April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    April 17, 2014

    Sadly, my satire falls short of that little pile of The Stupid that is GooseSez’Wha?’…

    Hey, Pid – this doofus is your peer! You sure you’re on the right path in life?…

  2. #2 Stu 2
    April 18, 2014

    Bill @ # 1
    My answer to your question (if it was indeed obliquely directed at me) is that in the big picture I actually have a good life and I’m not particularly worried about the ‘rightness’ of some path that you seem to infer that I am on. I was born and raised in Australia. The last time I checked there was no such thing as whatever you are claiming is a ‘right path in life’ in Australia. We are fortunate in Australia and we do have some choices about ‘paths in life’ .
    As I mentioned on the previous page, I was not defending any particular person, nor would I consider any particular person at this blog as my ‘peer’.
    You commented on the ‘meaning’ of ‘catch 22′ and I simply provided an easily accessible online definition of the term and pointed out that the original comment re ‘catch 22′ did fit the definition.
    If you want to read something else into that, then that’s your prerogative and therefore your issue.
    Despite your , I don’t regard you or GSW as some type of intellectual peer or, for that matter, some type of intellectual enemy.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2014

    GSW, see if you can challenge my statement that you are loathed by most contributors on Deltoid. Aside from meatball and perhaps Stu2, I don’t there’s much disagreement there.

    You’re a right wing lunatic who has a kindergarten level grasp of science. You spend an unhealthy amount of time on denier blogs where it appears you pick up most of your scientific ‘expertise’. Your latest stunt here is to spew out trash from Brad Keyes, another blogger, as if that legitimizes it.

    If you have such strong opinions, my suggestion is that you dump your right wing political affiliations, go back to school and get something of a relevant education. Clearly what you’ve got so far doesn’t enable your arguments to stand up to much scrutiny. In terms of publication out put and citations, I would surmise that my career thus far is quite some distance from mediocre, but I leave my peers to decide that. But compared with you I am in another league altogether. Your tally reads: 0 publications, 0 citations, 0 conference lectures and 100% anonymity. Well below mediocre.

  4. #4 BBD
    April 18, 2014

    2Stupid

    You commented on the ‘meaning’ of ‘catch 22′ and I simply provided an easily accessible online definition of the term and pointed out that the original comment re ‘catch 22′ did fit the definition.

    No it didn’t, imbecile. You have an unfortunate habit of repeating your bullshit instead of paying attention to what is being said.

  5. #5 BBD
    April 18, 2014

    It’s interesting the way that deniers are fundamentally reliant on specious argument, frequently over the most insignificant details, in order to maintain their presence at the table.

    There is nothing of substance. Just endless conspiracist ideation, lies and nit-picking,

    Those who consider themselves towering intellects seem extraordinarily blind to this very obvious matter of fact.

    The rest of us see it clearly, which is part of the reason why we regard deniers as the lunatic fringe. That and the fact that it is evident that deniers do not understand the scientific evidence they seek to deny.

  6. #6 chek
    April 18, 2014

    As long as energy in keeps exceeding energy out, all deniers have is their specious arguments and quibbling.

    And if they don’t get that fundamental reality, no matter how ‘clever’ they may believe themselves to be, they’re stupid. Stupid as stupid can possibly be.

  7. #7 Stu
    April 18, 2014

    And, as if Randall is actually monitoring:

    http://xkcd.com/1357/

  8. #8 bill
    April 19, 2014

    BBD re #4: yep, clearly going back and actually parsing the exchange is beyond him. Maybe not quite as beyond him as beyond GooSey, but, who knows?…

  9. #9 Stu 2
    April 19, 2014

    BBD @ # 4 & @ # 5
    Despite your ‘ideating’ otherwise – my comment was related to an accepted definition of the term ‘Catch 22′ and had absolutely nothing at all to do with my ‘ideation’ of you or Bill or GSW or anyone else for that matter.
    Neither does it have anything to do with some ‘ideated’ denier demographic that you are ‘ideating’ that I subscribe to.
    Your theory or hypothesis about me and therefore what you are ‘ideating’ about me has absolutely nothing at all to do with a widely accepted definition of the term ‘catch 22′.
    Put simply, with no attempted ‘ideation’ on my part re the motives of the commenter at the time, the original comment by GSW did indeed fit an widely accepted definition of a ‘catch 22′.
    While language is indeed somewhat organic as it grows and develops with its users, basic definitions do still matter if you intend to engage in either written or verbal communication.

  10. #10 Stu 2
    April 19, 2014

    A (not an!) widely accepted definition!

  11. #11 craig thomas
    April 19, 2014

    GSW said somebody could see comments but not respond to them.
    Not a skerrick of “Catch-22″ in that.

  12. #12 bill
    April 19, 2014

    hffffft…

  13. #13 Stu 2
    April 19, 2014

    Craig Thomas @ # 11
    This is the GSW comment:
    “You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection.”
    This is an easily accessible online definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
    “A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22″ have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.”
    The comment by GSW does as a ‘matter of fact’ contain substantially more than a skerrick of a ‘catch 22″ situation.
    In case you are struggling with this – let me make it a bit clearer for you. The ‘catch 22′ is that BBD has the power to comment about Brad Keyes at Deltoid without fear of any return comment from Brad Keyes because of the:
    ” rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over.”
    For comparison – at Rabbet that particular ‘catch 22′ that GSW highlights is not operating and therefore the two protagonists in the aforementioned ‘catch 22′ at Deltoid (Brad Keyes and BBD) can comment directly to each other.
    Anyone’s opinion, or theory or their ‘ideation’ of whether that is a ‘right path’ or not or who I may or may not consider a ‘peer’ or any other ‘ideation’ you may like to attach to my comment was not the purpose of my original comment and therefore would merely be an ‘ideation’ constructed from the comment.

  14. #14 bill
    April 19, 2014

    Oh, for God’s sake…

  15. #15 chek
    April 19, 2014

    2Stupid, you really need to read more because you really don’t get it. Whether that’s because you’re too infatuated with ideated victimhood for your fellow travellers or what, I don’t know.

    This is the GSW comment:
    “You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection.

    being a boring troll”

    Right, now that that’s corrected, here’s the Catch 22 situation.

    Keyster is permitted to comment, as long as he doesn’t troll. Otherwise his comment will be instantly deleted.
    But Keyster is a boring troll who can’t help trolling so his boring troll comment is instantly deleted.
    He’s not forced to troll but he does, it’s his nature so his boring troll comment is deleted.
    He needn’t troll, but he does so his boring troll comment is deleted.
    He really wants to comment but it comes across as more boring trolling, he can’t help it. His comment is deleted.
    He can comment but not be a boring troll but every comment he makes is boring trolling .
    Much easier to quarantine him than devote time to policing him because he’s not going to cease boring trolling.
    That’s his Catch 22.

  16. #16 Stu 2
    April 19, 2014

    Yes! – Well done Chek @ # 15
    Despite your apparent willingness to engage in a surprisingly similar ‘catch 22′ situation (albeit a little tweaked by yourself) – at least you have recognised that it is indeed a ‘catch 22′.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    April 19, 2014

    You’re forgetting one important point Stu2:

    BBD is correct whereas Keyes is totally and utterly wrong in just about everything he says.

    Now, if you consider that a catch 22, then go right on ahead. This about sums up the entire AGW debate. One side has science and pretty much the entire scientific community on their side (those who argue that humans are primarily responsible for forcing recent climate change) and those who don’t (the deniers). But the deniers have, for the most part, the corporate media, think tanks, the PR industry, lobbyists, and many other well-funded groups working for them. This is simply because the big money is flowing from industry.

    But, whichever way you cut it, one side is correct and one isn’t. And BBD is on the correct side.

  18. #18 bill
    April 19, 2014

    Oh, for God’s sake x2

  19. #19 BBD
    April 19, 2014

    How does my pointing out that accusing me of paranoia when BK demonstrably WAS reading comments here equate with a catch-22?

    Answer: it doesn’t.

    Topic closed.

  20. #20 bill
    April 19, 2014

    Also, see the magic little blue 6 with the underscore below this post to the right?

    Click it and, through the marvels of technology, you can travel back in time, and try reading the exchange without your overwhelmingly strong priors incapacitating your comprehension* – paying particular attention to #64 – and then the notable behaviour of the dog in the nighttime after you offer your feeble straw at #77.

    *Which, of course, you will be unable to do.

  21. #21 Stu 2
    April 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 17.
    I was not focusing on BBD or Brad Keyes for that matter.
    I was focusing on Bill’s comment re ‘catch 22′.
    However, I find your comment to me a bit strange.
    I would suggest, with respect, that both BBD and Brad Keyes are sometimes right and sometimes not, along with just about everybody else.
    As far as the definition of ‘conspiracist ideation’ goes, and BBD’s questions and aggressive assertions in regard to his definition, I would suggest, again with respect, that it is very likely one of those occasions when BBD is in the aforementioned ‘sometimes not’ category.
    BBD and Brad Keyes were debating a definition and not AGW.
    I would also suggest that your tendency to argue about ‘sides’ has very little to do with anything particularly scientific and much more to do with politics.
    BTW, despite many accusations to the contrary, I agree that humans impact the environment, the weather and the climate.
    I am 100% certain if there was no such thing as the human race, the planet would be different on all three counts.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2014

    Stu2, why spend day after day after day arguing over pedantics? Who gives a rat’s ass who is correct over the definition of ‘catch 22’?! In my research, its like arguing incessantly over the meaning of terms like ‘functional response’ or ‘frequency-dependent selection’ or ‘anautogeny’ etc.

    As for human impacts on the environment, the real question is not whether humans impact it (of course we do), but what the consequences these impacts are for biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and stability – with these then being linked to the well being of humanity via the supply of provisioning ecological services. Now, here’s a question for you: what do you think the effects of human alterations across the biosphere are for us?

  23. #23 FrankD
    April 20, 2014

    Jeff #22: “Stu2, why spend day after day after day arguing over pedantics?”

    Why has he produced a string of substance-free posts? Presumably trying to maintain his 100% record. I haven’t seen a post of his all year that has been anything but pointless circle-jerking. “Catch-22″ is just the latest effort to distract from the usual level of low-substance comment.

    Now if people could just move on from paying GSW any notice at all, we could talk about something interesting. Engagment is what they want.

  24. #24 Stu 2
    April 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @#22.
    In answer to your question :
    Some of the alterations are negative and some of them are positive for us AND for the biosphere and/or the environment.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    April 20, 2014

    Garth Paltridge at The Quadrant online

    Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?

    It takes a certain ignorance or dishonesty to pen that opinion.

    How is it Mr Paltridge, that a supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable ‘scientist’ can write such deviously worded baffle gab and think that they are an honest broker.

    In short, Mr Paltridge, there is more than enough evidence from multiple strands of scientific inquiry to support the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that the build up in atmospheric GHGs because of human activity is responsible for the imbalance of the energy budget which is causing that warming. Perhaps the AAS should have a word in your ear.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2014

    Stu@,

    Wrong answer. Of course one that I expected from a layman lacking any kind of qualifications in the field. Truth is, that humans have simplified vast swathes of the biosphere, reducing the capacity of natural systems to sustain themselves and mankind. Aside from short-term benefits primarily for the privileged few, the only species that are thriving in the Anthropocene are weedy species, extreme habitat generalists and invasive species. The world is great thus for cattle, many r-selected early successional annual plants, brown rats, house mice, starlings, house flies and species filling vast niche spaces or which thrive in filthy human environments. The vast majority of the rest are doing a heck of a lot worse.

    There you go Stu2. And coming from someone with relevant training and expertise (me). Hopefully you will learn something. But given that most contrarians exhibit pathological symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect, my guess is that you think you are well equipped to evaluate areas in which you have no formal education. You thus join Olaus, GSW et al. in that club.

  27. #27 BBD
    April 20, 2014

    Stu2

    As far as the definition of ‘conspiracist ideation’ goes, and BBD’s questions and aggressive assertions in regard to his definition, I would suggest, again with respect, that it is very likely one of those occasions when BBD is in the aforementioned ‘sometimes not’ category.

    Yup. I misread Lewandowsky. Conspiracist ideation doesn’t necessarily imply that the conspiracy is imaginary.

    Rather than the definitional squirrel, I should have concentrated on the real point: there is evidence that the denial industry is covertly funded and there is no evidence that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW.

    That’s just the ubiquitous contrarian tinfoil. From GISTEMP to “Climategate” (the clue is in the name!), pseudosceptics engage in inventing imaginary conspiracies.

    I don’t. I simply pointed out a real one.

  28. #28 BBD
    April 20, 2014

    And some people didn’t like that at all.

    Surprise, surprise.

  29. #29 Stu 2
    April 21, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ #26.
    This was your question:
    “what do you think the effects of human alterations across the biosphere are for us?”
    It was a very general question and the very general answer remains unchanged:
    ” Some of the alterations are negative and some of them are positive for us AND for the biosphere and/or the environment.”

    I absolutely agree that some of the human alterations have created negative impacts for us and for the biosphere but, despite your assertions, it is far from an all encompassing negative. Of course urban environments have almost completely trashed what you term “swathes of the biosphere’ but I would suggest, with respect, that your sense of scale and your almost exclusively negative (and almost misanthropic) focus about human behaviour is somewhat lacking perspective because it is based on your political beliefs.
    The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment.
    And BTW, I have no membership in a ‘denier club’ and I would question your baseless assertions about ‘formal education’. Once again, from reading your comment, I suspect your perspective on this is very narrow and coloured by your political views rather than a science education.
    BBD @ # 27.
    Yes it does appear that you did misread.
    I suspect that you may have also misread the way the word ‘climategate’ has been used.
    As per the “watergate’ analogy, it’s more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency and not so much about – ‘that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW. “

  30. #30 BBD
    April 21, 2014

    2Stu

    BBD @ # 27.
    Yes it does appear that you did misread.
    I suspect that you may have also misread the way the word ‘climategate’ has been used.
    As per the “watergate’ analogy, it’s more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency and not so much about – ‘that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW. “

    From the blurb:

    When over a thousand emails were leaked from a prestigious climate research centre in England, it rocked the world of climate science and changed the fight over global warming forever.

    Leaked?

    Rocked?

    Forever?

    Confected?

    Conspiracy theory?

    ClimateGATE?

    You can see that I will admit errors. You never have.

  31. #31 chek
    April 21, 2014

    it’s more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency

    Wtf has Wegman got to do with climate science or what it tells us? Other than he fronted for an armada of cun*s (the same cringing armada that were shocked to find nobody liked or trusted them) at Barton’s request to misrepresent and deny.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    April 21, 2014

    Ah, so ClimateGate isn’t used to suggest “that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW.”

    I guess I must have imagined the entire avalanche of usages suggesting pretty much that, eh?

  33. #33 Stu 2
    April 21, 2014

    Lotharsson @# 32
    Yes it is ALSO used to suggest that SOME but not all in the earth sciences have been inclined to exaggerate or maybe overly enthusiastic to protect their patch.
    But the analogy with Watergate is more about covering up.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    April 21, 2014

    Stu 2, the analogy does not control the use to which the term has been put.

    From what I’ve seen the term has been PRIMARILY and PREDOMINANTLY used to suggest that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to exaggerate and fake their results. I don’t see many users of the term in effect saying “it’s not the [non-]fraud or the alleged exaggeration, it’s merely the cover-up that concerns me”.

  35. #35 craig thomas
    April 21, 2014

    Has Stu2 managed to explain exactly how Keyes ability to read but inability to post is in any way, shape or form paradoxical?

    You’d think that after days of people trying to explain to him that he had failed to understand the nature of Catch-22, he would have twigged to what it really means.

  36. #36 craig thomas
    April 21, 2014

    James Halliday is a climate dunce:
    Read what he says here, and *think* about what he is thinking to say this: it is very revealing about what the Libs are up to on climate change and PR:
    “It does not matter that he says ‘Yes, global warming is real and mostly man-made’ because he adds ‘our policies have failed, predictably and spectacularly’.”

    http://www.winecompanion.com.au/news/news-articles/2013/may/global-warming-bjorn-lomborg-and-rajendra-pachauri

  37. #37 Stu 2
    April 21, 2014

    Lotharsson @# 34, perhaps you may need to get out and about more often. You may surprised how concerned people are about the lack of transparency in bureaucracies, in political organisations, in other government bodies, in NGO’s and in corporations.
    Craig Thomas @# 35. I think most here have moved on from the ‘catch 22′ comment.
    I supplied a definition and explained the relevance to GSW’s original comment. Unless, of course, you have a different definition you want to offer?

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2014

    Stu2,

    Wrong answer again. Your perspective is utterly myopic and largely baseless. You write,

    “The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment”

    This may be true for indigenous peoples, but for industrial societies it is utterly false. You write as if local environments need to be managed for their own good; this is utter trash. Industrial society has done a piss-poor job of managing nature. Derrick Jensen in his writings has detailed this very well. The two are incompatible, and there is abundant evidence to show this. Every natural indicator of ecosystem health across the biosphere is in decline. There are no exceptions. Between 10 and 40% of well known species – meaning vascular plants and vertebrates – are declining or endangered. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) showed, human activities have seriously degraded more than 60% of critical ecosystem services. Humans co-opt more than 40% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows, leaving less and less for nature. In essence, humans and the natural world are on a collision course and have been for the past half century, with most systems showing severe fraying. Marine ecosystems are in serious trouble from a suite of human assaults.

    And against this background you write utter piffle about examples where humans do enhance the local environment. Sure there are some, but unfortunately, these examples are few and far between and are vastly overwhelmed by evidence of a global assault on nature by our species.

    Stu2, you are well out of your depth on this issue. Your post did not provide any grist for the mill; its just nonsense that could be parroted from feel-good books by Bjorn Lomborg or Julian Simon. If you want me to give you more numbers to crunch, I will. But again, I can see from your last post that your are totally and utterly clueless.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2014

    PS Stu2:

    My education in relevant fields dwarfs yours, and as a senior scientist I base my opinions on the empirical evidence. Your last post contained nothing but wishful thinking. Don’t waste my time with your time-wasting pedantics until you can prove that you have some idea of what you are talking about.

  40. #40 craig thomas
    April 21, 2014

    Stu2, you explained nothing.
    All you did was demonstrate your non-understanding of what a Catch-22 actually is.

  41. #41 Stu 2
    April 21, 2014

    Jeff Harvey.
    I have no doubt that in your relevant field you are well educated.
    That was not under question.
    Craig Thomas.
    Would you care to provide an alternative definition for ‘catch 22’? I provided an easily accessible definition which did fit with GSW’s original comment

  42. #42 bill
    April 21, 2014

    Oh, for God’s sake x n.

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    April 21, 2014

    You may surprised how concerned people are about the lack of transparency in bureaucracies, in political organisations, in other government bodies, in NGO’s and in corporations.

    So much so that they’re willing to sign on to an anti-science bandwagon and cheer on illegal disclosure of private communications in order to express their concerns?

    Pull the other one!

    The causation does not tend to flow in that direction for most people. It’s almost always the other way around, indeed one might say it is transparently so.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    April 21, 2014

    2Stupid displays why he earns that title once again by positing from ignorance:

    The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment

    It is way past time that you educated yourself about the realities of the human impact on ecosystems, impact that goes way back.

    Just taking the oceans here are some helpers here especially the first two listed:

    Essential reading from Callum Roberts

    and Jeff Harvey’s introduction of Derrick Jensen is well received, so again a book list:

    Books by /e/B001JOY0DY”>Books by Derek Jensen. Thanks Jeff I must look up some of those myself, when the dust from the last delivery of books settles. Her indoors is becoming unsettled by the extent of my library, mostly non-fiction, which covers eclectic interests. Thus I could add the following to the enlightenment of 2Stupid:

    William Ruddiman, especially ‘Plows, Plagues and Petroleum’ and his recent ‘Earth Transformed’.

    Books on early civilizations will be useful background to that latter title, a compact and comprehensive introduction can be found in:

    ‘The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations’ by John Haywood

    And you have been following threads here long enough to have heard of Jared Diamond so this is a reminder.

    Do not forget that all good books come with Bibliographies and often source notes – these should not be ignored. Following such is second nature to anybody who has progressed beyond school education, how about you 2Stu?

    So, please 2Stu, no more blarney from you – go educate yourself.

  45. #45 Lionel A
    April 21, 2014

    Oops! Munged link:

    Books by Derek Jensen. Thanks Jeff I must look up some of those myself,

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    April 21, 2014

    Craig, does James Halliday have some link to the Liberal Party?

    I only skimmed his linked article, but one needs to note that the italicised text (including some that you quoted) is by Lomborg. Halliday also appears to be a fan of those who spruik unrealistically low climate sensitivities (and is so grossly misinformed that he thinks that 1.2C per doubling is “generally accepted”).

    He also likes the it’s-not-caused-by-CO2 proponents such as Abdussamatov whose claims that it’s all largely due to increasing solar output have been comprehensively rebutted, IIRC).

    I’m not familiar with Dr Gladstones whom Halliday claims to be a “disciple” of, but based on what Halliday say Gladstones is spruiking much the same stuff. And Halliday also cites Graham Lloyd a lot, without any apparent awareness of his record of making shit up.

    SO it’s clear that in many aspects Halliday doesn’t know what he’s talking about. One wonders whether he will post a retraction if the “little ice age” doesn’t start by 2014 as his sources predict, given that article was written almost a year ago now.

  47. #47 bill
    April 21, 2014

    Callum Roberts’ The Unnatural History of the Sea brilliantly expounds, among other issues, the ‘generational horizon’ problem; we lament the collapse of fish stocks across the globe from earlier in the 20th Century, but, of course, the early C20 fisheries were already massively impoverished – it’s just that so few people remembered, or ever knew.

    (You’ll also discover that whatever his other merits may have been, Darwin’s bulldog – Huxley – was a dickhead, and wrong, wrong, wrong, sounding exactly like his contemporary cornucopian descendents in the process.)

    Anyone who is not a libertarian autist will doubtlessly benefit from reading such a book.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    April 21, 2014

    Craig and Lotharsson WRT Halliday and Gladstones within this:

    At this point, he finds himself in agreement with Dr John Gladstones, who has long argued that the IPCC (or those who prepare the executive summaries of the IPCC work) have ignored changes in solar activity/irradiance that have made a major impact on warming and cooling over the past 1000 years.

    It is clear that neither of them have read enough of the IPCC reports to realise that statement is total shite. The current solar impact being towards cooling rather than the reverse which would also be clear if either of them had studied the primary literature which underpins the IPCC reports.

    Once again this is the unschooled, or lazy, avoidance of examining references within texts that I alluded to above when aiming at 2Stupid.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    April 21, 2014

    It is clear that neither of them have read enough of the IPCC reports to realise that statement is total shite.

    Yep, I saw that. Note the disingenuous phrasing that falsely positions the factor as being absent from the IPCC reports and then tries to provisionally qualify it as being absent only from “executive summaries” (where, even if absent, its inclusion would make essentially no difference to the policy implications). This comes across as an engineered attempt to mislead.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    April 21, 2014

    I note that Bernard J is also aware of a new post over at Eli’s:

    Fate of the World – PowerFlip 2036

    which touches on how the shit could be on our way if the world keeps listening to these ‘honest brokers’ and their runners in the press assistants.

    Then there are the cretins that pay attention to the messages of massage, if only because of they massage their egos to engage in argumentative nonsense as we see here and at Lew’s recursive.

  51. #51 BBD
    April 21, 2014

    Notice how Stu2 won’t even acknowledge the point I made at #27?

    So I will have to repeat it, since we are clearly witnessing denial and selective mentation.

    There is plentiful evidence that the denial industry exists and that it is covertly funded and there is no evidence that in the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW.

    That’s just the ubiquitous contrarian tinfoil. From GISTEMP to “Climategate” (the clue is in the name!), pseudosceptics engage in inventing imaginary conspiracies.

    I don’t. I simply pointed out a real one.

    * * *

    Notice that 2Pid is *still* making baseless claims about “cover-ups” (Nerp! Nerp! ***Conspiracy theory****!!!!) while simply blanking the real problem.

    Intellectual dishonesty.

  52. #52 BBD
    April 21, 2014

    I notice Stu2 attempting to obfuscate the problem about Climategate-the-clue-is-in-the-name. Let’s sort this out too.

    “Climategate” is contrarian framing. It automatically creates two associations from Watergate with climate science: conspiracy and scandal.

    Yet their was neither. Just understandable anger at pseudosceptic bullying and an ill-judged attempt to thwart vexatious FOIA requests. But the pseudosceptics spun this into a narrative which includes the manipulation of climate data to mislead the public and to further political goals.

    Now *that* would be a grand conspiracy.

    But this is a confected scandal, manufactured to damage public trust in “climate science”, which has been the aim of the climate denial industry from the outset.

    When the science says something you don’t like, attack the science. But, erk! Can’t do that at a fundamental level so there is no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. A tiny scatter of contrarian papers pushing outlier results obtained through questionable methodology isn’t enough.

    So we get “Climategate” and the attacks on individual scientists: Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Santer, Hansen etc. Nothing of any consequence ever gets published in the literature; instead we get endless accusations of fraud and deception and cover-ups which boil down to a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it.

    Science is combative. Scientific conclusions are provisional. If there were problems with the science they would be published and they would be recognised. And there’s nothing.

    And that’s it. That is the contrarian “case”. A bunch of insinuations based on nothing.

    If CRU and GISS were playing jiggery-pokery with HadCRUT and GISTEMP then BEST would have ripped the curtain aside. BEST was a scientific check. Redundant, of course, but there it is, for all of us to see, confirming that the warming is real.

    Nobody has mounted a serious challenge to the atmospheric physics, so the theoretical basis for the GHE effect is solid. Numerical models incorporating this radiative physics have emergent sensitivities clustering around ~3C for 2xCO2.

    Paleoclimate behaviour supports the modelled estimates of ECS with a likely central value of about 3C for 2xCO2.

    The most extensive multi-institutional collaboration on a millennial-scale temperature reconstruction substantially confirmed Mann’s MBH99 results (PAGES-2K). There has been no sly attempt to “get rid of the MWP” by the IPCC. That’s just another baseless conspiracy theory. The only thing that paleoclimatologists have done is striven to understand the nature of the MCA and the LIA better. And the only thing that the IPCC has done is to present reviews of this ever-improving scientific understanding.
    And so on, and on.

    Pseudosceptic discourse is wearying, counter-productive and intellectually dishonest. Just because you can’t believe that we can alter the climate system by mistake doesn’t mean that you are logically correct. Just because you don’t like the policy implications doesn’t mean that you are logically correct in denying the science with a blend of argument from personal incredulity, from ignorance, and from misrepresentation.

    Conspiracist ideation about imaginary scientific misconduct and its imaginary political motivations is all you have left.

    It’s not a defensible position.

  53. #53 bill
    April 22, 2014

    That’s a neat summation. I’d just add ‘and it’s always projection’. And I predict squirrels…

  54. #54 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    April 22, 2014

    But the analogy with Watergate is more about covering up.

    What analogy?

    It only makes sense if there is something to be covered up.

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    April 22, 2014

    A somewhat arbitrary landmark, but also a mark of our collective failure:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/april-will-be-first-month-with-co2-levels-above-400-ppm-17331

    Make no mistake – we could have acted decades ago to mitigate carbon emissions but we didn’t. It won’t be happening any time soon and every year is another increment along the exponential trajectories of species extinction, loss of ecosystem function, and the ability of humans to maintain a global civilisation.

    Lionel referred above to Eli’s thread:

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fate-of-world-powerflip-2036.html

    On it the poster John McCormick refers to Paul Kingsnorth, famous for instigating the Dark Mountain movement. I suspect that there will be more such commentary over the coming years… I’ve been convinced of the inevitability of serious consequence for about about 5 or 6 years myself, after AR3 failed to bring any discernible result.

    There’s a word that cropped up from Kunstler’s writings – collapsitarian. It seems to mean different things to different people, but at its heart is the understanding of a collapse of the current cultural and ecological status quo. I predict that the new denialism (after AGW denialism) will be that which refuses to accept that a Diamond-style collapse is fast approaching, and to that end I’m happy to cop the collapsitarian label from the dumb-arses who don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics or of ecology.

    Watch in the future as the Hy-Brasilian Denialati sing-song their way (with the rest of us in tow) to the sinking of our global society and of much that sustained it.

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    April 22, 2014

    OK, it was “TAR” rather than “AR3″, but it was the one to which I was referring – after AR4 came out it was apparent that TAR/AR3 had been largely politically ineffectual, and that AR4 would be too.

    And sadly my pessimism about AR5 seems to be coming to fruition, if the current Australian and international responses are anything to go by.

  57. #57 Craig Thomas
    April 22, 2014

    Stu2, it’s now been almost a week, and you are *still* having to have this explained to you:
    – A Catch-22 is a paradox
    – GSW’s scenario was not a paradox.

    ergo, GSW had no idea what a Catch-22 is, and nor do you.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    April 22, 2014

    Yes Bernard I was about to mention Kingsnorth specifically in a follow up but I suddenly had trouble with my new Linux install by the time I had sorted it I was being harangued with, ‘are you coming to bed?’

    Lemings have more sense than collective humanity.

  59. #59 BBD
    April 22, 2014

    I see that elsewhere, someone has been reduced to a seething mass of false claims about trivia. Nothing like hyperfocus on the irrelevant when you have no scientific argument at all.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    April 22, 2014

    I get an ‘Untrusted’ when attempting your link in #56 Bernard.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    April 22, 2014

    Addendum. ‘Untrusted’ only with Firefox on XP (with Kaspersky FWTW), no problems from Firefox on Linux (which was doing something else when I first tried).

  62. #62 BBD
    April 22, 2014

    Bernard J #55

    Yes, that’s pretty much my view these days.

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    April 22, 2014

    Cop this for a non sequitur.

    Bill Koutalianos, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party, thinks that because the ABC did not have any climate scientists on yesterday’s episode of Q and A, there is not a consensus on the science of climate change.

    https://twitter.com/NoDirectAction/status/458238454434770944

    There’s something wrong with a sytem that allows such logically disabled people to have positions of influence in our society.

  64. #64 Lionel A
    April 22, 2014

    His ignorance Koutalianos digs in with this:

    Does the IPCC actually refer to a consensus? There’s proof right there, it isn’t #science they’re conducting.

    There is proof of his ignorance or dishonesty right there.

    Now I guess Brad Keyes, who has chipped in there, will now complain about quoting stuff from the internets.

  65. #65 bill
    April 23, 2014

    When Abbott became Prime Minister I roughly figured collapse odds at 50% by 2050, 90% by 2100. Unfortunately Stupid appears to be hard-wired into too much of the species – and then they constantly gloat that they’re ‘winning’!

  66. #66 chek
    April 23, 2014

    He’s already confused and quoting you over at the Rabetts

  67. #67 Lionel A
    April 23, 2014

    Keyes on Koutalianos, groan more obfuscation. When will Keyes run out of acid [1]?

    Injecting sulphuric acid into the burning oil, or onto the burning coal, of warships during WW1 was a method of generating smoke screens.

  68. #68 bill
    April 23, 2014

    The most obvious of these is appealing to the right to be heard, to see both sides of the coin. Brandis hopes that our natural repulsion at excluding a particular view from the public arena will be aroused in support of climate science denial. This, however, ignores a vital characteristic of public debate: when ideas suffer body blows of sustained scientific refutation any attempt to maintain their status by appeal to an equal right of hearing is also an attempt to exempt them from evidential requirements and argumentative rigour.

    George Brandis ought to accept that the less credible a point of view, the less prominence it gets.

    The rules of rational engagement demand evidence and argument, not repetitive appeals for a fair hearing. If the evidence in support of a view is not forthcoming, or if the arguments in its favour are weak, its public profile should diminish….

    Brandis has confused the right to speak an idea with the non-existent right that the idea be given credibility.

    Absolutely.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    April 23, 2014

    I note that Wyoming doesn’t want its kids to learn about climate change.

    What is the story down under, has Abbott hit education yet?

  70. #70 Stu
    April 23, 2014

    Bill Koutalianos, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party, thinks that because the ABC did not have any climate scientists on yesterday’s episode of Q and A, there is not a consensus on the science of climate change.

    I totally agree. Furthermore, no one from the Islamic University of Medina was invited to explain how all we need to do is find the black pool the sun sets in and cool that. It’s ridiculous that no outreach was done, and therefore, it is not science.

    YOU ARE DUNCES AND SHILLS. The only reason anyone pays any attention at all is because there is a vested, well funded interest in pretending you have a point, and a lot of people sincerely believe that if they see it on TV, it must be true — although it seems that with the average Fox viewer being 68 years old, that hopefully is a problem that will solve itself over the next decade or two.

    Which brings us nicely to 2036, at which point the “nobody could have known” and “too late to do anything now” whining can fully engage.

    Also, does this remind anyone of anyone?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

  71. #71 FrankD
    April 24, 2014

    Stu – “although it seems that with the average Fox viewer being 68 years old, that hopefully is a problem that will solve itself over the next decade or two.”

    Or as Max Planckis reputed to have said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die”.

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2014

    FrankD.

    The trouble is that the average life expectancy of the Denialati is probably sufficient to see extremely serious damage inflicted on the planet. :-(

    Even more sadly, both democracy and market mechanisms have also failed to manifest the change that was required. I suspect that the only way out now is a preempting, profound stochastic event that significantly disrupts Western/Asian society, or a political confection that does the same thing.

    The only thing that is certain is that the middle to tail-end of the century is going to be Very Messy Indeed.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    April 24, 2014

    The only thing that is certain is that the middle to tail-end of the century is going to be Very Messy Indeed.

    Tolkienesque even. If you think that the scenario in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is bad then give ‘The Silmarillion’ a spin.

    The Kraken could wake before that.

  74. #74 craig thomas
    April 25, 2014

    “both democracy and market mechanisms have also failed to manifest the change that was required. I suspect that the only way out now is a preempting, profound stochastic event that significantly disrupts Western/Asian society, or a political confection that does the same thing.”

    We’re not pessimists. We’re realists. I agree.

  75. #75 FrankD
    April 25, 2014

    Certainly Bernard, since many denialati are younger than me, I expect to be adding my sequestered bionutrients back into the environment before “the science is settled” for real. And I plan to live long enough that, when these two facts are added together the conclusion must be that “Very Messy” probably makes you an optimist.

    In quoting Planck, I don’t mean to come off as glib – there was no “she’ll be right” intended. My point was only to observe that for we who continue to fight ignorance with fact (as we should), the battle will not end before the current participants have shuffled off, to be replaced by a generation who ask “what was that bullshit even about?”

    Even then…I am more inclined to history than science, and I recently read a passage that made me double-facepalm. In 1914, as the British Expeditionary Force was being assembled to fight in France and Belgium, doctors recommeneded soldiers be vaccinated against typhoid, which along with some fellow travellers like dysentry had killed more soldiers in previous wars than the enemy ever did. Despite proven effectiveness and few side effects, the vaccination program was opposed by the Anti-Vivisectionist League, and compulsory vaccination was not enforced for some time, during which time the British Army saw thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. Similar opposition in France delayed compulsory vaccination for over a year and contributed to over a hundred thousand cases and tens of thousands of deaths. Once implemented, such programs caused death rates from typhoid to plunge, ensuring many more soldiers would be fit to get blown to smithereens by the enemy, in the proper way (/sarc).

    Regardless of whether the generals did a better job than the AVL on the whole “pointless deaths” thing, what struck me was that exactly 100 years later, we are still fighting that same bunch of moronic anti-vaxxers on the same moronic issue. It was at that point that I realised that, vis-à-vis climate, we’re probably toast.

  76. #76 BBD
    April 25, 2014

    And the fun part is explaining this to my child.

    My intemperate language and errors have been plastered about at Eli’s, but it makes no fucking difference to the big picture at all.

  77. #77 chek
    April 25, 2014

    Distraction is as distraction does.
    And all the keyster’s horses
    and all the keyster’s men
    Couldn’t come up with a fucking salient point between the lot of ‘em.

  78. #78 BBD
    April 26, 2014

    The amount of time and energy and malice expended by BK on an irrelevance is astonishing. Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

    The point that matters is that there is plentiful evidence that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is no evidence that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

    And that was true before, during and after Brad’s victory screeching at Eli’s.

    Some things have changed, however. Brad has now been banned from another blog, and his sock puppet at STW has been blocked. Brad has engendered considerable further ill-feeling at Eli’s. Brad is loosing the war simply by being a manipulative sociopath in public view. It’s as if he thinks nobody else is smart enough to recognise what he is. But then, that goes with the territory.

    Willard mentioned Pyrrhic victories.

  79. #79 BBD
    April 26, 2014

    Eh. “losing”

  80. #80 Lionel A
    April 26, 2014

    The sheer diabolic nature of BKs dialogue is revealed by your exposure that Brad Keys and Darrell Harb are one and the same.

    For the subject to make out that in the case in question, i.e. blog commenting monikers, IDs, whatever else BK would like to drag out of a thesaurus as a description, that a ‘nom de guerre‘ and a ‘sock puppet‘ are different is further evidence that the Sorting Hat would recognise the subject as a Slytherin.

  81. #81 BBD
    April 26, 2014

    It wasn’t just me, Lionel. Sou spotted it, as did at least one other commenter. But I made the loudest fuss, and I don’t think BK was very pleased. Which might in part explain the sustained kicking he gave me over the conspiracist ideation gaffe at Eli’s. It’s also possible that he hasn’t forgiven me for exposing the fact that he didn’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS on the Brangelina thread here. That did rather blow a hole in his Master Of Science™ posturing. I notice that he tends to steer clear of substantive arguments over the science and rely, instead, on ‘Climategate’ (The Clue is in the Name™) and sophistry.

    But then what’s a chap to do? There being no scientific counter-argument to the strong scientific consensus on AGW and all…

    “Climate science is rubbish because they aren’t proper scientists and hide their data” isn’t a conspiracy theory, but neither is it demonstrable or defensible. It’s just another smear by insinuation. It’s also a good example of the way contrarians use “The Team” as a proxy for climate science as a whole. An argument from false equivalence.

    Personalise and demonise. Mann, Briffa, Jones, Trenberth, Santer, Hansen etc. More recently, Marcott. Even I was surprised at all the crap – dozens of posts in total by WUWT and McI – flung at M13. And none of it substantive. But it does the job for the believers, who now are absolutely convinced that M13 was “debunked” by their cheerleaders. Explain that it wasn’t and you get dragged back through a re-hash of all the wrong arguments in the original WUWT and McI posts. Rinse and repeat, forever and ever, amen.

    The taunt that rational, pro-science commenters are “believers” in the “AGW cult” is one of the greatest projections of them all.

  82. #82 chek
    April 27, 2014

    Chin up BBD.

    The Keysters of this whole farrago (which wouldn’t even be happening in a sane world) are merely over-educated dilettante nonentities too far up their own arses to realise their own stupidity. Very much like Jonarse in that regard.

    I recall someone telling me a few years ago that they’d heard that the best way to deal with AGW was not to be over 40.

    Well, fortunately for me I’m well past that particular filtration point, but I do have children and so far one grandchild which rather makes the point moot if I want them to at least enjoy the same kind of bountiful Earth that I’ve known. Which of course I do and more and better if at all possible.

    I truly believe (because I must if I want to get out of bed day after day- but y’know, hey ho) that there are far more sane people (and, yes- I mean you Deltoids and elsewhere) than internet savvy loony’s who are unable to face the future it’s within our grasp to change.

    Of course there are those who won’t or can’t recognise the predicament we’re in, but they can only be discarded until such time as they recognise they’ve been fed lies or have some pathological hatred of human existence itself, driven by whatever forces.

    Like with sea-sickness, the here-and-now may feel very unpleasant, but by keeping your sight fixed on the horizon, the unpleasantness (as realised by Watts/McinTyre and their imitators and droogs and fellow travellers and enablers) will pass.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    April 27, 2014

    I must say I have rather enjoyed willard slicing and dicing BK’s output at Eli’s. Willard appears to have dissected the rotten core of BK’s schtick in record time.

  84. #84 chek
    April 27, 2014

    Indeed, you cross words with Willard at your peril, nevermind he disliked my approach to the Keyster problem..

  85. #85 bill
    April 27, 2014

    And since Bradley had cast willard in the role of the ‘worthy opponent to be addressed politely and used as a stick to beat the others with’ – rather as he did for a time with Jeff here – this made the excoriation just that piquant bit more exquisite…

  86. #86 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Hey Brad!

    Why didn’t you quote mine this bit for reposting over at Eli’s?

    Bunnies want to know:

    It’s also possible that he hasn’t forgiven me for exposing the fact that he didn’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS on the Brangelina thread here. That did rather blow a hole in his Master Of Science™ posturing. I notice that he tends to steer clear of substantive arguments over the science and rely, instead, on ‘Climategate’ (The Clue is in the Name™) and sophistry.

    You are a dishonest little shit, Brad!

  87. #87 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    On a more general note, it’s difficult to tell if Brad’s wholesale misinterpretation of Willard’s commentary in his latest irruption at Eli’s is the result of careless reading or calculated dishonesty.

    All we can be sure of is that Willard did not say what Brad says he said. As Willard will doubtless soon be pointing out to the egregious Mr Keyes.

  88. #88 GSW
    April 27, 2014

    Hey BBD!

    “Why didn’t you quote mine this bit for reposting over at Eli’s”

    “All we can be sure of is that Willard did not say what Brad says he said. As Willard will doubtless soon be pointing out to the egregious Mr Keyes.”

    Saw this and was wondering why you were cowering over here [where its safe] when your “conspiracy ideation” discussion was still raging over at Eli’s?

    Is it a cahonies issue?
    ;)

  89. #89 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Nope.

    Try again ;-)

  90. #90 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    And GSW, you are entitled to your little bit of schadenfreude, but please try to remember what this is really about.

    Let me remind you.

    Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

    The point that matters is that there is plentiful evidence that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is no evidence that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

    Got that or shall I repeat it again more slowly for you?

    Read the words. We will not be having an irrelevant argument about an irrelevant definition again.

  91. #91 GSW
    April 27, 2014

    @ BBD #89
    The question was rhetorical BBD, but thanks for answering anyway.
    ;)

  92. #92 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    If you think I’m afraid of BK, you will have to explain why I spent ~4000 comments dealing with his bullshit right here, on this blog.

    Can you do that in a way which is consistent with a lack of cojones on my part? No, you can’t.

    So you would have to think of another explanation, but I see that this is beyond you. Never mind.

    Enough irrelevant bullshit.

    Do you understand and accept the points raised at #90?

    Yes or no.

  93. #93 GSW
    April 27, 2014

    @BBD

    “Do you understand and accept the points raised at #90?”

    This is quite common BBD, the want/need for others to participate in the conspiracy ideation. Sufferer’s try to seek confirmation that their “facts” are commonly agreed and that as a result, it can be argued they are not mentally ill/basket cases like you.

    I’m not going to help you there BBD, your ideations, of amongst other things, opinion as nefarious intent, are all yours. You’re just going to have to come to terms with the fact you’re a nut job and live with it.
    ;)

  94. #94 GSW
    April 27, 2014

    @BBD

    “Can you do that in a way which is consistent with a lack of cojones on my part?”

    The evidence for a lack of cojones on your part is the fact you’re sat moaning about your lot here, where Brad can’t get you, and the action is taking place somewhere else.

    Brad’s made you look like a complete idiot BBD, you can’t let him get away with that when he’s still “dis”ing you over at Eli’s, or can you?

  95. #95 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    I’m not going to help you there BBD, your ideations, of amongst other things, opinion as nefarious intent, are all yours.

    Your bollocks exposed in two words:

    Donors Trust.

    Let’s try again.

    Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

    The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is *no evidence* that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

    These are matters of fact. Do you understand and accept these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    And this time, answer the fucking question please.

    * * *

    Still too stupid to work out what’s going on re: Brad I see.

    Keep trying.

  96. #96 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Oh, and GSW – and this is fair warning – before you post anything else, read this.

    Be careful, GSW.

  97. #97 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Let’s get you started, shall we?

    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding
    and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

    Robert J. Brulle

    Abstract This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United
    States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is
    evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

  98. #98 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Which brings us to Donors Trust:

    Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

    The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

    The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

    Evidence. Matters of fact.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

  99. #99 BBD
    April 27, 2014

    Since GSW has gone quiet, I will think out loud.

    GSW behaves as if he is indeed denying these matters of fact but will not admit that this is what he is doing.

    This renders his commentary intellectually incoherent.

    Unless GSW will confirm by answering yes/no to the question “do you deny these matters of fact”, he has placed himself outside the bounds of rational discourse.

  100. #100 chek
    April 27, 2014

    OMG!
    Fuck fuck fuck!!!
    That’s hilarious BBD!

    Expecting Griselda to know what the fuck it’s talking about? About anything? Ever?
    Repeater bots don’t do that shit, man.

    It requires a brain set to cogitate, dude, not one set to soak up denier myth drool like lakes of piss on a restroom floor with its spongified mouthpiece and merely repeat it, which is all that Jonarse’s stunted pet clown mafia can do.
    It’s all they ever have done, after all.
    What’s so different about them now?.

Current ye@r *