Thinking in the background here, I have had an idea.
Your rebuttals of the arguments against you are seemingly based on “But ISIS’ actions are abhorrent”. None of us disagree.
However your claims are all “Islam is shite because: ISIS”, and that’s where we all disagree with you.
It’s no more valid than pointing to Hitler and saying “Therefore Europeans are bad” or McCarthy and saying “BAD AMERICANS!!!”.
RELIGION is bad for people. It abrogates the person to the dogma. Religion, at best, tells you about people (what bit of their religion do they talk about: that’s an insight into them). See WBC. But that DOESN’T make religious people bad.
Indeed, the problem with religion is that it is so handy for making good people do monstrous acts. After all, God told the priest this was right, therefore it MUST be right!
From Arctic sea ice analysis: “Sea ice extent in August 2014 averaged 6.22 million square kilometers (2.40 million square miles). This is 1.00 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 August average”
Repeat: 1981 to 2010 average – the average when climate warming effects were well under way. Its certainly a lot greater than before 1981, when conditions were colder.
Contrast this with Duff’s piffle. Moreover, Duff, Polar Bears do not forage optimally at ice edges but at holes on pack ice where the seals come up to breath occasionally. Trust a right wing nut like you to botch this up.
Again, contrast the data in my last post with Duff’s, “With arctic sea-ice growing bigger and bigger…”
I don’t know if this is just out-and-out stupidity or willful ignorance or a bit of both.
“But I note today that there is further info at Dr Marohasy’s blog”
“But I note today that there is further misinfo at Dr Marohasy’s blog”
There Stu2, corrected it for you.
Today is a new day and since my earlier post, more info has become public.
There has been a lack of transparency. BoM unwisely chose to not answer some simple questions quite some time ago.
Luckily, we live in one of those imperfect democracies in Australia and it is still possible to demand transparency from our public institutions.
Unfortunately it sometimes requires the assistance of the media.
It’s unfortunate because by its nature, the media likes to sensationalise & exaggerate.
I think it’s a real shame that BoM refused to deal with these questions sensibly when they were first asked.
2Pid, you really are a fool! Talk about drinking the kool-aid…
Your epistemic bubble is pathetic.
This particular issue has progressed way beyond that type of behaviour.
BoM has some questions to answer and it is a shame that they chose not to answer them in a normal democratic manner and timeframe.
Stu 2, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That goes double when you refuse explicit requests for supporting material.
And you specialise in that.
And furthermore whenever you curiously refuse to provide citations, references or evidence and someone bothers to do the legwork to chase down the facts, your claims almost always turn out to be bogus. We have some spectacular examples to choose from (“Benevolent dictatorship! Fudged temperature records!”)
What I want to know is this: are you foolish enough to believe that the most intelligent 98% of readers here don’t see straight through this pattern of behaviour and think “spouter of nonsense” when they see your moniker, or are you making public assertions of nonsense in order to reinforce your own belief in it?
Or does the third alternative apply – you’re easily fooled by seductive claims that you wish were true, and have a powerful Morton’s Demon that refuses to allow any conflicting information to reach your analytical faculties?
And let us imagine for a moment that you finally manage to make a claim that does not fit any of those three options. Do you expect everyone else to believe that you would not answer requests to substantiate it if you actually had the evidence on your side for a change?
Stu2 has some questions to answer and it is a shame that he chose not to answer them in a normal democratic manner and timeframe.
There, fixed it for you.
Indeed Lotharsson. I’m probably in the less well endowed 2% of readers but when I see a Stu2 post words like vacuous, evasive, air-head, and arse-clown immediately spring to mind. It’s like the unrelenting tedium of a Brad Keyes thread bomb. At least Keyes was mildly entertaining (for a little while).
Following turboblocke’s lead, there’s also this:
Marohasy has some questions to answer and it is a shame that she chose not to answer them in a normal scientific manner and timeframe before spouting unsupported accusations of fraud and incompetence on the part of other scientists.
I’d mention something about actually doing her homework in the first place, but it’s already gone beyond pithy…
2Pid, you and your mates can get together and whip yourselves into an onanistic frenzy about Al Gore (fat!), Mike Mann (evil!), climategate ( conspiracy!), Stephan Lewandowsky (even more eviler!) and now the BoM until the cows come home, but it has nothing to do with bloody reality.
It is pathetic. You are pathetic. You’ll no doubt go to the grave muttering these poisonous little incantations, the sacred Shibboleths of your dismal little tribe… and what a complete waste of time, resources, space, a life – everything! – you lot are…
More baseless insinuations from S2.
What honest observers note is the complete absence of any evidence that either the national Australian temperature record or the global surface temperature reconstructions are in any way flawed.
What honest observers note is a smear campaign against BoM by liars and shills deliberately intended to erode trust in climate science.
What you are doing, Stupid, is cheering from the sidelines as the front men (and women) for vested interest swap the future for short-term profit. And you are too thick to realise that you are a silly little dupe.
Over the page I mentioned how education is being subverted by disparity in income but there are other forces at work, as Richard Feynman recognised when asked to assess science books for prospective school use which showed that any lingering democracy can be subverted by hacking school texts to suite ideology rather than truth.
Those who think the US and UK are democracies have little knowledge of the twentieth century history of both. They may think they do but then they have not realised that any history they have studied is likely based upon sources and ideas allowed to get through the filters of those who really run the world.
Take the origins of the First World War for example. I have just got hold of a book which looks at history in a very different light :
‘Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War’ by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor. One is quickly appraised of the Rhodes-Milner-Esher, influenced by John Ruskin and Baliol College Oxford, secret society with Nathan Rothschild and King Edward VII within close orbit and others such as David Lloyd George, Asquith and Churchill at different layers of the cabal onion.
The authors early on point to the writings of Carroll Quigley scroll down to the ‘Quigley and Secret Societies’ section to get a taste, but don’t ignore the other content.
I’ll offer more when copies of those two key books arrive.
More reading. I have a ton of it to do already.
Lionel. I’ll add that to my list. But it will have to come after a few others.
One I think I’m going to be disappointed in. Not because the book is inadequate, Henry Reynolds A Coloured History, but because my attention was grabbed by an aside from Reynolds during a “Big Ideas” session a couple of weeks ago. He was lamenting the huge emphasis on WW1 and especially Anzac Day in Australia. His point was that WW1 sucked Australians back into the Strong British Empire vortex when we had been on a rather different trajectory up to that point (Working Man’s Paradise and all that). But his book is about the wars between indigenous and settler Australians so I doubt that empire idea gets much of a run.
No amount of sneering at me will change the fact that BoM is under the spotlight re public reporting of the Australian weather/climate data
They do not have a monopoly on weather/climate data. They are a public service and in a democracy transparency is important and necessary.
No one is arguing that homogenisation in and of itself is a bad practice.
No amount of sneering by the shills will change the fact that BoM is under the spotlight by them for the simple reason that they are doing everything to undermine the facts about AGW. The corporate bought and paid for shills represent private interests and for them democracy threatens their control of power.
You are a simpleton. That is clear. And your views come straight from the corporate PR handbook.
No amount of sneering at me will change the fact that BoM is under the spotlight having mud thrown at it in the hope that some of it will stick re public reporting of the Australian weather/climate data
Fixed the obvious goal post shift and the missing-of-the-point relying on unsubstantiated allegations.
No one is arguing that homogenisation in and of itself is a bad practice.
Obvious red herring is still obvious after umpteen explanations why it is a red herring.
(Also, you need to get out more. Some denialists do actually argue this.)
They do not have a monopoly on weather/climate data.
Obvious red herring is obvious.
Also, that fact has been used to point out by comparing with those other records that some of the claims made by those allegedly “shining the spotlight” are false so thanks for highlighting it again – even if you clearly don’t understand that you’re engaged in self-rebuttal.
They are a public service and in a democracy transparency is important and necessary.
Obvious error in the service of mendacious allegations is obvious.
The published methods had already been publicly and transparently discussed in the literature. Those “shining the spotlight throwing the mud” apparently hadn’t even availed themselves of the existing transparency before they started throwing mud, so it’s a bit rich to pretend that the BoM was not transparent here and ignore the massive dishonesty (never mind the staggering incompetence) on the part of the mud throwers.
You are acting the useful fool for these dishonest and/or incompetent tools, which is why so many hold your pronouncements here in contempt. And the “sneering at you” is entirely justified here because your modus operandi as I pointed out in #3 and in a series of posts on the previous page, is transparently and obviously to play the part of that useful fool by mindlessly and endlessly repeating allegations you never can back up.
No amount of sneering at me will change the fact that BoM is under the spotlight
I’m not as inclined to be polite as some folks here, because frankly I’m sick to death of you all – you and your fellow hysterics from the circle-jerk blogosphere can become as mendaciously overwrought as you like, but no such f’ing thing is happening!
It’s not. It’s a fantasy. A dream. A phantasm. A paranoiac figment of your overactive amygdalas.
The only thing that’s actually happening has been described to you repeatedly above. You’re a hack. A dupe. a patsy. A mark. A useful idiot.
#14 hear ffing hear!
From Nassim Nicholas Taleb recently (author of ‘The Black Swan’) -
Someone wrote: “Dear Mr Taleb, I like your work but I feel compelled to give you a piece of advice. An intellectual like you would greatly gain in influence if he avoided using foul language.”
Answer: “Fuck off.”
Oh, dear, Lionel – Docherty and MacGregor is textbook conspiracy ideation, bearing close parallels to the worst climate change denial. No scholarly treatment? Pal review! No evidence? Data tampering! The facts don’t support the argument? We don’t need no steeenkin’ facts!
Docherty and MacGregor is a ridiculous treatment where the only real light is shone on the authors ignorance. It’s difficult to know where to start, because large slabs of it are “not even wrong”.
There is enough sensible debate about the importance of various factors that led to the Great War without having to resort to illogic and antifacts. Suffice to say I would not recommend anyone waste their time with such rubbish – at the end of the book, you will know less about what took place than you did before you started. Even for entertainment value – paying for this book merely encourages the perpetrators.
What annoys me is this sort of tripe distracts from the very real anti-democratic forces and real (not imagined) conspiracies in play. There was no need for a “secret elite” when there was an open elite running British Foreign policy in such a way as to compromise the principles of cabinet-based government. But that open elite could hardly work in cahoots with a French government with a life expectancy of less than a year and a Russian government whose personnel line up depended on the whim of the Tsar and changed almost as frequently. All the players genuinely undermined democratic principles in their respective countries, because they were ALL antidemocratic reactionaries. That is all the “conspiracy” that is required.
The outbreak of WW1 is best characterised by Hanlon’s razor – “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Which is not to say that the “accidental war” theory has any merit. People in power made choices. Many of those were bad ones due to the shortsightedness, narrow-mindedness or recklessness of their authors. Those choices were made by all parties. And many of them were staggeringly foolish, but few were truly malicious.
If one wants to understand the outbreak of the war I suggest:
1. To get the framework, any decent conventional history – Thomas Ottes “The July Crisis” looks to be one of the better recent ones, though I liked William Jannens “Lions of July” where the source material tells the story with little intervention from the author (other than his choices of material to quote, of course). Even somone like Massey or Keegan is probably good enough.
2. For an opposing, but credible, viewpoint, Chris Clark’s “The Sleepwalkers”. Clark is a Germanophile and (in my opinion) overreaches in trying to place the whole blame on the Entente, but he has some interesting insights and his detail on the Serbia-Bosnia-Austria part of the crisis is exceptional.
3. Having got the opposing ends (within the bounds of sanity) Holger Herwig’s “Decisions for War”, which appraises the actual choices made by each country, within the context of their strategic position, available information and decision-making apparatus.
Seriously – this sort of claptrap? I wouldn’t waste my time.
His point was that WW1 sucked Australians back into the Strong British Empire vortex when we had been on a rather different trajectory up to that point (Working Man’s Paradise and all that).
It certainly led the trajectory Australia was on to jump the tracks, but I’m more doubtful that it was into the SBE vortex (setting aside the Menzies and so on).
I think the best summary I’ve heard recently was from Dr Clare Wright (LaTrobe University) in the ABC’s “The War that Changed Us”:
“I think what the war did was root Australia in a moment that was about death, that was about heroism. But it was a military heroism, so that by tying Australia’s future fortunes to the idea that the nation had been born on the battlefields of Gallipoli, Australia became a backward-looking nation. It always returned to that moment when it believed something fundamental had happened.”
To be honest, I don’t think much has changed, in Anglo-Australia, anyway. Too many Australians hark back to their metaphorical childhood to make adult choices about Australia’s future.
What I have not gone into as yet were my reservations about Docherty and Macgregor and the reasons why I put the book down half way through. I am re-skimming to rediscover why I did that as it was a few months ago. But having started to read ‘Planning Armageddon’ by Nicholas Lambert I picked it up again.
I was in the process of making such a post when illness caught up with me again and forced me to desist.
As the condition is continuing all I can offer is that certain elements of Hidden History are food for thought with the characters of Rhodes, Milner, Esher and those that were associated with them being worthy of closer scrutiny and thought.
I have read a number of what you call ‘standard’ texts including Massey, the later I mentioned over page along with Laurence Lafore. Another mentioned was Thomas Pakenham with ‘The Scramble for Africa’ and ‘The Boer War’ both of which back up some of the points made in ‘Hidden History’.
I think you are far to dismissive as not all of it is tripe particularly when you consider the historical roots of the Rothschilds in financing the effort of Britain in the Napoleonic War and a conduit for intelligence. My interests go back to that earlier period also.
But I must look up Chris Clark, thanks
Now the world is falling again, erratic blood pressure, I will have to desist again for awhile.
Attention all rebroadcasters of denier lies!
You need to read this.
The bullshit emanating from Marohasy continues to unravel in the face of the facts, Just as everybody here kept telling you it would.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.