More thread for you.
“You do this despite the fact that you are arguing without evidence and without expertise against the scientific consensus”
There is no argument, only fact. The predicted future climate scenarios are predictions (fact), concentrated on worst case (fact), filled with unknowns, uncertainties and assumptions (fact), hyped, exaggerated and embellished by the likes of you (fact), in order to get the rich nations to pay for their sins by redistributing monies to poor nations to reduce poverty as directed by the World Bank (fact), through a “climate lens” (fact), to help the U.N meet it’s Millennium Development Goals (fact).
The same U.N that started the IPCC (fact) which is filled with both scientists non scientist (fact), many of who are representatives for their countries (fact) that are in need of a handout (fact).
And you are a tool (fact).
Does anyone else think I should change the name of HotWhopper to this?
It has panache, don’t you think? Looks like some people reckon HotWhopper gave them a right old walloping. (That forum is run by deniers/rejects from WeatherZone.)
@ Bill #98 – Thing is, if there is a landslide to the libs and nationals, it won’t necessarily be a swing to the right of the libs and nationals. In fact I could see Abbott being ousted within six months from the PM’s job.
It depends on who’s given pre-selection. But IIRC quite a number of “wets” got ousted last time around, so the balance of power within the coalition might not swing Abbott’s way. We could have Turnbull or one of the old brigade get the PM’s job. More of a Hewson type or similar.
That would mean the carbon price would remain and climate efforts would continue.
We can hope.
bush jr was the far better president. he would stop wasting money for the ipcc now
we will soon have a decent rep POTUS
No, stay with HotWhopper Sou.
You talk so much shit and tell so many porkie pie’s, the name fits like a glove.
Bill at #99 on the previous page.
Unless the Labor Party can shut down the entrenched media campaign across Australia that focusses on fomenting faux controversy and ramping up public hysteria, and instead direct it onto the policy vacuum that is the current opposition’s only card in the deck besides their mud-slinging politics, Abbott will still win.
A more reasonable outcome to expect would be to keep the Senate out of Abbott’s hands – this at least would ensure that he does not get carte blanche to do whatever he wants. And what Abbott and his rabid Denialati mates want includes completely removing a price on carbon, which would represent the single most significant and perniciously regressive act of political bastardry and ecological/humanitarian vandalism in the country’s history. Given the symbolic significance of this act it is quite possible that emissions reduction efforts around the planet could be held back for years, and we no longer have years left – frankly we don’t even have months.
The other major future-sabotage that the Coalition has planned is to completely hamstring the impending optical-fibre national broadband network by hooking it up to each household using a decrepit last-century copper connection. The pennies saved will be billions of dollars forked out in the near future to undo the Abbott-Turnbull blunder and drag Australian back to 21st century information technology. That’s if there are actually any pennies saved at all – some analysts have calculated that even in the near-term the Abbott-Turnbull model is no cheaper than a proper optical-fibre-to-the-house roll-out of the network, because the copper infrastructure is so stuffed.
The sad fact is that Australians are largely too intellectually unsophisticated, too politically ignorant, and/or too socially apathetic to understand the import of the ideologies of current right-wing parties in Australian politics. I heard an interesting comment yesterday – such parties are no longer actually ‘conservative’ in the traditional sense, and haven’t been for several decades. They are reactionary – and Tony Abbott epitomises the right-wing reactionary.
In three or four election-cycles’ time the Coalition will likely suffer at least as devastating reduction in presence as the Queensland Labor party suffered in their last state election, as Australians finally wake up, but by then a generation’s serious damage will have been wrought on the country. At least for that long – if Abbott has his way as he’s expressed over the last three years, his policies (such as they are) would set the country up for a long-term decline from which it may never recover, as is being evidenced across Europe and in other Western countries.
It will likely be too late then, and I worry for my young children’s futures as adults. If Turnbull can knife Abbott in the back and rescind his nonsensical stance on the NBN we might have a different future, but I doubt that he has the backbone to challenge Abbott’s overweening megalomania and fundamentalist superstitions and biases.
The really sad thing for Australian politics today is the announced retirements of Rob Oakshot and Tony Windsor. These two men (along with Andrew Wilkie) have been towers of integrity in a largely lack-lustre body politic. If more of our representatives conducted themselves as Oakshot and Windsor have done ours would truly be the mythic Lucky Country.
So let’s hope that the Senate at least is saved. Of course, Abbott’s response to that would likely be a double dissolution, which could in turn quite possibly lock in the more extreme manifestations of his fundie reactionaryist agenda for at least another decade after, so perhaps the chances of a decent future for us is slim indeed…
I have to agree with the faccid old taxi driver, the mad monk won’t dump the carbon tax.
They are all puppets for the bankers.
” in order to get the rich nations to pay for their sins by redistributing monies to poor nations to reduce poverty as directed by the World Bank (fact), through a “climate lens” (fact), to help the U.N meet it’s Millennium Development Goals (fact).”
Conveniently left out of this absurd little rant is the fact that the rich nations have long been plundering the poor nations of their resource wealth. Its what the “Washington Consensus” is all about. The US and other developed nations have only been able to attain wealth and to maintain their wealth disparity through what can be best described as looting. Read George Kennan’s infamous 1948 memo and that becomes clear.
Every developed nation on Earth finances and maintains large per capita ecological deficits. The average US citizen requires approx. 11 hectares to support his/her resource consumption and waste production (ecological footprint), but there is only just over 5.5. hectares of land per American citizen on average. So how is the deficit offset? That should be patently obvious (but not to right wing blowhards like [John] Betula-Birch). Through exploiting a rapciously unfair global economic hair-trigger economic system that protects domestic markets but plunders capital from the poor countreis of the south. It also explains why the US maintains military bases in 140 countries, why it is expanding its bases in Africa (Africom) and South America (Southcom) as well as investing in expansionist wars in the Persian Gulf and working hard to influence governments in the Caucasus that have huge amounts of natural gas.
It has nothing to do with the promotion of democracy, which US elites have long hated, but to ensure that capital and resource flows remain largely uni-directional. As for the World Bank, what Betula really means is the United States Treasury in another name, since the WB is largley aimed at ensuring US hegemony.
@ #1 Sou
Such poetry. Such eloquence. Feel the, ahem, love.
Dear oh dear oh dear…
Read Jeff’s response to your economically, scientifically and morally illiterate *shite* on the previous page.
I reiterate – you are misrepresenting the dangers of climate change and denying the scientific consensus from a position of total ignorance and without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.
But as you demonstrate over the page, this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your malignant politics.
Hence your pernicious intellectual dishonesty and the richly deserved revulsion with which you are viewed by many here.
so bernard admits that climate hystery is all about a political power game between decent political realist and asshole socialists who desperately want to overcome their deficiencies, like the fuckwit arsenicks berrnharf and abcd
bbdtroll, “consensus” is NOTHING in science: ZERO
you are so terribly retarded that you will never understand this, you underperformet
btw, science is never settled as your guru al gore tells you this idiocy
Teh Stupid says:
“consensus” is NOTHING in science: ZERO
Teh Stupid does not understand the distinction between scientific consensus and political consensus.
The former is a consensus of the evidence; the latter of opinion.
Scientific consensus is a powerful indicator that scientific understanding of a phenomenon is strong. Scientific consensus denial on the absurd basis that “consensus is meaningless” is stupid and self-evidently wrong.
Okay, so where is the scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus on AGW?
Well, in actual fact, there isn’t one. Which brings us back from skepticoid fantasy-land to reality. In reality, science is settled *enough* for denialist FUD-mongering such as yours to be dismissed out of hand.
Dunno about everybody else, but I’m getting heartily fucking sick of freddy.
Could be time for the strike-out of doom.
Like one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms make a carbon dioxide molecule, you mean? That seems pretty settled science to me.
But then it’s really about mindless slogans for you morons, isn’t it.
That ‘settles’ your thinking for you.
Hardley @ 7…
I noticed you didn’t dispute anything I said, in fact, you only confirmed what I’ve been saying…
Your ideological bias is dripping from every word of your response, which, without doubt, has a very powerful influence on every conclusion you can muster in that overinflated lying mind of yours.
I would go as far to say that your misguided ideology is the rudder that steers your every thought, other than when you are thinking about yourself of course.
And I take it from your lack of response to # 51 on the previous page, that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things…the great Hardley stumped by an easy one.
Urban Dictionary BBD…
“Read Jeff’s response to your economically, scientifically and morally illiterate *shite* on the previous page.”
Not sure what you read, but it appears he confirmed the “shite”. In fact, it seems like he rolling in it…to get the stench to stick.
I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things…the great Hardley stumped by an easy one.
Another blatant lie from Betty. Jeff has written screeds on this. Bernard J also commented in detail.
You are still plugging this stupid denier meme, still misrepresenting the potential for beneficial future outcomes although all real scientific experts disagree with you.
Denial and misrepresentation of the danger of AGW. Intellectual dishonesty. Repeat offender despite numerous corrections. Scum.
Get it through your very thick, utterly dishonest little mind, John Birch:
- You have no basis for your claims
- You lack the expertise to make them
- You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons
- This makes you an enemy of mankind.
Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.
” If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”
“your misguided ideology”
an ideology based on cold, hard and simple facts. Sorry to rain on your parade Betty. I can back up everything I said with evidence. You live in a fantasy world in which you wallow in your right wing pit of ignorance. Read some declassified US planning documents some time – as well as quotes from the likes of Butler, Kennan, Meachling, Kissinger and other prominent politicians and planners over the years – and the real agendas become evident. Just because you haven’t a clue about any of this doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
Me: “how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things”
BBD…UD: “Another blatant lie from Betty. Jeff has written screeds on this. Bernard J also commented in detail.”
I notice you have a difficult time linking your proof. They can’t answer the question, because they can’t know the answer…apparently, neither can you.
“an ideology based on cold, hard and simple facts”
So you admit my analysis of you is correct, yet you call my comment at # 100 on the previous page an “absurd little rant”. What’s absurd about it, that it’s correct?
So this is all about the global redistribution of wealth to pay back all the poor countries what is rightfully theirs. The only way to do this is “under the lens” of climate change…the rich owe the poor…
This is why you are experiencing climate change first hand and seeing shifting zones for real over a 23 day period while getting frostbite….because your ideology sees for you and your ego is your blanket to prevent people from knowing who you really are…
Looks like your blanket has fallen, you are exposed and your ideology is getting a little frostbite….
And I take it from your lack of response to # 51 on the previous page, that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things…the great Hardley stumped by an easy one
Betula, you are all blah, blah, blah with no substance. Why don’t you join with your intellectual lightweight buddies on the Jonas thread (Freddy, PentaxZ) and start ranting about all those who are critical of the current rapacious economic and political system are all ‘communists’ and ‘greenies’ who aim at ‘world governance’.
This appears to be the basal level of their discourse, so why don’t you chip in with some more of your ‘wisdom’ and espouse your profound concern for a global left wing conspiracy aimed at subverting freedom and democracy? Heck, it seems like most of AGW deniers believe this doggy doo. Why not you? And while you are at it, please tell me more about how well eastern North American ecosystems are faring these days. Based on the stunning empirical examples you recently presented, I’d like to hear some more of your deep, meaningful expertise in tis area. Heck, you have a BS in forestry and work as a forester; I am sure you can describe in detail the recent demographic trends of many species of vertebrates in the region. How well they are all doing, that their ranges are expanding, numbers are up, the number of species that are threatened or endangered is down, etc. etc. etc. Give it a whirl Mr. know it all.
You seem to be having trouble reading the words:
- This makes you an enemy of mankind
You are contemptible and in time, fake sceptics will come to be regarded with the universal loathing and contempt they deserve. I hope you are young and healthy enough to live to see that day, and remember me telling you it was coming.
I wonder how vocal you will be in your misrepresentations of the seriousness of AGW in a few decades time, if you last that long.
My son is likely to as he is not yet six, which is why I regard you, and those you serve, as vermin.
You also have not got me on your stupid ‘C02 fertilization’ nonsense.
I will tell you this. Its a bloody huge experiment with any number of outcomes. You appear to think that its just fine to continue to simplify/alter/change/tinker with/reduce etc. etc. etc. natural systems and to hope for the best.
I gave an example before and I will repeat it and hope it sinks into your wooden head: you might as well be asking how the continued destruction/removal of tropical forests fits into the broader scheme of things. Why not Betty? So far there do not appear to have been any serious consequences of removing almost half of the world’s wet tropical forests and converting them to cropping systems of some kind or the other. You haven’t suffered personally have you? So why not continue? Let’s cut all of em’ down! We know that a huge number of species will disappear, but so what?! We don’t know how that will affect human civilization. So let’s just keep on cutting and cutting and cutting until something bad happens. And when it does, no problemo! We are, after all the most evolved species on the planet! We can do anything! Human ingenuity will save s through techno-fixes that can replace anything bad that comes about.
So let’s keep up the global experiment! Scientists are warning that increased atmospheric C02 will drive climate change, and that there will be concomitant changes in plant traits that will affect species, populations, communities and ecosystems in ways that are difficult to predict. But who gives a shit what they say? Until they have 100% proof that there will be harmful effects that will rebound on us, don’t change anything. Heck, I don’t know why they even invoked the Clean Air Act decades ago. Acid rain? What the heck is that? What harm did that do? And they said that CFCs allegedly reduced atmospheric ozone levels… come on, what a joke that was! I never experienced any harmful effects! These pesky government regulations are just communism camouflaged!
Betula, you are an dork. A waste of my time. Get lost.
And we all know what that’s code for, don’t we? Scratch the far Right…
Bernard – completely agree that ‘conservatism’ has been hijacked by radical reactionaries; this is a global phenomenon dating back to the mid-70′s, with Reagan and Thatcher getting the ball rolling, and the impact is all around us – look at the plonkers on this page!
I’m also concerned that we’ll now get a dose of the austerity that has worked so brilliantly overseas (/sarc). Australia was very fortunate indeed that the Coalition was not in power in 2008, but if people at my workplace are anything to go by, they have not the slightest comprehension that this is the case, or why anyone might hold that this is the case. They seem to conceive of politics as a species of ‘reality TV’ soap-opera with characters you get to vote on or off every 3 years or so…
Also agree the Australian media’s performance has been appalling. I think they discovered you can skip all the hard work and research involved in reporting on the political issues of the day as if they were , well, political issues, and treat it all as an ‘Inside Baseball’ style ‘making of’ doco for the inane soap opera in question. You might even become a celebrity – and that’s the people who are now admired, not actual achievers – yourself in the process!
Then they discovered that in such a fickle virtual world they could ‘JAQ’ people in-and-out of office, becoming pretty-much like those miserable little bastards from Enron who outrightly extorted the people of California because, well, they discovered they could.
And the media’s performance on AGW has been consistent: sloppy, ill-informed, self-aggrandizing, indulgent, manipulative, and irresponsible…
Hey, Bircher, what’s the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?
@bbd asshole said in #20
Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it
please stop being too honest before you publicly excrement that you want to see decent and ethical climate truth citizens opposing your warming delusion be hanged on gallows
YOU WOULD NOT LIFT YOUR FUCKING FINGER TO HELP SOMEONE WHO IS BEATEN OR MURDERED BY THE MOB TO WHICH YOU BELONG BECAUSE OF HIS/HER CONVICTION THAT CAGW IS A HOAX BY MEAN CLIMATE CROOKS, WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????
“… …. with the one atmosphere we possess? ….”
HMMMMMMM, SO YOU AND YOUR LIKES POSSESS THE ATMOSHERE????????? YOU POSSESS IT???????
when did you buy the atmosphere, arselick????
your wording reveals most clearly your dumb, rotten, idiotic relationship to your surroundings: WE POSSESS, WE DECIDE, WE KNOW, WE ARE IMPORTANT, WE CHANGE THE PLANET, WE DECIDE WHAT WE WILL DO WITH OUR PLANET, WE CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE
ALL YOU INSANE CLIMATE SCOUNDRELS ARE UNSPEAKABLY ARROGANT AND SILLY ASSHOLES WHICH THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT, KNOW SOMETHING, HAVE SOME POWER
NOTHING OF ALL THAT
YOU ARE JUST LOW LEVEL IDIOTS, LOSERS, UNDERPERFORMERS, DAMNED SOCIALISTS WITH ENORMOUS HATRED BECAUSE YOU ARE POOR, UGLY, WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS AND TALENT IN LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, Professor Fuckwit, not only are you a closet skydragon, but also a Master of the Universe.
Although how were we to know with your masterful adoption of the excitable and poorly educated syntax you are obviously using as a disguise, and isn’t really the basest, most low-level, arse-spankingly obvious self-projection yet witnessed at least in my time here.
and, remember, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, we the really powerful will keep you dwarfs and your disobient trial of uprising always under control. YOU CANNOT SUCCEED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING WATCHED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST YOUR BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC ARE UNDER WAY.
disobedient ugly dwarfs can never succeed, remember!!
you are welcome!
” You have no basis for your claims”
No basis for what claims? Example?
“You lack the expertise to make them”
What kind of expertise do I need to state facts?
” You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons”
What was misrepresented? Example?
Once again BBDUD, you make claims without backing them up. Are you beginning to question yourself yet?
chek, very poor content
do better next time
Tim, if you are around at all, can we just ditch the lunatic? Ta.
And Batty, let me guess; my question will be added to the long list of ‘things I won’t answer’?
You are a reactionary. Your beliefs have nothing to do with conservatism.
billie fuckwit goes whinig to mommy, hahahaha
you asshole have not understood what’s important in life: internet clicks
nobody reads and wants your terribly annoying “comments”
so you should be ditched, clear to you?
you cannot stand that far superior argumentation lets you alone in the corner
you are free to just go away, nobody will miss you, MORON
Now, Freddy, don’t you be swallowing those crayons, now!
Hardley @ 26 & 28…
Struck a nerve Harvey? Your rants attempt to tie me to things I haven’t said, only things you would imagine I would say. What does that say about you?
Oh, and just incase you think I didn’t notice, you forgot to enlighten me on how CO2 fertilization fits into the climate equation.
You know guys, I get just a little bit suspicious when someone like freddy suddenly shows up here all of a sudden.
I mean, like, freddy seems to me to be just a little bit too good to be true, just a little bit too much the wing-nut crazy, and his Deltoidland debut just a little bit too well “co-ordinated” (you know, like, how BBD, all of a sudden, begins to introduce off-the-wall, red-meat, violent imagery into his comments, in sync with freddy’s equally sudden appearance here. And, of course, freddy then reacts to BBD’s “arse-kicking”, Vyshinsky-inspired, “blood-in-the-streets” taunts with right-wing-looney “sound-bites”, useful to the hive’s propaganda organs, we can reasonably suppose–that sort of thing). You know, like, how curious it is that freddy seems to be running along the lines of that eco-cheap-shot, “Australian-Climate-Scientists-Get-Death-Threats!”, hype-booger deal of yore (anyone seen the police report of investigation, by the way?), we all fondly recall. You know what I mean, Deltoids?
So I’m toying with the thought, Deltoids, that freddy just might be some sort of a make-quota, agit-prop, bogeyman, “provocateur”, disinformation product, possibly a bot, designed, most likely, by an undistinguished committee of hive-drudge techno-hacks, working out of Professor Lewandowsky’s seedy, low-rent bureau and working under the obligatory, stultifying, control-freak, petty, officious, uninformed, abusive, capricious, interfering, micro-management oversight of their hive reporting chain.
But I could be wrong. I mean, like, freddy could be the real thing, after all. Or, he might even be, say, someone like wow, returned to Deltoidland to wreak a sock-puppet, crack-brain, greenshirt-scorned, ” fuck-you!-seriously-fuck-you-all!” vengeance on his former hive-bozo comrades. On the other hand, if I’m not wrong, then it wouldn’t be the first time the hive tried such a trick, would it guys?
Funnily enough mike, I was thinking the same thing. Freddy is more like how a deltoid would expect a ‘denier’ to be, than an actual ‘denier’. Do you remember Gleick’s Heartland strategy document? (the one that read as though it was written from a “secret underground denier layer”) freddy’s more that than anything. Yes, and
“WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????”
when I first saw this, I thought, oh wow’s back, but it’s from someone called “freddy” who’s obviously very pissed off about something.
Yep, it’s our fault Freddy’s a barbarian. Li’l Mikey has an abusive personality as well as the coprolalia. Anyone surprised?
mike and GSW: well done on the conspiracy theory!
Of course, those who at times venture elsewhere know freddy (or kai, as he was known earlier, and by forgetting once that he had changed his moniker got exposed to be) has also frequented illconsidered and the Stoat, where he is a frequent guest in the burrow. You will just have to live with the fact that there are people even nuttier than you guys!
Thanks for the info.Have you got a link for “freddy” on those sites? Hard to imagine the language would survive for very long on the other blogs, so curious to see what happened.
From this page,
“and, remember, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, we the really powerful will keep you dwarfs and your disobient trial of uprising always under control. YOU CANNOT SUCCEED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING WATCHED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST YOUR BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC ARE UNDER WAY.”
The writing style is fairly “distinctive”.
…consensus” is NOTHING in science: ZERO
So, freddy is what BK would be like if he forgot his meds?
Actually you’re right. There is a freddy on stoat and I say it is the same one.
I have a confession to make…. I am the person who posts as freddy, betula, mike, GSW, karen, david duff, and all of the other characters I can imagine that claim to be global warming deniers. None of these people are real and nothing of anything that they say should be taken as being the truth or being anything that the person typing actually believes.
I invented each of these characters to highlight how completely stupid the position is that ignores real science, and how others who are just as stupid can be suckered by their stupidity and believe that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect or global warming.
The trouble is that when you live in these characters for as long as I have they start to become alive in your head. I’ve started to talk to my different characters as if we they are real, and I have just realised that I need to stop this charade forever or I will become insane.
If I post again pretending to be s stupid person who doesn’t believe that the international body of scientific experts knows what its talking about please remind me that I am my alters are not real and that anything I say should be ignored. It will be hard because my alters believe that they are real and they will try to convince you that they are whenever you tell them that they are not.
I am sorry for having wasted so much of your time. My characters are all very sick individuals who are preoccupied with crazy conspiracies and bad words and bodily parts and functions but if you keep telling them that they are not real they will eventually go away and I will be healed.
Wow, exiled with Graeme Bird! That’s an (inverted) achievement.
Of course, young William plays the ridicule card rather neatly, and soon simply removes the infection. The pleasures of active moderation!
Speaking of both active moderation and Birdy, connoisseurs of the true flameout and trainwreck (and I admit to this secret vice, in addition to mixing metaphors) may enjoy the following. (The supporting cast dialogues sotto voce until #46)
And, in fact, for anyone who was looking for a strong stylistic similarity…
@ Ranting homophobic nutter # 31
WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????
That’s enough of that, freddy. Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed!
Just stick to plain scatological abuse
Betula whines, “your rants attempt to tie me to things I haven’t said, only things you would imagine I would say”
Well, you claimed in an earlier post that environmental conditions in your neck of the woods are doing well on the basis of three piss-poor examples; I provide counter evidence and you go all silent. That is typical of you; I expect it now.
As for C02 ‘fertilization’, I am talking about environmental stoichiometry. Ever hear of that big word, Betty? Its probably a lot for you to pronounce as you clearly do not read the primary scientific literature. I do. Its part of my day job. Your so-called C02 fertilization argument is based solely on quantitative measures, and wholly ignores qualitative changes in plants and the concomitant effects these will have on species interactions, food webs and ecosystem functions. Certainly a number of research centers are exploring these potential effects, and there is certainly concern that changes in environmental stoichiometry – C, N, P ratios in plants for instance – will ripple through communities and simplify them. Certainly the environment won’t be ‘better off’ because of the physiological effects of increased atmospheric C02. And of course, given that C02 is a potent and long-kived greenhouse gas, we have to factor in changes in climate (temperature, rainfall) on the physiological effects.
As for my other analogies, they are appropriate. Your simplistic argument is that we need 100% proof that some human activity – in this case, increasing the concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere and any so-called abiotic and biotic effects – are provided. So I gave you other examples where 100% proof is not yet in – tropical forest destruction being one poignant one. How has the rapacious destruction of tropical forests in Asia, Africa and South America affected you personally? It hasn’t. So, using your insidious logic, we should keep on a cuttin’ and a cuttin’ until something bad happens or until there is absolute proof that it will. As ever, you slither your way out of responding with any semblance of logic.
Essentially, as I said some time ago, you cannot debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag. You think you are smart, whereas when the veneer is stripped away it reveals that you hardly know anything aside from snippets you have picked up here and there. In response to your flippant remark about the health of the environment in your part of the world, I gave a number of much stronger counter examples showing very worrying signs that things are not going so well. You ignored them. Then in response to your continued barbs about my trip in Algonquin Park, I actually linked to about 10 studies which clearly report climate change related effects on species and biodiversity. Predictably, you ignored them as well. If we were debating face to face, you’d be a sitting duck. I’d present empirical evidence from these and more studies, and what would you say? That they are crap even though you haven’t read them?
For me it is time to cease and desist with a time waster like you.
(you know, like, how BBD, all of a sudden, begins to introduce off-the-wall, red-meat, violent imagery into his comments, in sync with freddy’s equally sudden appearance here. And, of course, freddy then reacts to BBD’s “arse-kicking”, Vyshinsky-inspired, “blood-in-the-streets” taunts with right-wing-looney “sound-bites”, useful to the hive’s propaganda organs, we can reasonably suppose–that sort of thing)
Well obviously I cannot prove anything, but you are mistaken. See some comments about about freddy elsewhere.
I am simply getting angrier and angrier with the stupid amorality of denialism. The absence of any recognition by vocal science deniers like Betty that they are simply shilling for vested corporate and political interests that will, eventually, bugger up the planet.
The sheer unacceptability of this behaviour is not sufficiently emphasised in public debate. Deniers have, to some extent, managed to normalise their shilling and lies simply by persistent repetition. Given the potential consequences, this should not be tolerated.
Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:
- what relevant expertise do you have to deny the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW?
- demonstrate a robust scientific counter-argument that substantively challenges the scientific consensus on AGW
If they have no expertise and no scientific argument (eg John Birch, serially, above), then it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants.
It’s interesting to see that when the true nature of their behaviour is held up in front of them, deniers generally start denying that they are deniers. Thus demonstrating just how morally bankrupt and contemptible they really are.
John Birch still trying to misrepresent the seriousness of AGW by waving stupid denier memes around…
An irrelevance compared to heat stress, drought, flooding and coastal inundation. Which is why only deniers talk about it as if it actually mattered.
Tell you what, John Birch, why don’t YOU go and find some evidence that CO2 fertilisation is going to offset all the negatives (outlined above) and result in a net gain to agricultural productivity in the future?
No blog science, and nothing out of date mind, but back up your claim with some references. Why should anyone take your stupid denier memes seriously if you cannot be bothered to back them up with something substantive?
All Hail! Master of the Deltoids!
Rudolph, dealing with outright nutters on an unsupervised blog is a genuine – and genuinely frustrating – problem. Don’t be the kind of gauche opportunist that’ll back any imbecility if it plays to some perceived advantage…
FFS Clown. What bill said. Is there nothing you lot won’t stoop to? Look at the poisonous tripe this nasty little “freddy” git is smearing all over comments – and which you have just effectively endorsed.
Rudolph, dealing with outright nutters on an unsupervised blog is a genuine – and genuinely frustrating – problem
I appreciate the problem, but the style of some regular bloggers here does kinda invite nutters. Just look back over the last few pages before the arrival of the latest. That said, the best way of dealing with them might be to ignore them.
Note that Clown fails to apologise for the stupid at #55.
A unifying characteristic of deniers, that.
One of the reasonsI have refrained from blogging for the last day or so is I did not wish to intrude at a time of heartfelt grief that yourself and others have displayed recently.
However, being a gauche opportunist, I could not resist sharing this piece from the Spectator.
For Gillard it says:
History will regard her as the worst prime minister since Kevin Rudd.
And for Rudd
Labor party parliamentary members repeatedly dismissed Mr Rudd as ‘dysfunctional’, a ‘psychopath’ and ‘a complete and utter fraud’.
What a pair.
Whatever happened to those nice cudley Australians like Rolf Harris and Les Paterson?
I appreciate the problem,
Indeed, if only to attempt a cheap exploitation of it.
but the style of some regular bloggers here does kinda invite nutters.
Yup, this is a real anti-science nutter hothouse when your back’s turned ,Redarse.
Just look back over the last few pages before the arrival of the latest.
Yes, but then Betty and PantieZ will keep regurgitating their dearest denier memes ad nauseam, no matter how many times they’re corrected.
That said, the best way of dealing with them might be to ignore them.
Aw, bless your naive credulousness.
- Note that Clown blames other commenters here for the faecal spray of hate speech by “freddy” instead of censuring “freddy” itself.
Clown is still tacitly endorsing “freddy’s” hate speech.
- Note that Clown now doubles down on the opportunistic unpleasantness with his # 60.
Whatever happened to those nice cudley Australians like Rolf Harris and Les Paterson (sic)
The Murdoch press and it’s allies, that’s what happened..
Oh for God’s sake. An Instant Expert from 5 minutes at The Spectator, no less! You clearly know bugger all about Australian politics, why don’t you cease making yourself ridiculous? But thank you for fulfilling my ‘it will be stupid’ prediction…
And yet another abusive personality! Yep, it’s all our fault Freddy’s an foul-mouthed, aggressive nutter…
What charming people.
foul-mouthed, aggressive nutter…
For foul-mouthed and aggresive comments, just look back at the last few pages of comments by Deltoid regulars.
Whether Detoid regulars are “nutters” is also open to question.
BBDUD @ 51…
“That’s enough of that, freddy. Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed”
Unless the Gay person is a denier, right B-Dud?
BDud @ 20…
“If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”
Oh for God’s sake.
I know it must still hurt bill.
Perhaps a little Delingpole might sooth it a little.
I will say this in your defence BBD: nothing opportunistic about you, just full-on aggressive and unpleasant, with foulmouthed thrown in for good measure.
Redarse, just as you have no way of knowing (without a mirror) how stupid that new haircut makes you look, so it is with denier idiocy in its many, many, and delingpole-posting forms.
Think of Deltoid as providing that mirror. You may not like what you see, but it’s your figurative fucking haircut.
John Birch has now moved on to misrepresenting me:
This is in no sense – implicitly or explicitly – homophobic.
That you should try to misrepresent it as such only emphasises that you have no moral core whatsoever.
As I have been pointing out recently.
- Note that Clown continues to attack other commenters here rather than condemn the faecal spray of hate speech by “freddy”.
Clown is scum.
RE: CO2 Fertilization….”An irrelevance compared to heat stress, drought, flooding and coastal inundation”…
Of course, you left out the word “potential”. As in potential heat stress, potential drought, potential flooding etc. Oh, and potential snowstorms.
And you forgot to explain if the potential drought is caused by the potential flooding.
You continue…”Tell you what, John Birch, why don’t YOU go and find some evidence that CO2 fertilisation is going to offset all the negatives”
Never said it would, I asked why it isn’t even considered in the equation. The fact is, you have no idea what the affects may be…c’mon it’s ok to admit it..
“No blog science, and nothing out of date mind, but back up your claim with some references”
Are you talking about the claim that you don’t know what effect CO2 fertilization will have on the climate?
John Birch Society
And this is your central misrepresentation:
Never said it would, I asked why it isn’t even considered in the equation.
It *is* considered. You are lying.
You cannot back up your claims, can you, liar?
- You cannot support the false claim that CO2 fertilisation will result in net gain to future agricultural productivity.
– You lied about the exclusion of positive factors such as CO2 fertilisation from all assessments of climate change impacts.
And you are still here, peddling FUD. Scum that you are.
Oh, nearly forgot – you just tried to misrepresent me as an homophobe, which was very fucking stupid of you indeed.
Love him or hate him, it seems to me Delingpole’s summing up of the latest in Aussie politics: “makes Game of Thrones look tame” looks pretty accurate.
From way over by here it almost makes Italian politics look respectable.
but it’s your figurative fucking haircut.
I would have you know its cut by a former world champion.
BDud @ 53
“it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants”.
Once again, no example. Is that why you are getting so mad, because you can’t back up what your mind is telling you? You’re fighting within yourself….
So ask yourself, do you believe it is my actions or my words that are endangering your imagination. If it is the words, please show me the words and the process by which those words can threaten the well being of your mind. If it is my actions, tell me specifically what actions I have taken, and how those actions threaten your children.
Take your time, sleep on it, dream of people getting beaten, and then get back to me.
What? Look up, Bircher. You cannot be blind, since you are here. So, you must be being dishonest again and pretending that # 74 just isn’t there.
Try again, liar:
– You lied about the exclusion of so-called “positive” factors such as CO2 fertilisation from all assessments of climate change impacts.
Read the words. Where’s your evidence supporting your claims, liar?
“You cannot support the false claim that CO2 fertilisation will result in net gain to future agricultural productivity”
A claim can’t be false if it didn’t exist.
Now you are saying what, exactly Betty? That there will be no net beneficial effect? Are you now agreeing with the scientific consensus that the *net* effect of on agricultural productivity (CC plus CO2 fertilisation) will be negative?
Have you reversed yourself?
And what about your central lie?
You keep repeating this without offering any supporting evidence. I say you are lying. Peddling a political agenda. And projecting like fuck.
“you just tried to misrepresent me as an homophobe, which was very fucking stupid of you indeed”
BDud @ 20..
BDud @ 51…
“Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed!”
This is how we use examples Dud….you condone the beating of deniers and then tell Freddy Gay bashing is not allowed
So BDud, in an effort to expose your warped mind, and how you give no thought to the things you say, I ask you this….if a Gay Denier is being beaten by the public, would you “not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”?
This is the hole you dug Dud, now try to crawl out of it.
Here’s a stupid liar called Betty indulging in climate change denial:
This same stupid liar was shown that climate sensitivity to increased CO2 will be sufficient to cause significant and rapid warming later this century and thereafter.
Yet he continues to try and pretend that this will have no effects whatsoever.
As I keep saying, he is a stupid liar. And because of what he is lying about, he is an enemy of the species, which happens to include my own child.
Yet he even tries to lie his way out of this. A liar who lies about his lying.
Show the homophobia and you might have a point, liar.
What you think is a gotcha is just an example of you lying about me. But you are too desperate for something -anything – to distract attention away from your lies to realise that this is not the ideal tactic at all.
I don’t like the way you are quoting selectively either. It stinks of dishonesty. Let’s have the full context:
Now, we see no endorsement of violence against homosexuals in that statement.
But watch Lying Betty try on a spot of false equivalence:
Deniers are not equated explicitly or implicitly with homosexuals in my comment. Only in Betty’s attempt to smear me as an homophobe who condones violence against homosexuals.
A cheap, nasty, dishonest bit of false equivalence. As I have said numerous times now, evidence that Betty – like deniers generally – is an amoral, self-serving corporate lackey who will stoop to anything in furtherance of their politically motivated science denial.
In short, an enemy of the species.
“Now you are saying what, exactly Betty? That there will be no net beneficial effect?”
I need a bunker buster to get through that thick scull…you have to weigh the effect to determine if it’s net positive or net negative….but since you can’t weigh it, it’s an unknown.
It is one of many unknowns and uncertainties that more often than not are assumed…just like you assume it is insignificant without proof, just like you assume I claim it will be beneficial, just like you assume my statements are political, just like you assume you have the answers, just like you assume what my actions are, just like you assume worst case scenarios, just like you assume predictions are fact…
You revolve around assumptions and assume they are real.
“Deniers are not equated explicitly or implicitly with homosexuals in my comment. Only in Betty’s attempt to smear me as an homophobe who condones violence against homosexuals.”
No, you smeared yourself as a person who wants to watch denier’s beaten, regardless of sexual preference, race, age or gender….simply because they are, in your mind, deniers.
I could have easily asked if a child were a denier, or a grandmother were a denier or a cripple were a denier…you, not me, stated you would “not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”
This is a reflection of you, of who you are. If you don’t like it, you have no one to blame but yourself….live with it.
“In short, an enemy of the species”
Hardley @ 52…
1.”Well, you claimed in an earlier post that environmental conditions in your neck of the woods are doing well on the basis of three piss-poor examples”
As compared to seeing a spider over a 23 day period in the frozen Algonquin?
2. “Certainly the environment won’t be ‘better off’ because of the physiological effects of increased atmospheric C02.”
Certainly? Strange, just before this line you stated:
“Certainly a number of research centers are exploring these potential effects”
Certainly they are. But what’s to explore if they are already certain about the effects?
2. “So, using your insidious logic, we should keep on a cuttin’ and a cuttin’ until something bad happens or until there is absolute proof that it will”
Actually, you just used your insidious logic to assume my logic.
3. “in response to your continued barbs about my trip in Algonquin Park, I actually linked to about 10 studies which clearly report climate change related effects on species and biodiversity.”
So you were saying you experienced the studies “first hand” and you witnessed the studies “for real”?
I note that you’re still unable to address those simple questions.
Aren’t you embarrassed that you are incapable of engaging in the simplest of science?
And you might like to know that I have a comment directed to you. Keep an eye on the link to become active, because you’ve been smacked around yet again.
And you might like to know that I have a comment directed to you that has been sitting in moderation for a couple of days. Keep an eye on the link to become active, because you’ve been smacked around yet again.
Betty, give it up.
You’re not as clever as you think and your list of dishonest stupid in which you imagine you’re pointing the inconsistencies of others is getting old.
And your paraphrasing sucks.
More denialist lies from the John Birch Society
It took me less than 30 seconds to debunk your shite Betty.
No Betty, I did not “smear myself”. I made a very clear statement that liars like you are enemies of the species and scum. I made a very clear statement that this self-serving mendacity is currently not noted or reviled as it deserves by the general public, but that time will surely come. I made a very clear statement that I welcome the dawn of that day.
You Betty, tried – and failed – to twist my words into a homophobic rant. I *also* notice that you have not condemned the actual homophobic hate speech on this thread by “freddy”. *All* you have done – miserable bag of shit that you are – is try to smear me.
So proving that you are the amoral, self-serving liar that I have been saying you are all along.
Thanks for the demonstration.
Here’s something you need to get through *your* thick, dishonest skull (sp) Betty:
Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.
You cannot use “uncertainty” as an excuse for absolute inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That’s why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn’t work – you kept on lying (nailed again at #83).
The how bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. One way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.
Liars like you who try to use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.
You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.