March 2014 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Bill, why I’m I a skidmark? Certainly not for correctly pointing out fascism’s study roots in communism and syndicalism?

    :-)

  2. #2 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    But what about the ranks of endlessly dodged, never answered questions about climate science?

    That’s what this is about. Not some diversion into political history.

    This is about your climate change denial and your claims to scientific knowledge and “correctness” when you demonstrate neither.

    This is about you being a liar who makes false claims about other commenters which you cannot substantiate when challenged. False claims that you then fail to withdraw.

    The problem here is that you are a lying troll who refuses to engage substantively on any topic but keeps on crowing about being “correct”.

    That is unacceptable. Hence the loathing and contempt directed at you, plus the repeated requests that you be confined permanently to the Jonas thread.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    March 20, 2014

    GSW #77 page 7

    Projection is strong in this one.

    Whilst reading that I pondered on how well a certain James Delingpole fits into that.

    What do you think Donors Trust, Heartland, CATO, George C Marshall, GWPF, old uncle Tom Fuller & all are about?

    Your blind ignorance is unbelievable even for a nematode such as yourself and your annelid buddy OP. But that would be to ignore that those organisms have a useful purpose, you not so much.

  4. #4 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Dear Lionel, why do you feel so uncomfortable with understanding that fascism isn’t a right wing movement?

    Jeff, has come to terms with it, why not you too?

  5. #5 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    #4 – trolling. Interestingly you put yourself to the right of fascism, do you see that?

    You are noting something trivial and even manage to misinterpret that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory .

  6. #6 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Dear Lionel, why do you feel so uncomfortable with understanding that fascism isn’t a right wing movement?

    Last time on this and then strikeout.

    Political history isn’t relevant and frankly, nor are you. Engage on the science in good faith or go away.

  7. #7 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Dear BBD, why are agnry with me? It was Jeff who started talking about fascism and accusing “others” for being fascists, unjustly so.

    @kampen, the horseshoe-theory/metaphor is wrong because it’s based on the false assupmtion of two opposing political endpoints that (under the pressure of their extremism) bends towards each other.

    This is wrong because in the historical reality the endpoints didn’t bend towards each other. They were created by division. Therefore better and more correct methaphor is a forked tounge of a snake. The Socialist Party in Italy was split in two and one part took small right turn (Mussolini) and the other remained

  8. #8 GSW
    March 20, 2014

    @All

    Coincidentaly, while we’re in the throws of calls to have people banned from the blog, there’s a new article from Ross Kaminsky in the Federalist doing the rounds.

    “Why Liberals Attempt to Silence Honest Debate”

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/19/why-liberals-attempt-to-silence-honest-debate/

    there’s also a reference to the Mann Vs Steyn case,

    “This is the same Michael Mann who is now trying to silence Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review magazine because he doesn’t like being criticized. Steyn is now counter-suing, with claims more likely to stand up in court than Mann’s obvious attempt to shut down anyone who disagrees with his self-serving proclamations of impending doom.”

    “Self-serving proclamations of impending doom.” Well yeah, there’s a few here in the same mould!

  9. #9 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Public boards rely on good faith which your Skantroll collective does not possess. As just one example above, let’s correct that:

    “This is the same Michael Mann who is now trying to silence Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review magazine because he doesn’t like being criticized like all citizens, is legally protected from libellous accusations.

    Let me put this simply because you’re a simpleton Griselda – and for the benefit of newbies and lurkers this Scandinavian posse has had two years worth of rope to hang themselves with – if you shit in the pool, don’t expect anyone to want to join you in it.

  10. #10 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    #7, see, you know nuffin’. The horseshoe metaphor in reality came about from an observation of certain likenesses in the political extremes (e.g. anti-parliamentary, sympathy to violence/radicalism, overlap of political viewpoints, frequent switch-overs from members to the other side).

    Mussolini’s history is not with socialism, but with communism.

    Anyway, I always called the USSR and North Korea extreme right regimes, like the Third Reich. They are definitely not left, not communist, not socialist; they are all absolutely extreme right fascist. Three core characteristics: the theatre (cf Walter Benjamin), the state as god and the individual as totally subordinate to it and the exclusion of one or more groups from society.

    Who gives a fuck when we in Holland got a date record yet again. Fucking summer in March after no winter.

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Some good points there Kampen, but what do you say about Gramsci’s opinion about Mussolini, ergo that the latter, while the director of the Socialist Party’s paper Avanti!, turned it into a forum for syndicalists?

  12. #12 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Some good points there Kampen, but what do you say about Gramsci’s opinion about Mussolini, ergo that the latter, while the director of the Socialist Party’s paper Avanti!, turned it into a forum for syndicalists?

    Never mind your historical revisionism pointy head, you’ve been shit-bombing this blog with denier pseudo-science for a long, long time. Here are some questions outstanding that you have yet to answer:
    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

  13. #13 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Olaus

    Dear BBD, why are agnry with me?

    Because you are a liar and a troll who refuses to engage in good faith. Worse still, you are playing the victim and claiming that you are being muzzled. Since you flatly refuse to engage although challenged continually to do so, you have never actually said anything. Thus your claims to “correctness” and of “censorship” are both lies.

    This also goes for GSW. The exact same things.

  14. #14 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    cRR

    Please do not feed the fucking trolls. Look back over the last page and see what they are trying to do here. These five questions have been asked for a very long time now. You are facilitating an ongoing avoidance tactic by two spectacularly dishonest commenters. I know you would not wish to assist these two in any way.

  15. #15 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Just to bring the list somewhat up to date:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

    6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)

    7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?

    8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?

    Obviously Bernard J’s unanswered questions about the instrumental record remain unanswered, and there has been no response to Jeff Harvey’s multitude of points about ecological change.

  16. #16 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    #11, like BBD said in #14, your food is the remark with 2 fucks at the end of #10.

    BBD #14, don’t fall into traps I set please – assure you there is nil assistance. What I found there was yet another subject the revisionist thinks knows something about but he knows nothing.
    Incidentally this is a debate I get with more revisionists and a number of extreme right wing people who seem ashamed of being in that racist realm and call the Nazi’s left. This is a particular group with a particularly warped syndrome.

  17. #17 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    BBD, again, it was Jeff that was dishonest, not me.

    @Kampen, keep up the good work. Soon not only you and I, but also BBD, recognizes fascism’s firm roots in communism and syndicalism. And I beleive Jeff in on my sid now too, the right one.

    We don’t want any greens turning inte fascists, just because they don’t know what fascism really is.

  18. #18 chek
    March 20, 2014

    BBD, again, it was Jeff that was dishonest, not me.
    @Kampen, keep up the good work. Soon not only you and I, but also BBD, recognizes fascism’s firm roots in communism and syndicalism. And I beleive Jeff in on my sid now too, the right one.We don’t want any greens turning inte fascists, just because they don’t know what fascism really is.

    #19 page 7 Dumbasses like you don’t get to redefine words or terms, although you may at some point wonder why you feel the need to do so.

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Chek, I stay true to the original definition, and to history. :-)

    Deltoid is a pit full of pus where cretins are screaming “fasicist” to anyone disagreeing with climate scientology.

    I totally understand Tim’s reluctance to engage in this blog anymore.

  20. #20 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Chek, I stay true to the original definition, and to history. :-)

    Deltoid is a pit full of pus where cretins are screaming “fasicist” to anyone disagreeing with climate scientology.

    I totally understand Tim’s reluctance to engage in this blog anymore.

    Struck out as irrelevant. The discussion that you have been refusing to have for ~200 comments now concerns topics in climate science, not some deliberate sidetrack into political history.

    If you wish to continue commenting here, you can engage in good faith on the topics you have been desperately dodging for so very long now. Otherwise, strikeout.

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

    6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)

    7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?

    8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    March 20, 2014

    … but at least we settled that fascism isn’t a right wing movement.

    Nope, we didn’t. (And dishonestly proclaiming that “we did” smells of desperation.)

    Anyone who’s fascist these days or even during the last few decades is clearly very right wing, and usages of the term “fascism” these days generally refer to the more recent and decidedly right wing incarnations. Dishonestly pretending that those using the term mean something else also smacks of desperation.

    And didn’t we go over this a couple of years ago, either with Olaus or one of his (ahem) fellow travellers? Or was it asserted that the Nazis were leftists back then on dubious grounds? Either way I seem to recall it was also a convenient foil being used to try and distract from the fact that those wielding the foil didn’t have science on their side.

    And I even think I recommended that the wielders have a read of Altemeyer’s research, as adelady did just now.

    Nothing new under the sun. Once they reach the end of their Gish Gallop they simply return to the beginning and start all over again. Why, it’s almost like they don’t realise just how obvious it makes the bankruptness of their positions to be!

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Lothy, please try to make an argument for once. But what the heck, what’s your opinion on “the young Mussilini” then? That he was a well financed right wing mole in the Socialist Party that fooled even Gramsci? ;-)

  23. #23 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    #17, “We don’t want any greens turning inte fascists” – don’t worry, it was much colder back then.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    Petri never read Mussolini. Pity, the guy at least wrote much better than AH.

  25. #25 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    #20 – 6, on the ECS, is bloody hard and if (just if!) we really took notice of climate revisionists the concept is even risky. I will not expand – some discussions around the Crok/Lewis paper do that well enough.

  26. #26 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    By the way, non-Europeans discussing fascism often get me smiling. The naivety. Except scholars on the subject.

  27. #27 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    cRR

    The questions are not aimed at you. Rather at Olaus and GSW.

    Olaus and GSW claim to be “correct” and accuse me – specifically – of having an “unscientific mindset”.

    I have pointed out that they refuse to engage at all on any topic in climate science raised here, and consequently neither of them has said anything.

    Since they have said *nothing* they cannot, by definition be “correct”. So that claim is a lie.

    I also challenged both of them to demonstrate by relevant quotation that I have an “unscientific mindset”. Neither has been able to do so, revealing the second claim to be a lie as well.

    That about brings you up to speed.

    Lewis & Crok is the usual cherry-picked, uninformative low-ball estimate derived from “observations” (including a notable under-estimate of negative aerosol forcing) and used to force a toy climate model. Needless to say, fake sceptics and libertarian ideologues everywhere believe it single-handedly overturns the entire – huge – body of work indicating that S is significantly higher.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    March 20, 2014

    Meatball, I never accused you of being fascist, you deceptive piece of scum.. I said EXTREMELY RIGHT WING…. libertarian… much like old gormless, whose world view coincides with the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, and probably a slew of other right wing loonies. You hate government, at least where government regulates private and corporate behavior, amongst other tenets of your right wing ideology.

    Gormless can’t help but wear his far right neoconservative beliefs on his sleeve, whereas you try and camouflage it with bullshit and more bullshit. Moreover, the reason Tim does not contribute here any more probably has more to do with twerps like you contaminating it than anything else. Why do you think so many on ‘your side’ have been banned or exiled to their own threads? Because Tim respects you? Think again.

    Its great to know I’ve gone from Napoleon to Mussolini; you’ve pretty well stuck around Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgway, Olly. No evolution really; continued psychopathy.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    March 20, 2014

    PS Olly: Fascism is a right wing movement. End of story.

  30. #30 craig thomas
    March 20, 2014

    GSW, Nobody’s trying to “silence” Mark Steyn.

    All that has happened is that Mark Steyn is discovering the consequence of telling malicious lies.

    Mark Steyn can provide his opinion whenever and wherever he wants, but if he breaks the law while doing so, he will get sued.
    Pretty simple concept really, but from the shite you’ve posted here over the years, I realise the concept of factualness is a concept that completely escapes you.

  31. #31 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Oh, a relapse for Kampen. :-) And apparently it wasn’t cold enough in the 1930s:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/0521612772

  32. #32 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Jeff, you screaming “I’m right” doesn’t make fascism less left. :-)

    And you haven’t told your story yet on why fascism is right wing. Any objections on Gramsci’s take on Mussolini, for instance?

  33. #33 cRR Kampen
    March 20, 2014

    Anyone tell me why Petri is panicking?

    #27 BBD, actually only the ‘E’ in ECS is debatable (e.g. measurability is hard like IPCC assessed). De facto better multiply the Crok/Lewis by a positive whole number for an estimate of Petri’s kids’ future reality.

    #31, try Rousseau.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    March 20, 2014

    OP as I said up-thread you are barking and so here is your tune.

    You would be a total waste of space were it not for the repeated opportunity to demonstrate to lurkers what a dishonest know nothing you are when it comes to science, and also that links to good stuff for us all to learn more from crop up in the process of whacking your moles.

    Another thing we are reminded of is how thoroughly morally bankrupt are those behind YOUR sources of misdirection, fabrications and lies.

    That is the hole you have chosen to dig.

  35. #35 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Lionel, my fried friend, you know I’m more than willing to discuss the sources used in “the young Mussolini”, for instance, not to mention the credibility of the books author. Do you mean that he is a Holocaust denier or something?

    You keep on making no arguments whatsoever. You sound like a climate scare cultist…Always fresh on insults but short on science. ;-)

  36. #36 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Lionel, my fried friend, you know I’m more than willing to discuss the sources used in “the young Mussolini”, for instance, not to mention the credibility of the books author. Do you mean that he is a Holocaust denier or something?

    You keep on making no arguments whatsoever. You sound like a climate scare cultist…Always fresh on insults but short on science. ;- )

    OK Olap monocorne, let’s see how short on science YOU are.
    I’ve chopped the hard sums part just leaving the secondary schoolkid level questions you have outstanding, although I think you’re too “short on science and too much of a complete moron to understand the questions :

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

  37. #37 craig thomas
    March 20, 2014

    Can I have a go Chek?

    1/ No.
    2/ No.
    3/ Yes.
    4/ N/A.

    Did I get it right?

    Does Olaus know he can’t answer those questions correctly, which is why he’s avoiding them?

  38. #38 craig thomas
    March 20, 2014

    Judith Curry’s presentation to the APS:

    “Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?
    • The deep ocean has warmed approximately 0.05K; if the heating is well mixed in the ocean, there is no way for
    warming in the atmosphere to occur beyond 0.05K.”

    Huh? Surely she isn’t confused about the difference between Heat and Temperature? 0.05K in a well-mixed ocean is a %#$^load more heat than 0.05K in the atmosphere.

  39. #39 GSW
    March 20, 2014

    @Craig #30

    “GSW, Nobody’s trying to “silence” Mark Steyn”

    Well he sees it that way Craig. Mark’s quite an articulate freedom of speech campaigner, so he’s unlikely to view it differently . Be interesting to see how it all pans out, Mann being a self aggrandizing dweeb and all. ;)

    In the meantime, more from the irrepressible Mr Steyn; this time his hilarious take on liberal multiculturalism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K26kKDCCV9g

  40. #40 craig thomas
    March 20, 2014

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/jc-aps.pdf

    She states:
    “20th century sea level trends co-­‐varies with the AMO and the stadium wave”
    …but…compare the “trends” she ascribes to Jevrejeva et al. with what is pictured in the original paper:

    http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf

    And *their* conclusions:

    “global sea level acceleration up to the present has
    been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the
    end of the 18th century.”

    “there are periods of slow and fast sea level rise associated with decadal variability,”

    “even if projected temperatures rise more slowly than the IPCC scenarios suggest, sea level will very likely rise faster than the IPCC projections”

    So, a reference to a respectable paper, but no acknowledgment that it disagrees with the opinion Curry is pushing.

    Or…am I misreading her…?

  41. #41 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Well done Craig.

    See liars (I refer to Olaus and GSW) – it’s that simple. I bet Craig didn’t really even pause to think about that. Just rattled them off.

    That’s because he knows what he’s talking about and is intellectually honest so therefore *volunteers* to have a go.

    I have lost count of the number of times the liars Olaus and GSW have refused to answer these questions, but it must be well into double figures by now.

  42. #42 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Sorry Craig – that was in response to your #37.

  43. #43 craig thomas
    March 20, 2014

    She states:
    “~47-­‐60% of the Arc;c sea ice decline is natural (Stroeve el al. 2012);”

    Huh? That’s astounding. But wait…what do Stroeve etc actually say…?

    Searching their paper for the figure “47%” the only mention of it is:
    “47% to 57% of the observed September sea ice extent trend over the period 1979–2006 to anthropogenic forcing.”

    And “60%”?
    “approximately 60% of the observed rate of decline
    from 1979–2011 is externally forced”

    Huh? Am I misreading something here, or is Curry doing a total Monckton?

  44. #44 bill
    March 20, 2014

    Of all the contemptible garbage! Right –

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Martin Niemöller. That’s the version from the freakin’ US Holocaust Memorial Museum, no less.

    Game, Set, and Match. Rational people 1, psychopathic pseudo-libertarian creep 0.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    March 20, 2014

    The fact is that Olaus Petri (and his denier mates) remains afraid to answer BBD’s questions, and mine.

    Why is that?

  46. #46 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    Because they are lying scum, Bernard.

  47. #47 Stu
    March 20, 2014

    Mark fucking Steyn? Are you fucking serious?

    And that is on top of stealing Jonah fucking Goldberg’s entire idiotic shtick. What’s the over under on these clowns even knowing they’re parroting old, discredited, pathetic slop produced by the most idiotic wingnut welfare recipients?

    For crying out loud. Mussolini was a socialist? Government healthcare is an assault on citizenship? These are the dregs, the worst of the worst, the douchenozzles and shills employed only because of nepotism and because the long-time engineers of the faux-populist backlash realized that no matter how fucking stupid Marky Mark and little Jonah are… there are mouth breathers out there that will actually believe this vapid, transparent shlock.

    And then claiming to be liberal? That’s simply beyond words. No definition can come close to even touching how idiotic that is. It boggles the mind. It beggars belief.

    You are not deniers illiterate in science, or misguided well-meaning individuals.

    Grade-A all-round full on waste-of-air morons. Too stupid to fucking think your way out of a paper bag. Just fuck off, you’re too pathetic to even make fun of anymore.

    http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8193.html

  48. #48 Stu 2
    March 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 28.
    By definition ‘Libertarian’ is an antonym for extreme right wing .
    Neither does Libertarian mean:
    ” hate government, at least where government regulates private and corporate behavior, amongst other tenets of your right wing ideology.”
    By definition Libertarianism opposes corporate bullying or ‘big business’ just as much as ‘big government’.
    What you appear to be criticising is perhaps best defined as “Right Wing Authoritarian”?
    “Authoritarian” is another antonym for “Libertarian” .
    The terms ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ have their origins in the ‘socialist’ movement and Olaus’ argument that political leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler were ‘socialists’ is basically correct.
    They were certainly not ‘Libertarian’.

  49. #49 BBD
    March 20, 2014

    #43 Craig Thomas

    The bug-eyed thing, I think. This testimony was much-discussed elsewhere and IIRC determined to be seriously misleading. I missed all this, but try Tamino’s if you are working through her stuff yourself.

  50. #50 bill
    March 20, 2014

    Except of course that these current ‘libertarians’ are actually authoritarians playing at being pirates while fawning all over the Kochs!

    Hey, but thanks for highlighting – yet again – for any casual readers who may remain what all-round headcases you guys really are!

  51. #51 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Well he sees it that way Craig

    Of course he does. Bully mouthpieces like Steyn always play the victim card when challenged. Good to see both CEI and his lawyers cut him loose. Hopefully he’ll end up back in the gutter where he belongs.

  52. #52 bill
    March 20, 2014

    …and what Stu said. Jeebus what a bunch of pathetic, waster loonies…

  53. #53 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Bill, first Lenin came for the communist he didn’t like, then the other communists he didn’t like, then again the communist he didn’t like. Then Stalin came for communists he didn’t like, then other communists he didn’t like, and then again the communists he didn’t like….

    Radical socialists (of any coulor) in power, national as well as international, kill each other en masse..

    So what’s your point? That you disagree with Gramsci’s view on Mussolini?

  54. #54 Stu
    March 20, 2014

    They were certainly not ‘Libertarian’.

    And in walks Clownshoe #3. They were fascists, you moron. Which predominantly meant:

    1. Corporatist
    2. Authoritarian to protect 1
    3. Expansionist to benefit 1
    4. Psychopaths, and surrounded by psychopaths
    5. Allowed to indulge in pet fantasies, psychoses and delusions as long as they did not interfere with 1

    What calls itself Libertarian nowadays calls for

    1. Free markets
    2. Free markets
    3. Removal of all protections against free markets
    4. Removal of all protections against corporate aggression and greed
    5. Free markets
    6. Legalizing pot, usually

    Sure, the lies are different, but EVERY SINGLE PROPOSED “LIBERTARIAN” policy takes us right back to the Gilded Age — the few remaining parts that aren’t already there, that is. There’s not a single beam of light between them. Fuck the words, the results are EXACTLY the same. A little war here, a little war there, a culture war to keep the morons occupied and oh dearie me, it seems I have ended up with all the money you stupid peon. But hey, you’re free! Free to die in the street like a dog.

    Why do you think the pushback against a working health care system in the US is so massive, so continuous, so acrimonious? Guaranteed health care provides security. Security allows people to make demands, start thinking, organize… bad things.

    We’re right back to governments fighting wars for corporations. To every social safety net being under constant attack. To rolling back anything that might get in the way of maximum profit. The haves start wars, make sure the fracking stays away from the Hamptons along with the riff-raff. I mean, if the combined wealth on your street exceeds that of 1,000,000,000 of the poorest in the world… that just means they’re not working hard enough.

    Modern libertarians are part of the haves, sociopaths and/or pathetic stooges too fucking stupid to open a history book. You’re one of the latter at the very least. So fuck you, whether you’re just lying to us or actually believe this pig slop. You’re part of the problem.

  55. #55 Stu 2
    March 20, 2014

    Bill @ # 50.
    Would you care to explain why that changes the fact that ‘libertarian’ is an antonym for ‘authoritarian’ or that Mussolini was indeed a socialist?
    As explained above, a libertarian by definition opposes the concept of corporate bullying or ‘big business’ just as much as a libertarian opposes the concept of ‘big government’.

  56. #56 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Stu dear, do you have anything more substantial than your emotions to bring to the table? ;-)

    I’ll take it you too disagree with Gramsci’s take on Mussolini’s political preferences. Care to elbarote on why? ;-)

    Guess not.

  57. #57 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Did Mussolini (or Hitler) aid the democratic Spanish Republic, or the fascist Nationalist Franco? Or has that not been revised yet in fruitcakeland?

    It’s not just climate science you deny, it appears you’re at war with rationality.

  58. #58 bill
    March 20, 2014

    you’re at war with rationality

    Exactly.

    Just toss in something at the far-right tapering margin of the Autism spectrum bell-curve and you have your contemporary ‘libertarian’…

  59. #59 Stu 2
    March 20, 2014

    Stu @ # 54,
    I am not an expert on the American Health Care system. But I would agree that it does appear to be in a mess.
    You do seem to be conflating definitions however.
    Libertarianism does not oppose health care neither does it advocate 1 through to 5 in the manner you have outlined.
    1 through to 5 favours big government and big corporate and big global monopoly, all being antonyms for libertarian.
    And yes, Mussolini is described as a ‘right wing fascist’ but it doesn’t alter the fact that he was also a ‘socialist’.

  60. #60 bill
    March 20, 2014

    We can probably safely assume Stootoo is the victim of US insularity, and the particularly grotesque manifestation of it in the form of its, *cough*, ‘education’ system, which has, ironically, been terminally fucked up by the very people and forces he idolises.

    What excuse these Scandinavian Breitards have is anyone’s guess…

  61. #61 GSW
    March 20, 2014

    It’s like a shell game in here,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
    but rather than find the pea, one has to work out which of you “climate faithers” has borrowed the brain for the evening. It doesn’t help that some of you appear to be drunk (stu 1, for example).

    @chek
    “Steyn always play the victim card”
    Steyn is nothing like a victim chek, which you would know if you’d ever heard him speak or, I suspect, had any understanding of what “playing the victim” actually meant. By way of illustration, Mann is the past master at this,

    “Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role.”

    What a guy!
    ;)

  62. #62 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Bill, first Lenin came for the communist he didn’t like, then the other communists he didn’t like, then again the communist he didn’t like. Then Stalin came for communists he didn’t like, then other communists he didn’t like, and then again the communists he didn’t like…. Radical socialists (of any coulor) in power, national as well as international, kill each other en masse..So what’s your point? That you disagree with Gramsci’s view on Mussolini?

    Getting even shorter on science Olap monocorne.
    Look moron, nobody here is interested in your crank history or your quack understanding of science. You demonstrate no comprehension of either so take your crank quacking somewhere else.

    You can’t even answer these basic questions still outstanding regarding your quack hiatus.

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

  63. #63 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Griselda @ #61
    If you’re going to quote someone, quote them accurately and not just however your turd-brain interprets it, you lying, manipulative piece of shit.

  64. #64 Stu
    March 20, 2014

    For fuck’s sake, Olaus. If you’re truly this masochistic, if you truly get off on humiliating yourself this much, I’m sure there’s a leather bar somewhere close to you with very nice people willing to oblige. What the fuck are you still doing here? Still trying to go for the “BUT WHAT IF I’M WRONG ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ISSUE KNOWN TO MAN! THEY’LL NEVER SEE THAT COMING!” prize.

    Let’s see what we have going on now. See, you’re such a full-service idiot that it doesn’t even matter what the topic is. I see your name, copy the comment, scroll down, paste it in the comment box and only then read it. You’ll be wrong. You’ll be utterly, completely, what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you incorrect.

    So, doop-dee-doo…

    Bill, first Lenin came for the communist he didn’t like, then the other communists he didn’t like, then again the communist he didn’t like. Then Stalin came for communists he didn’t like, then other communists he didn’t like, and then again the communists he didn’t like….

    Sweetheart, I know this is entirely new to you and it’s all the vogue to copy-paste them thar difficult words to demonize liberals over in the dungeon, but… seriously? Just by that nugget you prove:

    You don’t know what communism is.

    You don’t know what Marxism is.

    You don’t know what Leninism is.

    You don’t know what Stalinism is.

    You don’t know who Lenin persecuted.

    You don’t know who Stalin persecuted.

    What fucking possesses you to put your fingers on a keyboard?

    Radical socialists (of any coulor) in power, national as well as international, kill each other en masse..

    After we’re all done laughing at yet another denialist too fucking stupid to use a spell checker, for those playing along at home: why is the word “socialist” in that sentence?

    Actually, Olaus…

    I think I haven’t been plain enough yet. Let me try again.

    YOU ARE TO FUCKING STUPID TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ADULT CONVERSATION. GO AWAY.

  65. #65 Stu 2
    March 20, 2014

    Bill @ # 60,
    I am an Australian.
    Most Australians would spot that comment from you @ 60 as mostly pseudo-intellectual & meaningless drivel.

  66. #66 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Chek, so? Communist Vietnam was in war with Pol Pot’s Campuchea and Hilter killed many national socialists too, etc

    And you seem to have no clue regrarding the many charged phalanges in Spain. A very complexed war it was. Have you ever heard of the May days in Barcelona (1937), for instance? Read up on the communist death-squads and what side they annhilated:

    http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-%E2%80%98may-days%E2%80%99-in-barcelona-1937

    Note: I don’t like Franco either.

  67. #67 Stu
    March 20, 2014

    @2:

    Would you care to explain why that changes the fact that ‘libertarian’ is an antonym for ‘authoritarian’ or that Mussolini was indeed a socialist?

    You’re an idiot (which one is a fact and which one isn’t, moron — pick), and now also a proven delusional asshole. That sentence has two obvious and stupid lies in it, and I have already explained to you why.

    For the peanut gallery’s benefit, let me try a different tack.

    Words do not mean what you want them to.

    You’re sitting there bleating about how the definition of libertarianism is…

    Well, sorry sweetheart, you don’t get to decide that. There’s a certain ancient symbol ruined forever just 70 years ago. Sitting there throwing dictionary definitions of libertarian like the desperate little organ grinder monkey you are might have sounded like a good idea last night, but here you are… pretending that everything is trumped by high school debate club notes.

    YOU DON’T GET TO DEFINE WHAT LIBERTARIANISM IS, ASSHOLE. IT’S A REAL THING FUCKING UP REAL LIVES. What you’re doing is really cute for a 16 year old, but you’re not 16 years old, are you.

    What do you fucking morons think you are accomplishing here other than open, abject, delusional masochism? At least your dungeoned idol was smart enough to har-dee-har and change the subject every time he was proven wrong.

    You, failboat troika, lack the mental capacity to do even that. If you have an ounce of intellectual integrity left in your sad, withered bones, please, I beg you to ponder that.

    And fuck off.

  68. #68 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Dear Stu, let’s not forget that I’m the one making an argument hear, not you. :-) You are just crying and stomping your little foot hard in the ground. Cute though.

    So, try to collect yourself for a moment and compare “young Mussolini’s” view on capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie with the “old Mussolini’s”. Feel also free to comment on Gramsci’s analysis of his Avanti!-colleague.

    :-)

  69. #69 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Stu, the global warming hiatus is around 16 years too. Must mean something, right (not left)? ;-)

  70. #70 chek
    March 20, 2014

    Olap re-read this from four comments ago:
    “Look moron, nobody here is interested in your crank history or your quack understanding of science. You demonstrate no comprehension of either so take your crank quacking somewhere else.
    Remember that? It was with a reminder of those questions about the illusory hiatus you’ve been flogging until cornered.

  71. #71 Stu 2
    March 20, 2014

    Stu @ # 64 & # 67.
    This is an occasion when I regret we share the same name.
    In what way does your CAPITALS (shouting) re the ‘real thing’ and ‘real lives’ and the definition of liberalism have any bearing on what is being discussed here?

  72. #72 Olaus Petri
    March 20, 2014

    Chek, so far I’m delivering valid arguments, and you are not. :-)

    Only foul language coming from your piehole. I guess the enlightment-process I have inititated forces the evil out of you.. ;-)

    Call me Father Merrin, if you like Megan.

  73. #73 Stu
    March 21, 2014

    Random aside: my daughter stopped using smileys 4 years ago because they make you look like a brain-damaged imp.

    I forgive her for using them before then… after all, she was 11.

  74. #74 Stu
    March 21, 2014

    Only foul language coming from your piehole.

    And yet in response the best you could come up with is “piehole”. Holy shit you’re pathetic. No, don’t tell me, you weren’t going to stoop to my level, right?

    You’re openly tone-trolling now, Olaus. By doing so you have conceded the argument. Thank you for playing.

    Goodbye.

  75. #75 Stu
    March 21, 2014

    @2:

    This is an occasion when I regret we share the same name.

    Seriously?

    Fucking seriously?

    It isn’t my full name (pronunciation issues), and it isn’t yours either. We don’t share a name. Never have, never will.

    So you’re whining for points now. Are you this much of a pussy in real life?

    Better question, actually: who the fuck do you douches hang out with that you think this fools anyone? It’s such an idiotic, vapid, pointless and transparent lie.

    Oh, and as for the caps? I am often too lazy to do bold tags. But hey, I love hearing criticism about my typography from the intentionally dyslexic clown contingent. Really told me off there, sweetheart.

    YOU GUYS ARE TOO STUPID FOR ANY DISCUSSION ON CLIMATE, POLITICS OR HISTORY. YOU ARE NOT HERE FOR THE HUNTING. I AM INDULGING YOUR NEEDS FOR HUMILIATION ONLY BECAUSE I AM BORED. THERE ARE WEB SITES AND CLUBS THAT CAN GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT.

    Oh yeah, I forgot. I add caps sometimes when I’m giving advice to complete morons. I think I have this idealistic pinge somewhere, this hope, that large, simple letters will get through.

    But yeah. You keep dashing that hope. So hey, I’ll indulge. Actual, adult and sincere question. What do you think your children think of you when they read this thread?

  76. #76 chek
    March 21, 2014

    so far I’m delivering valid arguments

    You can’t even answer four simple questions in defence of your “argument”.

    Is there some centralised on-line training that all these morons get that teaches them to make delusional statements as if they were prevailing – when it’s patently obvious that they’re not even close?

  77. #77 Stu 2
    March 21, 2014

    Stu @# 75.
    You are simply ranting.
    To make it simple for you.
    Libertarianism by definition is an antonymn of Authoritarianism.
    Which part of this simple observation is creating such aggressive behaviour from you?
    What my children may or may not think about comments at this thread is entirely irrelevant.
    However, I have raised them to be civil to and tolerant of their fellow human beings.

  78. #78 chek
    March 21, 2014

    2 Stupid, let’s clarify it for you. There is your pristine dictionary definition, and there’s the real world, tea-party, Koch-funded fake libertarian neo-liberal ugliness version which is flapping it’s little wings off for political ascendancy if not supremacy at present. It tends to attract rank and file idiots and oligarchs.
    Which part of this simple observation makes you so faux naïve?

  79. #79 Stu 2
    March 21, 2014

    Chek.
    Any group that is flapping wings for political ascendancy if not supremacy would be advocating a form of ‘authoritarianism’ .
    Neo -liberalism is not ‘libertarianism’.
    Oligarchy by definition is also far removed from libertarianism.
    Libertarians come in all colours , with left and right wings and with no wings.

  80. #80 jp
    March 21, 2014

    One of the inbreds (O’lapdog) says, “Chek, so far I’m delivering valid arguments, and you are not.”
    Hahahaha….

    I know it’s not nice to laugh at people who are genuinely of low intelligence, but I just can’t help it. I find it hard to believe that someone can be so lacking in self-awareness. That goes for that other scandinavian inbred GSW. Both of them posting here for I don’t know how many years and they still can’t say anything of any value; nothing intelligent or informative or insightful…nothing. E.g., they’ve been asked about 20 times a few simple questions on their favourite topic _ the hiatus _ and they still haven’t answered them.

    O’lapdog and the GSW moron are preparing themselves for their daily intellectual contribution, sitting on the toilet, grimacing, trying to force a thought _
    “…aaaah….it’s coming….PLOP! Another thought for the day.”

    Here’s a question for the O’lap: Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a democracy?

    The poor idiot most probably hasn’t made the connection; he’s still pondering why I’m asking that question. Ok, I’ll make it explicit for it (I think we should start referring to the two inbreds as “it”).

    In what way is Hitler’s National Socialism socialist?

    Can it answer that question? When I ask for an answer, I mean an intelligent analysis. Not something that the other moron GSW would reply with, like _ “I am happy for you to play with yourself”.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    March 21, 2014

    But what the heck, what’s your opinion on “the young Mussilini” then?

    My opinion is that you weren’t able to or didn’t care to comprehend what I wrote in order to ask an irrelevant question in response.

    And you want to continue with irrelevant political questions precisely because it is obvious to even you and your fellow travellers that you’re avoiding basic scientific questions whose answers undermine your position.

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    March 21, 2014

    And that is on top of stealing Jonah fucking Goldberg’s entire idiotic shtick.

    Been wondering when someone’s going to point that out ;-)

    Much hilarity ensued when Goldberg’s tome was published. I seem to recall Dave Niewert and associates provided some feedback at the time, and I suspect I referred readers here to that last time someone used Goldberg’s schtick.

    But all Gish Gallops must return to the beginning…

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    March 21, 2014

    Libertarianism does not oppose health care neither does it advocate 1 through to 5 in the manner you have outlined.

    Libertarianism, as actually practised in the US, the US being the defining context for this discussion, does indeed oppose any kind of government involvement in the provision of healthcare, up to and including the piss-weak and extremely corporate friendly scheme that has been dubbed “Obamacare”. And Stu’s 1-5 are indeed widely advocated by Libertarianism-as-practised in the US.

    Pretending otherwise is denial. (Doubling down on denial after the error has been pointed out is just stupid.)

    And pretending that Libertarianism-as-practiced doesn’t fit the “definition” of Libertarianism you wish to insist on is an Olaus-level attempt to redefine reality to sweep parts of it you don’t care to acknowledge under the carpet.

    In what way does your CAPITALS (shouting) re the ‘real thing’ and ‘real lives’ and the definition of liberalism have any bearing on what is being discussed here?

    Good grief. You’re no better at comprehension or logic than Olaus, so you won’t comprehend my comment either…

  84. #84 Bernard J.
    March 21, 2014

    Stu, the global warming hiatus is around 16 years too. Must mean something, right (not left)?

    Yes, it means something alright – that you’ve left addressing BBD’s and my questions because you’re too scared to learn the facts – which are that you don’t understand signal vs noise, complex systems, basic statistics, or how to learn to the level of middle high school comprehension.

    You’re covering yourself in glorious humiliation here, Olaus, and everyone’s noticing. Even your denialist buddies, although they won’t admit it – but they’re avoiding those questions too, so they know that there’s something uncomfortable right in front of their faces…

    Pretending that you’re not scared to answer the questions doesn’t change the fact that you are afraid, just as pretending that the laws of physics don’t exist doesn’t change the fact that they do.

  85. #85 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2014

    Stu, I know you are angry and that you seem to disagree with me, but how about some arguments to back up your emotional eruptions with? :-)

    Only empty posing so far. Why not start with Gramsci’s analysis? Maybe that will help you going? :-)

  86. #86 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2014

    Jp, thanks for joing in with eveing more high-frequenced arm waving. Please feel free to make a point. :-)

    Hitler’s socialism sure contained a lot of socialism. Anti-capitalism and anti-liiberalism for instance. The wellfare program developed by the nazis during the 1930s in Germany was very progressive judged by international standards.

    I think you are confusing hate speeches against well defined enemies and blame games as something unique for the right wing. Sorry, but it ain’t.

  87. #87 Stu 2
    March 21, 2014

    Lotharsson and jp,
    Exactly..
    Just because a political system claims it is a democracy or socialist or libertarian or whatever, does not necessarily mean it is.
    So the DPRK is not really a democracy and Hitler’s National Socialists was not a socialist government.
    The US political system is not libertarian either.
    Unlike Stu and Chek you do seem to realise that clear definitions are important.
    Interestingly, it was Jeff Harvey’s comment about and obvious dislike of ‘libertarianism’ that caused me to comment because what he was describing does not fit with the definition of libertarianism.
    Libertarianism does not advocate for big corporate or corporate bullying or global monopolising or big government or the Koch’s or any other form of authoritarianism or oligarchy or totalitarianism. In fact authoritarianism in all its forms and libertarianism are, by definition, antonyms of each other.

  88. #88 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2014

    By the way, isn’t Flush and the Pan an aussie group?:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/lewandowsky-paper-flushed-then-floated-again/#more-105739

    Lew-papers goin down so many drains it’s impossible to keep up.

  89. #89 Jeff Harvey
    March 21, 2014

    Flushed according to who? A second rate weatherman who has never done any primary research in their life?

    This is the level of inanity reached by deniers. They sit at the sidelines, hardly if ever do any primary research, snipe away as if they are experts, and expect to be taken seriously.

    If Swedish meatball wants to find actual hatred on the internet, he’s found it alright – on WUWT. A bunch of w****** masquerading as informed opinion.

  90. #90 bill
    March 21, 2014

    Funnily enough, ‘libertarianism’ suffers from exactly the same embarrassing shortfall between sublime theory and ridiculous reality as the other ‘isms’.

    And the same rash of apologists who hold out for the transcendent trooooooooth of the cherished vision, whatever the sordid empirical reality.

    Actual libertarians are authoritarian muppets putting on a drag act and/or corporate stooges.

    Take the videos online where the ever-patient Noam Chomsky allows himself to be interviewed by some of the TeaPartyite pseudo-libertarian droogs and tries politely to point out to them just how, well, Stoopid they are. That their Randian Übermensch corporate heroes can’t believe their luck that an unpaid army of useful idiots would be daft enough to want to drown the gubmint – and all its pesky regulations and protections – in the bathtub because: ‘libuuurty’, and then hand them the world, and their own arses, on a plate.

    Funnily enough, attempting to reason with these pseudo-libertarians doesn’t work. Because they are ahistorical, anti-rational, anti-scientific fantasist loons.

  91. #91 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2014

    Jeff, maybe the Swedish Secret Service’s tune “A Flush in the night” better graps the conspiracy ideation found in Loo’s paper. A good song at any rate. :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6HYd-clxA&feature=kp

  92. #92 BBD
    March 21, 2014

    Bernard J #84

    Oh yes. The stink of fear is cloying. GSW is reeking of it too.

    And my oh my, just look at the desperate efforts to push the spotlight away. All this risible horse-shit about political history and the pathetically transparent lies about what libertarianism is. Oh yes. Desperate, frantic evasive tactics. The liars don’t even mind that they are getting pummelled because their present humiliation serves as a distraction from their previous nightmare scenario.

    * * *

    Lest we forget, let’s spare a moment to contemplate on the deafening silence and sinew-snapping wriggling surrounding this:

    1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?

    2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?

    3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?

    4/ If you *disagree*, explain why

    5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?

    6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)

    7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?

    8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?

    Obviously Bernard J’s unanswered questions about the instrumental record remain unanswered, and there has been no response to Jeff Harvey’s multitude of points about ecological change.

  93. #93 Stu 2
    March 21, 2014

    Bill.
    More negative & assinine pseudo-intellectual, meaningless drivel?

  94. #94 bill
    March 21, 2014

    I see Oily has taken refuge in anality…

  95. #95 Stu 2
    March 21, 2014

    BBD,
    No one is disagreeing with Jeff Harvey that the ecology has and is changing.

  96. #96 BBD
    March 21, 2014

    Actually, 2Stupid, this is spot on:

    That their Randian Übermensch corporate heroes can’t believe their luck that an unpaid army of useful idiots would be daft enough to want to drown the gubmint – and all its pesky regulations and protections – in the bathtub because: ‘libuuurty’, and then hand them the world, and their own arses, on a plate.

    If you can’t see it, then your understanding of political reality is on a par with your grasp of physical climatology. You are in good company with the others running scared from a few simple questions here. Which is doubtless why you have appeared out of the woodwork to help your extremely distressed friends O’louse and GSW.

  97. #97 BBD
    March 21, 2014

    Of course perhaps GSW and O’Louse are so very reluctant to answer those questions because they saw what happened to 2Stupid’s ill-fated attempts over the last several weeks.

    So maybe they aren’t really your friends after all? You are more the goat driven into the minefield to see if there’s a way through.

  98. #98 Olaus Petri
    March 21, 2014

    Bill, I have vague feeling that want to say something substantional that contradicts my very clear and well founded arguments.

    So why don’t write them down and share them with me? Unravel from you tight fetus postition and make an arguments of some sort, at least? Why not start with taking one a thumb out of any of your two major orifices? Should be a good start for some right forward talk, me thinks. ;-)

  99. #99 bill
    March 21, 2014

    Stootoo – sorry, did reading all that makes your lips sore? Get a friend to help you with the hard words…

  100. #100 cRR Kampen
    March 21, 2014

    “Hitler’s socialism sure contained a lot of socialism. Anti-capitalism”

    This guy Petri doesn’t know what a complete fool he’s making of himself. I guess next he will assert that three men from Gaza did the Reconquista, pogroms and Shoa and that Stalin is now the president of the USA. What a moron. Must be a member of the teafuck party.

Current ye@r *