More on the threats on and abuse of Australian climate scientists

I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most "threatening" referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person âmade a death threatâ (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test - not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the âDeliberationâ (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

Tell me, John, can you let me know when you go to sleep at night, and do you have a gun on YOUR side of the bed, HER side, or somewhere safe?

John, wow wants to know because he has his little wee wee gun in his hand all the time.

He constantly washes it while singing

"its HOT HOT HOT"

No, but it is just as innocent, spots.

Absolutely no threat whatsoever.

(ps do you share his bed when his dog isn't in there?)

You alarmists are so funny!

The world stopped listening years ago,you are a joke now.. Al Gore with his ManBearPig is in it for the $$$$.

Climate "Science".. LOL. Nobody 'repects the science', and you idiots cry more and more about angry grandchildren and the sky falling in.

Abbott will be in power soon. 27% and falling.. time for a proper gig, "scientists"!

27%. LOL!

Oh noes!

The intelligentsia who mediate reality through cartoons are here!

All is lost!

"Rosslyn Beeby at The Canberra Times follows up". Page not found.

Way to go, jimbo.

That will show those 'scientists' with their big brains and long words.

Now that you have finished, do not forget to wipe the drool off the keyboard.

I'm assuming you've seen Richard Glover's recent piece? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave…
Admittedly, it appears a fair number are not from Australia, but the case remains.

Andrew Bolt, who I've never really life, lost all credibility with me when on the 7pm project once he said that only 65 people died from the Chenobyl disaster. Charlie tried to shut him up, but the damage was done. Why they gave him a show when they've been trying to focus on the youth market, I don't know.

sorry, meant 'who I've never really liked'.

I couldn't focus on your substantive arguments because of this typo:

"prompted Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Science Minister to came out with".

Email to Ms. Mirabella written.

A series of politely-worded but pointed letters from all of us who feel strongly in this matter is certainly justified - this is, after all, an outrageous accusation from a Shadow minister if it cannot be substantiated, and I suspect there's little chance of that! Who did she speak to? We are entitled to know.

I think scientists should publish these emails, text messages and so on, with dates and times and full names and addresses (where available).

After all, full disclosure of these communications is what deniers want, isn't it?

I couldn't focus on Sophie Mirabella's substantive argument (if she had one) because of the typo: "The apparently false allegation of death threats have diminished..." (just while we're playing grammar police.)

I see that scurrilous bit of snide still resides in the Media Release section of her website. If she had any integrity (LOL!) she'd have taken that down as soon as CT published Beeby's follow up.

The apparently false allegation of the falsity of the death threats have diminished the individual involved and reflect poorly on the shadow minister...

Speaking of telling typos here is one created by Steve McIntyre three days ago:

"Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated..."
From the bottom of: http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/

How's that for a death(s) threat? But... Is it really a typo?

[cRR Kampen, NL]

I wonder which dear, sweet little man contacted Bolt and dobbed in Marcel for using swears as retribution for having his arse handed to him?

Just when one thinks the vile AGW Denier camp and their even viler camp-followers can't possibly stoop any lower, they somehow manage to plumb new depths.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

Tim, I'm pleased that you've encouraged a letter-writing to Mirabella - it was the first thing I did when I saw her release. I've been thinking that all scientifically-trained and experienced people should do so, and also let her know that her responses will be shared with other scientific professionals. I've been nudging my colleagues to pen even a short note, if nothing else.

As for [post #10](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…), there is certainly no such thing as a climate scientist sitting at the keyboard that typed that garbage. I suspect that there's not even a minimally-competent brain there...

Seriously, how many times must we wipe the intellectual arses of people who can't recognise a logical fallacy when it slaps them in their faces with a wet fish?

"If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!"

One of the biggest problems in discussing climate science with so-called skeptics is getting them to understand the problems of focussing on periods of time that are too short because year to year variation can overwhelm any trends. The opposite problem is when they try to use periods of time that are far too big, like you just did. This obliterates any real changes in climate that happened on a century to century timeline, or even over a few million years. Gone are the glacial-interglacial changes humans and our immediate ancestors had to live through. Surely those kinds of changes are more important to us than what happened billions of years ago. Having your resolution too high or too low can cause equally faulty analyses.

Also, your casual acceptance of threats and vandalism coupled with your blinding ignorance is frightening. You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

> Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

An asinine statement. Not even worth countering.

> and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate

100% false. It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.

"Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message."

I did attack the message; your point was garbage. And someone who applauds physical threats and vandalism with feces is no position to complain about manners.

"Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate."

Why? What is the physical process that is causing this cooling? Are you just going from what the temps were when the Earth formed and what they are now and working a trend from that? Why are you ignoring the great deal of variation that has happened in temps over the history of the Earth? Specifically, the last few million years of glacial/interglacial variations- you know, the timeframe Homo Sapiens evolved in.

"Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago"

Your link makes no mention of the temperature then.

"Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist."

Well, that settles it then, right? Your opinion trumps the data. Brilliant!

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"No Such Thing" has a point. The Earth *was* hotter when it was a molten ball of lava.

Yes, your maths IS bad.

> This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling"

No, it IS a made up anomaly.

And it's rather odd that you mention steam at 100C. Because the boiling point of water is dependent on atmospheric pressure.

> The Earth was hotter when it was a molten ball of lava.

It was hotter when it was smacked by another planet.

But that was less than 4+ billion years ago. Therefore it CAN'T have been cooling for 1.5C every 100 million years! If something cools, it can't get HOTTER.

"This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion"

Bullshit. Almost all of that cooling happened billions of years ago, after the Earth was formed. Here's what's been happening over the last half billion years or so:
[Phanerozoic Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png)

No steady drop of 1.5C per 100 million years. That's something you pulled out of your backside.

Your argument is complete nonsense. It ignores all of the evidence of past climate change- in effect, you are doing to the nth degree what so-called skeptics claim (falsely) climate scientists do- you wiped out the MWP, the LIA, the glacial/interglacial events of the last couple of million years (where the variations have been a lot higher than 1.5C). I really hope you're a Poe; it's terrifying think someone can really be that dumb and still be able to type.

1. meg:

> Andrew Bolt ... said that only 65 people died from the Chenobyl disaster.

George Monbiot claimed and has stuck to 43 (or 47 depending on which article of his you read). A disgusting misrepresentation.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

The guy who is no such thing as a Climate Scientist:

expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

Har, har har. Very funny.

More fiction from someone with no imagination.

Hence complete gibberish.

> Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

The average global temperature IS known.

http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/

"The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C."

"why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?"

Uhm, what?

In the UK, a heatwave is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1387551/UK-weather-Heatwave-w…

"Children look over a bridge at Wisley where the highest temperature of the year was recorded as 27.8C"

But 27.8C in the Sahara:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_of_the_Sahara_Desert

"The average summer temperature is 30 ºC (86 ºF);"

So to find out whether a place is warming, you need to know how the temperature changed over time IN THE SAME AREA.

Or an anomaly.

In fact, the Celsius scale is a temperature anomaly: based off the Freezing Point of Pure Water at 1 bar of pressure.

> Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

Well, if a referendum on the question came out, I think we'd handily pass the judgement that you should hold your breath and that this WILL reduce the pollution of the earth.

You're proof positive of people pissing in the shallow end of the gene pool.

No such thing as a Climate Scientist: I assume that you are describing yourself? I would more appropriately label you as "Such a thing as an idiot with no basic understanding of physics". I think you therefore need to change your monicker.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby"

Yeah, almost all of the cooling was finished billions of years ago, after the Earth cooled off from being a molten ball of rock.

"Re your Wikicrap link;
" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ""

Yeah, and how does that pretty narrow range of uncertainty contradict the fact there has been no 1.5C drop in temps every hundred million years during the last half billion years? 250 million years ago it was clearly warmer than it was 450 million years ago. How can that be if temps have been dropping 1.5C every hundred million years?

There is no steady drop in temps of 1.5C every hundred million years; you made it up completely. Even if there were (there isn't) we do not live on 100 million year time scales, we are concerned about the next hundred years or the next few thousand. You claim a steady drop of 1.5C every hundred million years, yet the earth warmed up about 4 times that much after the last glacial period. That's a fact, or do you deny the existence of glacial/interglacial episodes over the last few million years?

"What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?"

They do have a global average temperature, but anomalies are not *fictional* in any way. It's just a very helpful way to deal with temperature changes globally. If you don't understand how a temp anomaly works, you really have no business dismissing the science, since you obviously haven't a clue about it.

Again, the stupidity of your arguments strongly suggest you are just a Poe having some fun trying to make so-called skeptics look bad. I hope so; the thought of someone as dumb as your posts suggest and as ethically challenged is not encouraging.

Ladies and gentlemen, NSTAACS is a one-trick pony that can't even get that one trick right.

Using his logic, the planet is actually warming, as our sun is in fact steadily heating on its journey to becoming a red giant.

Of course, the facts that there are multiple other positive and negative forcings on climate seem to sail trapeze-like over his head... assuming of course that he even accepts that there is such a thing as climate*. And if he did so, he certainly doesn't understand that climate is not fractal over different scales of time, or he would not make the ridiculous claim that he did.

And "fictional anomalies"? Talk about clueless - he's not Anthony Watts, is he? ;-)

Bascially, the guy is just a two-bit troll who can't even drool and drag his knuckles at the same time, so the best thing would be simply to bin him with all of the other intellectual trash.

*And assuming that he even has a head, or at least one that has a functioning brain...

The artist formerly known as "Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models" is still banned. All further comments from him will be removed, so please do not respond to them.

Dear All
Why do we bother responding to idiots like 'No Such Thing....'. It's clear s/he is a troll and anyone arriving at this site still undecided about AGW can surely see the difference between the scientifically literate who normally post and the hard of thinking like 'No Such Thing'.

Thanks Tim,

I can't see why people even responded to his ridiculous posts. He certainly is an artist.

Wow...that was an astonishingly stupid troll. Even amongst his peers. I guess he could be Watts ;-)

Folks, I still don't understand why anyone of you would want to explain science to someone who condones death threats and rape threats against climate scientists' families. It's like explaining quantum physics to a pig, except the pig doesn't have any representatives in Parliament.

We know how the Gish Gallop works -- throw out a lot of anti-science talking points in a short time, hope that the pro-science guy will waste a bucketload of time trying to debunk each and every one of them, and thereby cloud out the main issue.

So why are we still so willing to be fall into this trap?

And fall into this trap, again and again and again?

I want to understand.

-- frank

> Folks, I still don't understand why anyone of you would want to explain science to someone who condones death threats and rape threats against climate scientists' families.

Because all that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Wow:

I know you're well-intentioned, but here's a news flash: there are some actions in the world which are worse than doing nothing. And that includes going for a ride along a inactivist's Gish Gallop.

-- frank

Wow:

Really, try for a moment to overcome the temptation to have your fingers head straight for the keyboard, take a deep breath, and look at the 'big picture' of this thread.

Have your debunkings of the troll illuminated the original topic of the thread -- about the despicable, unethical, and indefensible threats against climate scientists, climate campaigners, and even their families?

Or have they merely served as a distraction from the original topic?

Is your keyboard-happy stance really helping the situation, or is it hurting it?

-- frank

The troll wasn't galloping, though.

Taking 4 billion years and drawing a line from start to finish and proclaiming a linear trend of cooling earth was his canard and he stuck to it, probably either childish glee at causing trouble, a poe (which is pretty idiotic, the Poe isn't something you *try* for, it's an explanation of an unfortunate consequence of internet access for billions of people) or just plain insanity.

However, there was very little galloping done.

Nick Craig (IIRC) did that.

These were, at least, novel idiocies and as such really were memes that ought to be quashed.

NOT quashing them would allow them to be seen as successful by the other idiots and eventually poisoning the well for people who aren't that bothered about climate science.

Ergo, NOT quashing them is far worse than letting the idiot spout. Not because the idiot would stop, but that the meme it was starting would die stillborn.

And, after all, you DID ask:

> I want to understand.

But now it looks like you were asking a rhetorical question.

Or you were entering into a Gish Trot.

> Really, try for a moment to overcome the temptation to have your fingers head straight for the keyboard

a) Who died and made you god?

b) Try it yourself.

> Have your debunkings of the troll illuminated the original topic of the thread

Have your last few?

No.

See (b) above.

Wow:

> The troll wasn't galloping, though. [...]

> These were, at least, novel idiocies

With all due respect, I think you're wrong on both counts.

> NOT quashing them would allow them to be seen as successful by the other idiots and eventually poisoning the well for people who aren't that bothered about climate science.

But have you considered that, by responding to the troll's tangential points, you've unwittingly contributed to another inactivist meme?

You know, the bogus inactivist meme that inactivists somehow don't make threats against climate scientists, that even if threats were made they somehow aren't very serious, or that they're somehow justified in the face of supposed abuse from climate activists?

Yes, by responding to the troll's irrelevant point, you just contributed to the sprouting of that very meme.

Which is actually what the opening post of this thread was trying to address, in case you haven't noticed.

(And no, throwing my words back at me isn't going to fix it.)

-- frank

I'm with Frank on this. I admire Wow for his/her patience with the usual idiots that sometimes invade this blog, but sometimes it's better just to ignore them. To the outsider, it may be more effective that way.

>This is nothing at all like a climate scientist getting threated or abused for doing his job.

Tim, that depends if the person who was posting a comment on your blog was paid to do so :-)
In which case he or she was being harassed whilst doing their job.

LOL I mean really loudly. Ow! my laughing brought some plaster down on my head.

"marksman's target superimposed on his photo"

Over here in the US, Sarah Palin got in a bit of trouble for putting marksman targets on people when one of those people ended up with a bullet in her brain. Turns out though, that it was actually a "surveyor's mark." They are not threatening death, just the precise determination of elevation.

This just boggles my mind. I mean, it's bad enough when medical researchers who use animals get death threats from the animal rights extremists. At least there I can sort of see where the extremists are coming from. (I don't agree with them; I'm in favor of ethical animal testing, and I believe we have a good system that actually does work, and provides a mechanism for punishing those who abuse it.) They're upset about animals being hurt or killed. OK. They're out of proportion, but animals are cute and it does hurt to think of them suffering.

But climate change? What on earth could provoke such depth of hatred over whether or not the earth is getting warmer? I mean, if the scientists are wrong, the worst that can happen is we get more efficient technology to avert a disaster that wasn't going to happen in the first place. Seems like a win-win to me, quite honestly. How can that possibly anger people to the point where they'd vandalize scientists' homes and threaten their lives and the welfare of their children? How can anyone be so severely screwed up in the head that that's anything like a normal reaction?

"Turns out though, that it was actually a "surveyor's mark." They are not threatening death, just the precise determination of elevation" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Calli: I think they're reacting to what they see as an attack on some very fundamental and indispensible foundations of their basic worldview: that our world will always be habitable and not threaten our existence as a species; that we can pursue wealth and rape the land (and sea and air) as necessary to protect Our Way Of Life without having to moderate our wants or sacrifice wealth or comfort; and (perhaps most important of all) that we don't need to give up our precious freedoms and submit to any kind of plan, authority or other restrictive regimen in deciding how to meet our needs and wants. The latter has always been held sacred, at least in America, and I've been hearing shrill hateful reactions to any idea of any regulation of personal or business activity for as long as I can remember. The reaction we're seeing now is worse than before, but it's not new.

If true, these reports are certainly shocking. Anybody have any more background information? They are as unlikely as they are shocking, at the moment it's still just heresay. Anybody?

GSW:

> They are ... unlikely

Why would you say it's unlikely that climate scientists and climate campaigners actually received death and rape threats against their

Perhaps the threats probably don't exist because Andrew Carswell the Daily Telegraph felt the need to publish a counterfactual story filled with unadulterated bullshit to 'disprove' the scientists' account? And Carswell's story just happens to disagree on the distinct coverages of the Canberra Times, the Guardian, the ABC, and the Sydney Morning Herald, on just about every key fact?

Or perhaps the threats probably don't exist because Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, and NikFromNYC have openly defended the vile behaviour shown in these, um, alleged threats?

-- frank

monty:

> sometimes it's better just to ignore them.

My preferred tactic is to point out the incongruity of their 'argument' when put side by side with the opening list. For example, the troll above was essentially arguing 'I think the earth is cooling, therefore it's fine to threaten to rape kids'.

But I'm open to other kinds of tactics -- if they're effective.

-- frank

s/opening list/opening post/

frank,

I'm just interest if people know anymore about the attacks described above. They seem bizarre and hence unlikely.

I'm also conscious of fact that it is a common propaganda form to distribute 'hate' stories with a view to soliciting popular support.

With hearsay you can claim anything. So is there anything to the attacks on the two women?

GSW:

For all your professed concern, you don't seem at all bothered with the Andrew Carswell's attempt to inject a story filled with absolute nonsense into the daily news stream.

Come back when you actually care about the truth. (Or when you can actually pretend to care about the truth more, if you prefer.)

-- frank

severn:

> I think scientists should publish these emails, text messages and so on, with dates and times and full names and addresses (where available).

There are ways to reveal the identities of the hate mail senders without also revealing the identities of the victims -- which if I remember correctly was one thing the victims were worried about.

-- frank

frank,

from your response, I take it you don't have any further info on the putative "attacks".

Unattributed/hearsay stories have little value. Hard to tell though, whether it's pushed propaganda, or just bad journalism.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the daily news stream is often filled with "absolute nonsense".

"They seem bizarre and hence unlikely" - because climate change deniers are such rational thoughtful people .... ?

GSW,

Nice attempt to belittle the fact by asking for proof. I guess you could just come out from behind your shadowy but thin veil of propriety and plainly state that you think said climate scientists (or the journalists) are lying to draw the public's sympathy. That is the point of your messages, even if you get there rather obliquely, isn't it?

If I had been the target of death threats, I would have involved the police, passed on all original correspondence, etc, then definitely NOT proceeded to reveal my identity by publishing said threats: It is a well known fact that bullies concentrate on people who are already victims.

Interesting how GSW, like the other inactivists, sees the Daily Telegraph counterfactual piece that slanders climate scientists, and managnes to claim that it's the scientists who are somehow telling lies.

That puts a lot of perspective on GSW's veil of propriety indeed.

MFS, I'm not sure that at this stage the climate researchers and campaigners can put all their hopes on the police.

-- frank

GSW: Cases reported on by journalists are now 'hearsay', eh? Is the following 'hearsay' -

The Australian National University's former Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb confirmed the university moved several researchers to secure buildings after threats to their personal safety.

Did you bother to read the piece? The journalist explains quite clearly how the original article came about. Choosing not to know, or to simply doubt, this is just that - a choice. You're not the first person in history to blame the messenger for delivering news you simply don't wish to accept as true. Or to dismiss such news as 'propaganda'.

You are effectively accusing the journalist concerned of blatant incompetence, lying, or of being knowingly involved in a fabrication. Twice in succession!

Can you seriously doubt that the denier camp contains unbalanced individuals fully capable of issuing such threats? And issuing routinely abusive e-mails and text messages, as reported? 'Unlikely'? You wish!

The only word for this 'shift the blame to both the victims and those who put their cases' tactic is 'vile'.

Calli, Raging Bee - I see this in terms of Kübler-Ross's five stages of grief. Now, not all people go through all stages, but its not a bad model for the various emotions seen across a group of people getting bad news.

Denial of course is stage one, and many remain stuck there. Stage two is anger. From my chair, over the last year or so nature, scientists and members of the lay public (some media, bloggers, youtubers etc) have done a pretty good job of conveying just how ludicrous denial is - repeated ownage of the major denialist bobbleheads, the realisation that we have actually entered that "period of consequences" we've been warned of and so on.

I'm personally seeing more people who, while a long way from acceptance, have moved on from "its not happening". And mostly those people are bloody angry: vituperations about carbon taxes, anger that it even continues to be discussed (in effect: I know I was wrong and I don't want to hear it...), teenaged "its not fair"-type heel-drumming and, alas, at the extreme end, death threats for the bringers of bad news.

Continuing the theme - the Lomborgs and VincentR's are at the Bargaining stage: they know its real but hope to bargain away the consequences. Others I know have become completely disengaged; they know it's true, but are so frustrated by the inaction and anger and their own helplessness in the face of such a big problem that they just switch off - Kübler-Ross's Depression stage.

And finally, those at Acceptance, who only deny that there is nothing we can do, who are only angry at those who knowingly delay action, who try to bargain between what people can accept doing now and what we know must be done in the long term. And who really aren't that depressed at all, despite all of the above.

While I condemn the threats, and especially those apologists who do not also condemn them, on some level I think those sending them are in the main more to be pitied than scorned. Like a psychotic who might harm someone else in their delusional state, they need to be restrained from inflicting harm, but mostly, I think they need help.

2 cents worth...

FrankD: A worthwhile 2 cents. Your insight of VincentR being at the Bargaining stage makes a great deal of sense to me, particularly given his latest habit of talking to himself alone.

Bill & Frank, GSW is replicating an ongoing tactic I've seen from UK cranks to deny the UEA hack - i.e. they deny there's any 'evidence' of a criminal event taking place. This despite the ongoing police investigation.

I rather hope that should they ever have their car or whatever stolen that their local police show a similar scepticism that they ever owned a car, and then proceed to demand irrefutable proof that they haven't illegally sold or scrapped or otherwise disposed of the vehicle before taking their claim seriously.

A hagfish would be envious of the amount of self-produced slime these characters are capable of generating.

FrankD, rhwombat:

All this tells us nothing about how, at a large scale, we should deal with those who condone death and rape threats.

Because we're not dealing with one single person lying on a shrink's couch.

We're dealing with an entire news organization willingly injecting a false, counterfactual story into the mainstream to cover up for people who issue death and rape threats against climate scientists' and climate campaigners' families.

We're dealing with people who hire defence contractors to create sock puppets en masse to spread talking points and try to hack into the computers of climate activists' families to gather dirt.

We're dealing with the big organizations who fund 'think'-tanks like the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow who in turn fund Marc Morano's Climate Depot/em> just to spread the Daily Telegraph's slanderous story downplaying the threats at climate folks.

The problem is much, much bigger than just another isolated Kübler-Ross case. And it's much, much bigger than just someone who's wrong on the Internet. Trying to 'convert' the inactivists 'one at a time' isn't going to work.

-- frank

When the deniers starting to threat to visit my readers a Watching the Deniers then I knew it was enough:

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pete-ridleyfsmail-ne…

This is the type of stuff I got. This is one denier threatening to "visit" one of my regular readers at the blog:

"...It sounds about right, considering the nonsense you have posted here. If that is you then âMindfulness in the midst of chaosâ says it all. Next time Iâm visiting friends in Brighton Iâll pop along to the Maitreya Kadampa Buddhist Centre in Bexhill on Sea for a chat. Is it still Sea Road?

BTW, do you have any scientific or engineering education or training or was it all theology and meditation?"

This was but one example of this behaviour sent by this individual. Other readers and members where contacted indivdiually. This individual contacted my readers individuallly.

This stuff was what I got when I first started the blog:

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-quick-mesage-to-bi…

âYou are such a f******* liar you stupid c***t. They are not threatening messages. They are offensive messages. What a dumb lying c**** you are.â

"So you got that evidence you stupid c***?â

I become concerned early this year. I maintained my anonymity on WtD for good reason. I have family and a daughter. I was deeply concerned about the increasingly erractic nature of the deniers behaviour.

This was part of the reason I felt I had to move on - I could no longer expose myself to such behaviour.

I feel guilt that such intimidation was a factor in my decision to close the blog, and it is exactly what they want. But what more could I do?

Damn Bolt and them all for stirring up this hate.

Damn them for misleading the public.

To all the scientists and others that have been subject to this. I'm sorry. Sorry that you have been subjected to this behaviour. It is awful. I've only had some small exposure to it...

The Bolts and Novas excuse this behaviour. Nova has gone so far as to suggest the emails are faked!

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals…

"...This is sheer beef-it-up spin, making a mountain out of a molehill, clutching at straws in desperation to eek out a PR victory from the dregs of a fading scam.

There must have been more to the âdeath threatsâ than these surely?

If not, I take back any suggestion that these emails might have been purposefully done by people wanting to discredit skeptics. No organized campaign would be so pathetic."

I have evidence as well: the deniers use the threat of violence.

I don't know any Australian {climate scientists & others involved with climate issues} personally who have gotten threats, but offhand I do know 10 between USA, Canada, and UK. Given that I know only a tiny sample of such folks, I'd guess the numbers are much higher.

A few I've only met, but a majority are friends, some of whom I've known for decade(s). Obviously, I'm not going to name anybody who isn't already named. Two are (sadly, within last year) deceased: Steve Schneider & Bill Freudenberg.

Since the same mechanisms are used widely (see CCC, p.1, 33, I would be surprised if it were not happening in Australia as well.
I don't know offhand, if Oz has commentators calling for drawing and quartering of climate scientists, more hari-kari knives, or merely public flogging, but we have had that in USA.

Orda daha fazla ortaya çıkan teröristlerin 1960'ların mercimek seven Yeni Sol kendi kökenlerinden aldı giderek radikal ve Åiddet arttı retorik teÅvik adım adım var.

Concur entirely with 61 & 62. 63 Murat is that you? ha ha. Physical threats on either side of debate are unacceptable and should not be condoned by either side. It is not entirely one way traffic though, apparently a chap called Ben Santer (AGW Alarmist) threatened "to beat the crap out of" someone the next time they saw them.

Anybody here care to add their personal voice to condemnation to such unacceptable behaviour?

GSW:
>threatened "to beat the crap out of"

No he did not, you liar. And your pathetic attempt to distract attention from the denialist thugs is transparent. You are the same lowlife scum they are.

@ Dave R

um, I think he did. Try searching for "santer beat the crap" on google.
Are you seriously saying that it never happened?

@ others,
Condemnation?

GSW:
>um, I think he did.

No you don't. You know full well that he did not. You are making the false allegation in order to distract attention from the real threats and despicable actions of the thugs detailed in the article -- actions that you fully approve of although you don't have the guts to admit it here.

"The artist formerly known as "Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models" is still banned. All further comments from him will be removed, so please do not respond to them."

Typical mistake by a Computer Geek that relies only on computer models; I am not the same person, I only borrowed his computer. Now I am on my computer using his IP.

"The troll wasn't galloping, though.

Taking 4 billion years and drawing a line from start to finish and proclaiming a linear trend of cooling earth was his canard and he stuck to it"

Unless you have something different from the splicing and dicing manufactured by Mann and Jones to refute it, I rest my case.

" chap called Ben Santer (AGW Alarmist) threatened "to beat the crap out of" someone the next time they saw them."

Climate alarmist wankers do not care if they threaten or intimidate as according to them we are all going to fry anyway, so any means; lying, cheating, threatening etc is justifiable to them by their cause.

Sorry Dave,

But, where have you been for the last few years? did you do the search? I know you guys are somewhat cut off from reality but this is an all time record.

@ therestofyou. Condemnation? or too traumatised to contribute?

>did you do the search?

I do not need to. I know very well which of the stolen emails you are lying about. And I know why you are lying about it -- because you support the cowardly and disgusting attacks on scientists carried out by your fellow deniers and you are here to derail this thread in support of them.

@Dave R

Let me know when the medication wears off.

@Anybody else?

I'm also with Frank on responding to trolls. While I certainly understand the temptation to respond with passion, sarcasm or some other tactic to those raising long debunked zombie talking points -- I've done this often enough myself -- I do doubt the efficacy of doing this in fora such as this one where almost everyone can see what is wrong with the said zombie arguments. Responding to trolls aids and abets threadjacking as others pile on in solidarity.

I rather suspect that NSTAACS was attempting to provoke abuse so as to affirm the Blot/Blair point that we get abusive and threatening when "challenged by the science". We kept our composure, but it would have been beter if we'd all simply not noticed him/her.

Trolls are, IMO, like mosquito "bites". They are irritating, and scratching brings momentary relief. Of course, everyone knows that in the long run, the irritation subsides more quickly if you find the will not to scratch.

I agree. Surely it's a waste of time 'debating' this 'GSW' bloke? In this case it's tantamount to acknowledging there might actually be some phony-balance parallel between an ancient Fox beat-up based on one single third-party comment in an e-mail and multiple threats, including death threats, aimed directly at scientists.

Sanctimonious 'concurrences' aside, this is just another vile tactic from the grab bag. And should be treated as such.

It's also the case Bill that the meaning of words is not wholly described by their ostensible semantic content, also by the contexts and settings in which they are uttered. Just as we condemn cherrypicking of data to support talking points, so too quotemining is a specious way of making a claim about another's ethics.

Rational people choose their words in large part by reconciling their own sentiments, inferences and passions with their grasp of the apprehension of their words by their likely audiences. That's why there's an enormous difference in the way people use language within a trusted peer group, in public and at those they believe to be hostile. Sending someone an email which in context would be read as an attempt to place that person under illegal duress is greatly different from saying to a friend that you plan to "beat up" a third party when you know that the friend will interpret in the ways that people interpret "kicking ass/arse" or "severely critiquing" as in this case.

>...too traumatised to contribute?

Obvious troll is obvious...

@bill

Not sure what a "phony-balance parallel ... ancient Fox beat-up" is (Dr Who episode perhaps?) not that it really matters, a step up from Dave R, at least you appear to be awake.

Where do you stand on the threatening behaviour towards climate scientists question, should it be condemned across the board? or do you believe it to be ok in certain circumstances?

I used to think Blair was just your standard right-wing hack, but his callous indifference towards (and, I would argue, mild amusement at) death threats towards innocent people bears all the characteristics of a sociopath. The fact that he has been elevated to a position where he is paid to influence the ideas of millions of Australians is truly frightening.

@42:

"But climate change? What on earth could provoke such depth of hatred over whether or not the earth is getting warmer?"

The denialists have convinced themselves that scientists aren't simply wrong, but that they're part of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public in order to get rich (however that's supposed to work), or to advance the cause of communism, or a one-world government, or some other ridiculous claim. They're not exactly reticent about expressing these views. On top of that, there's a strong sense of tribal identity among right-wingers, in which ridiculing global warming is a way to signal in-group status. Note for example the pathetic groveling that Tim Pawlenty had to engage in to remain a conservative-in-good-standing after having once favored carbon mitigation. Or the ludicrous degree of hatred spewed at Al Gore.

Death threats and vandalism are simply a logical extension of such twisted beliefs. Scientists threaten their sense of self-identity.

Shorter GSW:

1. Where's the evidence that climate scientists/campaigners received death/rape threats? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
2. Really, if the threats really exist, that'll be very, very shocking! But where's the evidence that there were threats? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
3. Yeah, the Daily Telegraph wrote a counterfactual piece that downplays the threats made against climate folks. So perhaps the climate folks are lying? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
4. Where's the evidence that climate scientists/campaigners received death/rape threats? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
5. OK! OK! Maybe there were threats against climate folks, but here's an out-of-context quote from climate scientist Ben Santer. Therefore the threats are OK! I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
6. No! I won't condemn the threats made against climate folks! Unless you condemn that out-of-context quote I snipped from Ben Santer! ALARMIST! ALARMIST!!!!!! I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.

-- frank

And, Watching the deniers:

> This is one denier threatening to "visit" one of my regular readers at the blog:

> "...It sounds about right, considering the nonsense you have posted here. If that is you then 'Mindfulness in the midst of chaos' says it all. Next time Iâm visiting friends in Brighton Iâll pop along to the Maitreya Kadampa Buddhist Centre in Bexhill on Sea for a chat. Is it still Sea Road?

This is so screwed up.

It's as if some bloke sees a group of people praying quietly at a Buddhist temple, and he thinks, 'ugh, these people are clearly evil Communist operatives!' and then he thinks, 'since they are Communist operatives, we must threaten to rape their kids! Freedom!'

(Alternatively, the bloke actually knows he's being an unprincipled, illogical thug, but he does it anyway because he doesn't care.)

-- frank

I know Ben, who is a fine scientist, under extra-science attack for 15 years for doing science, and one of the mildest guys I know, but even he gets peeved on occasion. Having enough threats to be assigned security guards isn't fun either.

Also, having somebody in a Hummer leave an eviscerated rat on your doorstep so your kid is afraid in his own home tends to get even the mildest of guys riled.

You seem to be right with that Hummer driver and the folks like Heartland who help cigarette companies addict children, and stir up as much hatred of climate scientists as they can.
You're wise to be anonymous. KILLFILE.

frank, john, others,

I think you've made the point. Threats of violence seem to be acceptable when convenient to you, or if they are from an 'ok' guy.

Threats of this nature are never acceptable!.

There can be no 'opt' out on this. Does everyone here take the same line?

Hey Tim

Some guys over at Catallaxy keep repeating accusations you sent abusive emails to someone you disagreed with. They suggest they were really abusive.

Is that true? You really need to respond to this as a couple of other blogs are mentioning it.

Even shorter GSW: If I keep saying Santer made a threat, even though anyone who reads the email knows he didn't, someone will bite on it, thereby reinforcing my false meme.

Obvious troll continues to be obvious...

Youitou: Catallaxy has always been the goto blog for the local denialist scum. No response to propaganda necessary.
GSW: That you keep coming back suggests that this whole thread has you well and truly torqued. There is no 'opt" on this: You and your denialist fellow travellers are scum. You are part of a large, angry and desperate right wing push, funded by such disgusting people as the Koch brothers, and aimed squarely at promoting the interests of the oil, coal and mining industries and their propaganda apparatchiks. The science is against you, as are the scientists, and those of us who identify with them and support them, so you troll blogs like Deltoid in the hope of afflicting us with your bullshit. You get your arse handed to you so regularly that there has to be some reason for you hanging around. That must be either gelt, or pathology such as that well characterised by FrankD. Bugger off you bipedal cane toad.

FrankD

Happy for you to provide the appropriate context for the email in question and what you consider to be the correct interpretation of the words.

"tempted to beat the crap out of him"

TIA.

@rhwombat.

The self righteous Hypocrisy here is overwhelming. I consider it a public service to give you guys the occasional reality check. Explanation enough?

GSW@85: No. I still think you're a Koch-sucking propaganda prostitute.

@rhwombat

;)

Meg and Bluerock.... so how many people DID die from Chernobyl? If you want people to listen to the IPCC then you should pay more respect to the figures Monbiot uses. If we want people to respect science on climate change, well then we cant be selective about the science we choose to believe over propaganda.

GSW may never realize the fact that Santer did not make a threat to Michaels (writing an email to someone else about your temptations is not the same thing) but at least he realizes that his understanding of physics is not one of his strong points.

Chris o'Neil,

Have you ever considered taking you brain in for a service?

maybe they could fix the bits that don't work and put the rest of it back in the right order.

;)

Of course expressing frustration to a colleague in a private email is exactly the same as emailing death threats directly to scientists.

Alrighty GSW,

You can go away having satisfied yourself you have 'won' against those nasty science types by successfully distracting them. This shows the superority of your ideology against that of the use of debate.

You will have a good and satisfying times down the pub tomorrow evening when you can stand at the bar, puffing out your chest, and regaling those present with how you bested those who look at data saying, "I showed 'em I did, I showed them scientists who are out to mess with our brains. They can't fool me I'm smarter than they are, I used english on them" It should be very satisfying for you, you will get some approval from various types, for a little while at least, heavens it might even get you laid!

Now run along, its time for you to sit cross legged in front of the TV to watch Bolt on Gina Reinhart's Channel 10.

Cheers Jeremy,

Bizarre isn't it. I don't think there are any scientists in here? (with one exception) However the blokes I go to the pub with almost exclusively are ;). How strange is that?

GSW, if you were trying any harder you would start to look like a lying troll.

GSW,re-read #89,you seem uncomprehending. Expressing your temptation to a colleague about what you'd rhetorically like to do to a third party is not actually making a threat to that party. Now go away.

GSW,

I admit it. Santer did threaten to 'beat the crap out of' Pat Micheals.

Not only did he make the threat, he carried it out.

On [national TV](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a4R1bKGsN8&feature=related) yet.

I hope you're satisfied.

What's an "AGW alarmist", GSW?

A precise definition will do.

Is it anything like an "Imperfect Theory of Gravity predicts you will probably plummet to death when leaping off the 10th floor of a tall building" alarmist?

Just wondering, that's all.

In between games of "Spot the Obvious Troll" with the obvious troll, we should note how the MSM have shut down this story. As far as I can tell, the media have simply dropped this down the memory hole, preferring to focus on three year old stories about women harmed by their swimwear, the pashing couple in the middle of the 'Nucks riot in Vancouver and other such earth-shattering nonsense. I know the MSM defines "superficial" these days, but I still shake my head

Although, in searching the interwebs to see if anyone was still carrying this, I did find another reason to throw up a bit in my mouth at Rowan Dean's dribble. His vacuous gushing on the Gruen Transfer is bad enough, but he's even worse when his paymasters slip the leash and give him a whole opinion column. The overexcited widdling of a aged dog is deeper and less odourous...

Thanks luminous ;)

@mikem

No its more like "you will probably plummet to your death whilst getting out of bed in the morning" alarmist.

FrankD in [comment 57](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…):

I see this in terms of Kübler-Ross's five stages of grief. Now, not all people go through all stages, but its not a bad model for the various emotions seen across a group of people getting bad news.

I never thought of it in those terms before. That's a really interesting idea, and helps explain the behavior of people who are committed to all manner of crazy beliefs.

FrankD:

Are you sure it's just the mainstream media? It's the same problem at (say) Climate Progress, although for a different reason. The top headlines as of writing are

1. Daddy, could we have our planet back now? (19 Jun)
2. Jared Diamond Video: With Climate Change, Americans Have Unique Chance to Avoid the Fate of Ancient Maya (19 Jun)
3. Dealing with the Aquaculture Dilemma (19 Jun)
4. "Crappy Headline" Ruins New York Times Story on Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather (18 Jun)
5. International Solar Day Open Thread: Should Solar Panel Recycling be Mandatory? (18 Jun)
6. Re-Imagining Agriculture: How to Raise Yields while Reducing CO2 Emissions (18 Jun)
7. Paul Ryan And His Family To Benefit From The $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big Oil In His Budget (17 Jun)
8. North Carolina Republicans Push Back Against Decades of Environmental Progress (17 Jun)
9. Celebrate International Solar Day! (17 Jun)
10. June 17 news: The Benefit of Limiting Black Carbon; U.N. Climate Talks Make Scant Progress to Save Kyoto (17 Jun)

... Nope, nothing on death threats there. It's as if we're supposed to be angry at a lot of things, but we're not allowed to be angry at any one thing for more than 24 hours, after which the next piece of outrageous news comes along and we're supposed to be angry at that, and then after another 24 hours we're supposed to be angry at yet another thing, and so on...

The blogosphere is just a big place, but I'd be blessed if I can find more than a handful of bloggers who's willing to do long-term investigative work for a few stories at a time. You know, bloggers like Deep Climate, who find one big story and keep digging, digging, and digging at it for months on end.

-- frank

I was just browsing this thread out of curiosity, and I saw about Googling "Santer beat the crap". It was alleged to be a literal threat, but apparently it instead just a metaphor for someone beating someone else in a debate, am I right? At we see "Dr. Santer beat the crap out of him with the truth" and similar elsewhere. GSW, did you know that? If so, you were disingenuous.

BTW even anti-AGW hero Lubos Motl admits that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he just says the forcing factor (the extra effect) is not there so all we'll get is the direct extra wattage from direct absorption. Not even their own real scientists say there's no AGW.

NeilB: As I'm sure you are aware, Motl is a mathematician with expertise in string theory, not a scientist. That he is also a reactionary Czech nutter is central to our collective points. BTW GSW, your ; ) tic, when pwned, is a bit of a tell. There are some effective treatments for Tourette's.

Sorry to be OT but on Jonova's site she is talking about an anti Carbon Tax protest that was held in Sydney, Sunday lunch time (its late evening here in London as I type so morning in godszowne).

Does anyone have any info on it mainly around how many turned up? It would be very, very telling if they were unable to get anywhere near thre same no's as the Carbon Tax rallies a week or so ago.

"but apparently it instead just a metaphor for someone beating someone else in a debate, am I right?"

Haha no I believe he said he would be very tempted to beat the crap out of him next time he saw him. Wasn't a threat though.

@100

No its more like "you will probably plummet to your death whilst getting out of bed in the morning" alarmist.

Ah good. I'm not classified as an AGW alarmist then, even though I understand the fact that it's happening, and that there will most likely be significant consequences over time, and that many of these are probably going to be undesirable, and that we should get off our collective arses and do something about it rather than just pretending it doesn't exist, ostrich style.

Altered or destroyed data. Utterly unreliable computer models. Ever more hysterical prophecies of doom. Greater demands for taxpayer funding. Calls for upward-ratcheting government control of, well, everything.

Why should anyone take seriously the people pushing anthropogenic global warming (or is it the more artful 'global climate change' now) when the evidence, under the most generous interpretation, is equivocal?

The narrative that accompanied the 'death threats' some have gotten so exercised about was intentionally false. That it was accepted uncritically by those deeming themselves 'scientists' does nothing to boost their credibility . . . and much to diminish it further.

Aelf, you might want to find something to do away from the keyboard while the grownups are having a conversation.

Don't be such an alarmist aelfheld.

"aelfheld". Isn't that the old saxon term for bladder or rectum?

GSW:

Chris o'Neil,
Have you ever considered taking you brain in for a service?
maybe they could fix the bits that don't work and put the rest of it back in the right order.

Great stuff. Keep up the good work.

@108.

Boooring. Can't you actually come up with any original reasons why it's all a communist government mind-control plot, rather than just repeating the oft-discredited ones already out there?

And still it goes on.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3248032.htm

And can we be surprised, adelady, given the high moral calibre of the contrarian responses on this blog? What's the word? 'Hearsay'? Simply contemptible...

Bill: I'm glad Anna-Maria Arabia uses the correct term: climate deniers. This is what GSW, VincentR and the rest of the Trolls hate most - accuracy and public recognition that they are partisan propagandists like Blair, Bolt, Minchin, Monckton, and the Lavoisier/Quadrant cabal.

Cue screams of "I don't deny climate change! The climate has changed for millions of years!" from the aforementioned.

@112

Not a problem! Booked it in yet ;)

John,

Some clarification required: are you suggesting that climate hasn't changed for millions of years?

Yes that is precisely what I am suggesting.

John,

Seriously?

Seriously.

John,

Sorry, but I have to ask, are you an Australian climate scientist?

Of course not.

The funniest thing about the deniers 'climate has always been changing' meme?

That they rely on and have high trust in the same kind of science that they routinely attack and deny re:climate change, ie paleoclimatology

The precise point I am making.

[John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…).

I'll be curious to see how the troll moves from the corner without getting paint on his knuckles.

If indeed he can actually perceive that the floor's been painted...

John: nice shot!

John,

I know, but you have to spell these things out for visiting idiots.

GSW:

Booked it in yet

Sure. I'll do anything for someone who doesn't get irony. As for someone who doesn't realize what their own words mean..

> If you want people to listen to the IPCC then you should pay more respect to the figures Monbiot uses

So the only way to get respect in this world is by accepting bad numbers and bad science?

Well, it does explain why the denialidiots get all that unearned screen time.

> With all due respect, I think you're wrong on both counts.

And you're entitled to your opinion, Frank.

YOU asked what the reason was and I gave it.

*I* think I'm right on both counts. And therefore I did as I did.

You'll note from other postings that I do not shirk from giving someone a verbal shitkicking when needed, so unearned concern for the pathetic specimens isn't a driver.

YOU may decide differently.

But I'm not going to tell YOU how to behave.

Please extend the same courtesy.

> But have you considered that, by responding to the troll's tangential points, you've unwittingly contributed to another inactivist meme?

Have you considered that by letting it pass that you've allowed a meme to spread.

Check up on The Big Lie. Just google it.

How does it feel to be helping these idiots kill the children of others by their inaction and your acquiescence, frank?

.
.
.

How does it feel to be accused of aiding them?

So, I'm going to regret this, but do you all think that the Earth's Climate has not changed for millions of years?

John,

Wonderful!

GSW,

We are hanging out for your response. Please don't go quiet now.

adelady @ 114, monkeywrench appears to have been unnervingly accurate over at Pure Poison :(

âThe last time he published a photograph and named a scientist in this way, it resulted in that scientist receiving death threats. I wonder if his thugs can resist the temptation this timeâ¦.â

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/06/20/weekly-open-thread-20-…

(not that I am saying it was one of his thugs mind you)

Yes GSW we all believe it. There is no evidence Earth's climate has ever changed until now.

John,

And you get your information from, amongst others, Australian climate scientists - they ones that are protesting that their work is not taken seriously?

GSW@134

Was your education marked by feedback along the lines of 'has difficulty working out meaning from context' or 'sadly, just doesn't get it'?

Because if you've a nagging suspicion this is one of those occasions when the joke's on you (again) - you're right!

The IPCC covered this in their 2007 report. Something like: "It is very likely that the Earth's climate has not changed for millions of years", IIRC.

GSW

You are claiming that the earth's climate has changed for millions of years based on the very science which produced the Hockey stick.

We accept this science.

You don't.

Therefore in your "universe" there is no evidence that the climate has ever changed.

What you need is a computer program to help you keep your "opinions" straight.

Lucky for you Tim is a CS Professor. He could write a program for you named Synchronizing Helpful Information Trajectories.

In return, you would need to acknowledge that your post was prepared using this program.

May some line like "This post was prepared with Synchronizing Helpful Information Trajectories"

Or maybe you could use an acronym.

GSW appears to have never seen a double bank shot...and seems bemused why the ball is now travelling in the opposite direction.

He still hasn't defined what an "AGW alarmist" is either, unless I missed it.

GSW, I get my scientific information from whomever agrees with my political views.

Not climate scientists?

Little troll.

That shivery, knotty feeling of subconscious doubt that you're experiencing in your solar plexus... that's cognitive dissonance.

Your challenge - your second challenge - is to figure out how it got there...

Shirley GSW has cottoned onto the joke by now!?

and you know the truth about Santa Claus?

@no. 145

Sorry guys, all that psycho-babble on this thread and the previous, related one (I thought Freud was out, but I guess he's made a "climate turd" come-back) has finally piqued my curiosity.

I can see that "psych majors" abound in Deltoid-land. And I used to know some psych-majors and, I gotta tell you, they were one strange breed in my experience:

Girl psych majors: Some hot babes, for sure. Challenge to keep a straight face and your lunch down when telling her what she wants to hear. Essential to keep a bullshit excuse at the ready with which to beat a hasty retreat from any providential tryst. Otherwise, expect hours of post-coital ennui as she unloads her life-story in which it transpires that all the men she meets are creeps. Extremely high maintenance.

Boy psych majors: Pus-baby zit-twit freak-outs. Still looking for the right girl, you know, one like dear ol' mom, but not having much success in that department.

And the "amateur" psychologists were even weirder.

So what I'm wondering is whether the latest generation of you psych majors and amateur tag-alongs have changed any or are you still pretty much like those bozos I used to know?

Oo, oo - the other troll is back!

Given the purility of [his discourse](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…) he is certainly no psychological professional himself. This renders his whole post an exercise in astonishing self-loathing, with a bit (or perhaps a lot) of projection superimposed.

No charge by the way, Mike. Keep your pennies and seek some treatment...

mike also doesn't want to talk about how denialist scum send death threats to scientists.

Tim Lambert.

May we have some clever trolls for a change, please?

Or is the concept of a clever denialist an oxymoron?

A 'carbondioymoron'...?

If I were into psychology I would say that Mike is very insecure about his own intellectual ability and feels he has to troll blogs with petty insults detailing his own insecurities because Daddy rejected him for his smarter sibling.

Hn.

carbondioymoron carbondioxymoron

Wow:

> > But have you considered that, by responding to the troll's tangential points, you've unwittingly contributed to another inactivist meme?

> Have you considered that by letting it pass that you've allowed a meme to spread.

Wow, you still don't get it do you?

1. Denialists like to spread a lot of memes all at once.
2. By paying more attention to certain memes, you'll naturally have to pay less attention to other memes.

Do you understand the previous two sentences?

Have you heard of the term 'prioritization'? The term 'trade-off'? The phrase 'choose your battles'?

-- frank

I know you, mike.

You were the disingenuous jerk who'd pose as a lefty radical on campus because he thought it would score him a lot of free hippie-chick snatch. Then became a conservative to hide his humiliation after said hippie-chicks saw right through his lies, and discovering that conservative girls would go down believing any lie you tell them with dog-like worship and obedience.

Score!

frank, you still don't get it, do you:

1) your OPINION is that I shouldn't do something.

2) So what?

Do you understand what "opinion" means? Here's a dictionary entry for you:

o·pin·ion/ÉËpinyÉn/Noun
1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So, unless you have some FACT to go with that opinion, STFU, please.

Wow:

> > Do you understand the previous two sentences?

> 1) your OPINION is that I shouldn't do something.

It's clear that your answer to my question is "no".

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't do thing A, and instead spend the same time and effort originally dissipated into A into doing a different thing B, which will be much more effective.

Do you friggin' get it, now? Or should I draw it in crayon?

-- frank

Yup, and I'm not listening to your opinion any more.

You HAD asked for my reasoning but that just seems to have been a rhetorical one, since in your own mind you INSIST there is no reason for it.

Tough titties, kid.

You aren't God, so I shall ignore your petty whining.

So basically denialists like mike are down to calling the women sluts and making fun of the physical attirbutes of the men? That says a lot about how mature the denialists really are -- and none of it is surprising.

So, mike, what do you think you've proved by acting like the dumbest jock in high-school?

Wow:

> > What I'm saying is that you shouldn't do thing A, and instead spend the same time and effort originally dissipated into A into doing a different thing B, which will be much more effective.

> > Do you friggin' get it, now? Or should I draw it in crayon?

> I'm not listening to your opinion any more.

In other words, Wow, you don't get it. Even when I've stated my thinking in such plain terms, you still refuse to get it, you still refuse to engage with it, instead going 'la la la I'm not listening I have my opinion la la la'.

I give up.

-- frank

Raging Bee:

> So basically denialists like mike are down to calling the women sluts and making fun of the physical attirbutes of the men?

And remember, that's in response to a blog post about threats from inactivists to kill and rape climate folks' families.

Is there a law against this bullying nonsense in whatever country mike's in? If there is, it should be enforced.

-- frank

You're not listening, so I can't be bothered to read more than the first few words you write, frank.

I'm not changing.

Suck it up and get over it.

So, shorter GSW:

1. Where's the evidence that climate scientists/campaigners received death/rape threats? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
2. Really, if the threats really exist, that'll be very, very shocking! But where's the evidence that there were threats? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
3. Yeah, the Daily Telegraph wrote a counterfactual piece that downplays the threats made against climate folks. So perhaps the climate folks are lying? I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
5. OK! OK! Maybe there were threats against climate folks, but here's an out-of-context quote from climate scientist Ben Santer. Therefore the threats are OK! I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
6. OK! OK! Maybe Ben Santer didn't actually make a threat! And maybe there were threats against climate folks, and these threats are wholly unacceptable! But here's a bunch of denialist talking points! Climate has changed in the past! So maybe the death and rape threats aren't acceptable after all! I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
7. Wait, did I say that I'd be shocked at the death and rape threats against climate folks? Look, I'm really shocked, really you need to understand how shocked I am, so shocked indeed that you can't even see that I'm shocked and that I'm now throwing out inactivist talking points! And you're all ALARMIZT IDIOTZ!!!! But trust me, I'm truly, truly shocked at the death and rape threats against climate folks! I'm just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.

-- frank

s/aren't acceptable/are acceptable/

That wasn't that short, frank. Just shorter by fact that GSW can only repeat himself many times, as if with enough repetitions what he says will be true.

@aelfheld #108

is it the more artful 'global climate change' now?

That "artful" change was made by those opposing doing anything about AGW. From that wretched hive of Socialist villainy,* the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

It wasn't the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange.

*sarcasm

I had an interesting chat with my 17 yo son last night - apparently trolling websites is considered a sport by his demographic, irrespective of whether they believe what they are saying or not.

Equally, troll bashing is also a sport.

Addressing SIWOTI can become addictive and bad for the health.

is it the more artful 'global climate change' now?

Of all the silly-ass denier tropes, this one is the easiest to explode. What does the "CC" in "IPCC" stand for? In what year was that body formed?

The term "climate change" appears in publication about twenty years before "global warming", which is odd because the climate never changes. Lying scientists.

> Shirley GSW has cottoned onto the joke by now!?

I see no evidence of that. Perhaps GSW can provide some - but providing evidence is really not his forte.

> ...trolling websites is considered a sport by his demographic...

One would infer from limited evidence that most of them are piss-poor performers then...

mike, the potty-training casualty returns! Yeah, I bet all those acres of putative hot babe conquests really think a lot of you in retrospect, you big manly, manipulative, stud-muffin, you! What a guy - we're all secretly in awe of you, you know.

Oaf.

Sent Mirabella an email. Said it was disappointing that the opposition spokesperson for science (et al) didn't actually speak to scientists about this issue, and that while politicians cite preferred articles as a matter of course, that it was intolerable she should do so on the matter of threats of violence and death. Asked her to speak to climate scientists about it, amend her articvle accordingly, and clarify that the Liberal party does not tolerate threats of violence and death against anyone.

Sordid politics from Ms Mirabella.

I'd previously remarked that the mainstream media had dropped this story, but predictably, yesterdays "Respect the Science" campaign added some fresh fuel to the fire. Surprisingly, Rupert's [favourite organ](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/scientists-are-receivi…) carries the story:

"Members of the scientific community are receiving death threats as debate over Julia Gillard's carbon tax intensifies.

In the latest incident, Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies executive director Anna-Maria Arabia received an email today saying she would be "strung-up by the neck" and killed for her promotion of mainstream climate science.

The threat was emailed to her this morning before a "Respect the Science" campaign at Parliament House in Canberra today.

It follows months of abusive phone calls and threats to several of Australia's top scientists at the Australian National University, forcing it to improve security and shift climate scientists to a more secure work location.

Ms Arabia said she and other members of the science community received more than 1000 emails a day as part of an anti-climate change campaign, but the latest email went "a step too far"."

In the interest of being constructive; attached a link to a wikipedia on Ice ages. For those of you a little confused about past climate, or even it would seem currently reality, this should prove informative ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The last one peaked about 20,000 yrs ago. A new thing, Ice age "deniers", Whatever next!

GSW said: "Whatever next"!

You'll paint yourself into another corner and change the subject again, I expect.

You know, I do believe GSW may really be that thick! He seems to genuinely imagine he's on a winner!

All as a result of a magic synergy; combining a delicate bloom of native ignorance that Wilde would have called on us to treasure with the traditional denialist habit of not actually bothering to comprehend what your opponents say - I mean, why bother, when you know everything already?

(Smiles sweetly) GSW, what you have apparently failed to notice is that you just had the crap beaten out of you. Don't slam the door on your way out.

GSW, tsk tsk. You seem to think that people who accept AGW as true don't also have a good appreciation of natural climate, and especially the existence of a whole field of research called "paleoclimatology". [Shakes head sadly]

Shorter GSW:

I'm really, really shocked, trust me, I'm really, really shocked that people are threatening to kill and rape climate scientists' families. But wait! ICE AGE ICE AGE ICE AGE!!!!! Wait, maybe I'm not so shocked after all! ALL HAIL RAPE!!!!!!!!

-- frank

So how does it feel to be an ice-hockey puck, GSW?

> A new thing, Ice age "deniers", Whatever next!

Good grief - he may **really** be that unperceptive.

Setting aside all the usual tired and ineffectual abuse.

Are we all up to speed on this now? The Earth's climate has not remained static for "millions" of years. Rather, it has fluctuated back and forth between hot and cold many times, all due to "natural" causes.

"Education is a journey we must take one step at a time. The only alternative is to suffocate in a lifetime of ignorance."

@Donald

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

GSW:

> Setting aside all the usual tired and ineffectual abuse.

Ooh, GSW, way to show how shocked you are by the threats to rape climate folks' families.

But who cares about people threatening to rape kids, right, GSW? The more important story is how people aren't behaving in a flattering manner to GSW, right?

-- frank

And so, here's the very very shorter GSW:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
3. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
4. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!

-- frank

It's all very well GSW talking about these so-called "Ice Ages", but citing a Wikipedia article as evidence? Really! We all know Wikipedia articles can be unreliable, so why should we believe that one?

You may be schooling us GSW, but we're not that gullible...

FrankD,

Are you still in the "denier" category then frank?

> Rather, it has fluctuated back and forth between hot and cold many times, all due to "natural" causes.

Sorry, is CO2 from a combustion of a hydrocarbon and oxygen not a natural cause?

Are we humans unnatural?

So today we have a heating climate due to natural humans burning natural hydrocarbons and producing, naturally, CO2.

Which CO2, naturally, does the same thing as it did throughout all these other natural events, cause warming.

Naturally, GSW will now forget all this and proclaim that human produced CO2 isn't like natural CO2.

"Denier"? That's a bit offensive isn't it? I'm just skeptical - I take seriously the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in Verba" - "take nobodies word for it".

I'm just saying that if you expect people here to believe in these "ice ages" you're talking about, you'll have to do a better job of explaining how we know about them than with a link to some random Wikipedia article.

Aye, it's odd that GSW is so believing that there have been ice ages in the past when that was long before he lived.

@wow

Can I ask, how old are you?

Its like trying to reason with a 5yr old while they are throwing a tantrum.

@FrankD

Sceptical about the Ice Ages(!)? You are an Ice Age "sceptic"?

Genuinely, Strikingly Witless really is genuinely, strikingly witless.

Little troll, the whole point of the last several scores of posts has been that which you are slowly working toward yourself. I say slowly, because you haven't even reached the first corner yet, and I suspect that you won't reach the finish line under your own steam.

There's no point trying to explain it to you though, because your Schrödinger state of cognitive dissonance would immediately collapse back into outright denialism, and return you right back to the starting line.

I will however attempt to challenge you with a phrase, and see if you can come up with any inferences that arise from it... What do you think that argumentum ad historiam might mean?

> Its like trying to reason with a 5yr old while they are throwing a tantrum.

Yes, but I persevere with you anyway, petal.

@193

Who cares? ;)

Who cares about what?

The universe doesn't care that you don't like taking responsibility for your actions or paying to clean up after yourself.

You don't even seem to care that you don't know how Ice Ages are discovered.

There's not a lot you care about.

Except yourself.

@wow

You're mummy will be back in a minute, Petal.

Aw.

So, in short, you'd rather complain about mummy than

a) distance yourself from people who wish to rape and murder children

b) avoid any evidence of any of your beliefs

c) thinking beyond your own self

There's a term for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568274:

And so, here's the very very shorter GSW:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?

-- frank

Enjoying this Chaps? ;)

GSW:

What I'd truly enjoy is to see you take a strong stand against death and rape threats at climate folks' families, and actively find ways to stem out the tide of threats.

Will you do that, GSW?

Or will you just flip right back to "la la la la la there's no evidence of threats la la la la la" mode?

-- frank

GSW still doesn't get the joke.

Wonderful. Just wonderful.

@frank

To be frank, frank. I think that is all you.

GSW still defending the rights of paedophiles to rape and kill kids.

Psychological projection, @204?

Nope, just reporting the facts, ma'am.

You're either against the paedophiles or with them.

YOU are with them.

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568275:

And so, here's the very very shorter GSW:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!

-- frank

Holy crap, I think GSW *still* doesn't get it - or he enjoys attention so much that he's prepared to pretend that he doesn't.

No, I think it's just desperation. It CANNOT deride the deniers who want to rape and kill children. But it cannot come out and say it supports them.

So it avoids saying anything on the issue.

It also doesn't know why it knows the things it says. So, again, rather than admit failings, avoidance is the name of the game.

It really takes some sick weirdo who would rather support paedophines raping and killing children than to show anything less than 100% solidarity with the fellow denialists who do so.

Come off it chaps, if this is how you react when your lives come into contact with a little bit of truth/reality, imagine what it would be like if you actually got out more. Panic attacks etc....

Cheers ;)

This idea of 'ice ages' doesn't pass the back yard test. Like this theory, (fancy word for 'guess'), has it that there used to be hundreds of feet of ice where my backyard is but it's 90 degrees today, the grass is a kind of scorched brown and I couldn't keep the thing wet for 10 minutes let alone frozen. #FAIL. Oh, but there's this wikipedia article right after the one about porcine aviators in WWII...

Tell us some more stories GSM.

It's becoming increasingly clear that GSW, after having his arse handed to him and his nose rubbed in it repeatedly, is not just in denial and a victim of degenerative narcissistic psychopathy, but must be suffering from anosognosia.

Have pity on the poor schmuck. It's not nice to make fun of the neurologically impaired.

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568276:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?

-- frank

> It's not nice to make fun of the neurologically impaired.

I beg to differ... :-)

However, in this case, since GSW is congenitally unable to remark against fellow deniers of AGW, counting paedophilia and murderous tendencies as a mere bagatelle compared to their stance against with him against AGW, it's not only nice, but right.

GSW still has to stand with the paedos and murderers. After all, any EVIDENCE of their actions is purely opinion and he can ignore all that.

_@Donald

_"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

_Posted by: GSW | June 21, 2011 8:32 AM

Unless it's Daffy Duck.

@Luminous 215

Have to admit, that did actually make me laugh (for the right reasons)!

Would it be impolite to add Donald Duck too. ;)

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568277:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?

-- frank

GSW,

No one asked me, I know, but for what it's worth, this is how I see things.

Ol' fukushima frank has made a demented nutso spectacle of himself. The playful smile that once graced Wow's delicate features has died and has been replaced with a frown and a pout. Bernard J, who for a spell there was using regular-guy terms like "bullshit" and "thang", has had a relapse is now back with his privileged-white-dork umlaut-comments. And the "me-too" guys with the walk-on parts are also getting pretty rowdy. I mean, when the only Deltoid keeping his head is rhwombat, you just know there's trouble.

So, again, as I see it, GSW, what we have forming up here is a sort of geeks-gone-wild "Lord of the Flies" deal. And guess what, GSW? You're Piggy. So you might want to make a dash for it RIGHT NOW! And hope to hell you can out-run the howling pack.

Shorter mike:

You warmists are being intolerant by insisting that we oppose threats to kill and rape climate folks and their families! We will not be intimidated by this unruly warmist mob, and we will continue to support those who threaten to rape kids!

-- frank

>@Luminous 215

>Have to admit, that did actually make me laugh (for the right reasons)!

>Would it be impolite to add Donald Duck too. ;)

>Posted by: GSW | June 21, 2011 12:42

Would 'for the right reasons' include the fact that you appear to be too stupid to understand just how stupid you really are, even after some have shown the kindness to explain it to you with simple words?

Irony isn't all that difficult. You see, the literal meaning of what some people may say is opposite or tangential to what they really mean.

It may be hard to admit one has been the butt of a joke, but acting as if one hasn't been just makes the hilarity all the greater.

Daffy, you are one funny guy.

mike,

Whoever coined the expression, "It is better to remain silent and be imagined a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" must have had you in mind.

@mike

Appreciate the heads up. Light the blue touch paper and retire, got it.

It's nice to hang around though and watch them implode. Sort of satisfying. But that's enough though. Cheers!

GSW: When your only supporter is little mikey, even you can come to appreciate that the strange taste that you are experiencing is that of your own arse.
mike: Ditto.

Oh, and mike@218: you speak of Piggy and Lord of The Flies. Mike (or the Hockey Stick Puck), I knew Piggy. Piggy was a friend of mine. Mike (or the HSP), you are no Piggy.

Interesting case of projection you have there, mikey.

Can we assume then, mike, that you are also sufficiently dense not to understand what is going on?

It's not like it hasn't been flatly pointed out to you several times. Precisely what part of the paleoclimate record is ideologically acceptable to you, GSW? How was it constructed, and by whom?

'Genuinely, Strikingly Witless' is right! Not only does your response to the subject of this post cast you as a poor excuse for a human being, you've gone on to make yourself ridiculous! And you still don't get it...

Into the fifth dimension (5D) with the deniers; Denial, Dimness, Dishonesty, Diversion and, finally, Derangement. And when the deranged arm, all fired-up by the dishonest elite, starts threatening real people who dare to point out truths the rabble won't accept, all the little dim-bulb camp-followers just can't quite really bring themselves to condemn it!

Guys, guys.

GWS is a Turing troll, attempting to emulate the appearance of an actual real, informed person, and trying to engage rational folk to debate it.

Read his material carefully. He's posted no science at all, and nothing else that is more that the standard or a poor national Enquirer piece of fluff. He reflects and/or projects what other people say to him, because he is capable of no intellectual construction of his own. It's also likely that his voice hasn't broken yet...

He requires no further attention, or only a cursory "you're wrong, idiot" at most.

And 'mike' is no different.

Take the wind from their sails - ignore them.

Tell me more about these "ice ages", GSW. Has anyone seen one? Sounds alarmist nonsense to me.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

"car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter?"

If you put shyt up as science; like 'the atmosphere is warming' (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

"You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination."

Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

Well here it is again "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

"It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years."

'Wow' your maths is bad.

This is not some made up anomaly "the atmosphere is cooling" and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

"all of that cooling" that's right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

Re your Wikicrap link;

" The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. "

Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.