November 2016 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    December 2, 2016

    So Stu2, increasing AGW is not a problem? And this year it most certainly has accelerated… but be are heading into dangerous territory….

    Olaus Pathetic, here’s again how you argue:

    Scientist: The world isn’t flat, it is more or less spherical. (The scientist then goers on to provide huge amounts of evidence to support this, plus support from every major acadeemy of science and major scientific body in every nation on Earth).

    Olaus: Its not round its flat. Ha, ha! You are so easy! (No evidence of any kind procured).

    What is scary is that there are so many dimwits like you out there with no relevant qualifications who think by some law of divinity that they know more than the experts in the field who have been studying climate and environmental science for decades. Witness your casual dismissal of Tom’s Nature paper. You simply assert, “the world is flat” and go with it.

    Note also how Stu2 backs anyone no matter how stupid if they downplay climate change. Again, this says everything about him. He’s a luke warmer, like Olaus. On the basis of precisely ZERO acumen in the field.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    December 2, 2016

    And lastly, look at the graph again I posted at # 97 and tell me that 2016 is not exceptional. Its incredible.

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    December 2, 2016

    Jeffie, my dear hating-everything-maggot-specialist, besides you knowing nothing about me, I have no trouble seeing a spike in GMT this year. Unlike you, however, I have enough of a climate scientific mindset to know that this spike is caused by an El Nino. ?

    The only thing you master, at least hear in this skaking tent of climate scientology, is to hate and invent things in a way only Stalin would envy.

  4. #4 Stu 2
    December 2, 2016

    Jeff.
    I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes.
    Yet @# 100, there you are claiming I belong to some team called “luke warmer”.
    I have no interest in supporting personally abusive comments no matter which “team” said it.
    I also don’t “back” people based on which wing they might be flapping around with.
    As I commented earlier, your behaviour here is appearing to confirm the points made in the Crilkey article.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2016

    No Stu, it is apparent from your past record on here that you quietly if not tacitly, supported arguments of idiots like Olaus, Betula and Kim. They hurl as many insults as anyone else on here yet I have never ever seen you step up to the plate to counter them. You may think that this is subtle but it isn’t. It stands out like a sore thumb. You try, and miserably fail, of course, to debate me on social and political issues.

    The Crikey article, which anyone with half a functioning brain should realise is abominable, us a case in point. It claims that the activities of environmentalists is driving people into the arms of far right parties. Please excuse me for 5 minutes while I curl up and laugh myself into a fit.

    OK, I think I have gathered myself. How many green or environmental parties have ever been in power in any developed country? Well gee, that is a hard one. NONE. In fact, green parties rarely get even as much as 10% of the public vote. It’s obvious why: policies aimed at protecting nature and more egalitarian societies are of course seen as a profound threat by the ruling corporate elites who own the media and are doing everything in their power to ensure the current neoliberal capitalist order remains intact. So they do everything they can to smear and dismiss any alternatives which they see as a threat to the status quo. Any support for more sustainable and compassionate systems such as socialist political parties, that aim to redistribute wealth and hold corporations to account are relentlessly smeared and dismissed. I read your Crikey article all right and it was one dimensional garbage that failed to address the policies of the generally right wing establishment parties that hold power and do so by dumbing down the populace through various means including scary stories about evil groups that want to take away our freedoms. The Crikey article is symptomatic of the gutter press and the decline in the quality of investigative journalism.

    The real threats to the future and to democracy are of course based on the wholesale embrace of the current mutant form of deregulated capitalism called neoliberalism (which is neither new nor liberal). Capitalism is destroying our ecological life support systems bit by bit, ecosystem by ecosystem, across the biosphere and as the empirical data clearly and unambiguously shows we are approaching (and in some cases have passed) critical tipping points. My response to ypu here contains more integrity and reality by many factors than the trashy tabloidy Crikey article. Yet you link that here as if you are making a point. Earlier you linked to a four year old piece by David Attenborough in which he argues that overpopulation is a grave threat. Of course you did this to dismiss some of his more controversial comments. I know how you and people like you think Stu. You are as transparent as cellophane. Yet I never ever see you linking to articles detailing the serious nature of the current predicament or of the root causes of this destruction which are clear if you bothered to make any efforts to learn.

    You are an intellectual lightweight Stu. Sorry to be so blunt but it’s the truth. You have never once provided any indication that your understanding of environmental science in a political framework goes beyond the sophomoric. You latch onto slogans and some of the most puerile drivel in an attempt to make your points. You camouflage your ignorance behind a veneer of credibility. Your singular inability to see the signs and to be able to elucidate the root causes is telling. Most of the students in my recent Master’s course on biological conservation and scientific advocacy are better informed than you.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    December 3, 2016

    Unlike you, however, I have enough of a climate scientific mindset to know that this spike is caused by an El Nino.

    Oh look, Alas Olaus gets his science from David Rose, probably, and/or those echoing similar bilge.

    This rather naive, malicious even meme has been debunked:

    here

    and

    here.

    But the cretin Olaus will not understand the science as long as his &r$e points downwards. To use an old nautical expression.

  7. #7 Lionel A
    December 3, 2016

    I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes.

    That is a gross distortion of what is happening here. When such as you persistently present arguments based upon selective factoids or complete BS then calling things as they are is proper. It is persons like you who have subverted the real discussion that we should be having which is what we should do about the problem having recognised its very real existence and the calamitous threat it poses to all life on Earth.

    Your persistent hand waving and trying to pass the blame buck is dishonest. If a schmuck behave like a schmuck then it is a schmuck!

    Here is an idea, why don’t you try to make an effort to research the areas in which Jeff has been involved, ecosystem services, phrenological mismatch.

    I recently saw a short video section of plans afoot in India (World Land Trust) to improve the width of a corridor which links tiger habitat between West and East of the peninsula. One reason is because of a similar issue facing the Adder in the UK. Can you think of what this is?

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2016

    Lionel, ignore Olaus. he’s an uneducated twerp who doesn’t understand what he is saying much of the time. He’s a copycat insulter and clearly works at some menial job where he craves attention. He also does not recognise his own blatant hypocrisy which stands out like a sore thumb to anybody capable of reading.

    Note how Olaus was one of the most apparent on this thread for going on about the hiatus that never was. Note also how the hiatus selectively began in 1998 – a year in which the largest El Nino on record until that time was recorded. 1998 was exceptional in that it it was 0.20 C warmer than any year recorded previously. When the next 15 years failed to be statistically significantly warmer than 1998, voila! There was a hiatus. But of course most climate scientists recognised that deniers were using 1998 as their baseline year dishonestly. Despite that, there were several years that were warmer than 1998, even in then absence of an El Nino event. Then along comes 2015-16, with record warm month after record warm month occurring, significantly ahead of 1998 even though the strength of the El Nino was slightly less. So what do the deniers do? They claim the record warmth was only do to El Nino! So they excuse the El Nino event of 1998 to set that as their baseline starting year, but at then use it in now to dismiss the exceptional warmth of 2016.

    We have a word for that but I will use two here to emphasise the point: fucking dishonesty. Or fucking hypocrisy. Take your pick. Moreover, El Nino only amplified greenhouse gas-induced warming. It does not create it. If that was the case, why was 2016 warmer than 1998 which was warmer than 1982? Each of these years experienced major El Nino events. Its warmer now because of the anthropogenic fingerprint.

    Once again, debunking Olaus is like picking cherries. But its easy because he is so utterly stupid and does not even recognise it.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    December 3, 2016

    A simple presentation for the intellectually challenged.

    Now what do you notice about the areas under the curves as you move along the graph from left to right?

    It just so happens that another has picked up on that Crowther study. Now try and make out things don’t look dire – the snowball is now running down the hill.

    But that isn’t all, we know that there are other carbon stores that could suddenly become unlocked as temperatures rise. We are on the track where increased atmospheric GHGs caused by human activities has raised temperatures which unlock more GHGs which enter the atmosphere, which causes increased warming, which unlocks other carbon sinks and so on and so on.

    This is similar to what happens if you don’t wind off the reel a very long extension lead, plug in and switch on a high wattage appliance – electric kettle, iron, bar fire, tumble drier. Many moons ago my dearest discovered what happens when plugging in one of those latter in such a way.

  10. #10 Stu 2
    December 3, 2016

    Read very slowly Jeff.
    I. don’t. support. any. particular. wing. or. political. party.

    There is no evidence that turning politics into something like a football game where we’re supposed to argue that only one side is purer than the driven snow is helping to achieve any sensible TBL outcomes.
    Unlike you apparently, neither do I believe that only elitist academics have all the answers and should be the only ones to comment.
    There’s nothing amiss with my education or my intellectual capacity.
    I’m a huge fan of education so congratulations on your PhD and all the hard work that goes in to attaining one.
    In my experience however, high levels of education does not then automatically mean that people are somehow smarter or better.
    I often work with academics.
    Some of them know how to work with others and lead teams of people and help them to improve land and water management.
    Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.

  11. #11 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2016

    Stu, then get off your ass and start belittling the idiotic comments of Olaus and Kim on here. Instead, you seem to think that is environmentalists on the left who are the bad guys. Again, why the Crikey article was tosh is because people are responding to the media and right wing parties that immigration, refugees and migrants are a greave threat to our societies. Trump used this lie to explain deindustrialization of the American heartland (threats to American jobs and outsourcing) and he and European parties on the far right are using to to drive fear by suggesting that immigrants and migrants are threatening our supposedly civilised way of life (even though our foreign policies are anything but civilised; they are barbaric). It has nothing to do with environmentalism. Nothing at all. The fact that crikey writes such tosh says a lot about them. Scapegoating is in vogue at the moment. It is a useful tool for keeping the masses in line and for avoiding the real culprit that threatens everyone: unbridled, unregulated capitalism.

  12. #12 Stu 2
    December 4, 2016

    Jeff.
    Now read this slowly.
    I’m…not …interested….in …belittling…..anyone….including….you.
    You are tempting me….but it won’t happen.
    🙂

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2016

    Stu.
    Now read this slowly.
    You.. are… very… selective… in… whose… views… you… challenge… on.. Deltoid. Meaning me, Lionel, Wow et al., but when our resident loonies make one of the many stupid comments we don’t hear a peep from you.

    Let me rephrase that. Your views are made quite clear by your silence when Kim makes one of his vile pro-Trump rants or Olaus hypocritically dismisses AGW on the basis of an El Nino event while using an earlier El Nino event as a baseline for his vacuous ‘hiatus’ argument.

    Aas foer belittling, you can try to do that to me but since you are a complete nobody in science then it won’t exactly sting.

  14. #14 Stu 2
    December 4, 2016

    Jeff.
    Slowly again.
    I….challenge….the…negative….politics….of ….all….wings….brands….colours….flavours etc.
    I don’t believe that arguing which is the least guilty is helping the environment one little bit.

  15. #15 Stu 2
    December 5, 2016

    Far wiser to look at what has worked and why IMHO.
    I can’t see the point of arguing with vaccuos comments Jeff, no matter who makes them.
    The ‘cherry picking’ argument from all flavours and wings is vaccuos.
    By their nature all such models whether they be financial, climactic, demographic, yields & etc basically cherry pick as they need to use start/stop dates.
    Anyone who has to run their own business and present their financial statements to institions like banks and taxation departments knows that.
    It doesn’t require a PhD in science or any other discipline.
    Simply changing the start/stop dates can create quite different results.
    Also updating inputs with real time data can radically change the outputs.
    It’s not rocket science.
    But of course the people who figure out the algorithms etc that are needed to make such programs work as useful tools are extraordinarily talented.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    December 5, 2016

    Stu, don’t go down that ‘all sides are cherry picking’ road. That is total and utter bullshit. There are two sides in debates on the environment. The scientific side, represented by intensively peer reviewed documents like the IPCC reports and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, as well as the empirical literature, and the contrarian side, represented by think tanks, blogs and the right wing corporate media. The latter distorts and cherry picks to downplay anthropogenic threats to the environment, in order to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.

    When people like you claim that all sides are cherry picking, you are simply confirming what I thought about you before. You are as transparent as cellophane. And not even remotely clever at it. Humans are unambiguously simplifying and destroying a wide range of ecosystems across the biosphere. There are no ands, ifs, or buts. And we are quickly running out of time to make the major adjustments in policy needed to give much of nature – and ultimately ourselves – a chance at longer term survival.

  17. #17 Stu 2
    December 5, 2016

    There you go Jeff.
    Framing the politics like it’s some type of football match?
    Two sides eh?

  18. #18 Wow
    December 5, 2016

    “Jeff.
    I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes.”

    Yet still you do this.

    And never once complain when Lappers yaps away with that sole technique…. I wonder why?

    Oh, that’s right, you’re talking out your arse, dear.

  19. #19 Wow
    December 5, 2016

    “Read very slowly Jeff.
    I. don’t. support. any. particular. wing. or. political. party.”

    Read very slowly, StuPid: that isn’t any valid argument for anything. NOTHING there rebuts or disavows what Jeff pointed out to everyone here as your operational status.

    “There’s nothing amiss with my education or my intellectual capacity.”

    Like much else you spout, this is wrong. What isn’t wrong is irrelevant.

    “In my experience however, high levels of education does not then automatically mean that people are somehow smarter or better.”

    Like that, for example. Nothing there says that Jeff’s comments are wrong or ill-informed. All you’re really doing is pointing out that proclaiming someone said something isn’t proof it’s correct, but “neglected” to point out that it doesn’t disprove it either.

    Do like proper people do here: come up with an argument, not blather or irrelevancies and whinging. Hell, make a goddamned claim, a feature lacking from all your posts.

    “Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.”

    For which the existence in the general can be accepted, but no claim of an actual instance is given, making the whinge you make irrelevant and a claim nonexistent.

    Of course, the reason why you make no claim, only generalities, is because you cannot support a claim with evidence.

  20. #20 Wow
    December 5, 2016

    “I’m…not …interested….in …belittling…..anyone….including….you.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!

    So, what the hell was THIS

    “Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.”

    supposed to say, hmmm????

  21. #21 Wow
    December 5, 2016

    Framing the politics like it’s some type of football match?
    Two sides eh?

    Care to identify the multitudinous sides and how they aren’t disposed of in the two Jeff delineated?

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    December 5, 2016

    There YOU go Stu, trying to give the impression that the debate over climate change and human impacts on the environment are made up of two sides, both of which cherry pick. I told you that this is bullshit,. there is one side, made up primarily of scientists, most of whom agree as to the causes and potential consequences of warming and other anthropogenic threats to the environment. On the other side you have a small, vocal, well funded groups of mostly laymen or retired old researchers with little scientific pedigree, some on the corporate payroll, saying that everything is fine and that we shook stay the course.

    One side is correct… and that’s the one that I am on. Its the side of science and empirical evidence. The other is full of shills, greenwasher and propagandists.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

  23. #23 Stu 2
    December 5, 2016

    Thanks for confirming what I said Jeff.
    And thanks also for demonstrating exactly what the Crikey article was highlighting.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    December 5, 2016

    Clearly Stu-pid’s cognitive framework is too Bourked to realise how lame that Crikey article is a load of self referential make believe tosh.

  25. #25 Stu 2
    December 5, 2016

    And thanks to the one eyed ‘football club’ fans who are also helping to confirm exactly the same thing.
    🙂
    When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?
    I’m not into the over marketted and aggressive global team sports that much.
    I prefer the friendlier local games.
    I have found they bring out the best in people and actually achieve stated outcomes.

  26. #26 Stu 2
    December 6, 2016

    Wow @#19?
    I guess if you really wanted to you could interpret my comment re my observations working with academics out in the field as an attempt to belittle an individual.
    That was not the intention.
    I realise you’re spoiling for a fight.
    I’m not interested thanks all the same.
    I’m still interested in achieving measurable improvements in land and water management.
    I have never once noticed that engaging in personal abuse and construction straw men to beat up achieve any improvement in these fields.

  27. #27 Stu 2
    December 6, 2016

    And to save you somehow reading something else into it, auto correct got me and chose construction instead of constructing. I didn’t catch it before I pushed submit.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    December 6, 2016

    Stu. You clearly have cognitive difficulties. The Crikey article is bullshit. The reason people are embracing far right parties is because of fear. Fear that our supposedly ‘civilized’ way of life is allegedly under threat from the bad, evil Muslims hiding under our beds. This fear is driven by our corporate media that aim to scapegoat minorities and refugees and migrants. Interestingly, this is linked with that abominable SkyNews interview you linked here a year ago with the rehabilitated jihadist. The connection should be blatantly obvious but you just don’t see it. I excuse you because you are shallow. Crikey is embedded in this supine media system. That you swallow everything your media tells you is proof, if any were ever needed, that you are a dope.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    December 6, 2016

    Jeff and #27

    I get stick on social media for pointing out the biased reporting on the MM with words like ‘rubbish’ appearing in responses, particularly if I have linked to a Guardian article. I figure Brexit was a bad idea one pushed by the use of inflammatory lies. If a towering intellect Stephen Hawking thinks it was wrong then I can stand being labelled ‘a fanatic’ (by those who clearly have a diet of Mail, Telegraph, Times, Express etc,) because of my arguments. Besides if Michael Gove is ‘for’ anything then I will be against it, his ideas on education were beyond the pale that being an area in which I have professional qualifications and experience.

    Beware of tinkerers bearing gifts.

    That you swallow everything your media tells you is proof, if any were ever needed, that you are a dope.

    Dope on a rope, every time he replies he hangs himself. Clearly not taken the advice to study such as Derrick Jensen, John Pilger or Mark Curtis. Stu has no feel whatsoever for what makes the socio-political world tick. He always comes back with ill-informed drivel plucked from the gutter (press).

  30. #30 Lionel A
    December 6, 2016

    It just happens that Jeff, in December thread, linked to an article at Hot Whopper pointing out the lies of one Willis Eschenbach WRT Peter Gleick. Here I’ll quote the kicker with the pith emphasised, it is that that Stu repeatedly fails to comprehend:

    I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

    Peter Gleick

    It is because you aid and abet the behaviour highlighted in the above that you are repeatedly denigrated Stu2. We have had more than enough of your obfuscation and evasion so stop complaining and throwing out statements with false implications such as this:

    When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?

    We have tried and it is you who goes off piste into the weeds.

  31. #31 Wow
    December 6, 2016

    “When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?”

    We are discussing actual issues.YOU are the one making vague whinging claims and avoiding anything substantive in your assertions.

    When you decide to start being specific, THEN you can make such an asinine complaint without having eviscerated it of all meaning by wallowing in inept baffle.

  32. #32 Stu 2
    December 8, 2016

    I rest my case fellas.
    Thanks again.
    🙂

  33. #33 Wow
    December 8, 2016

    You never had a case, Stupid. Make believe isn’t real.

    But, reality isn’t what you can manage, is it, dearie.

  34. #34 Wow
    December 8, 2016

    “I guess if you really wanted to you could interpret my comment re my observations working with academics out in the field as an attempt to belittle an individual.”

    So where in this is your not-belittling?

    “Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.”

    But deniers like yourself don’t like reality, you prefer to fake things as you’d like them to be, rather than change yourself.

  35. #35 Stu 2
    December 8, 2016

    No seriously Wow.
    You don’t need to continue.
    You’ve done a great job. 🙂
    Thanks

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    December 8, 2016

    Stu rests his case.
    Verdict: He is found guilty of bias, incompetence and failing to listen to counter arguments.

    Evidence: He wrote, “When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?”

    I responded to that abomindable Crikey article by saying – with plenty of evidence if he bothered to take his head out of his butt, that people are embracing more right wing populst parties out of fear. Not entirely fear of environmentalists, who have never held any political power or ever had any real influence on policy, but primarily fear of immigrants, refugees, and Islam that has been force-fed to the generfal population by our supine corporate media. Who owns Crikey? Private Media Partners:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/530768Z:AU-private-media-partners

    Anyone with half a brain can see why populist movements are thriving under increased globalization. The masses are dumbed down by their media, which plays into the hands of right wing populists who see radical Islam as a threat to our supposedly civilized way of life. For instance:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/continent-of-fear-the-rise-of-europe-s-right-wing-populists-a-719842.html

    https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-politics-of-fear/book237802

    Its always been easy to scapegoat minorities, refugees, immigrants, and in the case of the appalling Crikey article, environmentalists. The media, in line with the political right, are doing this now instead of going after the real culprit: deregulation and neoliberal capitalism, which are destroying the planet bit by bit. This is because the corporate media is embedded in the current system and the elites who own it don’t want to change things.

    Stu wanted a discussion, instead he gets a demolition. Easy come, easy go.

  37. #37 Wow
    December 8, 2016

    “Stu rests his case.
    Verdict: He is found guilty of bias, incompetence and failing to listen to counter arguments.”

    Not to mention not having a case.

    Evidence: 100% lack of any stated case to be rested.

  38. #38 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    This is becoming hilarious.
    All I said was:
    “This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics”
    And you have done nothing but demostrate it.
    Here is another article that IMHO is highlighting a symptom of the politics:
    http://unitedconservatives.com.au/vic-president/why-i-am-a-conservative-conservative/

    Take note fellas.
    In this article here is the symptom:
    ” 2016 has seen big deviations in the political landscape with a major world-wide shift away from far left, socialist green ideology and what is considered by many as elitism.
    I believe this change, in the main, has been shaped by ordinary hardworking men and women who are sick and tired of the never ending political correctness, weary of being preached at and abused by ideological elitists hell bent on creating their idiotic Utopian society, weighed down by the burden of high taxation with no logical reason for having to pay so much, who feel afraid that their traditions and nations are being overrun by foreign extremists who want to hurt them, who have become disenfranchised by insincere, self-serving, myopic politicians more interested in re-election than any substantial policy that reduces the burden on them.
    The electorate are looking for someone like them.”

    And the attitude that is often behind it:

    ” And I detest, with all my being, the politics of division plaguing our society now.
    We are preached to by self-proclaimed high priests of ethical behaviour who believe they have a sole claim on morality. These shamans are generally of the socialist green, far left of political ideology. Although the right of politics has slowly leant towards this extreme view.
    Their strategy is simple: divide and conquer.  These scare-mongers pick a cause, it doesn’t matter what or who, give it/them victim status then delegate a ‘deplorable’ anti-hero. From there comes the assurances of rescue and relief. Give aid to the ‘victim’ and/or take financial or legal action against the apparent oppressor. The ‘tyrant’ is often a larger organisation, usually called ‘big’ as in ‘big oil’, or ‘big pharma’ or ‘big polluter’, just so you know where to lay blame.
    But you will never hear mention of ‘big academia’ or ‘big government’ from these Marxist moralists as those are patrons of the extreme left and are exempt from derision. Anyone who dares a disparaging comment of their divisive schemes is personally abused and labelled a bigot, a sexist, racist or (blank) aphobe.
    They claim to stand for tolerance while employing severe intolerance when it comes to an opposing standpoint. Theirs is the only morally justifiable position, therefore tolerance is not required by them.”

    But seriously,
    You don’t have to demonstrate it again.

  39. #39 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “All I said was:
    “This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics””

    So what if it does? And how do you figure it to do that?

    “And you have done nothing but demostrate it.”

    And what does that mean? What symptoms?

    http://unitedconservatives.com.au/vic-president/why-i-am-a-conservative-conservative/

    ” 2016 has seen big deviations in the political landscape with a major world-wide shift away from far left, socialist green ideology and what is considered by many as elitism…

    Yes, that is demonstrating a symptom of politics.

    But I thought we were doing that? Were you talking to them? They won’t hear you. You need to post there.

    And it’s weird. A rightwing rag sees the world going to the right, and sees the left as bad or even evil. Why is this surprising you? And why isn’t the plain fact that they’re biased even considered by you? Just because you’re a rightwinger too?

    And isn’t that just demonstrating a symptom of the politics by you?

    Given you’ve never appeared to understand what you’re talking about on here, why do you even bother?

  40. #40 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Even dumber is that the righwinger is taking the fact that his accusations on the left being discounted as valid by those he’s accusing is, to his mind, more evidence of how wrong the leftwing is.

    That his accusation could be wrong is NEVER contemplated.

  41. #41 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    as ‘invalid.

  42. #42 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    Wow.
    Thanks again Wow.
    You’re really good at this.

  43. #43 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    I know. But yo;re REALLY bad at answering questions, aren’t you. Even worse than you are at making a point.

    Idiocy or mendacity? Or both?

    Lewandowski would have a field day with you.

  44. #44 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    No seriously.
    You’re doing great Wow.
    Perfect demonstration .
    Thanks.

  45. #45 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Thank you, but I wonder why you’re so happy I’m tearing you a new one, metaphorically speaking.

    But you’re kind of the poster child for the post-truth world, aren’t you.

  46. #46 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    Wow.
    There’s probably no point but let me try to help you.
    The symptom is that people have lost patience with all the finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity.
    Your ‘team’ is not winning the political football game.
    Your fans are deserting.
    Trying to blame everything and everyone else as well as the other ‘team’ for your team’s poor performance just looks like bad sportsmanship and is causing even more fans to desert.
    Contrary to your assertions otherwise, that does not mean that people don’t care about the environment or science or poverty & etc.
    It does not mean that people lack, education, intelligence & etc.
    It means, very simply, they’re over having to listen to the incessant, misanthropic, negative political rhetoric and they’re punishing the perpetrators of that via the ballot box.
    It doesn’t have much at all to do with flapping around with one wing.
    If we took focusing on ‘the politics’ out and focused instead on ‘the practical’ and ‘the possible’ people are capable of making a difference.

  47. #47 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “The symptom is that people have lost patience with all the finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity.”

    Well your evidence hasn’t shown that, so really how is this meant to be taken except as blank assertion?

    “If we took focusing on ‘the politics’ out and focused instead on ‘the practical’ and ‘the possible’ people are capable of making a difference.”

    The only one “focusing on ‘the politics'” are deniers and other idiots, such as yourself (both denier and idiot), because you really REALLY don’t want to have to do anything about AGW.

    It’s taken you, what? well over a dozen posts and you’ve only just actually stated what your claim re: “the symptom” is. True, you’ve done a shit job at showing evidence for it, but let’s ignore that and get to the meat of the problem with you and your whinging.

    It’s only AFTER you eventually got round to making an actual claim that we could get “focused … on ‘the practical’ “. If you had EVER genuinely wanted to do that, you wouldn’t have spent a score of posts evading every attempt to get some concrete statement out of you. Even if you didn’t know this was a problem, you do now.

    But like I said, your assertion really doesn’t have much evidence, and the only evidence you’ve given contains mostly “finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity.” and the only evidence is anecdote of the random blogger’s vague opinion (that even has to be interpreted into what you are now claiming this to be evidence for).

    Never mind all the finger pointing you’ve been doing in trying to make pretend you have supporting your claim.

  48. #48 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    OK.
    Maybe it is just best to let you demonstrate.
    Well done 🙂

  49. #49 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Demonstrate what?

    Where you failed???

  50. #50 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Ooh, was it that in not agreeing with your finger pointing I’m demonstrating how it’s my fault there’s finger pointing?

    No?

    Is it that because you haven’t shown evidence of your claim, pointing it out is somehow demonstrating something that, well, uh, I guess you still need to show what I’m supposedly demonstrating.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    What fans? Reality doesn’t need fans.

  52. #52 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Where’s this evidence “fans” are leaving?

  53. #53 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    How about evidence that the politics is lost?

  54. #54 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Given the cries about getting politics out of science, why is it bad that the politics has been lost (if, indeed it has been)?

  55. #55 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    If you’ve “won” the politics, then isn’t that proof you’re bad people, since you’re politicising science?

  56. #56 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Is it bad when the realists are winning the politics, but good when deniers do? Why?

  57. #57 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    Wow.
    You are seriously doing an excellent job of demonstrating what both those articles were attempting to highlight and my post @#45.
    What other evidence do you need?

  58. #58 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    You’re still avoiding actually saying anything at all.

    Try to make those words you’re typing do something.

  59. #59 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    What highlighted problem in 45? You don’t post anything about any article, completely link free!

  60. #60 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    But let me try to help you again.
    Nobody and no political ‘wing’ has won anything of substance or anything connected with ‘possible’ or ‘practical’
    That’s a symptom as well.

  61. #61 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    & perhaps you didn’t see the links to the 2 articles?

  62. #62 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    You’re only pretending that you want to help me so as to avoid answering any questions or making any further actionable or testable claims, given how you fucked them up on the one occasion you tried them.

    Why do you think that works?

  63. #63 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “& perhaps you didn’t see the links to the 2 articles?”

    Yes, that was because there were no links to any 2 articles.

  64. #64 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    When you talk of “anything of substance or anything connected with ‘possible’ or ‘practical’”, what on earth do you mean?

    As far as reality is concerned, there’s plenty being done.

    Just go ask China, for one. Hows about Europe?

  65. #65 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    Wow.
    I linked 2 articles upthread.
    It’s a bit odd you claim they’re not there as you even relinked one of them @#38.

  66. #66 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    Maybe you did, somewhere. But you claimed:
    “my post @#45.”

    Up there, comment 56.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “It’s a bit odd you claim they’re not there”

    They aren’t there. Checked post 45 four times now.

    Still not there.

  68. #68 Stu 2
    December 9, 2016

    Wow.
    You relinked one of the articles yourself @#38.
    They’re not @#45.
    I didn’t say they were.
    My apologies if I have somehow inadvertently confused you.
    Hope that helps?

  69. #69 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “You relinked one of the articles yourself @#38.”

    That isn’t in your post @45, though. 38 != 45.

  70. #70 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “They’re not @#45.
    I didn’t say they were.”

    You never said they weren’t until just there. The only post you mentioned was 45.

    If you want to help, then stop leaving out the information that makes your claims comprehensible to someone not occupying your brainstem.

  71. #71 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    “My apologies if I have somehow inadvertently confused you.”

    Remember: nobody knows what’s going on in your head except (maybe) you.

    Now, I’m counting the number of links in post 38.

    I only get one.

    Didn’t you claim two?

  72. #72 Wow
    December 9, 2016

    I get 37, though.

    But it still only has one.

    Read my post following that one, and let me know what about it you don’t understand.

  73. #73 Stu 2
    December 10, 2016

    Wow.
    I can only repeat that you’re doing an excellent job of demonstrating what both those articles (first one @#60 previous page) were attempting to highlight as well as my post @#45 (was attempting to highlight).
    Does that help you?

  74. #74 Wow
    December 10, 2016

    Wow.
    I can only repeat…

    Something that doesn;t help at all.

    I thought you wanted to help, that you wanted to work on “anything of substance or anything connected with ‘possible’ or ‘practical’”

    Or is that empty post an example of what is “anything of substance” to you?

    In which case, I have to tell you that much more of substance has been done with the system just the way it is, dumbass.

  75. #75 Wow
    December 10, 2016

    first one @#60 previous page

    OK, so neither 45, the only post you mentioned regarding it.

    Neither was it 38, which you EVENTUALLY said they were on.

    And neither was it even on the same page as either of those two posts.

    Tell me, did those links go to articles that indicated that giving people the runaround was the best way to get something of substance done?!?!? Because unless it did, you’ve just nuked any possibility of those articles being right.

  76. #76 Wow
    December 10, 2016

    So, StuPid, did you read the comment I made after the one with the second link in, that you ascribe to post 38?

    If you understood the words in it, then your question in post 56 (where you pointed me solely to post 45) “What other evidence do you need?”.

    I need evidence, not stuff you think is evidence, but is just anecdote written by partisan hacks whose accuracy and honest cannot be relied upon.

  77. #77 Stu 2
    December 10, 2016

    Outstanding Wow.
    Thanks again.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.