Correction: Andrew Bolt likely prompted death threat sent to Anna-Maria Arabia

I recently received a death threat (post #29 Imrryr) for supporting a Republican. I suspect the writer had read previous posts wherer I had dared to question the claim that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming. Normally this just produces censorship.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/newts_campaign_even_more_dea…

Perhaps the entire alarmist blogsphere will be up in arms to defend me.

Or perhaps such behaviour is usual among alarmists and only unusual among those who place scientific scepticism on a high level.

This is exactly the sort of dog-whistling response that tabloid hacks must pray for, to fuel the whole ignorant denialist movement and thereby provide more fodder for their rags' front pages, editorials, and hate-blog columns.

I was going to say ironically that Bolt must be so proud, but then I thought that irony might not be warranted.

I hope that Lippman is pursued, because his tactics are surely criminal. Bolt's just lucky that dog whistles are difficult to hear, even by the ears of law enforcement.

Well, well, well. Obama has threatened to physically drop bombs on anyone who wages 'cyber-war'. Perhaps the Australian government should consider some sort of similar measure against countries that export cyber-hate. Heck, maybe we can start by creating a list of countries that export cyber-hate, sorted in such a way that the United States will come up on top.

-- frank

And...

> I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day. [...] Stan Lippmann Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989)

Someone proudly proclaims himself to be a "Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989)" right after admitting that he cuts-and-pastes like a robotic idiot.

Perhaps he believes that his Ph.D. gives him magical powers that allow him to see the Truth™ about everything without any hard work.

-- frank

Yikes. [I made the mistake of Googling up Stan Lippman of Seattle](http://www.google.com/search?q=stan+lippmann+seattle).

Hey, this is good news.

First they ignore you
(or at least try to get other people to),
then they laugh at you
(and call you warmists, watermelons, ecoterrorists, frauds, socialists, and worse),
then they fight you (or at least threaten to),
then you win.

Only one more step to go.

@Tim Lambert

"likely that it was Bolt's post that prompted the death threat sent to Arabia"

Apologies Tim, have you taken legal advice on this? If this was a newspaper column, I think there might be a problem. Blogs may be different, don't know.

Let us recall GSW's 'argumentation' tactics from a previous thread:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats [against themselves and their families]?
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. Ooh, I can hurl insults! Look, I'm such a mature adult, unlike you immature kids!
7. Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
8. I'm so offended by the suggestion that I support child rape! Can't you clearly see my strong opposition to threats of child rape?
9. Repeat one of the above 'arguments' at random.
10. Go to 9.

Now that GSW can't use his "where's the evidence" excuse anymore (because Stan Lippmann has proudly confessed that he sent the death threat), he needs to invent new bullshit excuses to justify / downplay / divert from the death and rape threats.

Such as claiming that Bolt's vitriol has absolutely zilch to do with Lippman sending the death threat, and Lippman's death threat was caused by some other unknown factor, perhaps the sun or volcanoes or urban heat island effect or hockey sticks.

-- frank

No, there is a difference GSW.

For instance, referencing the previous thread you had such a starring role in, I can loudly and openly say, "GSW is likely an apologist and equivocator for those who make death threats and threaten child rape".

Bur likely that's not the half of what I really believe about enablers like you.

@chek

Actually, you can't loudly and openly say that. That's the point. You do need to be able to show that it's true.

Just because you have had a bad experience in the past, doesn't mean you can just makes things up.

If I was in the mood to be kind I would say that this fellow Lippman is crying out for help. I'm not, so let me say that this is one sick puppy. Apparently he does not read his own stuff, so naturally he does not see the implied threat in his ramblings. Shameful to say the very least.

@Jim

Agreed. Sick.

I noticed that Mr. Lippmann included a JD in his identification. Is this Mr. Lippmann the "Stanley Irving Lippmann" that has been disbarred by the State of Washington (http://www.mywsba.org/default.aspx?tabid=178&RedirectTabId=177&Usr_ID=2…)? I am filled with disgust when I see comments such as those made my Mr. Lippmann. He is a despicable, hate filled, DISBARRED, intellectually challenged and deficient a**hole.

Howard Appel, CA Bar # 158674.

Lippman is apparently an office bearer of, and regular candidate for, the Libertarian Party of Washington

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_16699853814

GSW - alternative hypothesis, please. Please identify the other locations and means where this loon can have come across the relevant information in the timeframe.

Otherwise, if you're going to simply repeat your performance on a thread in which you succeeded only in convincing us that you are both an enabler posing as a skeptic and a fool to boot, I suggest you try to master your continual craving for attention and spare everyone the tedious necessity of scrolling past your risible comments.

Further, if it is possible to demonstrate a direct link - Lippman's already been unbalanced enough to boast openly about this and may yet simply publicly state where he found out (though some of his charming local fellow-travellers might also persuade him to muddy any waters) - it would make a great Post-Death-Threats/Post-Tabloid-Victim-Persecution/Post-Monckton's Swastikas follow-up story on the whole phenomenon of Ugly Denial.

Because, as we all know, it's there in spades (not least in that previous discussion I linked to!)

If they're going to force us to publicly scrap in what is, after all, in reality a non-debate scientifically then I think the character and motivation of much of the opposition is currently the most legitimate subject of that discussion.

@bill

No ;)

Bolt's incessant and incendiary blogs are the modern day equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

I suspect it's like that on a lot of blogs now Gaston. People like a bit of controversy, it's why they keep going back. Pity there's not much worth watching on the TV either.

GSW @16 has conceded that he has nothing of value to contribute, and I'm sure we'd all be obliged if he'd be so kind as to STFU accordingly.

bill,

That's the whole purpose of being a troll - have nothing to contribute and to obsessively demonstrate this.

Maybe you Warming alarmists should do some serious study and research into all the facts out there instead of just spewing forth invecitive put out by those that stand to gain from it.

Try reading:

http://slayingtheskydragon.com/

It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand but hopefuly you wont have much of a problem with it. These Global Warming Scientists will be the death of us if this lunacy keeps going.

I call Poe on Xavier

It's all such a smooth operation isn't it? Bolt in Australia broadcasts the ingredients of hate to the whole world, Lippmann in the US processes the ingredients into packets of pure unadulterated hate, and then sends them over to Arabia back in Australia?

And it's all perfectly legal?

Is there nothing that good people like Arabia can do to stop this? Maybe apply for a restraining order on Marc Morano?

-- frank

Ah - Slaying The Dragon, a noxious self-published tome that disputes the very notion of a greenhouse effect, which puts it in line with other great conspiracy paperbacks you can buy for $1 at garage sales.

I also note a link to the Galileo Movement on their website. I wonder if they realise that the book's thesis directly contradicts their heroes Monckton and Lindzen. I wonder if they care.

>It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand

Who was it who said common sense was nothing more than a collection of prejudices learned by age 21?

Oh, look. A fly-by-night troll who denied there were death threats being an apologist once the threats are revealed. How unsurprising.

[*Ayn Rand spam redacted. I have to draw the line somewhere. *]

[Spam alert](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/correction_andrew_bolt_likely.p…). And Randian spam at that.

I feel tainted.

Er, what does the whole Rand rant have to do with it?

Oh, there's a reference to Dr. Floyd Ferris, apparently a character in one of the unreadable novels. An interesting projection given it's being made by someone who's abusing Arabia for having the temerity to speak up on behalf of scientists who are the targets of hate-speech and death-threats

Rand's followers really don't exactly make her look very good, though, do they?

Particularly in this debate. A whole bunch of scary people who've taken to heart the notion that extremism in the defense of 'liberty' is no vice.

bill:

> Further, if it is possible to demonstrate a direct link [between Lippman and Bolt's post] - Lippman's already been unbalanced enough to boast openly about this [death threat] and may yet simply publicly state where he found out

I posted a question at Tom Nelson's blog:

> Hey Lippman, I'm curious to know where you knew of the existence of Anna-Maria Arabia in the first place. Did you know about her through Andrew Bolt's blog?

Let's see whether Nelson unscreens my question at all.

And I'm still waiting for the "We're going Galt!" folks to, um, actually go Galt. Which they'll do any time now, I'm sure, yeah...

* * *

> > It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand

> Who was it who said common sense was nothing more than a collection of prejudices learned by age 21?

The way these 'skeptics'

-- frank

Bloody Hell. Between Lippman, GSW and Michael R. Brown, we seem to have struck the motherload of trolling. We must be getting close to the wingnut singularity. As long as we are not within the event horizon.

The way these 'skeptics' use the term "common sense", one gets the idea that their notion of "common sense" has nothing to do with facts or logic...

-- frank

As Kung Fu Monkey [said](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html):

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I also recommend Wonkette's webcomic series [Ayn Rand in the 21st century](http://wonkette.com/415825/thats-objectivist-ayn-rand-in-the-21st-centu…). As Wayne's world put it, "You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl."

Lippman's comment that "I am the supposed culprit" when he then goes on to detail that he is actually, you know, the proud real culprit, suggests a certain disconnect with reality even without the other evidence.

Yes some classic trolling here, they do seem attracted by Tim ... !

And Frank "skeptics"? No deniers -
http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/06/25/mentioning-the-war/
lets call them what they are.

Michael R.Brown,

>Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and voluntary charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

Erm, uhm..... I don't think you have read the bible. The OT sets out quite prescriptive societal regulations as to how Israeli society interacted wrt to welfare e.g. Jubilee, and these are to remind individuals of personal and voluntary charity. Now the bible never sets these out as something that every society has to institute at a formal legislative level, instead you could say that the bible is agnostic on the idea of state vs private in how things are done in terms of looking after those either less fortunate or unable to be in the right place at the right time where the accumulation of wealth is concerned. Don't try and appropriate christianity or the bible to your particular ideology or Ayn Rand's own religion of self.

Lippman recalls for me the recent antics of NikFromNYC who has been polluting The Conversation, Science of Doom, and a number of other blogs recently.

There really does seem to be a gathering pool of strident Denialati who exhibit discernible mental pathologies. What suprises me is that many simply ignorant but otherwise 'normal' people believe what these crazies have to say.

Bernard J.

What interests me about the denialati we've seen recently is their steadfast belief in their own superiority e.g. GSW's comments just drip with his condescending attitude, perhaps propelling him to constantly twist things. This is different from the peevish anger of the likes of Cohenite, Codling, Carter et al and more along the lines of Monckton.

I emailed Lippmann (stan.lippmann@gmail.com) when I first saw his comment asking him where he learned about Arabia's comments, but have not received any reply.

@37

I hope you chose your words a little better than he did Tim. ;)

Jeremy

"comments just drip with his condescending attitude"

Bernard

"What suprises me is that many simply ignorant but otherwise 'normal' people believe what these crazies have to say"

@21 Xavier. I assume we can search for "Slaying the Sky Dragon" in the "fiction" section at Amazon?

One also presumes that luminaries such as Tim Ball (a half step away from being committed to a mental health care institute going by his ramblings) and so on have definitively proven all our knowledge of radiative physics totally wrong.

Thus in the process proving that most of the world's greatest 20th century Nobel Prize-winning physicists such as Planck, Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, etc, were all idiots without a clue.

For those still getting up to speed on this and while we are doing book reviews, I would strongly recommend;

http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/…

Perhaps rather confusingly, the book is a non fictional history of a work of fiction.

GSW,
It's a pretty clear sign that you're losing the argument when you try to drag in another dispute irrelevant to the topic at hand, and one that [you lost a long time ago](http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm) at that.

Why don't you run over to Andrew Blot's bog and tell him all the horrible, illegal things we've said about him; that chimp cage is always recruiting more sh!t-throwers. Here's [a brand new sea level hockey stick](http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-hockey-stick.html) for you to blither about when you get there.

This kind of one and two makes four response is probably from the kind of person that believes women bring rape on themselves by wearing certain clothing. It's the same logic isn't it.

The first thing you learn anywhere is circumstantial evidence without ruling out other avenues DOES NOT stand up, especially something as flimsy as this with questionable times, inferences and accusations of guilt founded on nothing but bias.

"the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed"

"the first comment was at 6:39am so Bolt's [ost appeared then"

The article appealed AFTER the threat was made. Yet you would have us belie it actually occurred earlier. Backdated comments does not PROVE the time the article went live. immediately your whole argument falls apart from this point.

"Lippmann denies that he sent a death threat, but plainly it was."

Says Judge Jury & Execution Tim Lambert.

2+2=5?
A fitting description of the level of "logic" in his/her/its post I suppose. I call Poe. Unless someone's sent in the winged monkeys.

@44

Agree. It's all a bit premature.

@Ben

"It's the same logic isn't it"

In your mind I think it probably is.

Just so you know in case nobody's pointed it out to you yet GSW, Montford's book is a fiction constructed from parts of conversations and his own fanzine hero worship of Steve 'pants on fire' McIntyre tarted up with footnotes.

Montford bears the same relation to climate science as Von Daniken does to archaeology. But then a combination of liars, the misguided and the deranged are all you have, while the hockey stick remains unbroken despite the hundreds of man-years your herd of ilk have invested in 'breaking' it.

Oh, how they've huffed and they've puffed to no avail - except to Steve's tip jar balance. As a consolation of course you like to whisper to each other that really it is broken and have even come to accept it as read amongst your clique. But that's merely another fiction you embrace that an ungrateful outside world refuses to recognise in the absence of any evidence. Basically you're a cult.

On the bright side, the fall of Wegman will bring that whole rotten edifice down with him.

@chek

"combination of liars, the misguided and the deranged are all you have"

Sorry chek, have you ever been to this blog before?

In "spades" as it were.

@48: Ooh. GSW's getting snotty. Please go Galt, you pathetic Randian twat.

Yes you're quite right GSW, I somehow did leave out the death, injury and child rape threateners together with their apologists and enablers on your 'side'.

Thanks for the reminder.

@chek

;)

Woohoo! Tom Nelson has unscreened my question to Lippmann (and here's a WebCite). Let's see if Lippman responds...

* * *

James Haughton:

"2+2=5" has to be a Poe... that'll explain his comments like

> Backdated comments does not PROVE the time the article went live.

Given that GSW was so quick to agree with this nonsensical 'logic', I very much suspect that 2+2=5 is some sort of anti-troll that's trying to snare the real trolls. Quick, which is you is "2+2=5"?

* * *

David Horton:

I'm still partial to the word "inactivists", as it encompasses people who ostensibly agree with the science of climate change, but deny that we need to take any action based on this science.

-- frank

Jeez Frank - the sidebar of that site looks like an introductory index to crankdom without looking any further.

I haven't followed the Lippmann confession story in any detail. Has anyone spoken to him directly about this? TV, radio, by phone etc.

Is there anything more than the blog confession with his qualifications and contact details?

It appears that Lippmann has form. See here where he made threatening phone calls to a doctor and her pregnant nurse:

http://tinyurl.com/6ap64nn

Shorter GSW with regard to the death threat against Anna-Maria Arabia, as if his prevarications regarding the other death threats and rape threats aren't enough:

1. You say Bolt's vitriolic blog post against Anna-Maria Arabia might have caused Lippmann to threaten Arabia with death? How dare you! Lawyers!
2. Don't talk about the death threat! Talk about Montford's book on the "hockey-stick illusion"!
3. The comments at Bolt's blog post are dated before the post, but this is perfectly normal!
4. Where's the evidence of a death threat, other than a confession at Tom Nelson's blog?
5. (Oh, and didn't you notice my very strong opposition to death and rape threats? Didn't you notice it? Huh? Huh?)

-- frank

GSW
I assume you and your fellow denialists think the Mann 'hockey stick' is broken. If so, how do you account for all the other proxy (and non-tree) records which show hockey sticks? Coincidence....or maybe giving us true insight into the nature of present climate compared with the past?

monty, GSW claims that the death and rape threats against climate scientists and their families, and Tim Blair's blog post, and Lippmann's proud confession were all made up by climate folks to make the noble climate inactivists look bad. I think that, in a way, answers your question.

-- frank

Besides responding at Nelson's blog, I also e-mailed Lippmann with the address given by Lambert:

> Hey Lippmann,

> I am a blogger at Decoding SwiftHack ( http://climategate.tk/ ). I refer to your blog comment at Tom Nelson's blog about your e-mail to Australian FASTS executive director Anna-Maria Arabia; you said,

> > I am the supposed culprit [who e-mailed Arabia]. I read how horrified she was that people were calling climate scientists "Nazis", so I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day.

> I'm curious to know where you knew of the existence of Anna-Maria Arabia in the first place. Did you know about her through Andrew Bolt's blog?

-- frank

@ chek
"On the bright side, the fall of Wegman will bring that whole rotten edifice down with him. " chek

Oh ye of little faith!

"Harold Camping's prediction that the world will end Saturday, May 21, 2011, is not his first such prediction. In 1992, the evangelist published a book called 1994?, which proclaimed that sometime in mid-September 1994, Christ would return and the world would end."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072… #ixzz1QJt2JGbT

He appears to be betting on some time in October 2011 now. Third time lucky?

Wegman is simply a badly maligned soul persecuted by the unbelievers. ( DC, JM are you listening?)

Heck Andrew Wakefield is a hero!

Once this deep into a cult it's had to get people out.

Eli prefers rejectionist.

Has Arabia complained to the US Embassy in Australia. Are they aware of this?

If Lippman claims he got Arabia's name from Bolt we have a story.

The fact that the usual suspects (e.g. see above) will immediately start applying the entire sordid, obfuscationist, implausible-deniability bag of tricks to the admission only adds to this story.

I have yet to encounter any site in this discussion with a lower signal-to-noise ratio than Montord's blog and the comments below it. I notice he showed up over at The Conversation to plug his book and have a run-in with John Mashey. Climategate lives! apparently; it's as if all those exonerating inquiries and multiple independent Hockeystick reconstructions have simply never happened...

GSW = el gordo or is an el gordo clone or they are all so similar their posts are indistinguishable.

Ian Forrester @ 55

From your link

"Mr. Lippmann said that something bad might happen to the doctor and her nurse and the nurse's unborn baby. He further said 'the H1N1 virus is a hoax made up by the government in order to inoculate thousands of children to get them sick.'" - Lippman claims that "the flu shot that is now given to children contains 1,600 times as much mercury as a can of tuna."

So we have an antivaxer as well as an AGW denialist. Colour me unsurprised. I am willing to bet he claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS and fluoridation is evil. I think we have crackpot bingo here. After making specific death threats against the doctor, why isn't he in custody? He is obviously mentally ill.

Very quiet in here. Anyone heard from Lippmann yet? ;)

GSW@65: No, but some of your mates have dropped by other threads. Nice company you denialists keep.

@rhwombat

Starting to look as though the whole

"blog confession with a list of his qualifications and contact details (should anybody want to have a go)"

is a bit of a pup, don't you think?

Lippmann admits having sent the threat and has form for similar behaviour in the past. In GSW's mind his refusal to admit to speak with us must mean he's innocent. Or perhaps GSW thinks it was all a hilarious prank us dummies took seriously. It wasn't a real threat! It was just a bloke having a laugh! Ha ha! Hilarious!

GSW - psycopathic behaviour enabler.

Deep down I think he pleasures in and believe scientists deserve it. Perhaps he's hoping it will shut them up for good.

@John

"Lippmann admits having sent the threat and has form for similar behaviour in the past"

"Lippmann admits" is an unsubstantiated a blog confession (with his contact details attached!). For all I know you sent it (not accusing you, but who knows)

"form for similar behaviour in the past", you think he would make a good scapegoat then?

"us dummies took seriously" you are saying you didn't?

Thats how propaganda works, some people are absolutely certain that 2+2 can equal 5 if you gloss over the detail and 5 is the answer they want.

Oh and I'm not that interested what you think "Deep down".

Allow me to quote myself in response:

>GSW - psycopathic behaviour enabler.

@70

;)

Thats how propaganda works, some people are absolutely certain that 2+2 can equal 5 if you gloss over the detail and 5 is the answer they want.

Case in point. Some people are absolutely certain the Sun must be causing some surface warming even though the Stratosphere is getting cooler.

GSW:

> "Lippmann admits" is an unsubstantiated a blog confession (with his contact details attached!). For all I know you sent it (not accusing you, but who knows)

And for all I know, GSW is a automated sockpuppet bot created by a defence contractor who happens to be hired by a law firm which in turn is hired by a denialist think-tank which in turn is hired by an oil company? No, I'm not accusing you, I'm just guessing.

I demand absolute, convincing proof that you aren't an automated sockbot, with the same standard of proof as you demand of others. Provide the proof, or shut up.

-- frank

That some people can comment on an article before the said article is posted is totally consistent with the whole inactivists modus operandi.
They "knew" they were right before global warming was ever mentioned just as they "know" that its cause is not anthropogenic even before evidence that global warming is caused by something other than human activity has even been postulated.
But I do wonder why this clairvoyant ability is only bestowed to societies most foolish and why is it so hard for these "gifted" individuals to get their point across without threats of violence or the use of fraudulent assertions?

#69 - the boring idiot troll GSW is now in Lippmann denial as well, somewhat unsurprisingly.

More errors from the fabricators.

Bolt's timestamp is the time he updated the story.
Quite simple really.

The detail of the alleged email threat is unknown.
The sender is unknown, regardless of claims by any idiot.

But enjoy your speculation about an unknown email by an unknown person, unknowingly motivated by a blog posting of unknown time.

You guys are brilliantly stupid.

factoid:

So what's your theory? That someone other than Lippmann somehow miraculously received the name and e-mail address of Anna-Maria Arabia from God Almighty himself -- an event which clearly has nothing to do with Andrew Bolt's blog post -- and sent the death threat to her?

And this real criminal was somehow able to persuade or threaten Lippmann into not revealing that he's actually been "framed", even when he's been e-mailed directly?

Do you and "GSW" happen to be two sockpuppets operated by the same master?

-- frank

Still no word from Lippmann, not on Nelson's blog, not on e-mail. Makes me wonder if he thinks he's some sort of secret operative who's sworn to secrecy regarding his brave compatriots, or whatever.

-- frank

>Bolt's timestamp is the time he updated the story. Quite simple really.

So yeah. That's not how blogging software actually works.

Now I understand this whole debate isn't about the climate.
No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement.

Just look at Bolt's blog. All updated entries are datestamped at the time of the update. Yeah just look.

Still not a shred of evidence, but the accusations continue.

Just like AGW, you demand doubters prove an alternative theory without evidence.

OK, Mr. "factoid". I have a question for you:

Are you saying that threats to kill and rape climate scientists, climate campaigners, and their families are perfectly OK, as long as we don't know 100% for sure who's making those threats?

-- frank

@factoid

"No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement."

Agree with the rest of what you put as well ;)

GSW: Begone, foul troll.

* * *

Repeating my question to Mr. "factoid":

Are you saying that threats to kill and rape climate scientists, climate campaigners, and their families are perfectly OK, as long as we don't know 100% for sure who's making those threats?

-- frank

"Just like AGW" says factoid, being unable to read a simple [report](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html) him/herself, obviously preferring the information tainted, filtered and second hand.

What a maroon.

>Now I understand this whole debate isn't about the climate. No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement.

There are only so many statements you people make we can fact check.

If we are talking facts, nowhere in the post does it say Bolt changed the timestamp by hand. Tim merely notes that it had changed. And it has.

One could suppose that if one wanted to stave off any notion that one's blog causes people to receive death threats than it might be wise to update the post with an entirely unrelated quotation, but with GSW accusing me of sockpuppeting as Stan Lippmann there are enough conspiracy theorists in the thread already.

@chek,John

He does have a point though - you guys do just seem to make up facts as you along. A lack of thinking (critical or otherwise) is to blame. Must be scary in your head.

>He does have a point though - you guys do just seem to make up facts as you along. A lack of thinking (critical or otherwise) is to blame. Must be scary in your head.

Odd coming from someone who has changed his argument multiple times.

Troll.

Let's play a game.

Pick your best piece of killer evidence against the science of global warming, and lay it out here as your case. A few paragraphs should be sufficient, with references please, and any other evidence as you see fit.

Your best case - and then we'll see how it stands up to real science.

My guess is that you can't do it.

My guess is his response will be:

";)"

It's past time to call these people out as terrorists. This is terrorism, right? The use or threat of individual assassination for your political goals.

@Bernard

I am happy for you to keep playing with yourself.

@John
;)

@John

I think this is another example;

"Odd coming from someone who has changed his argument multiple times."

Where did that "fact" come from?

Well, it looks like GSW's current hobbies are

1. insinuate that all the climate folks who report death and rape threats are liars, while being 'offended' when anyone exposes his prevarications;
2. seek out any comments that can be construed as being climate 'skeptic' and reply with a content-free 'I agree' or 'you're right' or 'indeed' or equivalent;
3. respond to all questions with a content-free ":)".

What are the chances that GSW is, um, not a software bot?

* * *

Alex:

The real question isn't what we call them, but what we do about them.

-- frank

As a side note, I wonder how many more paraphrasings of "I agree" there are that the GSWbot has yet to use. We do know that the GSWbot has only one emoticon in its bot database, which is ";)".

-- frank

@John

Seriously though, it must be really scary. BTW are you the same John that was concerned (precautionary principle) about the bed to floor chasm?

GSWbot continues to show how 'shocked' he is at the death and rape threats.

-- frank

>Where did that "fact" come from?

;)

It's clear that GSWbot's response to the reports of death threats and rape threats against climate folks and their families is furiously carpet-bomb this blog with content-free bullshit.

Do we still kid ourselves into believing that the situation will be turned around if climate researchers merely try to calmly, dispassionately lay out the facts in a series of essays?

-- frank

A call from commenter "livinginabox" at ClimateSight:

> Every scientist need to realise, it is only a matter of time before their paper is singled-out for a well-funded; orchestrated and perpetual campaign of vilification.

> Scientists need to support one another, some kind of science defence association is needed. All respectable publishing scientists need to hang together, or it's certain they will all hang separately.

> As Martin Niemoeller remarked:

> > 'First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.'

> One need only consider Professor Michael Mann's experiences: repeated fishing expeditions [Cuccinelli]; Wegman Report; FOI blizzard; CRU hack; hate-campaigns; witch-hunts and serial victim of malicious false accusations & etc. How would YOU cope?

> You know what needs to be done!

@John

;)

>"It's hard to ignore [[GSW]](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html), but i find it always repays the effort."

lb: Thanks. Excellent link, now in my bookmarks. Is John Baez any relation to Joan? If I recall, her father was a physicist.

Hey guys,
Someone asked for a few paragraphs debunking this AGW BS. Over at the Delingpole Blog, I must have 600 pages worth of explanation of this scam written during the year after Climategate. I had a hand in busting the Chicago Climate Exchange, the now defunct CCX market, on March 12, 2009. That day, Obama released the cap and trade pillar of his Caeserdom, and having realized AGW was a hoax in 2008, I flamed this climatebecile professor at Boulder, for his bitching that he was going to have to replace the semi-precious stone for Florida with a smaller stone in a few years. Since then I have written thousands of such flames to the effect that when the climate scammers are finally brought to justice, I wouldn't mind being on the Reality TV Grand Jury along with the rest of the world, plugged in with the rest of Humanity, all in the comforts of our own living room, with our remote control in hand for posing questions to the Climategate accused, voting to meet out justice for all of their mass murder and treason, since AGW has never been anything but a pure conscious Rockfeller hoax going back to 1896. Therefore, anyone denying the reality of this hoax to line their own pockets is a co-conspirator in this hoax, including journolists, lawyers, politicians, movie actors, clergy, academia, corporate, union, and financial speculators. Victory is going to be sweet for Mankind, once these criminals are brought to justice.

OK, silqworm, I get it, that all sounds so very noble... but what's with the idea of raping the children of climate folks? Is child rape part and parcel of your due process of "Reality TV Justice"?

-- frank

Now, there's one for the DSM V!

Isn't it amazing the level of enthusiasm for 'people's tribunals' and hanging us all to be found among those who are remarkably quick to label others as Nazis? Projections all round, methinks.

Incidentally, it's 'mete'.

@103: Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the bots of bore!

You know silqworm, the thing that mainly connects all those people and groups across the centuries is of course your own drool.

[rhwombat](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/correction_andrew_bolt_likely.p…)

I believe John and Joan Baez are cousins.

John Baez is indeed Joan's cousin.

Silqworm is in fact the imbecile Stan Lippmann, I believe.

silqworm does appear to be Stan Lippmann.

Indeed!?

And with '600 pages worth' of hanging out with James 'there aren't enough bullets' Delingpole IoI*, eh?

Soulmates.

*Interpreter of Interpretations

HAHAHA

Oo boy, does someone need his meds...

Stan Lippmann, I note that you ignored the questions about where you first found out about Anna-Maria Arabia, so I assume that you are, by this default, acknowledging Bolt as your source. Good to know.

Now... If you're as smart as you seem to imagine, and if you've posted thousands of "flames" on why you think that climatology is a fraudulent conspiracy, then you should by now have a one page executive summary of your 600 page magnum opus. So where is it?

And when science is demonstrated to have foretold correctly, and when the planet is baking in a CO2-enriched world, will it then be permissible for us to apply your version of 'justice' to the denialists, contrarians, rejectionists, and sundry other inactivists who will have consigned human society and the biosphere to a grim New Dark Age? If not, why not?

Just wondering, so that I can calibrate for myself my understanding of the world's necessary judicial response to the approaching climatological outcome.

Tim @ 110, so this piece of bile is Lippman's response to your email request?

Faarrk...

re 103: Hmm. We seem to have summoned a daemon - though if we use BJ's lovely black hole analogy, silqworm is the equivalent of Hawking radiation.

@114

That's not bile. It's gibberish.

Oh boy. I feel honoured. Lippmann, if it is Lippmann, has tried to appropriate my username. Rest assured, I am the real silkworm, and I remain a committed Aussie tree-hugging warmenista.

What I want to know is, why me? Has he been stalking me here or on other sites? Maybe it's because I have been so critical of Bolt. It's strange though. I don't recall criticizing Bolt here. It's mainly at Pure Poison and Larvatus Prodeo that I get stuck into him.

Here's a thought. Maybe Lippmann had no idea who I was, but wanted to post here under a stolen, or near-stolen name, so he's approached said Mr Bolt, and asked Bolt to give him the name of one of his most despised critics, and Bolt nominates me. Or am I being too paranoid?

PS. Mr Lippmann, if you're reading this, I hope the Seattle police call on you and fry your yanqui arse, you denialist jerq.

Hey guys, Someone asked for a few paragraphs debunking this AGW BS. Over at the Delingpole Blog, I must have 600 pages worth of explanation of this scam written during the year after Climategate...[continues rambling for another 16 uninterrupted lines]

After that introduction I can't be the only person wondering how many actual paragraphs those 600 pages are split into - 10, 20?

Hell, on current evidence it might just be the one.

Aj and Silkworm FTW.

Silkworm, I wondered if the 'silq' part was a wistful remembrance of a profession from which Lippmann has been disbarred...

Aj, I reckon that "jerq" is worthy of the Urban Dictionary.

Sorry I have happened rather late upon this blog. I am the author of the post at Pure Poison quoted by Tim. I can assure readers ( especially 2+2=5 @ 44, surely the most apposite name for a person of your illogical bent) that I read Bolt's original post before linking to it at Pure Poison shortly before 8.00am that day.
Readers doubting my authenticity might like to go [here](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/06/27/open-thread-june-27-ju…), where only I can log in as monkeywrench (lower case). I've left you a short message (allowing for moderator's pleasure...

@120

So what?

Hey, monkeywrench, never mind the thickie - the rest of us get the point.

gsw..."So What?" as in "every indication is that Bolt has fiddled the blog time to cover up his nastiness" is what, and dopes like you and 2+2=dumbass don't want to believe their hero has feet of manure.

So what are you going to do about it GSW?

Are you going to defend those who wish to murder other people? Are you going to support the mongers of hate?

You know, like you always do.

> Deep down I think he pleasures in and believe scientists deserve it. Perhaps he's hoping it will shut them up for good.

No, I think it's more than that. I think he knows the people who have shown their pedophilia and homicidal tendencies and since their common bond: The Free Market Uber Alles is far more important than any human life, this psychotic behaviour is completely ignorable.

GSW probably does it himself.

He's not just enabling it, he's participating in it.

> Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures;

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Mark 12:17.

You were saying?

It's amazing how many people who claim Biblical authority for their arguments don't know the Bible very well.

@wow

Where have you been? I missed you, keep both hands on the keyboard now! ;)

@Monkeywrench,

Hey you spelt your name differently this time! Is it still you, or are you a completely different Tool?

So you're willing to do nothing about it.

Quelle suprise.

Poor gsw....descending into the bottomless pit of Boltworship. It's rather ugly for a grown man to fixate on a 53-year-old journalist in such a dubious fashion a journalist who, furthermore, flunked University ( and a wank Arts degree at that). What a hero! Like all the denialist heroes, proven to be paper-thin in the intellect stakes. Then again, I suppose a man chooses his own level when it comes to hero-worship....

@monkeywrench

Why don't you pop over here more often? It's definitely the place for you. The regulars just make up facts as they go along - this thread is basically just and only that. As to their attribution to me, where do these "facts" come from?

"bottomless pit of Boltworship"

"comes to hero-worship"

Where does it say anywhere that I am a fan of Bolt? Read it! I am a fan of reasoned argument, not jumping to conclusions and critical of you guys "2+2=5" being a substitute for these things.

I do agree with you on one point though;

"It's rather ugly for a grown man to fixate on a 53-year-old journalist"

But be honest though, the one who is fixated is you! You Tool!

Sorry last post was me NOT GSE.

@ 133: Yes, we are sorry that the last post was you NOT GSE.

The GSE/GSW troll said: "The regulars just make up facts as they go along

And this from the entity who is so impressed it praises Montford's zoo as being ["knowledgeable"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/counterpoint_fails_to_make_cor…)

Too funny.

@chek

I still stand by "knowledgeable., It's a lively, healthy and educational debate over at Bishop-Hill (I won't try and draw any comparisons with here).

You still stand by:

' "GSW is likely an apologist and equivocator for those who make death threats and threaten child rape".

Bur likely that's not the half of what I really believe about enablers like you. '

your statement earlier?

Oh and yes, you guys do just make up "facts", the more sick they are, the more pleasure you get out of it.

GSW:

> I am a fan of reasoned argument,

Hahahahahahaha...

Let's revisit GSW's, um, "reasoned argument":

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats [against themselves and their families]?
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. Ooh, I can hurl insults! Look, I'm such a mature adult, unlike you immature kids!
7. Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
8. I'm so offended by the suggestion that I support child rape! Can't you clearly see my strong opposition to threats of child rape?
9. Repeat one of the above 'arguments' at random.
10. Go to 9.

Yeah, GSW's "reasoned argument".

-- frank

No, frank, GSW is a fan of reasoned arguments since he doesn't bother with them but they add the air of respectable debate to his insane denialist screed.

Also it takes no brainpower to make up a crap argument, but a lot of brainpower to make a reasoned argument against the craptastic argument he makes.

I am attacked for a typo by a man who can't type, and who obviously has a tenuous grasp on reality. Alzheimer's is a sad disease.

Monkeywrench,
I think it's very unfair of you to assume that GSW has Alzheimer's. Using my medical degree from the University of East Bumcrack, I have determined that the disease in question is in fact tertiary syphilis.

Sorry, James H, while I hate to publicly disagree when we are, as you know, alumni of the same noble institution (remember old Prof. Felching of a winter morning, tossing ferrets to the College vulture? Ah, happy days...) what we're witnessing is clearly Ayn Rand's Syndrome, or Libertarian Aspergers.

Trolls like GSW have a choice about their mental acuity and the gibberish they spew.

People with Alzheimers have little or no choice about their condition and what they remember or say.

Marc Morano continues to post e-mail addresses:

http://www.webcitation.org/5zslPpNZ3

Notice how the e-mail addresses are all, um, biased towards one side of the 'debate' spectrum? Of course, Morano was merely putting up the e-mail addresses to 'promote healthy discussion' or some such, yessirree.

-- frank

@5

Hey, this is good news.

First they ignore you (the debate is over, the science is settled), then they laugh at you (and call you deniers, flat earthers, Big Oil shills, right-wing nutjobs, and worse), then they fight you (or at least threaten to -- tattooing, gassing, 10:10, high crimes), then you win.

Only one more step to go.

Only if you are so far down the evolutionary scale that you consider screwing up our commonly owned, finely tuned biosphere for moneyed interests a 'win'.

So what does that make you Rick?

A cockroach?

Bradford, where are you deniers being ignored? Don't equate your arguments being either discredited or unable to achieve peer-review as being "ignored".

>then they fight you (or at least threaten to -- tattooing, gassing, 10:10, high crimes)

In Bradford's world not only is imagination real, but sarcasm or satire are as well. What is it with the right and political correctness?

Needless to say we've been listening to the skeptics gloat about "winning" (whatever that means) for years now. If we could have a dollar for every time a skeptic has boasted about the "final nail in the coffin" or that the "house of cards is about to collapse" we'd all be very rich.

Yet the evidence keeps piling on and the pesky temperature keeps rising higher.

Have you informed the biosphere that you are "winning"?

Rick Bradford, can you give us your e-mail address so that we can publish it in the same manner as Marc Morano?

-- frank

> What is it with the right and political correctness?

Oh, that's easy -- we hate it.

We regard it (along with radical environmentalism) as one of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century.

It is pervasive and dangerous -- much more so than your silly apocalyptic climate fantasies.

I asked Rick Bradford:

> Rick Bradford, can you give us your e-mail address so that we can publish it in the same manner as Marc Morano?

When are you going to stop dodging this question and actually answer it, Rick?

-- frank

> Oh, that's easy -- we hate it.

Actually, you seem to love it. You see "Political Correctness" whenever you turn around.

> unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century.

Just like capitalism's crushing failures in the 20th and 21st Centuries...

> It is pervasive and dangerous

How can it be dangerous if it's failed crushingly?

Wow, to get back on topic, Rick Bradford apparently thinks that the best way to combat this 'leftist political correctness' thang is to go around threatening climate folks with death -- oh, and not forgetting to threaten to rape their children for good measure.

Perhaps he thinks the moral prohibition against raping kids is merely another one of those 'political correctness' things that should be thrown away. All hail rape!

I'm still waiting for Rick to post his e-mail address so that we can broadcast it loudly in the manner of Marc Morano. Rick Bradford, you game?

-- frank

Yes, apparently to Rick, rape will remove all political correctness which is a far greater danger than wholesale manslaughter and kiddie porn.

Weird bloke.

The police ought to check his computer for KP.

Ah well.

And while climate scientists are dealing with death threats and rape threats against themselves and their children, in comes Chris Mooney, who sees the Heartland International Conference of Climate Cranks and thinks that this whole global warming inactivism thing is merely all a huge "misunderstanding".

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Hey Mooney, what is the point of using the phrase "Republican War on Science" when you keep refusing to deal with it like dealing with a war?

I want to throw up.

-- frank

You'll notice that Chris still gets called all sorts of crank by denialists on there, despite his attempts to "reach out".

Rather like Obama, attempting to "reach out" and get general support from his opposition and being called all in a heap.

Political correctness is just whatever those in power deem acceptable.

'Twas always thus.