “Denier!”

    Really?

    Denying what, Betty?

  66. #68 BBD
    February 26, 2013

    # 50 Lionel A

    Sorry for the slow response. Believe it or not, this is my first look at this thread. I see that I should have been paying more and closer attention…

    And Christ there’s a nauseating stink on the other thread. It’s nice to be away from that.

  67. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    Ian Forrester:

    I wont hold my breath waiting on an apology from Keyes since that would show a sign of humility which he completely lacks.

    Hmm. That’s strange, because I apologized to Lionel A when it (belatedly) dawned on me that I’d been attributing your mendacious claims to him.

    (Lionel, I’d like to reiterate my apology to you and your family.)

    It is also interesting to review what is meant by “scientific consensus. That can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

    No it can’t.

    If you’re genuine in your desire to know “what is meant by” words, you need to use a freakin’ dictionary, not Wikipedia. Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

    Another interesting point is “scientific opinion”:

    Scientific opinion

    A “scientific opinion” is the general opinion of a professional scientific body…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

    
*Sigh.* Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

  68. #70 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    Naughty boy.
    Back in your cage: liars aren’t welcome here.

  69. #71 BBD
    February 26, 2013

    That’s odd. Did someone leave a door open?

  70. #72 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    There’s a stink wafting in.

  71. #73 BBD
    February 26, 2013

    I hope Brad isn’t going to spend weeks not answering straightforward questions here as well. That would be too much, even for me.

  72. #74 chek
    February 26, 2013

    ‘sfunny, looks like “Brad” somwhow forgot to apologise to Stu for his unacceptable reaction when callled out on his disgusting and evasive behaviour to comment #75 here

    Strangely, Calumny also failed to be offended too.

  73. #75 Vince Whirlwind
    February 26, 2013

    Betula says,

    I thought the future (based on current climate change models) was settled?

    Gosh, turns out you were wrong. Isn’t that a surprise?

  74. #76 Vince Whirlwind
    February 26, 2013

    If you’re genuine in your desire to know “what is meant by” words, you need to use a freakin’ dictionary, not Wikipedia. Your determined avoidance of legitimate lexicography is telling.

    And yet….even Wikipedia does better at defining this concept than does Brad.

    What a shame – expensive Arts degree and you’re less use than Wikipedia.

  75. #77 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    These responses will be going back to Bray’s jail thread.

  76. #78 bluegrue
    February 26, 2013

    As quite a few of the commenters here use their service here’s a little heads-up:

    webcitation.org is asking for donations in order to keep up their service. Go visit their homepage for more info.

  77. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    It’s true, in their own way, each of Betula, mike, Chameleon, and Brad demonstrate their politically-motivated position rests on lies and/or stupidity.

    Remember Chameleon’s concocted Tim Flannery quotes? And now she claims she isn’t on anybody’s “side”.

    Sure you aren’t Chameleon, that’s why all your mistakes go in one direction only….

  78. #80 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Andrew Strang,

    Yr: “I prefer the sing-zing silence of the master above Mike”

    Hey Andy! Look, guy, I like a cryptic, oracular, mysterioso zen-goober as much as the next guy. But I’ve been havin’ a little ptosis problem with my “third eye” here lately so could you kinda, like, you know, be so kind as to spell out for me just what the “frack” you’re talkin’ about in that latest guru-flake-wannabe, mind-blowing-I-guess, ascended-master-of-the-booger-phage-brotherhood, etheric-body-cosmic-joy-ride, underage-drinking, like-totally-far-out-man, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida-baby-Iron-Butterfly utterance of yours?

    Thanks, guy.

  79. #81 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Andrew Strang,

    Hey, Andy! Please change that “underage-drinking” term in my last comment to “possible-underage-drinking-related”.

    You know I’m just joshin’ with you, Andy. You know, like you’ve been just joshin’ with me and all. It’s what ol’ buddies do, right, Andy?

  80. #82 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    Someone is seriously damaged.

  81. #83 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Nah BJ, li’ll mike’s a harmless overweight retired insurance clerk who wishes now that he’d had the guts to go kerouacing fifty years ago. But didn’t.

  82. #84 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Bernard J,

    Yr: “Someone is seriously damaged.”

    For once, BJ, we are in total agreement and I’m sure your referent is Wow (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow) for his “Go fuck off you stupid twat”–said to chameleon, a lady commenter on this blog. Of course there are many more “damaged” Deltoids runnin’ their mouths on this blog, so you may have had others, as well as, Wow in mind, I know.

    I mean, like, BJ, you do think Wow, at a minimum, is one, big-time, “damaged” Deltoid, don’t you?

  83. #85 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 27, 2013

    It’s like controlled crying, li’l mike, something else you’ll have to ask an adult about.

  84. #86 Andrew Strang
    Australia
    February 27, 2013

    re 81, 82

    I don’t believe your mask.

  85. #87 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    I think between BBD and Wow and Bernard J and Vince (and more) they’ve nailed BK.

    He simply won’t answer a straight question about his reasons for believing things that go against the mainstream conclusions of climate science, preferring instead to throw up a smokescreen of his own questions (which lately, rather Latimer-like, are almost entirely irrelevant quibbles about definitions that no-one here is relying on in their critique of BK’s climate science position).

    His pattern of behaviour makes it hard to simultaneously rule out all three of: lying, mental illness and ignorance. See for instance merely the latest few of many – the assertion that he’s “defending the scientific process tooth and nail” when he personally refuses to accept the results of that process and literally denies rejecting those results, the apparent self-delusions about the superiority of his own faculties and the complete lack of change of position on any number of issues when it is demonstrated that his argument is fallacious or that evidence undermines it.

    His latest dodge – we have to totally agree on his definition of “evidence” before he will provide any otherwise it is “pointless” to do so – is not only fallacious, but appears to be a transparent attempt to avoid the question (and one must speculate on the possibility it is an attempt to prepare the ground for some rather dodgy “evidence”, but we may never know as he seems to be heavily invested in NOT providing “reasons” for his position despite the negative impact on whatever credibility he imagines he has here).

  86. #88 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Andy,

    Yr: “I don’t believe your mask”

    Mask? I have a mask? A mask that lacks credibility even?

    Is all that right, Andy? Care to elaborate?

    This should be fun.

  87. #89 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Nobody reads your crap, mike.

  88. #90 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Hey Andy!

    Did you catch bill’s, “Nobody reads your crap, mike.” I mean, like, since you read my “crap”, Andy, it kinda inescapably looks like ol’ bill just called you a “nobody”!

    Anything you might want to say to bill, Andy?

  89. #91 FrankD
    February 27, 2013

    Hey mike, sorry the “zinger” didn’t live up to your need to be other peoples buttmunch. I’m not sure if your from Oz, but in case you aren’t, “goose” is the sort of tag you would use for the harmlessly stupid – someone who is so ridiculous that their daftness is not worth wasting any decent insult on.

    See, I don’t often read your posts – often they’ve been disemvowelled before I see them – and when I do they mostly don’t inspire any reaction, except a faint giggle at your attempts at catchy neologisms – it’s like watching the little kid throwing punches at the bigger kid who’s holding him at arms length. I don’t think your a fucktard or a moron or whatever else you’re fishing for. I just think you’re a goose.

    By the way – you got the wrong sort of “wrecker”. I guess even rolling over a link is a bit tricky.

    And as to what works on me – that’s simple. I’m totally oblivious to anything said to me here unless its by someone who has previously earned my respect. That’s not you.

    Keep on hyphening, goose.

  90. #92 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    # 88 Lotharsson

    Good summary. To be clear, while I agree with Bernard J on the narcissism, when I say mental illness, I refer explicitly to the pathology of denial.

    Since BK is adamant that his rejectionism is not motivated by politics, and he admits to knowing nothing about the science, he is either lying about his politics or he is in denial.

    He is apparently unable or unwilling to clarify this further despite repeated, specific questioning on these points.

    FWIW I think he is both lying about his politics and in denial. Not to mention his admitted ignorance of the scientific evidence.

    The man is a disgrace.

  91. #93 mike
    February 27, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Check out FrankD’s last (#92)! That’s how it’s done, guys.

  92. #94 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    hey, mikeunt, check out FrankD’s post. Why do you never do it that way?

  93. #95 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    BBD, I agree that it would certainly be unwise to rule out combinations of more than one of the factors you proposed.

    I am further amused by BK’s assertion that he hasn’t claimed to have rejected climate science, which is an obvious strawman and a continuation of the bad faith tactics. I suspect that he’s used to having an audience who buy the shit he’s selling and he hasn’t got a clue what to do when there aren’t any takers (other than chameleon).

  94. #96 Sou
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
    February 27, 2013

    Wonder if someone can have a peep at this and tell me who is the crazy person – me or the subject of my latest post:

    A curious tale of a bloggie winner and his dog

    Neither he nor any of his commenters seem to have figured out what UCS found wanting, which leaves me wondering.

    (Hope no-one minds me linking to me, or interrupting. I couldn’t believe my eyes so my eyes may be betraying me! Who better to ask than the crowd at Tim’s blog, I said to myself :D)

  95. #97 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    In a change from discussing BK … or is it? ;-) … a post about the recent Lewandowsky et al. paper appears at the Denialism Blog, where the poster writes:

    Finally the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.

    The extended quote from the paper that follows will no doubt set off certain commenters, what with its message that science communicators should probably not bother with direct engagement with conspiratorial ideationists (because it’s ineffective and their numbers are actually quite small), but especially due to its recommendation to underscore the “breadth of consensus among scientists” where necessary ;-)

    The poster continues:

    Don’t argue with cranks. I can’t agree more. And historically this is what has worked with denialist groups. You don’t debate them as if they’re honest brokers, you treat them as the defective brains that they are, and eventually, their influence dwindles, and they’ll be reduced to a small community of losers sharing their delusions of grandeur and righteous indignation in some tiny corner of the internet.

    That kinda fits some of our troll jail threads, no? ;-)

    And comments #8 and #9 seem particularly apt too.

  96. #98 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “The extended quote from the paper that follows will no doubt set off certain commenters”

    And blog owners here. If ever they said anything.

  97. #99 Lotharsson
    February 27, 2013

    Neither he nor any of his commenters seem to have figured out what UCS found wanting, which leaves me wondering.

    Historical evidence demonstrates that that’s not a good basis for wondering.

  98. #100 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “That kinda fits some of our troll jail threads, no?”

    No.

    The jail threads are still a platform given to them to prattle on. Let them prattle on their own turf or public property.

1 3 4 5 6 7 10