April 2015 Open Thread

April already

Comments

  1. #1 Stu 2
    May 26, 2015

    There’s that pattern again.
    Let me help you Lotharsson.
    I answered the question.
    The problem is perhaps
    1) You don’t like the answer or
    2) You think there is only one answer to that question
    3) You think I meant something different to what you think I said & therefore it’s incredibly important that you make it clear that I meant something completely different to what I said and further that means there is an incredibly flawed human lurking in between all those answers- according to you.
    🙂

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    May 26, 2015

    Let me help you Lotharsson.
    I answered the question.

    Numbskull. As has been repeatedly pointed out, everyone here except you believes that you did not, you answered a different question instead.

    If you truly think you answered it rather than “answered” it by following the standard media handling tactic (I’ve had the basic training) of answering the question you would have preferred to have been asked, then you need to ask yourself just how badly you screwed up your English expression and what you can do to improve it.

  3. #3 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I don’t smoke so my answer to that question is I’m not smoking anything.”

    So still not answering.

  4. #4 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I’d pay good money to sit at an adjacent table during your first date.”

    I’d pay good money not to! 🙂

    But I guess we can see where Stupid’s orientation lies.

  5. #5 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I don’t agree this specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 X CO2 is about 3C”

    Still not answering the question, Stupid.

  6. #6 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.”

    No, and this is still avoiding answering it.

  7. #7 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “.There’s that pattern again.”

    Still not answering the question.

  8. #8 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    Do you know how you can tell you haven’t answered the question?

    We don’t know if you agree with the IPCC estimate or not yet.

    When we DO know whether you agree with it, then you will have answered the question.

    Grade 8 English comprehension? Fuck, Grade 1 comprehension fail, not knowing that, Stupid.

  9. #9 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    Guys, there’s no point quoting him either. I skip over the quotes and just read your bit.

    All its doing is showing Stupid that his tactic of wasting your time is working: you had to read his drivel. If it doesn’t answer BBD’s question in the first sentence or look like it’s going to in the next one, then it’s worth nothing to read the rest, it’s going to be bollocks again. So cut to the chase and skip it.

    When Stupid actually gets round to answering, if he wants to make the point again, he can post that point again. At that point we may have some indication that it’s worth our time and effort to read.

    At the moment, we know it’s of no benefit to read his crap.

  10. #10 Stu 2
    May 26, 2015

    Yep.
    I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
    You have done a far better job demonstrating why my answer to the original question was valid.
    Well done.
    Thanks again.
    🙂

  11. #11 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.”

    So rather than answer the question, you go all teenager gooey. You can develop a crush on me AND answer BBD’s question.

  12. #12 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    Just to remind you, I only read that sentence and the first word.

    I have NO IDEA what the hell you said otherwise, but given the lack of any useful content in what I’ve read, there’s no loss there.

  13. #13 Stu 2
    May 26, 2015

    No seriously.
    You are truly amazing Wow.

  14. #14 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    OK, so that’s proof enough you’re never (and I really DO mean *never*) going to post anything substantive.

    I can’t be arsed even to read your posts now, so I won’t. I’ll just skip them entirely forever.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    May 26, 2015

    Stu2 has demonstrated his rank ignorance for all to see. Time to move on. He’s been hammered.

  16. #16 BBD
    May 26, 2015

    I have also dealt with that different later question BBD.
    The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.
    The range varies widely as per the link @#51- even between studies via industrial age data and ice age data.
    That’s why the question to you was why a specific agreement about a specific number from me is required?

    Answer the question.

  17. #17 BBD
    May 26, 2015

    The best ECS estimate is a range not a specific number.

    No it isn’t and you’ve been told, so stop repeating the same stupid lies and answer the question about the best estimate withing the range.

    But you won’t will you? Because irrespective of whether we use the ~3C best estimate with or without a generous +/-1C uncertainty, it leaves no room for denialism. The values are too high.

    So emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences. Here, after an agonisingly long detour, we rejoin mainstream reality, abandoning physics-denying liars as we do so.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    May 26, 2015

    Lotharsson
    May 22, 2015

    wrote

    For those fans of numptyism (as Bernard J. might put it) who feel like a change of scene, check out the truly impressive example I recently ran into at Lewandowsky’s blog

    Having had three computers fail on me in quick succession, they were all getting on a bit, I am still catching up with events but seeing how boorish 2StuPID was getting I stumbled via Eli’s on this vein of gold and the weird that scientists manage to be gamed by WUWT. Sou has interesting posts and ATTP has also.

  19. #19 Stu 2
    May 26, 2015

    BBD @# 15.
    Yes it is.
    As time progresses and more data is collected that range is mostly being estimated down.
    Of course as Lotharsson and you pointed out a while back, the ranges will be different according to the methodology that gets used.
    I do note that your conclusion is that emissions policy becomes mandatory to avoid serious consequences.
    What specific serious consequences does a mandatory emissions policy avoid?
    For example, how will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?

  20. #20 BBD
    May 26, 2015

    Stu2

    Yes it is.

    No, it isn’t. You are mistaken and should admit it at this point.

    As time progresses and more data is collected that range is mostly being estimated down.

    No, it isn’t. That is your perception based on the disproportionate attention given to ‘observational’ estimates which share a common methodological bias. This was pointed out in an earlier comment regarding your level of topic knowledge. A comment that you ignored.

    Answer the question.

  21. #21 BBD
    May 26, 2015

    Stu2

    Please try to understand that there is a difference between a best estimate and the range within which it lies.

  22. #22 BBD
    May 26, 2015

    Stu2

    This is getting boring for everyone, so let’s try and move things along.

    There is a best estimate of ECS / 2 x CO2. It is (and remains) ~3C.

    If you want to argue for a significantly lower value within the range of possibility you need to explain why.

    This argument will involve the size and sign of feedbacks to CO2-forced warming. It will be about physical climatology and it will require plausible physical mechanisms.

    If you cannot make or reference a plausible, physical argument against the best estimate of ECS, then why are you refusing even to discuss it?

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    May 26, 2015

    Yes it is.

    No.

    By definition the best estimate of a value is not a range of values (unless one can show that all values in the range in question are equally likely – an outcome that is very rare in real world science, and does not apply here).

    Of course as Lotharsson and you pointed out a while back, the ranges will be different according to the methodology that gets used.

    No, I did not. In response to your comment pointing out that different lines of evidence taken in isolation produced different ranges, I pointed out that on the question of the best estimate one has to simultaneously take into account all the lines of evidence.

    That is quite a different thing to point out than you say I did.

    I’m beginning to suspect that you’re simply not cognitively equipped to understand the question.

  24. #24 Wow
    May 26, 2015

    “I’m beginning to suspect that you’re simply not cognitively equipped to understand the question.”

    Or is just a twat.

    Occam’s razor.

    They won’t answer. Why? Who cares.

  25. #25 Stu 2
    May 27, 2015

    BBD @ # 19.
    I understand about the ranges.
    Let’s move on.
    IF(!) you could possibly ever get that specific agreement about a singular number:
    1) Why does that mean a mandatory emissions policy?
    2) What is a ‘mandatory emissions policy”?
    2) What are the ‘serious consequences’ that a mandatory emissions policy will avoid?
    For example, will a mandatory emissions policy reverse that worrying trend in agriculture that was highlighted earlier?

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    May 27, 2015

    I understand about the ranges.

    Saying it does not make it so.

    Let’s move on.

    In other words “I still refuse to answer the question”.

  27. #27 Stu 2
    May 27, 2015

    As well as a pattern, it has ramped up its repetition.
    🙂
    But you’re right Lotharsson.
    You saying that I haven’t answered the question, over and over again – doesn’t make it so.
    This is funny.
    In other words?
    LOL!
    🙂

  28. #28 Wow
    May 27, 2015

    Of course he refuses to answer.

    We’ve proof enough that the moron isn’t going to post anything other than the thoughts of others (so he can’t be blamed for him being wrong in believing them), and isn’t going to say what they do believe (in case we find an explanation that makes him change his mind).

    He’s like the religious fundamentalist, unwilling, no, unable to allow themselves to be persuaded they’re wrong because their abject fear of being wrong about what they believe is their only comfort.

    There’s no point wondering why Stupid is stupid, all we really need to know is they want to remain Stupid.

    Therefore anything they say will be a waste of time to read.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    May 27, 2015

    You saying that I haven’t answered the question, over and over again – doesn’t make it so.

    I agree. It’s quite evident that it is so even if you ignore all of my comments pointing out the lack of an actual answer.

  30. #30 turboblocke
    France
    May 27, 2015

    Stu, I have the impression that all your posts are trying to lead up to a ” Gotcha!!!” moment. However, if #23 is anything to go by, then it’s likely to be a very damp squid.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    May 27, 2015
  32. #32 BBD
    May 27, 2015

    Stu2

    BBD @ # 19.
    I understand about the ranges.
    Let’s move on.

    No. Answer the question.

  33. #33 BBD
    May 27, 2015

    The question about the best estimate within the range.

    That one.

    The one you’ve been dodging ever since I asked it.

    The one you have repeatedly lied about having answered.

    That one.

    Come on.

  34. #34 Wow
    May 27, 2015

    “No. Answer the question.”

    Understanding means he knows he can’t afford to answer.

  35. #35 Stu 2
    May 27, 2015

    Fellas.
    You have my original answer to the original question and my subsequent answers to other questions.
    The further this has gone, the more you have convinced me that that the original answer is valid.
    I did not answer to have it graded.
    I quite clearly said that I don’t agree with the original proposition that it all relies on a specific agreement about a number.
    I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
    All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.
    The environment and/or the climate doesn’t give a toss about whether humanity can agree about a CO2 ECS best estimate within the range approximation.

  36. #36 BBD
    May 27, 2015

    Stu2

    Fellas.
    You have my original answer to the original question and my subsequent answers to other questions.

    No we don’t. That’s why we keep asking you to answer the original question.

    And *everyone* knows why you won’t answer.

  37. #37 Stu 2
    May 27, 2015

    BBD.
    Yes you do.
    I understand that you don’t like that answer and you’re attempting to grade it and demand I resubmit it.
    I wasn’t sitting for a test or attempting to submit an assignment for you to mark.
    You asked if I agreed with your propsosition about requiring an agreement about a specific number.
    I don’t.
    I also explained why.
    Perhaps you might like to explain what *everyone* knows?

  38. #38 Stu 2
    May 27, 2015

    ……and also who is *everyone* ?

  39. #39 BBD
    May 27, 2015

    I understand that you don’t like that answer

    I understand that you don’t like that question, which is why ‘that answer’ isn’t one and that none will be forthcoming.

  40. #40 BBD
    May 27, 2015

    ……and also who is *everyone* ?

    All posting participants in this thread, including you.

  41. #41 Stu 2
    May 28, 2015

    BBD.
    I do have to include you when I say thanks.
    This April thread (at the end of May) has been a very informative experience for me.
    I very sincerely can’t thank you enough for what *everyone* has taught me.
    BTW.
    I didn’t necessarily like or dislike the original question.
    I just answers it.
    However, on reflection and with several days worth of hindsight
    I think I probably like the question rather than dislike it.
    🙂

  42. #42 Stu 2
    May 28, 2015

    Sorry.
    Bloody auto correct!
    Read ANSWERED not ANSWERS.

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    May 28, 2015

    The further this has gone, the more you have convinced me that that the original answer is valid.

    Your clear delusion/lie on this point is noted.

  44. #44 Stu 2
    May 28, 2015

    Lotharsson.
    Please enlighten me on this clear delusion/lie.
    In what way is it clear to you?
    I do find your personal, pseudo psycho analyses & particular personal pontification highly entertaining most of the time.
    🙂

  45. #45 Wow
    May 28, 2015

    You know it’s a lot quicker to read this thread when you know you can skip Stupid’s posts right off the bat.

    It’s pity he never could answer BBD’s question. What he says might get read. But that would require there be some point to his posts. And there just wasn’t.

  46. #46 Stu 2
    May 28, 2015

    Yep.
    I have to say I am definitely developing a crush on you Wow.
    You have done an excellent job of demonstrating that the original answer was to the original question was not wrong.
    Thanks for that.

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    May 28, 2015

    Please enlighten me on this clear delusion/lie.

    Saying “I disagree with the implied corollary of the answer to the question that you are asking” is not answering the question that is being asked. And saying “The best estimate is a range” is both an obvious falsehood and is not answering the question “what is the best estimate?”

    This is clear to everyone except you, which should give you pause.

    I do not know whether you are delusional or lying when you assert that you answered the question, hence my use of “delusion/lie”.

  48. #48 Wow
    May 28, 2015

    The corollary of his antics is that he’s never going to post anything that says something, therefore it’s not worth reading.

    Not answering shows clearly there’s no point to the posts he makes, there will be no information in them.

  49. #49 Gingerbaker
    May 28, 2015

    What sort of blog is this? No original writing to speak of. Just a joint where well-meaning, erudite folks can while away their time arguing with morons about facts?

    You all have wasted a decade of your lives here, folks. The Koch brothers could not be happier.

    May I make a suggestion? Why not spend your time more productively? Perhaps in advocacy for
    the actual building and deploying of a new 100% renewable energy utility system?

    Something…. anything!… but this?

  50. #50 Wow
    May 28, 2015

    Uh, we don’t just post here.

    As to what the kocks like, they’d like every rational person to shut up and let the morons keep the stage far far more than wasting all our time here making sure the Big Lie (google the term) doesn’t get traction.

  51. #51 BBD
    May 28, 2015

    Gingerbaker

    Thank you for your concerns.

    Ever see a raven stropping its beak on a brick? It only takes a brick to keep a beak nice and sharp.

  52. #52 Stu 2
    May 28, 2015

    Lotharsson.
    The original question actually asked if I agreed with the corollary.
    I don’t and explained why I don’t.
    As Gingerbaker points out @ # 47, it has proven to be a waste of time.
    The IPCC has been around since 1988 and that corollary is still not happening.
    Of course BBD called it a specific agreement and later an inescapable policy implication.
    For example, how would the corollary help to reverse the worrying trend in Agriculture that was highlighted earlier?
    Or, how would the corollary reverse the environmental challenges that Jeff Harvey talks about?
    Or how would the corollary encourage less waste?
    Or how would the corollary keep us safe from the climate?
    Or how would the corollary protect future generations?
    And numerous other such topics that you fellas imply that this specific agreement about a CO2 ECS will mean somehow that we can all live happily ever after?
    I don’t agree that over 2 decades fixating on a CO2 best estimate ECS to achieve some type of ‘grand challenge’ is proven to be a good idea.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2015

    Of course BBD called it a specific agreement…

    Of course he did not. Several people including BBD have pointed out to you this is completely and utterly false. What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else’s words after their author corrects him?

    The original question actually asked if I agreed with the corollary.

    How impressively dense you make yourself appear!

    Yes, the corollary I was referring to is the policy implications of the ECS estimate. You cited your disagreement with the policy implications as an answer to the original question. By definition a disagreement with a corollary is not an answer to the original question, as everyone but you understands.

    So here we stand days and days later, in a thread polluted by your cloud of bafflegab and near complete bamboozlement. As far as everyone (but you) can see you still have not answered the original question: do you agree that the best – that is, the most likely – estimate of the value of ECS is approximately 3C?

    And as far as everyone but you can tell, you will not answer and there’s one candidate reason why that is way out ahead of the pack. (That reason is additionally informed by the fact that I gave you a much looser alternative question about ECS ranges and you totally refused to answer that either.)

  54. #54 Wow
    May 29, 2015

    “What kind of fool repeats a false claim about someone else’s words after their author corrects him?”

    Is this a trick question? 🙂

    Stupid does, because it keeps him from saying what HE thinks on a subect, yet allows himto continue to demand others say what they think and keps him able to waste others’ time.

    in short, the moron wants people to say something so he can show something is wrong, and doesn’t want that to happen to them.

    Their essays are just sound and fury, containing absolutely nothing.

    By the way, sneaky there, quoting him first. I read a few words before they were obviously quoting him and I could skip that to the words in your post that actually may contain actual real information: your own.

  55. #55 Stu 2
    May 29, 2015

    Lotharsson and Wow.
    If nothing else you don’t fail to be entirely predictable.
    My original answer to the original question stands because of the corollary.

  56. #56 BBD
    May 29, 2015

    You are astonishingly stupid and astonishingly dishonest, Stu2.

    Watching your performance on this thread has been a new low.

  57. #57 FrankD
    May 29, 2015

    Stu2.
    If nothing else you don’t fail to be entirely predictable.
    Your original non-answer to the original question stands as a non-answer because of teh stoopid.

    For pity’s sake, just answer the question. You’re looking more and more like Tony Abbott answering a Mark Riley question. Still, never mind, eh…some days shit happens….

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2015

    Is this a trick question? 🙂

    It’s too tricky for Stu 2, that’s for sure 😉

  59. #59 Stu 2
    May 29, 2015

    You have my answer to BBD’s original question.
    For any further clarification please see # 33 & # 50..
    I’m sorry that you don’t like the answer.
    Nonetheless, that is my answer to that question.

  60. #60 BBD
    May 29, 2015

    You have my answer to BBD’s original question.

    No we don’t!

    And I should know.

  61. #61 Wow
    May 29, 2015

    So should stupid.

    But he finds it easier to be stupid than to be honest.

  62. #62 Stu 2
    May 29, 2015

    BBD.
    If it wasn’t my answer to your original question then whose answer was it?
    I know you are demanding that I have to resubmit it because of all sorts of totally irrelevant personal accusations and even your first attempt to observe that I must be a member of a particular tribe called ‘Lukewarm’ apparently?- right up to and including a personal accusation about something you have named (but not defined) as ‘intellectual dishonesty’.
    What should you know?
    You asked me a question and I answered it.
    There was no proviso in that question that you could pass it or fail it.
    There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.
    I don’t agree.
    The IPCC has been trying that for over 2 decades.
    It is not working.
    It’s not because they can’t agree about a number.
    Apart for the fact that this place is still arguing as an April thread at the very end of May, the politics needs to move on and start addressing social and environmental challenges with proven practical policies.

  63. #63 FrankD
    May 30, 2015

    Hilarious! That sludge at #60? Turns out that’s what was stuck to the very bottom of the barrel. Thanks Stu2. Its been very educational… 🙂

    …as an April thread at the very end of May

    Since Tim stopped posting articles, whenever our resident losers are losing, they almost inevitably fall back on “It’s May already! Where’s the May thread?”, like it doesn’t count if its not in the correct monthly thread. GSW and the Duffer used to do this too. It’s kind of a Godwin’s Law of Open Threads. I think this is the second time Stu2 has used this gambit on this thread (but I can’t be bothered going back to check). Hilarious!

  64. #64 Stu 2
    May 30, 2015

    It counts just fine Frank D
    I was merely using it as an analogy.
    That’s all it was.
    Of course you are completely entitled to read whatever you like into the comment.
    As am I 🙂

  65. #65 Wow
    May 30, 2015

    “like it doesn’t count if its not in the correct monthly thread”

    Doesn’t stop them posting, does it.

    And it’s not like “This is the wrong thread title” when corrected would magically make Stupid answer the question, is it.

    So it really is another “SQUIRREL!” moment from the denier.

  66. #66 FrankD
    May 30, 2015

    Of course it is, Wow. But I think its all we can expect – like the scorpion’s “it’s in my nature”.

    Perhaps its some sort of weird performance art?

  67. #67 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    Stu2

    You asked me a question and I answered it.

    No you didn’t, you lying sack of shit!

  68. #68 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    a personal accusation about something you have named (but not defined) as ‘intellectual dishonesty’.</blockquote

    I'm sure I did define it and that you are again lying, but to be clear, your intellectual dishonesty is your refusal to answer a direct question about the best estimate for ECS because you know that the most likely value is high enough to require urgent emissions reductions to avoid dangerous warming later this century and beyond.

    So you won’t even discuss this. You will do *anything* – no matter how shameful – to dodge and avoid answering a simple question. You will even repeat the most infantile lie that you have answered when nobody – not even a muppet like you – could believe this to be the truth.

    That’s intellectual dishonesty. It’s what you do.

  69. #69 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    Soddit. Tags.

  70. #70 Stu 2
    May 30, 2015

    BBD.
    I answered your question.
    I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
    I don’t agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.
    That idea is failing.
    Frank D.
    There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
    people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
    argument.
    I apologize if you didn’t like my analogy.
    I used it to demonstrate that it’s probably past time to move on.
    Your response reveals more about you than anything else.
    I am spectacularly uninterested in your personal opinion of me – what you think about me is not my business.

    That’s all it was.

  71. #71 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    Stu2

    I answered your question.

    No, you didn’t.

  72. #72 Stu 2
    May 30, 2015

    BBD.
    Of course I did.
    Pages ago.
    I completely understand that you don’t like my answer.
    I guess I could make speculative pseudo psychological guesses about you based on that but I think that’s just a pointless waste of time.
    As I have commented earlier, I didn’t answer your question in
    order to get a grade from you or to elicit a designation to a particular tribe from you & etc.

    Perhaps we could move on?
    I asked some questions upthread about some of our

  73. #73 Stu 2
    May 30, 2015

    Sorry.
    …..some of the social and environmental challenges that have been highlighted at different times.
    I do note there has been no attempt to offer any answers to those.
    Of course there is no personal reason why you should or shouldn’t or could or couldn’t.
    If you don’t want to answer that’s fine.

  74. #74 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    Stu2

    Of course I did.
    Pages ago.

    Then you will have no trouble in repeating you answer.

    Here is the original question:

    What I would like to know is whether in principle you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.

    This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.

    Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.

  75. #75 BBD
    May 30, 2015

    To help you answer the actual question, I will rephrase it.

    Do you agree that there exists a best estimate for ECS of ~3C or not?

  76. #76 Stu 2
    May 30, 2015

    BBD.
    Your rephrased question is a different question.
    Let me make it very simply a yes or no answer to each question
    My simple yes or no answer to the original question is NO.
    My simple yes or no answer to your question @ # 73 is YES.
    .

  77. #77 Stu 2
    May 31, 2015

    Please let me know if you need further clarification for the answer to your question @#73.

  78. #78 BBD
    May 31, 2015

    Stu2

    Your rephrased question is a different question.

    No, it isn’t.

    You cannot have it both ways. This is intellectual dishonesty.

  79. #79 Stu 2
    May 31, 2015

    It most certainly is a different question BBD.
    My simple yes or no answer to your question @#73 is yes.
    My simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.
    If you would like further clarification about the answer to your question @#73 please let me know.
    I have already explained why the simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.

  80. #80 FrankD
    May 31, 2015

    My simple yes or no answer to your question @#73 is yes.
    My simple yes or no answer to your original question is no.

    Hilarious! Stu2 finally concedes that, as we said for pages, he simply misread the original question, since the two questions are the same. Unless Stu2 was saying “no” to the “accepting the science” bit, but “yes” to the ECS bit. Which would display a remarkable level of magical thinking (which doesn’t actually surprise very much).

    Either its performance art, or everything else in this thread is just his cognitive dissonance to prop up his denial of his original error, necessary to protect a fragile ego.

  81. #81 Stu 2
    May 31, 2015

    Frank D.
    The 2 questions are not the same.
    For the remainder of your comment please read #68.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    May 31, 2015

    BBD

    I see you have encountered another Stu2 type over at DesMog, but one who appears to be a real danger to society. Did somebody mention ‘redneck’?

    He seems to have about the same level of environmental and humanitarian awareness as ……..er um ….Owen Patterson, who happens to be married to Rose Ridley.

    Ridley- Patterson, Monckton – Lawson, anybody know a fly on the wall at their dinner parties?

  83. #83 FrankD
    May 31, 2015

    There’s that pattern again, Stu2.

    😉

  84. #84 BBD
    May 31, 2015

    Lionel

    Yes, I saw you over at DS. John Doe is a singularly charmless not-quite-human being. I’m enjoying helping him to reveal his inner depths to everyone else on the thread. Same MO as the muppet here though – refusal to answer direct questions, obfuscatory bullshitting, intellectual dishonesty etc.

    There’s a clown factory somewhere.

  85. #85 Wow
    May 31, 2015

    The production line is defective, then.

  86. #86 BBD
    May 31, 2015

    Wow

    Who knows? Is it a bug or a feature? These are *clowns*, after all 😉

  87. #87 Wow
    May 31, 2015

    Yeah, but clowns are supposed to be either scary or funny.

    Deniers are neither.

    Their antics really do denote that “sapiens” must include a massive range of “wise” to apply to this genus…

  88. #88 BBD
    May 31, 2015

    Yeah, but clowns are supposed to be either scary or funny.

    Deniers are neither.

    You’ve got me there, Wow. Bug, then.

    🙂

  89. #89 Stu 2
    May 31, 2015

    Frank D @#81.
    If you are referring to the DS reference from Lionel @#80 I totally agree with you.
    I would suggest to BBD that he could perhaps Google ‘types of questions’ or ‘questioning styles’ or similar – and it may help him understand why he always finds himself stuck in that repetitive pattern.

  90. #90 Russell Seitz
    June 1, 2015

    Monckton’s latest Australian protege’ informs us that climate forcing apart, “coal dramatically reduced pollution”

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-viscount-who-has-seen-light-sings-in.html

  91. #91 Wow
    June 1, 2015

    A bit like “Apart from the agonizing pain, anasthetic-free surgery is slightly better for the patient”.

  92. #92 FrankD
    June 1, 2015

    Stu2 #87 – Obviously I was replying to your #79, referring to your pattern of simple denial of reality, or your “misunderstandings” or misrepresentations like those “If you are saying” posts…

    If you are referring to…

    Yep, there’s that pattern again.

    🙂

  93. #93 Stu 2
    June 1, 2015

    Frank D.
    I can assure you that the pattern at this blog and at the DS blog Lionel refers to @#80 is not being generated by me.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    June 2, 2015

    “I can assure you that the pattern at this blog and at the DS blog Lionel refers to @#80 is not being generated by me.”

    StewToo, you are miss-characterising the opinion expressed here.

    But then comprehension was never your strong point.

  95. #95 Wow
    June 2, 2015

    Is he still pretending he answered?

    At what point will he understand nobody buys bullshit?

  96. #96 Lionel A
    June 2, 2015

    Ignoring the resident clown-shoe for a moment picking uo on a story at DeSmogBlog Australian Tax Breaks Help Fund Climate Science Denier Mark Steyn’s Libel Defense in the US I wandered over to Amazon to see how the land lay and was disgusted to find that they appear to teach delusion in Australia if the 5 star votes are anything to go by.

    Could not this publication be challenged in court? After all the list of contributors reads like that of a travelling circus of clowns.

    Does Richard Lindzen realise how his reputation has now been brought as low as that of Pat Michaels to be equivalent to the likes of Delingpole, Darwall and Exposed as a fraud Plimer?

  97. #97 ianam
    June 2, 2015

    There is a consensus amongst most in civil society that once
    people launch personal attacks they have pretty much lost the
    argument.

    If there actually were such a consensus then most in civil society would be ignorant boobs, since it’s an ad hominem fallacy. Calling you a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit has no bearing on the validity of an argument (especially since it’s true).

  98. #98 ianam
    June 2, 2015

    I have no problem with the fact that humans need to become more responsible, including more efficient energy use.
    I don’t agree that a specific agreement about a singular CO2 ECS number is proving to be the only way to achieve it.

    You are denying that a specific agreement on something is the only way to achieve becoming more responsible, which isn’t something that anyone has proposed, you stupid fucking dishonest moron.

  99. #99 ianam
    June 2, 2015

    There was however a proviso that I agreed with what has been called such things as a specific agreement, an inescapable policy implications and a corollary.

    You’re right, there’s no need for maggots like you to agree that facts that entail an end to human civilization require policy changes.

  100. #100 ianam
    June 2, 2015

    I think that the fixation on a number is not doing anything at all to address or solve social and environmental challenges.
    All that has done is create a deeply divisive political arguments.

    No, it is dishonest shitholes like you who have created political divisiveness.

New comments have been disabled.