Blog Action Day

The Catlin Arctic Survey released its findings on BAD:

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

> Bugger Off:

Sock.

Tim:

Thanks for the Jim Prall link. The study he's responding to is fascinating reading.

Frank, it seems like it might be a good candidate for the MLP. (The Prall link, not the sock puppet.)

Brian D: Done!

> Global Warming=religion:

Sock.

> Global Warming=religion:

Sock.

Nice to see the denial sock puppets here write short(er) posts, as opposed to the epic missives of Girma.

> IJI=Retarded:

Sock.

FrankIsARetard:

Keep up with your science-free insults, sock.

Feel free to justify your scurrilous behaviour with "The Warmists Do It Too!" I'm sure that'll fly.

> "The Warmists Do It Too!"

Amusing that the denialists now are so scared of not being listened to any more they're going to all the effort of writing infantile insults on anyone who DARES say that the capitalism they adore so much has problems.

And that they are so lacking in intelligence they make up names like "MarkIsAWanker" and so on.

Mind you, they've been so long ignoring any learning that may tell them AGW is real, they've forgotten how to use their noggin.

> global warming=religion:

Sock.

Had to snigger:

> Will we go back to the "global cooling" nonsense of the seventies?

> Posted by: global warming=religion

(that is post #18)

Now lets go up a little:

> Too bad we've been cooling since 1998.

> Posted by: Global Warming=religion

(that was post #6).

Funny how the denialist preteen here is complaining about global cooling then complains about a scare he made up about global cooling.

I tell you, with friends like this, Plimer needs no enemies.

I think the modus operandi of our nameless global warming denialist goes like this:

1. Try to throw lots of random insults to provoke an uncivil response.
2. Fail.
3. Try to throw lots of sciencey-looking denialist talking points.
4. Fail.
5. Try to look even-handed and open-minded.
6. Fail.
7. Try to profess great concern for poor people, for the environment, for all that's good and liberal.
8. Fail.
9. Repeat from 1, under another identity (or bunch of identities).

Sorry, nameless denialist, it's too late for you to portray yourself as a reasoned and open-minded individual.

If you'd started out by asking honest questions instead of dishing out vulgarities, you might've had a fighting chance. Too bad you squandered that chance right from the start.

Too late.

Nameless denialist:

Now that is projection. :)

Again, it's too late for you now to portray yourself as an even-handed, open-minded truth seeker. You had the chance to ask honest questions, and you squandered it.

Hey, I see the British Lord Himself, the guy who claims to be Maggie Thatcher's biological warfare consultant, is telling crowds of Tory Patriots that the US government is illegitimate, and they're lapping it up like true believers.

Where is Eric Hoffer, now that we need him so badly?
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/006091…

I call poe on the 'Global warming=religion'.

Just one more thing - I find it extremely ironic that most denialists that shreak 'warming is a religion', are Libertarians; the most fanatical of all religious nuts.

Wow, so incessantly spamming blog threads with vulgarities = expressing a reasoned viewpoint just like Galileo.

Begone, foul troll.

Nameless denialist troll:

It's a bit late to suddenly decide -- once again -- to try to dress yourself up as a reasoned, open-minded truth seeker, isn't it?

Begone, foul troll.

What's ideal about flooding New York City, socky?

Is it you'd like to see all those Yankees drowned and the stock market of the US destroyed?

The standard nutjobs are doing their thing over at the BBC, but one of the nutjobs comes up with quite a good explanation of how broken they are:

> There are at least three unknowns here: whether it is happening at all, whether it would be a bad thing if it were happening at all, and whether the steps taken to avoid it would be worse that it would be itself -- were it happening at all, were it a bad thing too.

> That's a lot of unknowing. The appropriate attitude to such a lack of knowledge is scepticism.

Now, ignoring for a moment the first paragraph, just look at the conclusion they came to.

The appropriate attitude to such a lack of knowing is NOT skepticism. It's to FIND IT OUT.

If you don't know it's raining out, the response to that is not be skeptical of rain happening, but to open a bloody window and find out!

Thanks for the hat tip, Tim - you caused a nice little spike in my hits! :)

Re #24. And well deserved Kate. A well written piece and some useful guidance for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only problem is that the denialists love their chaff (and preferably GM chaff).