A Few Things Ill Considered

Unmoderated Post on Moderation

I will allow comments through by default for repeat commenters again, first time commenters will still need an initial approval.

I will however now be a more active moderator and delete things that are useless or unnecessarily personal from now on, except on this thread.

This is unavoidably subjective but I will try to err on the side of permissiveness. The goal will be controlling the tone more so than the content. Readers should keep in mind the fact I am in an Australian time zone, so doomed comments may be visible for many hours. I expect this blog will remain pretty quiet for the time being, though I still hope to have more to say in the future. It is in some ways an interesting time in The Climate Wars (really wild weather, new global anomaly records, politics), but also in other ways it is all so much “same as it ever was”.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 20, 2016

    Of course it’s going to be subjective. But what are the other options?

    Don’t apologise for something that is inevitable, it gives those wanting to demonise you a claim that is unwarranted. You either moderate and it MUST be subjective, or you don’t and face the consequences of doing nothing. Which could be legal: removing links to Kiddie Porn is still moderation, and the choice of what you will moderate, even if it’s “Well, I would be legally subject” is itself a subjective decision on what is moderable. Especially since those links won’t say something as obvious as “Get your free pre-teen hentai pics here!”.

    I would suggest that a post that goes through one of the standard denier tropes listed on the SKS site being removed is as non-subjective a level of moderation as needed.

    After all, if 20 years later and the disproof STILL hasn’t stuck, what’s the point wasting time over that 20 year old guff and reiterating the disproofs of the claim?

  2. #2 Mordicai Knode
    United States
    January 23, 2016

    I think it is the right call; anonymous comments can really make a site thrive, but without management they can turn toxic. I’d consider making valued, long-term commenters voluntary mods, giving them the power to “hide” comments or the like, if it gets super annoying.

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    January 25, 2016

    All things in moderation including moderation.

    Happy 2016 Coby!

  4. #4 freddy
    January 26, 2016

    Mr. Halpern, also a good year, hopefully not too hot one for your senses, to you. Let me ask you, how you came to choose “Eli Rabett” as your nickname and why do you often say things like “Eli finds this interesting”, talking in 3rd person speech about yourself? I would appreciate an explanation. Thank you.

  5. #5 Michael of Brisbane
    Brisbane, Australia
    May 6, 2017

    Hi everyone.

    Well, hasn’t this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?
    It’s a long time since I last commented here, and
    I’d just like to ask if any of you have changed your mind on AGW at all in the last few years?

    I’m addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW.
    I mean, do you still think the alarmism is justified, or are doubts creeping into your mind?
    Whadayareckon, Wow?
    I’d especially like to know what you think of the alarmist’s sides most prominent SCIENTIST; Bill Nye. (haha)

  6. #6 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “Well, hasn’t this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?”

    Oh, well, I guess that’s over now you’re here. Oh. Bugger. No, you just wanted to start in yourself.

    “I’m addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW.”

    Uhm, why? Are you a believer in fantasy? AGW is reality. You don’t have to believe in it, it exists.

    I take it, though, you haven’t given up your fantasy and still insist it’s a scam or some such rubbish, despite it being the warmest 2016 on record.

    Because you never worried what reality said, so why the hell would more evidence change YOUR mind, eh?

    “the alarmist’s sides most prominent SCIENTIST”

    Who? Tony Watts? He’s not a scientist.

    I’m especially not at all bothered what the fuck you’re trying to avoid saying either. You couldn’t be bothered to say, so I really can;t be bothered to work it out. Bill Nye. Yup, he’s an engineer and has a science show. But he’s not a prominent scientist, not an alarmist, and accepts reality.

    All of them 180degrees around from you, neither prominent, nor scientist, you’re alarmist and in deep denial of reality.

    I’m addressing this to you, retard.

  7. #7 Michael of Brisbane
    Australia
    May 6, 2017

    Bahahaha!

    Wow!
    You are unreal!
    So nasty, abusive and, desperate!
    Bahahaha!

    I can’t believe you are STILL clinging on to this rubbish.
    Your angst is obvious!
    Your name-calling shows that you have NO actual science to back you up.

    The wheels are falling off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
    Bahahaha!

    (by the way, I’m pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive.
    If you were friendly, we could have a much nicer conversation….. but we’d still be talking about how the wheels are falling off this AGW hoax.)

    Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming.

    I was also hoping to hear from Mandas, who used to comment a lot here.
    But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow.

    Wow, why do you still bother?
    What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly.
    I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else’s words, please explain it in your own words.
    Thanks.
    🙂

  8. #8 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “So nasty, abusive and, desperate!”

    If that’s evidence of being wrong, you were wrong to begin with.

    “(by the way, I’m pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive.”

    Go ahead. This is meaningless, though, just letting you know.

    “Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming.”

    Really? Then what does it show is causing it?

    “But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow.”

    Which you’re now making pointless fighting between you and me. This invalidates this being any sort of complaint. You just want to join in.

    And it doesn’t prove AGW is wrong.

    “Wow, why do you still bother?”

    Why do you?

    “What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly.”

    Uhm, the evidence.

    Go look here yourself:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    Note I did not ask you what evidence convinces you it’s wrong or failing or all that bollocks because we both know it’s nothing to do with evidence.

    You just want pointless arguing and to spew abuse and idiocy.

    “I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else’s words”

    There’s no words you will listen to, you only listen to words you want to hear. You have stuck to your denial for no reasons, and there are none you will listen to, you only want to be abusive and nasty and blame someone else for all your flaws.

  9. #9 Michael of Brisbane
    Australia
    May 6, 2017

    I will listen to you, wow, if you will summarise the evidence in your own words.
    Surely you can sum it up pretty easily?

    You seem to be a climate scientist, so, surely with the thorough knowledge you have, you can sum it all up in a few sentences?
    There’s no need to be nasty, mate.
    Just explain why you are so convinced.
    If you want credibility, don’t just tell me to “google it”, or click on some ipcc link.
    That is intellectual laziness, when your credibility is at stake, mate.
    It’s obviously a topic that is very close to your heart.

    C’mon, mate.
    convince me!

  10. #10 Michael of Brisbane
    Brisbane, Australia
    May 6, 2017

    Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove that you cannot convince me, and I’ve been right about this whole AGW shite since 2007!

  11. #11 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “I will listen to you,”

    Then what? what payoff for effort do I get? What end goal will happen to make the time investment valid?

    Deniers deny. Listening then denying is no benefit, no change.

  12. #12 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove”

    Nothing.
    Only that I have no care or worries about your precious ego or feelings.

    It does not prove a damn thing about AGW.

    But that you will do so anyway is because you have nothing of reality to support your insanity and denial.

  13. #13 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    What made you so convinced in 2007? Convince me.

  14. #14 Michael of Brisbane
    Brisbane, Australia
    May 6, 2017

    Wow!
    What would you get?
    Mate!
    You would be famous!
    You would have incredible wealth and massive scientific credibility!
    Isn’t that worth a few short sentences?

    Wow!
    You can’t explain something that you understand so thoroughly?
    This is surprising to me, wow.
    The way you speak to people, I was quite convinced you were a scientist who understands the science of AGW very well.

    Hmmm….

    You’ve just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion.
    You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me.
    It doesn”t work that way, mate.
    It’s up to the “hypothesisor” to prove the hypothesis, is it not?

    Are you able to sum it up in a few well-crafted sentences?
    It’s settled science, after all, innit?

    Go ahead.
    Earn your well-deserved credibility!

    ‘course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet.
    See how you go.

  15. #15 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “You would be famous!”

    Wrong. And worthless to me in any case.

    “You can’t explain something that you understand so thoroughly?”

    Oh, no, I absolutely can.

    But since you posit that not explaining it means that you are incapable, your lack of explanation of what convinced you in 2007 means you don’t think you’re capable of doing so.

    “You’ve just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion.”

    So you’ve proven your AGW denial is complete bullshit? You’ve not explained what convinced YOU in 2007.

    “It’s settled science, after all, innit? ”

    “It”? What do YOU mean by “it”. If you mean AGW really exists and the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, then yes. That’s settled. You have had 30 years at least, and 20 years even if you’ve been deliberately avoiding science to read the evidence and proofs yourself. And still you deny the problem, clutching at imaginary straws as “proof” that this religion you claim is wheel-less.

    “‘course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet.”

    Nope. Does not, shithead.

    A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by concern trolls and sometimes as a derailment tactic, it is an informal fallacy.

  16. #16 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    “You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me.”

    No, I’m asking you to uphold the burden of proof on your claims.

    1) religion?
    2) proof the wheels are falling off?
    3) Fame?
    4) What convinced YOU in 2007.

    I’m asking because I don’t know what YOU considered proof enough in 2007. And you will whoosh those goalposts to avoid listening.

    And that will happen even after you’ve said where those goalposts are, a thing which you are avoiding like anything to do, because you really REALLY do not want to debate.

    Only bullshit.

  17. #17 Wow
    May 6, 2017

    For example, you claim I’m nasty and that proves AGW is failing.

    But I can claim therefore that your use of blank assertion proves your AGW denial is driven by hope, prayer and ideology and completely avoids facts and evidence.

    You cannot counter that by “But that’s irrelevant!” or “I HAVE evidence!” because you’ve proclaimed without needing evidence other than the tone of argument made to come to your conclusion.

  18. #18 Michael of Brisbane
    Australia
    May 7, 2017

    Bahahahaha!
    Wow!
    You seem to be “scrambling” for justification, wow.
    (especially in the way you do that “point by point” replying. Can’t you just write in normal sentences?)

    It must be difficult for you to keep up your unwavering belief in such people as Michael Mann, Al Gore and Bill Nye.
    AGW is settled science!
    Bill Nye says so!

    I will let you just go back to arguing with Freddy now, wow.

    Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed.
    You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who’s clinging desperately to your failing ideology.
    You can only defend it by nastiness and abuse.
    You remind me of those anti-trump protestors who don’t even know why they’re protesting.
    (haha!)

    You have zero credibility,
    and you are losing more and more each day as mother nature and especially, actual science, proves the hypothesis wrong.

    I’ve said it before ‘n’ I’ll say it again; it has been a political argument all along.

  19. #19 Wow
    May 7, 2017

    You seem to be avoiding saying what constituted proof for you in 2007. That’s clearly because there was no proof, you just decided.

    “I’ve said it before ‘n’ I’ll say it again; it has been a political argument all along”

    “IT”? What “it”? What to do about AGW IS a political argument. Whether there IS AGW is not political, it’s science.

    “AGW is settled science!
    Bill Nye says so!”

    No, Bill Nye says so because the science is settled on the subject of the reality of AGW.

    PS. “It’s a political argument because some random moron denier on the internet says so!”, right? Oh, no, for YOU there’s proof and evidence in your claims, you just won’t provide them.

    “Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed.”

    Honestly, you’re talking bollocks there. You were convinced in 2007 it was wrong and there was no evidence required for you to be convinced. To convince you otherwise would require Ken Ham levels of evidence. There IS no evidence that would convince you otherwise.

    And not convincing a denier that they’re wrong when they’re convinced they’re right based on no evidence or logic is not my failure, but yours.

    “You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who’s clinging desperately to your failing ideology.”

    Someone said, someone you listen to a lot, that this was merely political, and there you go making a politics claim. They also complained it was all abuse and pointless fighting, there you are hurling abuse and pointlessly arguing.

    I guess this proves, as that person said, that your position is political and ideologically vacant rhetoric and the wheels have fallen off the AGW denial wagon, hence your sudden appearance and hate spewing vitriol.

    This is so because someone you listen to a lot said that this constitutes proof of that claim.

  20. #20 Michael of Brisbane
    Brisbane, Australia
    May 8, 2017

    Wow!
    Good boy, Wow.
    You managed to write a whole par without using one swear word!
    Perhaps that means you DO care about your credibility?

    But…
    There’s no climate science in your comment.
    You are a climate scientist, wow.
    Why are you not talking about climate science?
    You just said the science is settled.
    Can’t you sum it up for me?

    Also, I must mention;
    You write as a classic leftist who constantly utilises ad hominems and obfuscation out of weakness of argument.

    You also assume an awful lot of details to react to, I’ve noticed.
    (whispering)
    Those things only exist inside your own head, mate.
    Who is “the person” you’re talking about?

    Again I must ask;
    could you please write in standard, academic form and not this ridiculous “line-by-line” stuff, wow? It behoves you to write properly.

    Lastly, I’ll address your first sentence.

    I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006.
    I was a member of Greenpeace at the time and still consider myself an environmentalist.
    I wanted more information about this global warming stuff and I can assure you, my mind was set to be changed, unwillingly at first, but gradually, my mind WAS changed.
    At the time, (2009) I wrote to the Australian Greens Party to get more information, (“trusted information”) and they sent me a link to this very page; A Few Things Ill Considered.
    I learnt a lot from this page, both scientifically and politically.

    I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines.
    (surely you don’t deny that?)

    I wondered why politics was so prevalent in this issue and my mind was changed in that regard too.
    Scientifically, the two things that first got me interested were:
    1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period.
    2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores.

    Both of these things were “triggers” for my wanting to learn more and, to discovering the exceedingly non-scientific and indeed political nature of this particular field of science.
    Is any other field of science “settled”?

    So, I ask again for you to sum it up for me as the climate scientist you say you are.
    Thanks.

  21. #21 Wow
    May 8, 2017

    “You are a climate scientist, wow.”

    Nope.

    Weren’t you complaining about point list posting and how this demonstrates you are incompetent?

    “1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period.”

    Nope, it never erased the MWP. It was never within MBH98 and MBH99 was extended to contain within it the period that is considered the MWP.

    What YOU read was denier bullshit where they got the meaning completely wrong.

    “2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores.”

    So which is it? Is it trailing or leading or nonexistent?

    But the vostok cores show that CO2 cause temperature increases. Either by being released and starting off the temperature rise, meaning more CO2 is released, meaning more temperature rise, such as happened during the PETM, or by some other warming, such as Milankovich cycles meaning an increase in average insolation, which causes warming and that causes CO2 to be released which causes warming, which releases more CO2 which causes more warming, and so on.

    So what lack of relationship are you talking about?

  22. #22 Wow
    May 8, 2017

    Pity you never managed a single post without abuse, though. Clearly YOU don’t give a shit for your credibility.

    Not that you had any to begin with, mind…

  23. #23 Wow
    May 8, 2017

    Oh, and MBH99 has a MWP. About 0.4C warmer than average. It’s at the lower end of the range of reconstructions, but not hugely, even the largest difference of the weirdest reconstructions show little over 0.8C warming in the MWP.

    Clearly all you did was read some denier trope in 2007 and never bothered to check up on it at any time since.

  24. #24 Wow
    May 8, 2017

    Oh, see if you can manage one single post without hurling abuse and instead stick to the facts. You’ve failed so far. Because if you’re having to scream “leftist!” and “religion!” and other derogations against those who do not agree with you, you clearly have no actual facts to work with and have to instead scream and shout abuse at others to make them unwilling to interact with you.

    But, like the retarded rightwing nutjob you are, you will be incapable of doing so and will do so as soon as it looks like you’re not going to win and have no other way out than to accept the facts presented or scream abuse as if this somehow negates the need to accept reality because they’re “bad people”.

  25. #25 Wow
    May 8, 2017

    “I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006.”

    Soshould anyone who hadn’t learned about global warming. Which shouldn’t have been many since there was a Disney informational broadcast in the 60s about it. It’s quite bleak what is happening.

    “I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines.”

    Where did you learn that? And how do you know it’s the left’s fault and not the right? Moreover, how does that change reality? Either it’s right or it’s wrong, and it doesn’t matter if you’re rightwing or left.

    Moreover, that’s a false claim anyway. The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it’s all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

    And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn’t go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

    When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

    When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose “training” is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn’t dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn’t know who is and who isn’t a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

    How about Tim Ball claiming he’s a climatologist when he wasn’t? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he’d been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

    How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn’t?

    What about Soon and Ballunias’ fraud? How about Wegman’s plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

    When Lomborg’s CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there’s a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can’t increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

    When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

    When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the “documentary” (for want of a better word), whereas AIT’s case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

    When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it’s not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

    Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

    Or did you take someone else’s word for all this “proof” of AGW’s falsity, and never looked? Then demand I spend time and effort trying to educate the ineducable denier moron that is you?

  26. #26 Wow
    May 12, 2017

    So musta convinced Michael there that the denial side was, if anything, less reliable than he thought the realist side was, so he clearly could not believe their claims.

  27. #27 freddy
    May 12, 2017

    Adam, freddy does not consider Al Gore a competent capacity in climate science and meteorology. Therefore freddy does not give a nut on what a naked layman exoresses as his beliefs in an area in which such an individual has no education, takent and competence whatsoever. Freddy recommends to Adam to learn to distinguish what science is from just daily bavarding in the media.

  28. #28 Wow
    May 12, 2017

    Ah, well, I’ll let you talk to adam, then.

  29. #29 Wow
    May 12, 2017

    Oh, and we have yet another sciencelbogs sock from you. Ex-Deltoid troll Batshit Betula the tree pruning moron is you too.

  30. #30 Wow
    May 12, 2017

    Hey, were you posting as Mike from Brisbane too?

  31. #31 Wow
    May 12, 2017

    And I take it that your posting in the third person is to cover up another case of your sockpuppet support of your own claims being found out with the lameass trump-level “excuse” of “I was just talking in the third person” again.

  32. #32 Michael of Brisbane
    Brisbane, Australia
    May 13, 2017

    Wow.
    Blah blah blah…..
    Wow! you can spout some bullshit, wow.

    AGW is like a religion, and its followers, like you are like religious zealots.
    I am accusing you of being a religious zealot, wow.
    You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence, not me.

    Your religion PRETENDS to be science.
    It is not based on the previously well-established scientific method at all.
    Your religion is anti-life, anti-human, pro-poverty, socialist rubbish.

    You are obviously thoroughly convinced yourself, but you have done a shit job of convincing me or anyone else.

    Here’s another angle to try:
    As a leftist/socialist, can you please explain how socialism is a good idea?
    Feel free to reference the current situation in Venezuela to help you form your argument.
    Perhaps you could include the CO2 emissions figures for water cannons and tanks, mowing down the awful and quite pesky, starving population?

    Come at me, bro!
    You are weak.
    Your religion is based on nothing but political zealotry!
    It’s a doctrine that suits the weak-minded leftists like you.

    Do you think this might be a reason why no-one else is commenting here to support your religion?

    I’d be interested to hear from anyone else who will stand with Wow.

  33. #33 Wow
    May 13, 2017

    Ah, you were supposed to refrain from blatant unsupported claims, “mike”, given you want your complaints about a lack of evidence and fact-free proclamation to be taken as honest brokership.

    Your “concerns” about AGW and its science were NONE of them about the science, but about the actions you saw and how they made you feel “alarm bells were ringing”.

    So I responded with the proof level you had to your insistence it is all fake: actions that should also make you feel “alarm bells were ringing” and therefore that the claims it was all wrong are also unsupportable and wrong. religious zealotry, as it were.

    Do you not feel like alarm bells are ringing on your side about the actions taken by those who claim with foam-flecked screaming that AGW is a scam, a lie, a religion, proposed by leftists, entirely drawn along party political lines?

    Because precisely the same proof, merely more of it, is clearly indicating that it is your side of the argument that is filled and promulgated by rightwing political hacks lying and scamming and pushing their religion like the most rabid zealots.

    And if not, then clearly what you cited as “evidence” had no effect on you at all, since you ignore or clutch as holy writ that evidence at a whim to one side and not the other.

    The choice of which you reject and which you refuse to accept or even acknowledge exists must therefore by from some other source.

    What, then is that source for your screaming hatred of reality?

    Convince me that you are capable of listening.

  34. #34 Wow
    May 13, 2017

    Oh, and thank you for yet more proof that you are projecting with your claims of political partisanship being the driver of stance.

    You shout irrelevant accusations and propose “leftist” this and “socialist” that and demand I talk only of politics now.

    When earlier you saw the demand to make it party political as somehow proof that the stance taken proved it was unsupportable by science.

  35. #35 Wow
    May 14, 2017

    “You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence”

    I did:

    The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it’s all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

    And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn’t go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

    When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

    When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose “training” is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn’t dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn’t know who is and who isn’t a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

    How about Tim Ball claiming he’s a climatologist when he wasn’t? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he’d been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

    How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn’t?

    What about Soon and Ballunias’ fraud? How about Wegman’s plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

    When Lomborg’s CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there’s a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can’t increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

    When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

    When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the “documentary” (for want of a better word), whereas AIT’s case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

    When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it’s not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

    Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

    There you go, proof exactly of the same calibre that you have been convinced with before.

    Ergo it convinces you now.

  36. #36 Wow
    June 4, 2017

    When conversing with the right wing, all I can think is that memepic from Toy Story with Buzz and Woodie and subtitle it with “Snowflakes. Snowflakes everywhere!”.

    Such a bunch of thin skinned wusses offended by words that are “nasty”. On the internet, nobody owes you a safespace, cupcake.