#98, just learnt to write?
@Kampen, you are very welcome to comment on the “rightness” of the progressive welfare program in Germany or the outspoken anti-capitalism and anti-liberalim in the national socialistic doctrines, if you like. The same goes for Gramsci’s analysis of Mussolini, of course.
So far you have just expressed strong emotions.
And so far, O’Louse, you have said exactly fuck-all:
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?
Your diversionary shite about political history and libertarianism has been comprehensively routed, O’Louse. Your sitting there with a stupid smirk on your face denying this just makes you look ludicrous.
Why no answers?
What’s the problem?
You have so very, very much to say about diversionary irrelevancies but not a single word when it comes to the subject of the main discussion, which was climate science. Why is that?
BBD, By now you should realize that meathead is exactly that – a Swedish meathead. He has no scientific expertise whatever and merely parrots the crap he reads on anti-environmental blogs. When challenged over the science in them, he resorts to childish smears and irrelevant waffle. He believes the crap he reads on denier blogs not because of science but because of political and economic ideology.
Its a simple as that. When he tried to engage in some science with me, it was kindergarten level stuff. What struck me right away is how utterly stupid meathead is. So now he’s gone off on a tangent about fascism and Mussolini and other crap, merely because I argued (correctly) that most of those who twist and masticate science to downplay AGW and thus render meaningful action mute are on the far right end of the political spectrum. This is not even open to debate; its a simple fact. Pretty well every think tank and astroturf group and pundit who opposes actions to deal with climate change are right wing conservatives who want to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Yet we can expect the old Swedish meatball to try and claim this isn’t true. Given this fact, he’s a blot who isn’t really worth discussing anything with.
Oh, I see it clearly enough, believe me. I’m just waiting for O’Louse to go away or be removed. Never back down to lying scum. Doubtless why we’re both still here.
I’m also endlessly amused by the way that almost none of these clowns will actually admit that they are right-wing/conservative/libertarian ideologues whose political worldview compels them to deny the scientific evidence on AGW.
The absolute *lack* of moral courage is fascinating. It’s as if at some level they are actually ashamed of what they are and what they are doing.
Or why not admit it, and admit it with pride?
#2, I expressed your strong emotions, yes. You are making so many typos – it must mean panic.
You are a historical revisionist if you state that Hitler and his cronies were anti-capitalistic. The reality is they were for capitalism, to be sure: for jungle capitalism/plunder ideology, not at all unlike e.g. the Koch Terrorists.
You probably fell completely for the Third Reich’s antisemitic agitprop that attacked Jews for being both capitalists and communists – exactly the kind of antithetic craziness that would hypnotize you and is actually doing so.
#7 – yes, it takes their cowardice to new levels.
@ Kampen, still no arguments besides Hitler had cronies that killed jews. Nobody is contesting that Kampen. Very disgusting, for sure, but not right in any sense of the word. Stalin’s porgromes were also sanction by the bipolar hateful radical socialistic doctrines. The “evil” superstructure (the capital) was a parasite on the Base (people, workers). But the jews’ association with trade and banking gave the superstructure an ethnic profile legitmizing and cultivating anti-semitism.
The NSDAP wanted to nationalise the German industry. How do make that coherrent “right wing”-capitalism?
I’m sure you will answer with more high-piitched unsubstantial mouth-diarrhea.
And that’s only because don’t have any arguments.
Those ideologues (the three stooges) who are lost in the minefield of dodgy history would do well to read a few books which could set them straight on more than a few details and give food for thought.
‘IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation’ by Edwin Black
‘Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions’ by Tom Bower
Then these should be read together,
‘Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies’ by Martin Allen
‘Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up’ by Lyn Picknet, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior.
With that latter a knowledge and understanding of some technical aviation background will help particularly with understanding technicalities of aviation fuels and engines.
‘Web Of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World’ by Mark Curtis which has an Introduction by John Pilger another who’s books you should look up.
‘Body Of Secrets: How America’s NSA & Britain’s GCHQ Eavesdrop On The World’ by James Bamford.
There are many more I could add to that list but they should do for starters.
Try to lift that veil of ignorance which is obscuring your view of the world but do not engage further on this smokescreen of a topic until you repaired your cognitive framework and have answered those science questions posed to you which you are trying hard to ignore.
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.
And you managed to entirely miss Jeff’s point by doing so, and do it so determinedly that one might be forgiven for thinking you were TRYING to. What Jeff was referencing is libertarianism as practised in the US in this era, not libertarianism as you define it. Your quibbling that Jeff was using a definition that you failed to approve of – a definition that is widely used these days, so you can’t legitimately claim that the definition is “wrong” – completely fails to connect with what Jeff said.
It’s most interesting that this happened just when there was a movement afoot to try to distract from the lack of scientific support for certain positions and the blatant avoidance of the provision of answers to scientific questions by those advocating those positions…
#13, “The NSDAP wanted to nationalise the German industry. ”
They “wanted to”, Petri? Tsk, tsk. So you are corroborating your nonsense by dreaming up ‘wishes & wants’.
“Stalin’s porgromes were also sanction by the bipolar hateful radical socialistic doctrines.”
Petri, you really need your sedative. Your gibberish is becoming unreadable.
The word is ‘pogroms’, they happened end of nineteenth century and motivated zionism.
Your ignorance is disgusting.
Lionel A, he ignores the climate questions because he is a troll.
He probably knows the answers quite well. He just needs a flood of the millenium.
@ Kampen, heavy load you are coming up with. To nationalize German industry was stated in NSDAP program. any comments besides emotions?
Stalin wanted to install perpect comunism. He didn’t succed. But he sure “wanted” and “whished” to do so.
Olap’s lapsing into ranting gibberish and it’s plain he knows less about politics than climate science.
And even less about the Right’s war on the other.
any comments besides emotions
…said the smiley-face, passive-aggressive, piss-weasel emoticon prince, with nary a hint of irony.
You are right. Olly’s posts are becoming more and more incoherent. His grammar, never much to begin with, is even getting worse with each post. Its a slow, inexorable slide into insanity.
#18 Petri, Stalin was a pure right wing fascist (but you probably read only ‘SS’ in ‘USSR’) and the pogroms were during Czarist Russia when ‘Stalin’ was still a Georgian boy.
Stalin deviated from ‘pure communism’ in sofar he decided the socialist revolution could not be globalized. You are fucking things up again and it is not even trolling, it is sheer stupidity.
The German industry was not nationalized. Do you realize what that means?
“I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative.”, guess who said that.
Still in no-argument mode.
I’m sure Stalin deviated from true communism (I told you that already) like Hitler deviated from NSDAP’s program. Why is that relevant? Deviations are what politicians do best, dictators in particular. Accordningly is Stalin’s actual politics compatible with him being a commie (or wasn’t Stalin a commie? ), and Hitler’s with him being a socialist. Elementary, my dear Kampen, and the examples can be multified.
The outcome od their actions is alswas disgusting even though, for instance, the German people was very happy for NSDAP’s very progressive reform program.
And Stalin’s antisemitism is well documented in the litterature. Here is a sample:
And you call me a revisionist. Shame on you.
But I guess you are not susceptible historical facts of any kind?
Most scholars consider German style fascism to be at the far right end of the political spectrum. As Wikipedia explains, Htiler’s rise to power depended on support from extremely conservative and far right groups.
Meathead dabbles in political history and bingo! He’s suddenly an authority. Where have we seen this before? With many AGW deniers of course.
OP, which way is Australia going?
Australian Anti-Protest Law Targets Environmental Activists With Fines And Jail
And who are the law protecting by this?
Police senseless vandalism adds to brutality
Duke Energy Caught Intentionally Dumping 61 Million Gallons Of Coal Waste Into North Carolina Water watch the video?
“Why is that any of this relevant? Deviations are what politicians lying denier scum do best”
Yes, that looks much closer to the truth now.
Beat me to it, chek.
Still in no-argument mode.
Still in not-answering-basic-questions mode…
You have absolutely buggered yourself over this. It could not be worse. You were laughed at before, but I sense a new degree of contempt and derision among others. Quite an achievement really, considering where you were already when we started a few days ago.
What Olap doesn’t seem to understand is that his rinkydink comprehension skills are what give him his rinkydink understanding of politics and his even more abysmal – and as we’ve seen indefensible – understanding of climate science.
I do hope his mates at klimatgoons.se or whatever their denier clubhouse is called are having a good laugh at his expense too. It must be duller than a wet Sunday in Stockholm that he spends so much time here.
#24, so now you can safely preach your neo-nazism, because that is what the insane interpretation of Hitler-as-a-commie is for.
Stalin was an antisemite, yes, I knew that of course. But 15, fifteen Jews, picked up and partly killed in secrecy? You don’t even know what a pogrom is!
#29, contempt and derision on a new scale, well observed. Contempt.
Since I’ve seen Dutch extreme right take on the US fringe extreme right fantasy of nazis having been leftists. It is a special variant of the genocidaires and wannabe genocidaires – after the act they always express a peculiar mixture of denial and pride!
#26 OM’G’ that country is going down the drain fucking fast! That is a czarist, an Erdogan, an al-Assad measure! And fuck those killers have fans that somehow breed too.
And now there is this
Stephen Lewandowsky: Confronting the Anti-Science Thought Police
to go with works by Bob Altemeyer, Robert J. Brulle and John Mashey.
Note that omnologos has chipped in with his bent 2ps.
@Kampen, you are so boring. I have nowhere claimed that Hitler was a commie.
But I guess that kind of fabrications is the only thing you can muster.
And fascism isn’t communism or syndicalism either, but it stems from both. Very simple, which Gramsci was well aware of
The silliest part is that you think that it is dangerous to view fascism for what it is, ergo a branch of the famillytree of socialism. In what way?
Kampen, can you please improve you game? I really find it troublesome that you are denyig Stalin’s anti-semtism.
Correct Jeff, most scholars in history, like you, have en unsubstantiated opinion about fascism being right-wing. But they have not dared (or more correct: avoided) relating fascsims doctrines to their ideological background of Mussolini.
And people voting for Hitler wasn’t far rigth. Many were, however, from a socio-economic backround that right wing politics normally courts. But like both Marx and Engels, people from that kind of background can preferr socialism.
Which has what, exactly, to do with radiative physics and physical climatology, O’Louse?
Absolutely fuck-all, you say? It’s just a desperate diversionary tactic? Ah. I see.
BBD, it was Jef (for which time in order I don’t remember) that started to shout about fascism.
Yes, I did get that. But prior to your desperate diversionary campaign, you were being asked some simple questions about climate science. Which you have yet to answer. Do you now feel able to proceed, Olaus?
Olap hasn’t comprehended yet that his shit understanding of climate science and his desperate inability to answer simple questions points strongly to a similar (lack of) understanding of political history.
A clown who’s read a book isn’t suddenly an intellectual, just a clown who’s read some words in a book.
Perhaps I should clarify the previous.
Bell-end clown parrots of denier shite in one subject (e,g. climate science) are extremely likely (with the emphasis on extreme) to be bell-end clown parrots in other things (e,g. dodgy Swedish right wing loony movements with appeal to brainless wingnut parrots).
There, that’s better. I think that describes Olap to a tee.
Chek, unlike you, I read a books.
I know you struggle with that the rest of the Deltoid bunch, incuding Jeff, laughs at you.
You are lying again Olaus. I don’t laugh at chek. Nor does anyone else here who is commenting in good faith.
Which should embarrass you but won’t.
I read a books
That certainly doesn’t indicate that structure or meaning penetrates your thick, neanderthal skull.
But thanks for playing, arsehole.
Now fuck off, and good riddance..
Since you are determined not to engage on climate science, here are a few random questions for you:
- Should Eddie Van Halen be regarded as one of the most influential rock guitarists of the C20th?
- Why is the sky blue?
- Should cannabis be legalised?
Well there you go. Chek again, and I’m not laughing.
Stop lying BBD. We all laugh at chek and his silly efforts to be somebody.
But what about EVH’s contribution to the evolution of the rock guitar solo? And why is the sky not green, or two different species of antelope?
And should we legalise marijuana? Thus empowering farmers in developing economies and depriving the criminal economy of a substantial revenue stream?
We all laugh at chek and his silly efforts to be somebody.
You all do?.
I must tell my therapist immediately that I was right all along!
Or…. are you just making that up, Olap?
Empirical evidence an’ all dat jive, mon….
Don’t fuck wid me now Swedish Nazi bro’….
Chek, you don’t need to tell anyone that you have a therapist.It is more than obvious that you must have at least one, but most likely two.
And how ca I be a nazi-bro? I like nazism less than you do. I don’t even like of Its socislistic garbage, like you do.
But Olap, you parrot all the anti-science garbage they publish, without even bothering to understand what they’re saying” How can that be?
Truly pathetic. Why does Oily have 2 logins, by the way?
Okay, the EVH question was a bit specialised, but Olaus, why is the sky blue?
Come on, Olaus.
First google hit for “why is the sky blue” gets me this, from NASA, no less.
While it’s true to say that EVH certainly popularised the tapping technique in the rock guitar solo genre – and was recognised at thee time by luminaries such as Michael Jackson as an innovator, and furthered by such Beckian stalwarts as Jennifer Battenh, in and of itself it doesn’t make redundant non -tappers who work in other scales without retuning.
I refer you to the guitar sound – produced on the cheap and unbelievably never bettered – on the Pistol’s NMTB. Except perhaps by that produced – and I use the word advisedly – on the Led Zep O² December 2007 comeback show.
So with that resolved, should we legalise pot?
What do *you* think, Olaus? Come on; you are very free with your opinions so let’s have it.
Yes on the tone Glen Matlock had on NMTB. Very close to the EVH “brown sound”. Always loved both
Lotharsson @ # 15,
Apparently, along with Chek and Stu, you are just wishing to argue for argument’s sake.
In case you didn’t notice I agreed that the US Government could not be described as ‘libertarian’.
Your assertion that it’s:
” a definition that is widely used these days”
Look up the definition of ‘libertarianism”
It does not say:
” as practised in the US ”
Perhaps you may need to reread jp’s comment ?
I also note that Jeff has since omitted using ‘libertarian’ in his comments and criticisms of ‘right wing’ and US politics. @ # 5.
As for your inference about when this started – it was Jeff Harvey’s political comments as he also concedes in his comment @ # 5:
” merely because I argued (correctly) that most of those who twist and masticate science to downplay AGW and thus render meaningful action mute are on the far right end of the political spectrum. “
and ye slithy toads
did gyre and gimbal
and wifully misconstrue?
Good grief. Olaus is in denial about even that! I am coming around to the opinion that he’s a kangaroo short in the top paddock, and this affects all kinds of beliefs.
Apparently, along with Chek and Stu, you are just wishing to argue for argument’s sake.
ROFLMAO! This is rank projection, Stu 2!
Your entire argument here has had ZERO to do with Jeff’s point because you’ve predicated it on the pedant’s standard fare – “that word doesn’t mean that because I say so!”
In other words, you’re picking an argument with the way Jeff used a word, not with the position Jeff put forth. That is precisely “an argument for argument’s sake”.
I predict you’ll miss this point too, in order to continue in your favourite modus operandi.
Your assertion that it’s:
” a definition that is widely used these days”
You’re stupidly projecting again, and you’re relying on at least one of the fallacy of personal incredulity and the fallacy of personal ignorance to do so. My statement is borne out of spending a lot of time on US political blogs where the definition is widely used. In other words, I’ve seen it widely used in blogs that cover the domain – politics – that it refers to.
As for your inference about when this started – it was Jeff Harvey’s political comments as he also concedes in his comment
And you got that wrong too. I implied exactly that when I castigated you for failing to connect with what Jeff wrote, instead making a big fuss because he used a word without using the Stu 2-approved definition of it.
And your getting that wrong serves the purpose of recursively distracting from my point, which was that your quibbling about not using the definition you approve of served as a distraction from the lack of scientific support for certain positions, right when one was “needed”.
I rest my case Lotharsson.
I am not interested in some type of petulant I said: you said argument.
Look up the definition of Libertarianism and reread jp’s comment.
O’lap says, “Deltoid is a pit full of pus where cretins ”
The fix is easy, O’lap: you remove yourself (the pus and the cretin) and everything is clean again.
He follows it with, “I totally understand Tim’s reluctance to engage in this blog anymore.”
See, O’lap? That’s what happens with generations of inbreeding. The logical functions of the brain gradually disappear. Tim is anything but a denier; I’m sure he can’t stand lying denier shit like you and GSW. If he’s banned Jonass from general conversation and confined him to his hole, it’s not because he likes him. So an intelligent person, not you for sure, can only infer that his reluctance to engage is solely because of the persistent presence of yourself and the other denier pus-bags polluting this site.
Stu2, don’t bring me into your argument; I’ve never said anything about liberterianism in the US.
cRR says,”This guy Petri doesn’t know what a complete fool he’s making of himself”
Well, it’s either a total lack of self-awareness which a mark of very low intelligence or it’s this right-wing trait of doubling-down; they’re smart enough to be aware but when they’ve been proven to be wrong, or when asked questions which would expose their belief to be substance-free, they don’t have the integrity or the moral courage to admit anything and so they totally ignore the question and keep repeating the same thing over and over, believing that the mere repetition of a statement will make it true.
As someone here has already mentioned, one of the basic mindsets of a right-wing idiot is that “truth” is only relative and not as important as winning in the big game of things. This has been demonstrated recently with right-wing parties in the US and Australia where all sorts of devious stratagems _ lying, cheating, and other methods employed to frustrate the process of government _ were employed to win. To a right-wing turd, winning is not only the main game, it’s the only game. They can’t allow themselves to question their beliefs as that would open up the possibility of being wrong. That just wouldn’t be on _ you can’t be a winner and be shown to be wrong at the same time.
In some contests you can be wrong and still win by cheating, but in an online debate the only strategies they can use are avoidance and “look, squirrel!” For O’lap the Petrified, his current strategy for avoiding answering the questions asked of him is “look, Mussolini!!”
Monkton is able to use dramatics, flourish, and bluster to fool the average simple-minded denier into believing that he knows what he’s talking about, but online, where he is deprived of those tools, does anyone see him engaging in debate at RealClimate or tamino’s?
As for Mussolini, I can’t understand what point the idiot is trying to make. Yes, Mussolini was a socialist before he turned fascist _ so what? O’lap’s stunted brain has concluded, very logically, that therefore fascism=socialism. Yep, if you were something before you became something else then the former is the same as the latter. Denier logic for you.
No you didn’t jp.
The argument you raised re socialism and democracy was, nonetheless, contextually valid.
What Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Benedetto Croce’s _ foremost Italian philosopher of the first half of the 20th century _ view of fascism. (my caps).
“The test was to be fascism, the political attitude that places the nation or race at the centre of life and history and disregards the individual and his rights. So gradual was this preparation that Croce himself did not at once perceive it. He confessed that he first saw in FASCISM A MOVEMENT TO THE RIGHT OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM THAT MIGHT RESTRAIN AND COUNTERACT THE LEFTIST TENDENCIES TOWARD UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM released by World War I. But as the character of the Benito Mussolini regime revealed itself, his opposition hardened, becoming absolute, beyond compromise. He became, within and without Italy, the symbol of the opposition to fascism, the rallying point of the lovers of liberty. In fascism Croce saw not merely another form of political tyranny. He saw it as the emergence of that other Italy, in which egoism displaced civic virtue, rhetoric dislodged poetry and truth, and the pretentious gesture replaced authentic action.”
The projection is strong in this one.
“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.”
At least you attempted to give an answer, even if totally superficial and doesn’t give any indication that you know what you’re talking about.
As for the invitation to make a point, thanks, but I’ve made the points I wanted to make. The fact that you can’t see one while at the same time giving a response to one shows what an idiot you are. Of course part of that last point I made was to highlight the stupidity of people, and you’re definitely one of them, who think that just because the word “socialist” appears on a party’s name it must therefore mean that it’s socialist in principle. There’s no comparative analysis of what the parties stand for and no understanding even of what socialism is.
How? _ with reference please.
“The wellfare program developed by the nazis…”
Australia, New-Zealand, England, France and everywhere in Scandinavia (ironically) and to a lesser the US _ in other words most of the developed world _ has decent welfare programs. Those with the best welfare programs, mostly Scandinavian ones, are consistently rated as having a better standard of living than the US with its aversion to anything that could be construed as “socialist”.
So would you label all those countries fascist, or socialist?
So is the objection to fascism, at least among normal people, related to its having good welfare programs? Is that what you’re saying O’lap?
Quite apart from your general ignorance, I don’t think you know what you’re saying O’lap. You’re not capable of logical, coherent thought. You’re just a fucking dummy.
“”This guy Petri doesn’t know what a complete fool he’s making of himself”
That’s part of his pathology. He thinks he’s an expert on everything, and that most readers must, by definition, believe him. Every since he first came into Deltoid to support his equally deluded compatriot, Jonas, he has spewed nothing but gibberish. For a time Olaus was banned to the ‘Jonas delusion’ thread as well, but somehow he slipped the leash and end up re-contaminating the general threads. Somehow we have to get Tim to put him back in the cage.
@ Stu. Strong comeback.
So far you have only expressed opinions. Nowhere do you try to explain why and how “yong Mussolini’s” anti-lberalism, anti-capitalism and hate of the bourgeoisie society suddenly become right-wing within a year or two?
Ever hareard the word “process”? And historically it’s not uncommon that international socialists turnes into national socialist.
Socialism/communism isn’t a monolith. Like today, its content changed and new types emerged, espacially in revolutionary circuits, something that often is made fun of.
And regarding state initiated general welfare programs, is it your political analysis that they are an invention fro the right side om the political spectrum?
Man, you are clutching after straws.
And Jp, to understand the devlopments within socialism one has to place it on the left side of the fence. At its radical end point off-springs occur frequently (the road to utopia is a narraow one). Some of these of these off-springs take a left turn (stay international) and some take a right turn (become national).
So, Olaus, what is your preferred central estimate for ECS/2xCO2? Please provide the range of uncertainty +/-.
No thoughts on the blueness of the sky or the notability of EVH’s contribution to the rock genre? Nor the thorny issue of legalisation? Where libertarianism meets fair trade (TM)
Is this toxic little nonentity going to drone on forever, do you suppose?
Bill, you are coming on strong today.
Omigosh, I can’t wait to her meatheads analysis of neoconservatism…
“Nowhere do you try to explain why and how “yong Mussolini’s” anti-lberalism, anti-capitalism and hate of the bourgeoisie society suddenly become right-wing within a year or two?” [sic]
The outbreak of the first world war, and the rise of a movement in Italian politics that was above anything else, nationalist. Mussolini’s conversion took place not within a year or two, but within a few months. But this was not a “process”, but a break with the past. The Italian Socialist party threw him out because he was not longer, by any definition, a socialist.
Mussolini formerly subscribed to the class-struggle, cutting across international borders. In response to the new vocal irrendentism, he advocated national revolution irrespective of class. His sights had shifted from the bourgeoisie as a class to non-italians. In case I need to say it explicitly, he was no longer any kind of socialist, by definition.
There, thats your question answered. Now how about being a mensch and addressing (or even acknowledging this existance) of the questions put to you?
For anyone confused about how the denier ‘hiatus’ garbage could square with 2010 being the hottest year (and all the other big heat events during the supposed ‘pause’) this analysis from Tamino answers many questions.
Apologies if somebody has already posted it before, but the S/N ratio’s been dreadful around here recently.
jp #66, well analyzed.
Look at this one, in #31 I said:
“Stalin was an antisemite, yes, I knew that of course.”
Ofap’s (panicky: typo’s!) reply in #34:
“I really find it troublesome that you are denyig Stalin’s anti-semtism.”
That is plain trolling.
I would like to mention it is not a game for them. My take on this sort of apes is they hate their life, must project it and do so by harassing other’s and ideally (for them) by destroying other people’s lives. Which is the object of fascism but never was for communism however misguided the latter may be.
#77 – it has to. Addiction/obsession.
Jeff, you are in top gear!
FrankD, yes, fascism grew out of radical socialism, ergo communism and syndicalism. You got it!
I had missed this one on Loo’s fury:
And have you read the comments over at Lew’s place?:
Lots of fake sceptics *are* paranoid conspiracy theorists. Fact. You also tend to be right wing or libertarian, and sickeningly intellectually dishonest. All facts empirically established by talking to you.
FWIW, the journal should have told Barry Woods to take a flying fuck.
At a rolling doughnut.
Oh, and that nasty little shit Foxgoose as well.
#85, you missed that one – confesses where you read and where you don’t and where you got your climate (and other) ignorance from.
#87 BBD so now we tell the journal to take that.
@Kampen, pay attention to what FranD writes. And then ask yourself why WW1 created fascism out of a blood thirsty commie with syndicalistic interest (and not from a liberal for instance).
I guess the capitlaists/superstructure singled out a radical anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and hater of the bourgeoisie society and then paid him handsomly to remain an anti-liberal, anti-capitalistic hater of the bourgeoisie society.
As it may have been missed in the noise from the children shouting in the corner, with their D (or should it be D-K) caps on, I once again link to the Climate Crocks article:
Stephen Lewandowsky: Confronting the Anti-Science Thought Police where one omnologos, aka Maurizio Morabito, is starting to throw his toys out of the pram.
Thank you OP at #86 for linking to Lewandowsky as if it strengthens whatever points you are yet to make. Some of those comments are hilarious but a ‘bag full of hammers’ like you misunderstands which ones.
I see Tom Fuller lying in comments there, claiming that Watts wasn’t funded by HI. I’ve left a calling card.
“There” being Shaping Tomorrow’s World, not Climate Crocks.
WRT #95 BBD taken as read, but probably not obvious to the dear children.
Noting Eli has commented over on the, ongoing, Recursive Fury I wandered over to his place to see if he had anything to say6 about it but found this instead:
Mordor Of Our Own Making wherein are links to some scary stuff:
Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?.
Climate Change: ‘Abrupt,’ ‘Unpredictable,’ ‘Irreversible’ and ‘Highly Damaging’.
Looks like some of our protagonists may regret throwing the label CAGW around after all. Looks pretty dire to me, but then I have already commented about what happens as civilization tries to recover from one blow but gets bowled over by another and the way that each particular threat – food supply, SLR, disease can act as threat multipliers, the complete threat being more than the sum of its parts.
Those of us with functioning cognitive frameworks could foresee all this.
Oooh, it’s kicking off. Foxgoose has just libelled Gleick – accusing him of forgery… Funny how FG was straight on to the journal with his legal threats yet throws around libellous statements like it ain’t no thing.
@ # 90 Likening the words of Corporal Jones,
“They don’t like it up’em, Captain BBD, sir”
Sauce for the ‘Goose.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.