This story by Heidi Blake in the Telegraph about how Anthony Watts' findings show that surface temperature records are wrong might sound familiar. That's because it's blatantly plagiarised from Jonathan Leake's story touting Watts' report. Every element in Blake's story was drawn from Leake's story -- it's just been rearranged and reworded slightly. It looks like it would have taken her about 15 minutes to do the whole thing. To be fair to Blake, she has actually improved the story -- her version is tighter and flows more naturally, so if the Telegraph fires her for plagiarism she could also get a job as Leake's editor.
So Blake copies from Leake. But where does Leake get his material from?
Tim Holmes details how Leake got his bogus Amazongate story from global warming denier Richard North:
Blogger Richard North was the originator of one such story. North is a climate change denier who has worked with the Telegraph's Christopher Booker on a number of publications, including most recently Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth. In the words of sceptical writer Richard Wilson, the book is a "surrealist masterpiece", claiming to debunk "the dangers of passive smoking, white asbestos, eating BSE-infected beef, CO2 emissions, leaded petrol, dioxins, and high-speed car driving". Examining the book's commentary on climate change, one atmosphere physicist noted that its "references are very selective and misrepresentative"; another concluded: "[t]hese people have added two and two and got five". The book misrepresents and even reverses the findings of published scientific literature, and includes a fabricated interview with a Cambridge astrophysicist that had long since been retracted. As the Guardian's Robin McKie puts it in his review of the book, Booker and North "accuse other journalists of 'unthinking credulity' but commit egregious errors that would shame a junior reporter." ...
While it is wholly unsurprising that the denial lobby should be attempting to push baseless and misleading stories to the press, what is surprising is the press's willingness to swallow them. In this case, two experts in the relevant field told a Times journalist explicitly that, in spite of a minor referencing error, the IPCC had got its facts right. That journalist simply ignored them. Instead, he deliberately put out the opposite line - one fed to him by a prominent climate change denier - as fact.
Leake's story about Watts and co seems to have also been fed to him by Richard North. This post from North appeared at almost the same time as Leake's story was published and contains more extensive details than Leake's story.
So this is how the British press is promoting global warming denial. Leake stovepipes denialist material into his stories and then other journalist steal it from him for their stories.
- Log in to post comments
Tim, outstanding sleuthing!
Having lived in the UK all my life, I know how utterly rubbish our newspaper journalism is and in some ways, if the bloggosphere is anything to go off, it's comforting that other countries don't seem to be suffering idiocy of quite the same magnitude (Faux News and the Australian aside).
One of the interesting quirks with the British papers is that they have this habit of doing a swing effect when they perceive that public opinion is changing in a given direction; all the papers want to be the first in when something hits, but when people start to question the hype, a kind of reverse stampede sets in where all the papers try to stick as many knives into each other as they pretend that they were the ones that 'knew all along'. This is what gives rise to their make-them-then-break-them treatment of celebrities, sports stars, politicians and so on.
It may be wishful thinking on my part to imagine that this will happen in this instance. More likely it will peter out and it'll be business as usual once people realise that temperatures aren't going down any soon. But if the reverse swing does kick in (I'm wondering if certain news sources aren't already revving their engines for when the UEA investigation reports), Leake and the Sunday Times have set themselves up for the fall big style.
Why the surprise? Did anyone think these guys were smart enough to come up with it on their own? ;-) ;-)
I realize that The Economist doesn't quite fit into the category of "British journalism", but it's still based in the UK, and so I think it fitting to give credit where credit is due. I consider The Economist to be the finest global print news source on the planet. When it has run stories on subjects that I happen to know about intimately, it has usually been fairly close to the truth. That's vastly better than other news organizations.
The one British newspaper which seems to have not sensationalised the issue so far, to my mind, is The Independent. They did give Nigel Lawson the opportunity to answer a scathing article on the "think-tanks" involvement in sowing the doubt, but that was after they'd published two pages on the article itself which pulled no punches.
It's easy to overlook the more reasonable voices when surrounded by hysterics.
Google:
site:independent.co.uk climate
Oh yes Richard North, in the pay of the KGB anti-climate change secret ops department. You've gotta pay particular attention to this one. In the pay of big oil. I've nearly finished an in-depth investigation on this agent of the state. Some clues to his offshore accounts show £1,234,000,000,000,000 GBP and it doesn't stop there. Oh no. This man and his agents have been secretely funding a mission to the planet Zog. He can then fly off to outa space with the loot laughing and cackling with his blofield type accomplice to live out the rest of his life on the balmy beaches of planet Zog aloof to the travails of life as we know it Jim in warming old earth. Something has to be done. The bastard, the utter, utter bastard!
Philip, lay off the crack, kay?
Philip you sound a little rattled mate. Is the systematic lying used by denialist starting to undercut your faith in deniers?
Or did you just want to smear some more crap around yourself so it would feel more like your home turf?
Looks like Philip is a gift from [Richard North](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/mirror-image.html). Warning: you might want to don a smug mask before reading his post.
Mmm, North doesn't need to defend his egregious mirepresenation of the facts, he just needs to put Tim's picture on his wall.
Majic!
I hope you've sent this info on Heidi Blake to MediaWatch.
Several of the skeptical blogs are in a twitter about some paper by John Christy that shows Africa is subject to the Urban Heat Island effect, or something. Anyone come across either it and/or a good debunking?
Before you accuse another of plagiarism maybe you should check the political correctness of your assertions. Have a look at this video (1958):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
Al Gore plagiarized this film in "An Inconvenient Truth". James E. Hansen testified at a Senate hearing chaired by Al Gore in 1988. Hansen also plagarized this alarmism, thirty years after the fact. Plagiarism is an academic crime that disqualifies Al Gore for the 2007 Nobel Prize.
Jesus Christ, that post missed the point.
Memo to Richard North: it wasn't your views which people may have been unaware of, but your existence itself. You aren't enough of a celebrity for your views to matter to anyone here, and you are only of relevence because the slurry you post over at that blog is being used as feedstock for the media misinformation machine as operated by, among others, Jonathan Leake.
Simply put, the issue is that Leake is gets info from contrarian opinion blogs rather than experts. Which contrarian opinion blog scarcely matters, in the same way that if a scientist were to base an entire scientific paper on the opinions of a man at a bus stop (say!) we wouldn't need to give that man a back story or meet his family to know that the principle of the thing is wrong. You are interchangeable, Richard.
[North](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/mirror-image.html) doesn't bother denfending his misrepresentations, no he thinks fact checkers a idiots for not tracking him down sooner!
David,
Love [your contusions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…), do you have a point (if so get to it) or are you just hand waving?
It is about time the MSM woke up to this scam, the carbon trading scheme is a con trick, shutting regulated factories down in the"west" and they re-open in the"east" with absolutely no regulation at all, google the shocking pollution from India (the particulates from India is what is causing the affected glaciers to melt) and China, shocking is an understatement. The best way to protect our planet is to avoid anything made in India or especially China at all costs.Give EUReferendum a chance, they research well and are rarely wrong and if they are they will say so and why, how many news outlets can claim that? There are some "green" policies that actualy do more harm to the enviroment than they help, probably most are like that.
> Leake stovepipes denialist material into his stories and then other journalist steal it from him for their stories.
Are you sure it's theft, i.e., you're sure he doesn't want his story to be "recycled"? (I don't know, which is why I'm asking)
In Dec 2007 AP bureau chief Robin McDowell did a similar lift-and-rewrite of Leake's Bali "climate conference footprint fetish" story, as documented here.
Chris Edwards,
>*The best way to protect our planet is to avoid anything made in India or especially China at all costs.*
We'll unlike Lord Monckton, this Chris ain't feigning crocodile tears for the poor.
If anyone is interested in this type of thing (plagirism in newspapers in the UK) I recommend you take out a subscription to the British fortnightly publication 'Private Eye'. They have a regular 'How Journalism Works' feature that highlights this sort of stuff all the time.
Seems to be standard practice in British journalism, can't speak for other countries.
Dateline Moscow. Whenever.
Ve haff vays off making yoo squeal.
Plonkers.
signed. Blofeld.
If the author has no problem with the "plagerisim"? How does this affect any facts. What facts are contested. Just asking?
Best wipe the floor with North.
Seems to have stopped Monckton in his tracks.
That's the problem with these deniers.
They find out what's been happening and report it.
Keep insulting them.
They can't take much more.
Don't you dumb post-modernist communists get it? It's not what your socialist 'statistics' say that matters, it's what people *feel* that matters. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, HIPPIES!
Tim Lambert, IF, I repeat, IF, you did 10% of the research for your musings that Dr. Richard North does for his blog, you Sir, might, I repeat, MIGHT, be taken seriously by others than the great unwashed. ( Question to T. Lambert, are you one of those British that changes the bed sheets 3 times a year ? )
This post certainly brought out the crazy.
A clear indication of the calibour of North's supporters. Not a fact nor scape of evidence between them.
Just give them what they want to hear North.
"A clear indication of the calibour of...." â jakerman
Right. Tee hee snigger titter ha ha ha........
BTW, great site. I must be sure to come back here.
When I feel in need if a laugh.
Thanks awfully.
The game is over; your global warming religion is now defunct. You are haemorrhaging support, credibility, and 'science'. Even Prof Jones has said there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years. You're iceberg has melted and the hungry sharks of 'vested interest' - wind farm suppliers, carbon traders, lying politicians - are trying to gobble you up for breakfast: you feed their existence. If I were you I'd swim for the shore of the land of truth and reality. But you are too foolish to do that. We âdeniersâ, have no problem with your name calling, for we just stand on the cliffs watching you drown and waving your shark bitten stumps.
North's types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science.
North, do you see your supports' lack of argument or rigor as a reflection on you? You haven't prepped them very well.
Oh and Jibber Jabber champs, click on a few links around here.
It's good to know you have a thick skin, jakerman.
It goes very nicely with that thing you probably call your brain â in your case that multi-tasking single neuron rattling around in deep space inside your skull.
Anyway, what science would that be? I haven't seen any on here. Please clarify.
A thousand voices all reading from the same script. I wonder who wrote the script generator?
North's dimwitted army have just discovered their outrage over how capitalists have worked for generations. This puts them on track to read up on climate science in another fifty years or so.
John Archer,
I suggest you start with some something like this:
I notice North pushes this [bogus claim](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/against-grain.html):
>*Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel, in a little-discussed paper in [Nature](http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf), amplified in a powerpoint presentation delivered by the pair, have re-evaluated methods used to show a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature rises.*
I believe that excellent peice will be appearing in Nature right after they publish by exposition on trend of wordy meaningless papers that try to big note themselves by pretending to be publishable in credible journals. Its a sort of post modern performance art piece that I put together.
The original post claims that "Leake's story about Watts and co seems to have also been fed to him by Richard North."
The post doesn't actually present any strong evidence for this. It is equally, if not more, likely that Leake obtained his story directly from Watts's own blog 'Wattsupwiththat?' Anyone interested in climate scepticism would be familiar with Watts's blog. Another possible source is Climate Audit. The reasoning behind the claim in the post seems to be 'some of this info is in something written by North, therefore North is the most likely source'. This is a very weak inference unless alternative sources are excluded.
Along amusingly related lines, Private Eye reported last year on the Torygraphs coverage of english domestic cricket. It seemed to be pretty comprehensive, with reporters at many of the matches. Far more than most newspapers, as befitting a publication well suited to the English gentleman. Unfortunately, none of these reporters actually existed. The Telegraph was taking Press Association reports and adding made up journalists names to them, to pass them off as their own.
Yes, North doesn't seem to know the difference between "published in Nature" and "rejected by Nature".
You poor little greenie fools . . . still paying homage to Saint Al and his merry band of Eco-Grifters.
I'm starting to feel sorry for you kids . . . don't let the cooling planet kick yer ass on the way out.
Oops! I meant to post this (about the cricket) here, not there!
And then there's the Religion-gate affair, too.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of this post. Do you think it damages the credibility of the story that it came from a sceptic? That would be a rather bizarre and foolish argument. Or is the fact that the original writer was a blogger the problem? Again, a pretty dumb argument. Particularly for one written on a blog. Alternatively you are just surprised that journalists nick each others' stories, which is surprisingly naive. It's not much of a story to most of us.
Well, that is very kind of you, jakerman (6:57 AM).
But let me clarify something for you because you seem to have missed the point.
Slowly now. When I said, "I haven't seen any [science] on here" I meant that I hadn't seen any science on here, on this actual factual phcking page that is, not least not in the farticle itself.
Then, out of the blue, you start on about evidence ("Not a fact nor scape of evidence between them" - 5:41 AM) and science ("North's types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science" - 6:21 AM).
As for links and references, I have plenty of my own. Would you like me to set your reading schedule for you as you appear to be kindly doing for me? I'd be very happy to oblige.
FWIW to you jakerman, I used to accept the 'standard-model' of AGW, merely by default. Now, I'm no climatologistâheaven forbid. I couldn't bear it. In itself I find climatology, as a study/science, deeply uninteresting, it being a mere hodge-podge of messy cut & paste interdisciplinary fumbling in the dark with no aesthetic appeal whatsoever. There's just no 'kick' in it, unlike, say, physics, which is replete with delights, nearly as many as mathematics. That's not to say that climatology is not a worthy subjectâit isâand so are its results, as far as it has any that is. And these I do find quite interesting. Anyway, I used to have a simple faith in the institutions of science and thought that what applied to physics applied across the board. Then I discovered, with the help of sceptics who pointed me at real evidence, just how incredibly naïve I had been.
So again, thanks anyway, but I don't need arty-farty, greenoid-studies lessons on "science".
I don't know if you have ever read CP Snow's "Two Cultures" lecture but if you have, by now you'll probably be able work out which side I'm on. I was a schoolboy when it came out, and it explained my innate loathing for the know-phck-nothing English and Classics masters we had and their going-nowhere subjects.
Yes, correct. I was a natural-born, swivel-eyed hater right out of the gate. And that particular genetic bent has given me lots of pleasure ever since. Curiously enough, never in many decades of having had any interest in politics, I latterly discovered, to my utter delight of course, that I am very right-wing politically and socially, in a non-authoritarian way. In fact, there is nothing I lurve to hate more than authoritarians, of ANY kind. So, as for appeals to authority and consensus...? Ha ha. Right.
You want science? Well, from what I see, and to paraphrase Colonel Jessep, you arty-farty, marxist, hair-shirt, dumbarse-utopian greenoids CAN'T HANDLE SCIENCE!
It's been a pleasure being rude to you. Please don't change.
Thomasthegreat - I can't quite understand your post. Do you mean to say that it is alright to use lies and made up facts, misquotes and so on, all without actually checking where they came from, their accuracy or suchlike? Or maybe your problem is that you disagree with the IPCC etc on AGW and wish to slag off people who know more than you and wish to draw attention to the problem, but find that the press keep lying about it?
John Archer, why do you even bother to post here? Your anti-intellectualism should lead you to believe that there's no point in participating in reasoned discussion. I suspect that you are just engaging in some feel-good hate speech, letting off a little steam. Why bother? Do you really think that your formless diatribe can have any effect on rational people? Calling people names can work with schoolchildren, but mature people simply shake their heads in dismay at such puerile behavior. Perhaps you would be be more effective screaming to the choir at one of the many rabid right-wing sites.
I forgot to add a response to this statement of yours:
I don't know if you have ever read CP Snow's "Two Cultures" lecture but if you have, by now you'll probably be able work out which side I'm on
I suggest that you re-read Mr. Snow's lecture. Mr. Snow decried the taking of sides in the matter, urging a reversal of the alienation of science & engineering from arts & humanities. And here you are proudly taking sides. Mr. Snow would not approve.
I'm calling Poe on the John Archer posts - they've far to many of my bingo numbers to be real.
Can I correct you post:
"North is an AGW denier"
Typical of you lot to get even that basic fact wrong, rubbish journalism and rubbish science...
Erasmussimo,
Ooo! How charmingly paternalistic of you. And so delightfully self-righteous too. You're a gem.
"I suggest that you re-read Mr. Snow's lecture. Mr. Snow decried the taking of sides in the matter, urging a reversal of the alienation of science & engineering from arts & humanities. And here you are proudly taking sides. Mr. Snow would not approve." â Erasmussimo
On and off over the years I've re-read it quite a few times so I'm pretty well acquainted with it and I don't feel in any need of doing it again right now. But it looks as if it is YOU who needs to do a little re-reading â and read MY post again. Try to work out what my reaction is to your "Mr. Snow would not approve."
I'll give you a nudge. I couldn't give a damn about what Snow approves of or not. Furthermore, I, me, myself, don't approve of his prescriptions, or anyone else's I don't like for that matter. His analysis is reasonable enough though. Geddit now? Curate's egg an' all that.
OK, John, so your only purpose here is to antagonize people. Well, the world is full of trolls and if your goal is to be the Number One Baddest Nastiest Troll, that's fine with me. Enjoy yourself.
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Erasmussimo,
Thank you. OK, I'll admit I'm trolling here and promise not to make a habit of it as it is something I generally don't approve of myself, oddly enough.
A little doesn't hurt anyone though.
HOUSE!
AGW Denier is the correct term, climate change is completely natural and no one is denying that climate changes, after all the medieval warm period was natural, or was it all those forges turning out swords for the crusades, perhaps that is another one for you to use to make sense of it all, in your own warped minds of course, you AGW'rs are just pathethic.
John Archer - Hologreeniecrap Denier:
Lucky you. So where, pray tell, is the failure in the purported science behind problematic AGW. Is it that the earth's surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn't cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us? Or, perhaps you're like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above. Please tell us, inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds, what a joke, AGW religious believers with no morals...
Why are so many people taking the time to... Oh! There's the problem. Somebody knocked over our "Don't Feed the Trolls" sign. Here, let me set that upright again:
Don't Feed The Trolls.
There. That's better.
Can't speak for Neil, but I reckon it'd be something like this. Because so far the collective trolling of all his regular readers has yet to produce a scrap of reasonable discussion. Life's too short to argue against a brick wall. Because Richard North's fringe viewpoints mean very little to me. And because unlike yourself, I don't have the time or inclination to troll over there.
And, because it's easy enough to expose his lies on [this site](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…).
"Please tell us, inquiring minds want to know." â Chris O'Neill
You have those here?
"[P]urported science"! Excellent. You have it there already in a nutshell. So why are you asking me? Besides, it's now fast slipping out the 'purport' stage and right down the drain.
"Is it that the earth's surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn't cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us?"â Chris O'Neill
Easy one that. No.
Self-described Rubbish:
And what might that natural cause be this time?
"Because so far the collective trolling of all his regular readers has yet to produce a scrap of reasonable discussion." â Bud.
Reasonable discussion, Bud?
Like the content of the farticle? If I'm a troll here, and of course I am, then you lot are merely his mirror reflection in this content-free zone.
John Archer - Arch Hater:
You neglected to let us know whether you're like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above.
24 ZZ,
Top stuff!
Your research is certainly better than anyone else's. We were so lazy and incompetent that we just assumed that Tim is Australian. Thanks to your in-depth work, we now realise he isn't. Thanks.
In the spirit of reasonable discussion:
John Archer - did North claim that the Beenstock and Reingewertz paper was published in Nature - yes or no?
Has the paper verifiably been published or accepted for publication by Nature - yes or no?
If it has been 'accepted for publication', why does North hint that it is being ignored when only a select few sites of the 'skeptic' bent seem to know of its existence.
27 John Archer,
Just asking, but are you the John A at CA?
"You neglected to let us know whether you're like the regular, garden variety science denialist and say all of the above." â Chris O'Neill
Ignoring, for the moment the "garden variety science denialist", I didn't neglect anything of the sort.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you in basic logic to work out why.
But back to "garden variety science denialist". Never mind the "garden variety" tag, what is a 'science denialist'? You tell me that and I'll tell if I am one or not.
41 John,
Brilliant stuff, but it's wasted here. Denial Depot would be ideal.
"27 John Archer, Just asking, but are you the John A at CA?" â TrueSceptic
No, I am not. Moreover, I strongly suspect he would not be flattered in the two of us being mistaken as one. :)
66 John,
Thanks. Why would he not be flattered? Because he seems so nice and reasonable in comparison?
TrueSceptic,
Thank you kindly.
BTW I need strokes like that, heavy and often, to keep me at my preening, prancing, posing, posturing modest best. Just look at the competition here to see why.
TrueSceptic,
"Why would he not be flattered? Because he seems so nice and reasonable in comparison?"
In short, you got it one. Of course, I think I am nice and reasonable too, but I have ........ Well, let's say I know for a fact that not everyone shares that opinion. I suspect you might know the type and what my opinion is of them. Much the same as yours, I'd aver. :)
68 John,
Yes, the other "deniers" here are a pretty feeble lot, aren't they? Just keep saying what you really think. It's the most entertaining thing I've seen here for, oh, days, at least.
John Archer - Self Described Logic Teacher Extraordinaire:
OK, so you agree that the earth's surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us. So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?
Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain't so?
Bud,
I am not Richard North nor his defence attorney, nor am I his keeper. Go over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and ask him yourself. I speak only for me.
And, perhaps sometimes on behalf of my race, as a regular self-appointed 'community' spokesman.
Apparently, however, you are his publicist, since this is the second time you've told people to go over to his blog.
Not happening. And your evasion of a straightforward question is noted. Feeding time is over.
If you knew anything about science's understanding of how greenhouse gasses warm the planet, you'd understand that the long-wave infrared radiation trapped by them results from the sun heating the earth.
The entire argument *starts* with the sun.
So what's your point?
Chris O'Neill,
I see you don't heed your pals' wise warnings about feeding the trolls. So be it.
"OK, so you agree that the earth's surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us."
Certainly not. Whatever gives you that idea?
"So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?"
You said yourself earlier that it was "purported science". A clue to the answer to your question lies in the word "purported". In short, what phcking science are you talking about? Mickey Mann's hokey hockey stick, for example?
You really want a list? And you want me to provide it? Why?
If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. He's got it all laid out there very nicely. You'll be spoilt for choice.
Look, let's be clear about this if it isn't already. I'm here merely in my capacity as right-wing nutjob racist trolloid to have a little fun at your expense and not for your edification.
And I do thank you all very kindly for indulging me in that. It has been fun.
However even Iâas nasty a 'swivel-eyed, fascist, nazi, running-dog capitalistic nutjob' as you're likely to come across anywhereâfeel I am overstaying my warm welcome. Also, I think some of you might be beginning to showing signs of things I don't hate. And we cannot have that with me being the hatefest freakoid I am, can we? Tut tut. No we cannot.
Still, my foot isn't quite out the door yet.
P.S. To the blogmeister: thank you for not deleting any of my posts and for not banning me. I find that very unusual. I had expected the opposite. I've put you down in my book for a few brownie points. Honest.
My god - this thread has turned into a lunatic asylum! Where did all the Morlocks show from?
Tim, keep the good work up. Many thousands of people do appreciate your efforts!
Plagiarism doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yes, AGW was known in 1958. In fact, that's a full century after John Tyndall and his work on greenhouse gas absorption.
"Apparently, however, you are [North's] publicist, since this is the second time you've told people to go over to his blog." â Bud
I've told many people to go to phck themselves, more than once too. I didn't realise I was publicist for the sex industry though. If so I want my money for the service.
"And your evasion of a straightforward question is noted." â Bud
You wanna play games, Bud. Well you show me yours first then I'll show you mine. You make the big effort first otherwise I'm not playing. Besides, I wouldn't give you lot the shit off my boot I got walking in here.
Go get your own pissing education.
That's completely vague. OK, here's what you can do. Name what you think is the best argument ever at CA, and let's see what commenters here can do to address it.
The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change, CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.
In terms of man made CO2 of course there is a slight impact in terms of warming, but its minimal.
I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science..., inept!
All you lot of charlies have are a few very doctored models that are as accurate as one of Browns budget forecasts. What was that word, a travesty..., when describing the fact that the models did not match recent average temperature falls.
Your so called science known as sophisticated models has been shown to be false, the onus is on you to prove AGW and to do good science with a propr peer review process, not the corrupted one that was created by your so called scientists. I am not convinced by your faith based adjusting of doctored data which has so conviently been lost.
Rubbishscience - "this has been proven" - indeed, for post glaciel periods. Oddly enough this planet has not had humans on it trying to double its CO2 levels before. So your comparison is false, as well as ignoring the known greenhouse effect of CO2.
CO2 is also measured at a number of other sites whose results agree with Mauna Loa:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/arctic-carbon-dioxide…
John Archer is meanwhile a nasty piece of work bringing the denialists into further disrepute.
No such luck. It's not exactly possible to prove this with paleo reconstructions, because there's dating uncertainty (in the mapping of ice depth to age.)
Plus, if you try to determine this with instrumental temperature data, and either more recent CO2 reconstructions (which obviously would have considerably less dating error) or emissions data, then you'll find that temperature lags CO2 by 10 or 15 years. (You should detrend the series to figure this out.)
Unless the volcano is spewing exponentially more CO2 over time in a manner that is gradual, I fail to see how it could produce the trends we see. It also doesn't explain practically identical trends in other stations, like South Pole. I get the feeling that it's not the scientists who are inept.
81 Rubbish,
Pure genius! I really wasn't expecting something as good as this. You and John A are reaching a standard rarely seen anyware!
John Archer is working hard to emphasize my [point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…).
Rubbish, a distinct lack of supporting evidence to back you claims I count zero. Is zero correct?
Lets start with your first par:
>*The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change,*
I think you'll find that you've missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth's orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. Oh and [greenhouse gas concentrations](http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blog/posts/post_1262067702260…).
Rubbish continues:
>*CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.*
[Not always](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-3.html), and [not now](http://www.liv.ac.uk/climate/research/carbon.html)!
John Archer is working hard to emphasize my [point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…).
Rubbish, a distinct lack of supporting evidence to back you claims I count zero. Is zero correct?
Lets start with your first par:
>*The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change,*
I think you'll find that you've missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth's orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. Oh and [greenhouse gas concentrations](http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blog/posts/post_1262067702260…).
Rubbish continues:
>*CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.*
[Not always](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-3.html), and [not now](http://www.liv.ac.uk/climate/research/carbon.html)!
RubbishScience, you write:
In terms of man made CO2 of course there is a slight impact in terms of warming, but its minimal.
Would you mind presenting your calculation of the effect of CO2 on temperature? I suspect you haven't the faintest idea how to do so. If that be so, then how can you decide whether it's minimal or maximal or in between?
[Joseph, 3:10 PM]
No it bloody well isn't. It is crystal phckin' clear.
[Joseph, 3:10 PM]
Whoa. Careful now. That kind of licence taking can escalate.
[Joseph, 3:10 PM]
I guess they have yet to do so for any of "best arguments", however defined, over at CA, thereby giving McIntyre the turkey-shoot slapping around he clearly deserves, in your eyes, because I haven't seen them and surely you would have just pointed to them. How remiss of you all. Tut tut. Why the big delay?
No. Now I'LL tell you what. YOU name what you think is the best argument ever at CA and YOU tell me how you lot have "addressed" it. You do the work first.
"John Archer is working hard to emphasize my point." â jakerman (4:04 PM).
But you never had one, jokerman. You are pointless.
>*But you never had one, jokerman. You are pointless.*
John, you couldn't have backed [my point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) better if you'd wanted to.
>*North's types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science.
North, do you see your supports' lack of argument or rigor as a reflection on you? You haven't prepped them very well.*
Do it one more time, roll over, then sit.
"John Archer is meanwhile a nasty piece of work bringing the denialists into further disrepute." â guthrie
A beaut, that. "Into disrepute", nice.
You could usefully apply for a job on Al Beeb's "Match of the Day" as one of their many pontificating retard commentators, telling us all how some dumbarse fuhbaw players are "bringing duh game into disrepute", as if that meant Jack Schitt to anyone.
Heh! Fuhbaw's another religion, so I guess you'd feel right at home.
BTW, what is it exactly you claim I am denying?
@John: Why should I? Isn't it you who's trying to convince readers of something? Your comments are remarkably content- and data-free, if that's the case.
Besides, everything I've read at CA (admittedly not much) is either unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong.
You're just getting repetitive now, jakerman.
Come on. Get original. You'll get points.
And what do points mean?
YES. Points mean PRIZES.
"D'ya fink 'e'll gofa go-uld, Bwian?"
Your so called science has not proven anything apart from a level of corruption that should not exist in the scientific community.
For example there is a large volcano under the ice sheet in the south pole which did some of the melting.
Am I supposed to trust the Guardian, seriously, they are journalists not scientists who are pushing political thinking not science. That is a joke mentioning them.
Nice of one of you to mention some of the other non-CO2 factors that I did not bother to mention.
"I think you'll find that you've missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth's orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. "
As such the onus is on you to prove that CO2 is the main driver, it is not and while I admit that it may have a slight impact it is minimal, you have no proof on that and there is new research that looks at the impact of water vapor. The fact is that you have no clear idea because you factored in CO2 as the main driver and your models did not track the actual change over the last 15 years. It is junk, you just do not know.
That comment about CO2 not being produced before by humans is a laugh, CO2 is produced naturally with warming.
So the science is not settled and I repeat the onus is on you to prove it is CO2, you have not done so under real questioning science.
Shorter John Archer,
Poo poo, wee wee.
Erm... mate, you do know what [combustion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion) is, don't you?
By what mechanism is additional atmospheric CO2 'produced' by warming? Show us you've at least tried to understand what you are talking about, even if your handle on logic is such that you believe identifying one cause for something automatically disqualifies all other possible causes.
Under the ice sheet in the south pole? Fascinating.
"Isn't it you who's trying to convince readers of something?" â Joseph
No. Please keep up. I have already stated my purpose here. And I couldn't have made it phcking clearer.
"Your comments are remarkably content- and data-free, if that's the case." â Joseph
Well now, as I have already said, it isn't the case. So isn't that statement just choice coming from you, or any of you. Your whole holy phcking farticle was content-free, and merely opinion.
"@John: Why should I?" â Joseph
Jesus Christ. YOU ask ME that after reading my response to you at 4:36 PM. Are you all right? Should I call an ambulance for you? You might be having a stroke.
"Besides, everything I've read at CA (admittedly not much) is either unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong." â Joseph
Unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong, eh? Right. Well, I guess there's no point in us discussing anything factual then, not that I had any such intention, or even inclination, here.
RubbishScience, perhaps you could clarify your position for us by indicating the statements in IPCC AR4 WG1 that you find objectionable. It should be quite simple for you to simply cite chapter and page and tell us what you think is wrong there.
You *have* read IPCC AR4 WG1, haven't you? After all, it *is* the definitive document on climate change science.
I'd like to thank John Archer and RubbishScience for showing us climate science scepticism at its very best, and Tim for not censoring them.
This thread will be a wonderful reference in the future.
All ass-hattitude, no cattle.
"I'd like to thank John Archer and RubbishScience for showing us climate science scepticism at its very best, and Tim for not censoring them.
This thread will be a wonderful reference in the future." â P.O.E. Slaw
Is that you, Neil?
Never mind that though. Whoever you are you have a very poor grip on what you call "climate science scepticism" if you think I made 'a contribution' to any such thing here. That or you don't read too well. Probably both.
But then that's typical of you greentards. Even your feeble attempts at sarcasm are way off target. Can't you lot get ANYTHING right?
Does someone hear an annoying mosquito?
If one were a student of Altemeyer, one might be tempted to hypothesise that this thread demonstrates authoritarian followers defending their chosen authority from perceived attack.
However, Altemeyer would caution that more evidence would be needed to support such a hypothesis.
101 John,
And I thought you were doing so well, showing up the warmofascist econazis for what they are. I'm so disappointed.
Short John Archer:
[More](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) poo poo and wee wee.
"I'm so disappointed." â P.O.E.
Tough.
But that's quite enough about you. I'd rather talk about me. I've rather enjoyed my time here. And that's all that matters to me. Mostly.
I'm getting a little bored now. Anyway, I have to dash.
I'd just like to say thank you to you all. You've been very kind. I appreciate that.
Mosquitos are so annoying are they not? Squish. Aaah, better.
>*Never mind that though. Whoever you are you have a very poor grip on what you call "climate science scepticism" if you think I made 'a contribution' to any such thing here. That or you don't read too well. Probably both.*
On the contrary John, Neil nailed you with the accountability that you deserve. You represent so called 'climate sceptics' here. We just don't believe you and your ilk deserve the name you give yourselves. You are interested in something entirely different to skepticism.
BTW in my humble experience your type of so called 'climate skeptic' together with "Rubbish" (who at least attempts to deal in pseudo facts) represent the overwhelming majority of delusitionist who call themselves skeptics.
So your behavoiur here wasn't as special as you imagine.
107 MapleLeaf,
Nah. Use *tons* of DDT, you know, the stuff that was banned in the 1970s by the greenofascists. It's completely harmless to anything but mosquitos, so why not make *really* sure you killed it?
Maybe he hails from Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average" ;-)
TS, Good point. Although there is a certain satisfaction to be gained from taking out a mozzie (J. Archer) by hand-- not literally of course, that would be rude, amongst other things.
Maybe one should use the term mozzie to refer to those self-proclaimed "skeptics" or those in denial. There is a difference though I suppose, mozzies actually do serve a useful purpose other than being a vector for nasty diseases like malaria. Then again the disease which the "skeptics" is spreading is misinformation and lies.
Hmm, so maybe it is an imperfect analogy. One should probably keep it simple and to the point and call them the "selfish liars" that they are.
John Archer:
Glad you admit you're an ignorant troll.
You said no to the alternative. Couldn't you keep track of the logic?
OK, irony is a challenge for you.
I was asking you.
Why do you single out Mann's hockey stick? They don't make them the way he first did anymore.
If you want. The bigger the list, the bigger the conspiracy.
You're the one complaining.
You mean God's gift to climate science? Let's see, a couple of papers published in a non-scientific journal and in a lightly reviewed scientific journal several years ago now. Yes, he IS an authority.
I don't see how a nutjob thinking climate science is a giant scam demonstrates much other than what it takes to think that climate science is a giant scam.
Stay as long as you like. I love what you're demonstrating.
Rubbish for brains:
If you weren't so lazy you could easily find out what the science says about the solar variation hypothesis, with citations, here. It happens to be the most used skeptic argument according to www.skepticalscience.com . It points out:
"a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008)."
The only thing Rubbish has achieved is to help demonstrate that the cry "climate change is completely natural" is a mindless mantra spoken by lazy ignoramuses like himself.
First of all I have nothing to do with Dr North or JA.
As a non-scientist, but moderately intelligent person I have come to a conclusion that the climate is a lot more complex then the AGW'rs simple belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. In the replies here to my point of view, all you have confirmed is that there are many variables in climate change and that the science is not settled.
You think that CO2 will create a tipping point, I have read some reports that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, I am not convinced by your arguments and most of all by the way that you make your points. As I suspected this site is little more than a place to carry out intellectural masturbation and name calling. My hope is that scientists start working on this properly, I await to be convinced. all you have done is prove that AGW'rs are irrational nasty pieces of work.
I will not be back, I hunger for more trustworthy information, I have not found it here...
A person using the name RubbishScience complains:
Chris O'Neill,
"Glad you admit you're an ignorant troll."
No, I did not. If I were to be generous, the best I could say about that is that you are not a very careful reader. But I have no such impulse â you are a liar. The rest of your questions/points are not even up to half-arsed.
To wit, for example:
"You said no to the alternative. Couldn't you keep track of the logic?"
Oh dear, oh dear. You clearly have a severe impediment with logic. It seems you met your personal pons asinorum on page 1, Book 1 of the subject, assuming you got past the preface.
And:
"You're the one complaining."
There you go again â no, I am not.
Come to think of it, and I guess I had never noticed before, but I rarely complain about anything. Indeed I cannot remember the last time I did.
You're a waste of space, and so is what you write â junkthink.
>A person using the name RubbishScience complains:
>>*As I suspected this site is little more than a place to carry out intellectural masturbation and name calling.*
>What a a shameless hypocrite.
You thought that was hypocritical, what about this:
>*all you have done is prove that AGW'rs are irrational nasty pieces of work.
I will not be back, I hunger for more trustworthy information, I have not found it here...*
Which was proceeded [by this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*climate change is completely natural and no one is denying that climate changes, after all the medieval warm period was natural, or was it all those forges turning out swords for the crusades, perhaps that is another one for you to use to make sense of it all, in your own warped minds of course, you AGW'rs are just pathethic.*
And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*Inquiring minds, what a joke, AGW religious believers with no morals...*
And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain't so?*
And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science..., inept!
All you lot of charlies have are a few very doctored models [...]*
And on, and on...
Nice chap really.
After a sleep and think time, we get the 'oh shit' moment and the sudden rush towards attempted damage control:
>*First of all I have nothing to do with Dr North or JA.*
Like anyone would take "Rubbish's" word given his display here.
A nice match with John Archer's [similar attempt](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) after showing himself up.
*I'm not here as a climate skeptics, no indeed, or at least, please don't hold us accountable as such.*
@Rubbish:
How did you do that exactly? Again, let's see your math.
John Archer:
Sure. If you say so. Maybe you could learn the following lesson:
Is X in A or is X in B? Answer: No. ==> the answerer agrees that X is not in A and that X is not in B.
The only one who's a waste of space is the one who suggests that Steve McIntyre has any useful science laid out nicely. How incredibly naïve for anyone to suggest such. You might have some nice rhetoric but the only thing it seems to do for you is make you more arrogant without understanding any science.
109 Jakerman,
Neil who? We have a Chris O'Neill here but no "Neil".
P.O.E. Slaw - we had me, until yesterday at 11:18 AM, when I got a full house at bingo and left to collect my winnings.
But it looks like someone thought you were me, for some Nixonesque reason or another...
Damn, thought I had squished that dratted mozzie!
Hello boys. I thought I'd see how things were going. Not much I see. Still, here's a little something for you.
Chris O'Neill,
Anyone can make mistakes, even very simple ones, so don't beat yourself up about yours too much.
"Is X in A or is X in B? Answer: No. ==> the answerer agrees that X is not in A and that X is not in B." â Chris O'Neill.
Correct. Well done. But that example is irrelevant to the circumstances at hand because it is not a model for them. (Ha ha. Just like Man & co's. How appropriate.) Nevertheless, you are moving in the right direction. Still, you have some way to go yet. Now just for your convenience I'll lay the relevant statements out again so you can have another stab.
When you finally get it right I think you'll be a little embarrassed, but don't let that worry you. Look on it as the price you pay for personal improvement. You don't need any further answers from me to work this out either. Just as well too.
Here's a little hint for you: You have made more than one type of error.
By the way, if you don't frame your questions right by allowing them to be ambiguous, say, then you leave yourself open to the possibility that your interrogee will choose whatever meaning suits his purpose. Lithpy Girly-boy Bliar and Bollocky Bill Clinton were keen exploiters of this kind of thing.
Here's an example from your own ouevre:
"Is it that the earth's surface is not actually warming...."â Chris O'Neill.
The answer depends on some implied period over which this warming, or otherwise, is supposed to have taken place. If it's the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming; but if you mean since the Little Ice Age, then it is no, it is warming â of course it is; we're coming out of a cool period, speaking in terms of a few centuries that is. Bliar and Bollocky, depending on their objectives, would feel free to take the period from anything as short as a week, or even a minute if there were a handy eclipse or big meteorite strike at the time, to as long as the period back to the time when the Earth and what was to become the Moon collidedâsuper hot. Someone else might take the period to be since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period, on which Mann, of course, performed one of his hiding tricks.
If it suited them, Bliar and Bollocky are the type who would even exploit a situation where the question, or its negation, if it were asked twice (effectively), to give a different, misleading, answer each time, by choosing different periods respectively. But that's not my style.
Next.
"The only one who's a waste of space is the one who suggests that Steve McIntyre has any useful science laid out nicely. How incredibly naïve for anyone to suggest such."
Yes, I agree. It would be very naïve indeed. Funny thing though: I have never heard anyone make that suggestion. So it's a very strange thing for you bring up.
Now, I can clearly see you have made another error here. So here's the relevant passage again, for your convenience, so that you can use it as another opportunity for you to pursue some further self-improvement.
[Extracted from my comment posted February 17, 2010 2:43 PM (with minor font changes).]
On a final note, although I think you have your head up your arse on this whole AGW bollocks, and on Steve McIntyre too (are you really acquainted with his analyses, or do you get your opinion of him, and them, second hand? â that was a rhetorical question; I don't require an answer), I have a gut feeling that you are redeemable, unlike your pals here.
Become a convert to doubt, for it's that, not faith, by which science progresses.
Best wishes.
Shorter John Archer:
1. Is Chris O'Neill a closed-minded idiot?
2. That was a rhetorical question.
3. Therefore, I'm open-minded.
One giant leap backwards for an idiot, but only one regular, small step for stepanovich.
You silly fquit. Next you'll be posting your shopping list.
Ignorant rubbish
"I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science..., inept!"
You know, one thing about a clown is that she never realizes the average person is two standard deviations smarter than she is.
Emissions from Mauna Loa are low and well studied. Steve Ryan of the Mauna Loa observatory has studied them for decades, and guess what, they contribute much less than 1ppm to the measured concentration except immediately after an eruption (and even then they contribute less than 10 ppm), and since it is easy to see when the wind is blowing down slope from the caldera they don't use the measurements taken at those times.
Come back when you have a clue. OTOH. . .
Shorter John Archer #125:
1. Is Chris O'Neill a closed-minded idiot?
2. That was a rhetorical question.
3. Therefore, I'm open-minded.
Shorter John Archer #127:
1. stepanovich is an idiot!
2. That is all.
3. Therefore, I'm open-minded.
"1. stepanovich is an idiot!" â stepanovich
You're far too kind to yourself. You are way below that.
To paraphrase Rabbet:
"You know, one thing about stepanovich is that she never realizes the average idiot is two standard deviations smarter than she is."
You're a minus 5-sigma specimen.
The one useful purpose of such as "John Archer" and "Rubbishscience" is to confirm that denialand is populated by rank idiots.
There must be a formula somewhere, along the lines of stupidity times gullibility multiplied by ignorance squared times admiration for Stevieboy.
And those two represent the articulate ones.
Oh, such fantasies they must have about their imagined impact on the world!
"Oh, such fantasies they must have about their imagined impact on the world!" â shrek
Interesting.
Your resident psychobabblist here, Loathesome (or whatever her name is), would probably say that that's a self-projection on your part. If so, I wouldn't disagree with her.
You'd make slightly more "impact on the world" if you jumped out of a top-floor window of the Sears Tower. All beneficial too.
Shorter John Archer:
Poo poo and wee wee.
John Archer:
Sure. If you say so.
For JA's benefit this is equivalent to "Is X in A or is X in B or is X in C" where X the failure of the "purported" science, A is the observation that the earth's surface is not actually warming, etc. Thus the answerer agrees that the failure of the science is not in the observation that the earth's surface is not actually warming, etc.
Just like yourself. Although Clinton is more famous for a plain old drop-dead lie. I know what to expect from you.
Absolute bullsh!t. Even the satellite observed lower troposphere has a warming trend over the past 10 years.
And why, pray tell, are we coming out of that cool period, considering that the Sun's activity does not correlate with that warming?
Tell me about it. We still get ignoramuses who say "If it's the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming" which is a hangover from when there actually was a short-term cooling trend starting from the strongest El Niño in more than 100 years in 1998. The thing that matters is climate and it's not possible to determine climate in 10 years, let alone a change in climate. That doesn't stop the ignoramuses from spouting on however.
So what are you saying , pray tell, does Steve McIntyre have laid out there? Piles of bullsh!t like yours?
His website was from where I downloaded his version of Wahl and Ammann's version of the MBH98 reconstruction. McIntyre pointed out a problem with the MBH98 method, but that's totally irrelevant now because that method is simply not used anymore. McIntyre is just living in the past.
I know. You're too arrogant for anything other than a rhetorical question.
Thanks for the parting strawman.
The not-so-ironically-named RubbishScience [blathers at #81](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
[Guthrie immediately pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) Rubbish's own ineptness, and [Eli followed up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…), but I thought that it might be instructive for said inept numpty to consider what he said, by comparison with [the Cape Grim CO2 profile](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-cgrim.html).
If he wants to play clever boy and graph the data himself, [he can do that too](http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/pubs/274/atm/a_…).
Bottom line - the Mauna Loa data is clearly not contaminated with volcanic emissions. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing exactly as scientists say that it is.
Sadly for RubbishScience, the evidence shows [his claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) to be "a moderately intelligent person" to be a rather significant exaggeration of his capcities.
Another Denialist lie topples to the ground...
123 Neil,
My faculties are poor. Can you link to one of your earlier posts in this thread?
[Correction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*On the contrary John, Neil [P.O.E. Slaw] nailed you with the accountability that you deserve.*
@ TS: Neil's earlier posts were [45](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) and [51](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…)
Shorter John Archer (1) - the equivalence set for "no" contains "yes".
Shorter John Archer lemma (1a) - you are all stupid for taking my weasel words at face value. [The derivation from (1) is trivial.]
Shorter John Archer corollary (1b) - the scope of "science" does NOT include "showing shortcomings in published scientific work". [The derivation from (1) is left as a gentle exercise for the reader.]
Shorter John Archer (2) - my mad kindergarten namecalling and condescension skillz still provez my adult arguments!
Shorter John Archer (3) - doubt is their product, and I'm a consummate undoubting consumer.
Please continue to post, John. Your scornful comedic stylings extolling the virtues of selective doubt coupled with complete arrogant certainty are truly outstanding in the field, i.e. standing several sigma beyond the mean. Furthermore, they are not only highly entertaining, but the ancillary edification of this audience is perhaps unparalleled in perhaps the entire history of science blogging!
You dumbarse, O'Neill. Your general Boolean/set theoretic APPROACH for expressing the logic is NOT in contention â I am perfectly happy with it, although I would have preferred to use the simple propositional calculus here. But it makes no difference which is used as they are equivalent.
The fact that you have laid out an explanation of that general approach ("For JA's benefit this is equivalent to....") shows you have COMPLETELY missed the phcking point. The problem is NOT in the FORM in which you have chosen to express the logic, nor is it, as you imply, any misunderstanding of that form on my part, but in your actual fumbling attempt at APPLYING it. You simply have not done the job right with the tools you have chosen.
Now, it is interesting that you jumped to the conclusion that I did not understand what amounts to a very basic standard approach to simple logic, rather than actually examining your own faulty application of it.
No points for you boy.
As for the rest of what you wrote, that's a pile of shit too.
Loathesome,
You yourself are a member of the equivalence class of stupid cunts.
Jakerman,
I see you're on about that accountability thing again.
Your original:
"On the contrary John, Neil nailed you with the accountability that you deserve. You represent so called 'climate sceptics' here." â Jakerman
What you think I represent is entirely up to you. For myself, I represent no one but me, and I speak for no one but me. Furthermore, I am not beholden to anyone and therefore am not accountable to anyone.
Finally, I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks. FWIW to you, that includes ecofreaks and sceptics alike.
Speak to Mann, Jones et al about accountability. They need lessons.
Score - SJA(2)!.
JSA keeps trying it on. His initial full and unqualified answer to the relevant question was "no".
When that "no" was interpreted as "no" and boolean logic applied, JSA claimed that the application of said logic was "flawed" because his answer actually meant "yes under some circumstances, no under others":
..and when called on it tries to blame the questioner for an "ambiguous question" rather than his own disingenuous answer. No, John, the application of boolean logic to your unqualified answer was entirely correct. You can't complain that the logic wasn't applied to a different answer you had not yet given. (Well, you can - and will - but it makes you look childish, and piss-poor at logic to boot.)
One may indeed conclude that the equivalence set for an unqualified "no" from JSA includes the value "yes", a.k.a. SJA(1).
Hey, just had an idea, we could make a complete taxonomy on a bingo card and...oh, wait.
141 Archer,
What are you doing? The only thing that springs to mind is that you are testing the tolerance limits of one of the most tolerant blogs to be found anywhere.
I really, really, hope you are a Poe. ;)
Keep up John Archer:
Try [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…) and [then sit](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…).
You're dim, Loathesome.
"JSA keeps trying it on. His initial full and unqualified answer to the relevant question was "no"."
It still is. In fact there were two of them. And both my answers still are/were "no".
"..and when called on it tries to blame the questioner for an "ambiguous question"..."
No. I didn't blame anyone. I merely pointed out the simple fact that the question in question was not well-defined. Are you trying to tell me that that question ["Is it that the earth's surface is not actually warming...."â Chris O'Neill] is well-defined?
"No, John, the application of boolean logic to your unqualified answer was entirely correct."
No. Wrong again. That application was a fumbling amateur attempt. (You can drop that "boolean" tag â it's irrelevant/redundant.)
"You can't complain that the logic wasn't applied to a different answer you had not yet given."
I didn't. And I don't. You have missed the point. You see, Chris O'Neill is just plain wrong. Now, I know, since we are on opposing sides here, that it would be natural for him to consider the possibility of me playing word games or whatnot a la Bliar & Bollocky Bill for example. My point in bringing up their ruses was specifically to exclude them in my case (I said, "But that's not my style." â something you have chosen to ignore) and to let you know thereby that I am playing this dead straight. Yes, really â dead straight; no funny business.
But you have chosen to take it differently. Ha ha. Now that's funny. I suspected you would too, and that you would see only what you wanted to see. And you did.
You all really do need to go back and look at the logic. Why don't you really break it down and attempt something like a strict proof that your formulation is correct. I know you haven't done this yet and that you have skipped past it lightly, taking Chris O'Neill's 'model' as correct. It just plain isn't. Straight up.
You fÊckwit Archer. You can take your piles of sh!t about it not warming in the last 10 years and Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit and swallow them whole. Actually you've already done that. No wonder you talk such sh!t.
"You fÊckwit Archer. You can take your piles of sh!t about it not warming in the last 10 years and Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit and swallow them whole. Actually you've already done that. No wonder you talk such sh!t." â Chris O'Neill.
Now, now. That wasn't very nice, was it? Tee hee.
Look, I'll translate it for you so you can see how it should be done.
It says, "Touché", which apart from being the graceful way to put it has the great advantage of brevity. But clearly that would go against the grain as neither of those is your style. Tut tut tutti doos.
Upshot: you didn't come back on the logic thing then. Now why was that? :)
>*Now, now. That wasn't very nice, was it? Tee hee*
A bit rich from the person who [wrote this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p…):
>*Loathesome, You yourself are a member of the equivalence class of stupid cunts [sic].*
And the same John Archer who highest level of comment aspires to reach the heights of:
>*Poo poo, wee wee.*
Got anything else Archie?
You silly sod. You can't even get your attributions right. The latter wasn't mine.
Go on, do a search and check who said that. Or would that be too taxing for you?
Shorter John Archer:
More: poo poo, and wee wee.
John (the last decade is not warming) Archer:
Boo hoo hoo, my heart bleeds for you.
P.S. Woops. I nearly forgot.
About it being "a bit rich" of me: I have never made any pretence here that I am being nice. Quite the contrary indeed. Look, I'll say it again as you appear to have missed it:
"Look, let's be clear about this if it isn't already. I'm here merely in my capacity as right-wing nutjob racist trolloid to have a little fun at your expense and not for your edification." â John Archer, February 17, 2010 2:43 PM
"Boo hoo hoo, my heart bleeds for you." â Chris O'Neill
:)
But never mind that. Tell me all about the logic â you know, your 'model'. You haven't forgotten about it already, have you?
Yeah, that's not a classic "tell" and you're not post hoc rationalising at all. No way. That's just not credible. BTW, I have this bridge for sale, one owner, going cheap...
About that bridge, it's in a great location, is a really good deal and would round out your portfolio rather nicely...
Dead straight includes:
= participating in conversation using norms that most humans do
= granting that English isn't as precise as we would sometimes like, so when a poster is not as clear as you would like you ask for clarification - and when your position is misunderstood you proactively provide a clarification.
= assuming that context informs meaning rather than assuming none at all
= when someone asks for your opinion or reasoning you provide a meaningful response rather than making them guess what your position is and then quibbling about it
= reserving vitriol and namecalling for exceptional circumstances rather than standard practice.
Not seeing much of any of that in your posts. So far you are just a fairly standard vitriolic troll with a self-designated superiority complex and a lower than average willingness to put forward a case.
I didn't read it as attributing "poo poo, wee wee" to you, it was sarcastically paraphrasing you.
But I didn't write it, so I could be wrong.
Lotharsson, I did write it and you are not wrong.
If Archer had done what he suggest poor sods do, would would have found that for himself. But Archer don't care for fact checking he just aspires to:
>*Poo poo and wee wee*.
"Yeah, that's not a classic "tell" and you're not post hoc rationalising at all. No way. That's just not credible."
Oh dear! There's just no trust these days.
It's pity this isn't a poker game though â you'd be out of money as well as being out of your mind. Hey, just in case you accuse me of arrogance about my poker playing abilities (I sense one coming) don't bother. A neophyte could take your money.
Just to be clear, your clutching at straws here (in accusing me of post hoc rationalisation) provides me with one of your 'tells'. Oh dear! Silly me. A good poker player would never have let on. Note to self: I must be more careful.
As for your "participating in conversation using norms that most humans do", have a look at the farticle and the first few comments here. They do rather set a certain tone, wouldn't you say? But now you want things all gentlemanly, or at least to put limits on the invective etc. Very funny.
"I didn't read it as attributing "poo poo, wee wee" to you, it was sarcastically paraphrasing you."
Fair enough.
How's the attempted proof of the logic 'model' going?
Read it again. I didn't say it was what I want; I said it's what I see as "playing it dead straight", in contrast to your behaviour and presumably to your definition.
Silly me, here's me thinking you're mature enough to know that you should do your own homework.
Since no-one here seems to be helping you out, and you're so convinced of your intellectual superiority despite apparently espousing any number of known fallacies, I reckon it's quite likely you won't be able to resist pointing out the model issue you have in mind. But who knows - I may be wrong.
And should that prediction come true, I further estimate that your concerns will quite likely be of import somewhere between zero and trifling. You know, like McIntyre & McKitrick's criticisms of MBH98 - accurate, but the consequent change to the MBH98 results was piddling. On the other hand, I could be totally wrong.
(As a side prediction, I reckon that your concerns will be based on reading precision into an English conversation that is not normally expected or imputed, and that only coming about because you refused to "play it dead straight" by outlining the basis for your position. But hey, what do I know?)
And should my previous mainline predictions come true, I reckon it fairly likely that you will do a McIntyre & McKitrick in at least one of the following two parts:
1) You will remain (or pretend to remain) blissfully unaware that your big correction will bring your total edification of this audience on your position to ... just about zero, because you provided no evidence or logic to back up those positions, choosing instead to nitpick about the process of the conversation.
2) You will crow (here and elsewhere) about how stupid everyone here is and how important your big correction was, conveniently failing to point out that it does not support your key positions in any way.
But as I said, I could be wrong.
John Archer:
Bullsh!tter.
160 Chris,
A much shorter word is more accurate. It's "liar".
A boring and unfunny liar who thinks he's clever but is so far off cleverness he can't even see his lack of it.
Chris O'Neill,
"Tell me about it. We still get ignoramuses who say "If it's the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming" which is a hangover from when there actually was a short-term cooling trend starting from the strongest El Niño in more than 100 years in 1998. The thing that matters is climate and it's not possible to determine climate in 10 years, let alone a change in climate. That doesn't stop the ignoramuses from spouting on however." â Chris O'Neill, February 20, 2010 8:43 PM [my emphasis in bold]
(And that hangover was what again?)
cf your link to the Bullshit-2000-to-now graph.
I suppose in your February 20 comment you had the loose interpretation of "decade" that I had in mind too. Easy mistake of course. It's nice to see you have now tightened things up in your link and taken "decade" pretty much exactly.
That graph is nice by the way. Thanks for your value-added input here.
Anyway, I instead of the "last decade" I now wish I had said.....
wait for it....
no, not "since 2002", although that would have been somewhat more convenient for me.......
but.....
"last decade and a half", where the upward 'trend' is even more marked (gradient of trend line about 35% higher) because I'd prefer to defer to St Phil Jones for the final significant word on this (link here):
Hey, if it's not statistically significant since 1995 then it's even less statistically significant since 2000. "Yeah, but it's warming nonetheless." Yeah. Right. Whatever you say.
Of course, all these data are completely reliable. Scouts honour! That's why the Met Office now intends to re-examine 160 years of temperature data. Ha ha.
What's the betting that an exponential will turn out be the curve of best fit to this new super deluxe version of their value-added data?
Don't miss this bit. It's a hoot:
That's on a par with, "The Government is attempting to stop the Audit Office from examining the Treasury's books, arguing that it would be seized upon by fraud busters."
There's just no end to the laughs this AGW nonsense produces.
Incidentally, these "climate change sceptics" the government mentions - do they really exist? Surely no one doubts that climate changes, do they? At least I have never met or heard of anyone who held that view. Perhaps they mean AGW sceptics. Yes, that must be it. There are plenty of those, and their numbers are growing â much to the chagrin of you nutjob alarmists I hear.
Loathesome (February 22, 2010 6:56 PM),
"You will remain (or pretend to remain) blissfully unaware that your big correction will bring your total edification of this audience on your position to ... just about zero"
Thanks for the feedback on this confirming my "total edification of this audience" will be "just about zero". Zero was the upper bound I set myself â although I had aimed for a lower score it's good enough. But then you know that already as I have made it very clear here on more than one occasion that my intentions are entirely negative.
"You will crow (here and elsewhere) about how stupid everyone here is and how important your big correction was...."
You are pshycobabbling again.
"But as I said, I could be wrong."
Yes, in this case you are right â you're wrong. Well done.
On the same subject:
"and you're so convinced of your intellectual superiority..."
Ha ha.
Look, a word of advice â stay well away from any poker table.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Your response to the logic model thing. Lots of bluster there but I see the penny has finally dropped â my "concerns" ... "accurate" ..."your big correction ". How graciously straight up of you to openly admit to the error like that.
And by the way, I wasn't in the least "concerned" â it was your (Chris O'Neill's) mistake, not mine.
I hope none of this has helped you.
Shorter John Archer:
Whaaaa! Whaaaa! I don't want to go to bed. Whaaaa! Whaaaa!
BTW please don't count me as an n=1 sample of a denialist. What I say shouldn't count as evidence of denier's disorder. I'm just here to say things in an unaccountable way, and not to represent my 'skeptic' views.
Get it, my septic practice don't count against my 'skeptic' practice. I'm barlies.
Apparently one of my comments (a reply to Chris O'Neill's latest) is awaiting approval.
I wonder if it will be put up.
Come to that, I wonder if this one will be put up.
Dearie me, try reading it again - this time with comprehension. For one of such superior intellect you exhibit a surprisingly high rate of misreading my comments.
I have not admitted any error, although unlike you I admit the possibility. Hint:
is not equivalent to
...not even if you wish really really hard that it is. I leave the proper interpretation of comments about "your concerns" or "your big correction" - especially modified by various conditionals - as an exercise to the reader.
Should you bother to prove your claim of an error I'll be happy to admit it. In fact, it would be great if you did so, because then we could all take a good look at the import of your point, and note that you regretfully declined all invitations to make other - perhaps more substantive - points.
Although admittedly it might lead to speculation as to why someone as bright as yourself needs to get his jollies dishing out abuse on largely unsubstantiated bases to people he doesn't even know. But mustn't psychobabble - that would never do.
John Who cares, stop sooking mate. It not as if you are even trying contribute anything except:
>*Wee wee, poo poo*.
Lotharsson,
"I have not admitted any error...."
Right, but only not in so many words.
" 'I could be wrong' is not equivalent to 'I am wrong'...not even if you wish really really hard that it is."
No one here said it was.
Either 'I could be wrong' or 'I could not be wrong'. Since, in fact, you were wrong, 'I could not be wrong' is false. That leaves 'I could be wrong' to be right, which is what I said. Right? Or am I wrong?
"Should you bother to prove your claim of an error..."
I have already said that I have no such intention. But thanks for another invitation all the same.
"[I] note that you regretfully declined all invitations to make other - perhaps more substantive - points."
Well now, how funny you should say that just at this point because, oddly enough for once, there were some "more substantive" points in that as-yet-unposted reply I made to Chris O'Neill about 17(?) hours ago. It seems it's still awaiting approval. SHOCK HORROR....
And on such an otherwise free site.
I don't know what the problem is here. Possibly the mention of certain names and my quoting of the owners' words? Or maybe my quoting your/"The Te4m's" statistics?
Judging by the speed in which I was informed that approval was needed, and the fact that my two other posts (forming the 'bread' in a 3-post 'sandwich') both went through all wonderfully tickety-boo, I suspect some automatic filter on certain key words, that my 'meat' post contained one or more of them, and that PERHAPS the admin here hasn't "looked in the bin". But as you sayâand, strangely enough, so do I, on the odd occasionâI could be wrong. Very wrong.
I'll tell you what. I'll have another go at posting the 'meat' job immediately after this and if it doesn't get put up straight away I'll let you know. I'll make some minor modifications to what I suspect could be key words too in the hope that that will grease its passage up the fundament here, so to speak.
"Although admittedly it might lead to speculation as to why someone ... get[s] his jollies dishing out abuse...."
Yes, I have been given over to wondering about things like that too on a few occasions, mostly when I pay a rare visit to reelklymate (objectionable filter-word avoidance attempt).
Finally, I think that in practice it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion, such is the intensity of the mutual animosity. In any event, it is not a case now where sides can simply agree to differ as they could/should in other areas of science, generally speaking. The thing has huge political and financial implications and as such it's a fight to the death. Such is the way of things. Pity.
Nope. No luck. Yet again.
"Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."
I'll have to try another tack. Don't hold you breath though.
Woops! No. On second thoughts, DO hold your breath. I'll be back in a moment. Promise. :)
Still there?
Good. I won't be long. Keep that breath on hold now.
John Archer,
There is a reason that "it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion".
One side (the deniers) lies, distorts and mangles science to bolster a clear agenda, whereas the other side (the side actually doing the bulk of the research) has generated a large body of empirical evidence and broadly agrees that this evidence strongly suggests that humans are forcinbg climate.
Given the protagonists (one side lying and manipulating in order to pre-empt any action to deal with the problem and the other basing their arguments on a growing body of scientific evidence) the debate was always going to end up being more of a street fight than an intellectual debate. The fact that many of those denying AGW are the same sordid lot who have long downplayed such areas as the rates of biodiversity loss, impacts of acid rain on freshwater and terrestrial ecocystems, ozone depletion and a whole gamut of other areas should make one realize that this motley bunch were never interested in science. They hate science because it impacts on policy. Instead, science has become a useful tool for them to downplay a complex array of areas of serious concern, all because of short-term profit and a right wing political ideology.
"There is a reason that "it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion".
Etc."
Yeah, yeah....
I disagree with pretty much all of that.
For one VERY brief moment I thought I'd give the reasons too at the end of my "February 26, 2010 9:09 AM". But the problem with that is, as you can see here, there will be no agreement on those reasons. So, it was pointless doing it.
It was a good call on my part, even if I say so myself.
P.S. "denier" ha ha. Given your topic, well done. Neat!
John Archer said, "I disagree with pretty much all of that".
That's fine by me. But I call it as I see it, and I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the debate is not at all about science, at least for those in denial. They will always be in denial, no matter how much the science tells them they are wrong. This is because the scientific evidence and its policy-related repercussions conflict with their political ideology. The fact that many of those in the denial camp have shifted their tactics over the years - from saying that the warming is a doomsday myth, to its a natural process etc., represents a cycle that aims at maintaining the status quo. In time, as some already are, the denialists will accept the human fingerprint over the warming, but claim that it is a good thing or that it is tool ate to do anything about it except to adapt. In each scenario nothing changes; that is the aim of the denial camp. Lobbying for lethargy.
So, I do not really care if you agree with me or not; I think the facts are pretty well clear if you bother to loook beyond the end of your nose.
John Archer,
Your assertions that I was wrong, coupled to your apparent argument that therefore "I could be wrong" is an admission of error on my part are amusing. But engaging in such "logic" may explain why you think people are so stupid as to come to a different opinion to you.
That happens from time to time to most of us. There appears to be some sort of automatic filtering; I presume that when a post is tagged by the filter it has to wait until a human approves it - which may take longer on weekends or the middle of the night.
I don't have any particular animosity for "your side". I have at times spent a fair bit of time in patient unheated conversation with people who think AGW is bunk.
But if you start off with a vituperative attitude and twin it with bald assertion backed by zero evidence or argumentation, then I rapidly conclude you have no interest in a civilised discussion, let alone attempting to ascertain any kind of approach towards scientific understanding.
Good to know. All hat, no cattle. And no real loss here either.
John Archer: I believe that posts with several links in them are invariably held up for moderation.
"All hat, no cattle."
Like this?
"I don't have any particular animosity for "your side". "
I cannot say the same.
This thing will just have to work it's way through Darwin's Meat Grinder now.
Lurker, thanks.
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?
Neil,
Hang on for the jackpot â I just might be a 'racist' too!
One never knows one's luck with my type, eh?
Would it help you if, for example, I mentioned that I am white through and through? And that I'm not, say, Jewish?
Watch your pulse though. Too much excitement might bust one of your blood vessels. Tee hee.
Hey, look, I'm just doing the decent thing here and trying to provide you with the same kind of pleasure you lot are so generously bestowing on me.
BTW if you think Richard North is charlatan, liar, yak yak yak... why not pop over to http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ and call him out on it. I mean if he's such easy meat why not snack out on him?