Here's something that is partly relevant to discussions.
In what way, StuPid?
Or is this yet another completely content free post from you?
No need for the circus manager to call for silence in this tent anymore. Only one freak of nature left. Poor Wow.
Ding Dong the witch is dead....and so is this blog.
Happy congratulations to President Trump and Vicepresident Pence for winnng the presidential election against the morbid political establishment in Washington. They will bring the U.S. back on track and overturn quickly many weak decisions by Obama, like the climate nonsense.
Jeffie and the other outcast doltoids will go mad in the next four years and will have to fight in vain for any success of their ideology.
OK, so none of the dumb collective know what Stupid was trying to say, so I think we can safely conclude nothing was meant.
PS clinton won more votes, but how can that matter in a democracy, eh?
What was I trying to say Wow????
It certainly had nothing directly to do with the US election.
As far as the US election goes....I'm grateful it's over. It was so nasty from both sides.
There is a difference between a republic and a democracy, and there is a reason for the electoral college....but Wow chooses to highlight his stupidity up to the very end.
Re the Attenborough article why bring it up now? Nearly four years after it was published?
Turn out the lights the party's over.
It was so nasty from both sides.
I'm glad we all agree that Trump was so nasty.
You're correct Turboblocke.
It was published in 2013.
I brought it up because it was relevant to discussions.
The White House climate communicators did Trump a real favor .
"What was I trying to say Wow????"
Well it seems even you can't work it out!!!! You know, telling us what you WEREN'T talking about isn't really saying anything about what you WERE talking about.
Care to try again, you moron?
"Re the Attenborough article why bring it up now? Nearly four years after it was published?"
Stupid doesn't have any opinion on why it says anything. Opinions can be dangerous to the seriously deluded like him and the moron collective.
"There is a difference between a republic and a democracy, and there is a reason for the electoral college"
But Betty doesn't know and can't say what the reason was, so tries to whinge about others instead of elucidating...
But nobody was surprised.
Rus, what are YOU trying to say? Nobody feels like going to that blogroll to find out, so sans your explanation, it will be ignored by everyone who values their time and effort.
I see that the usual blowhard idiots like Betula, Kim and Olaus jump straight back in here. Note how they try and equate and conflate the field of climate science with this blog - as if Deltoid's demise somehow proves they are right. What a bunch of complete idiots. And Betual then tries feebly to defend his country's corporatocracy by suggesting it is a Republic. What a hoot. Corporations run the show. Right now in the US you have half the electorate who are mightily pissed off that a narcissistic, sexist, racist buffoon won, and the other half who are going to be mightily pissed off when, as is alrweady happening, he fills government posts with shills from the corporate establishment which he professed to despise during the campaign. Trump doesn't give a shit about the unemployed auto workers or those who lost their jobs as a result of deindustrialization from the neoliberal policies foisted on them ever since Reagan was in power. He will serve the interests of the corporate elites.
People like Kim and Betula are also dumb enough to think that Hillary Cltinon was a liberal. Given that some of her most fervent supporters were prominent neocons like Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, by their reckoning these angerls of death and US exceptionalism must be liberals too.
It wouldn't have mattered one iota if Clinton won or if Trump won. Its the same plutocratic system entrenched. Both would ensure that the planet continues to go to hell.
As for Stu's 4 year old article, of course Attenborough is correct. Humans are intent on annihilating our own ecological life support systems, and Trump and the other old farts who voted for him are happy enough to see that this happens as quickly as possible. Right now, there is less ice by far in the Arctic and Antarctic than at any time in recorded history for this date. The Arctic has lost 28% of ice extent in only 29 years. This is going to be by far the warmest year on record. And there are many other signs of imminent ecological collapse, as the articles in the journal Science pointed out earlier this year. The Living Planet Index estimates that the planet has lost almost 60% of genetic diversity in only 46 years. Its madness. And idiots like Betula, Kim and Olaus think that is nothing to worry about.
The same idiots who think that the only scientific discussions about AGW and other anthropogenic threats occurs on Deltoid. Quacks, all of them. Cannot discuss even basic science.
There you go Wow.
Jeff spotted the relevance to previous discussions
However, Jeff seems to like reading between lines and throwing insults.
To pick up on an earlier thread.
Which humans are intent on not worrying about it and wanting to see it happen as fast as possible?
If population increase is a major issue as Attenborough et al are saying, even to the point of claiming humans are a plague, what's the scientific answer to solve this problem?
'Which humans are intent on not worrying about it and wanting to see it happen as fast as possible?'
Except I just overtook you on this and am already out of sight.
Population and consumption are both issues. The I=PAT equation is relevant here. The fact is that, as Noam Chomsky pointed out after the election pf Trump, the most dangerous organisation on Earth is the Republican Party. They seem intent on driving humanity into the abyss as quickly as possible.
I have told you what the answer is before but you refuse to listen. You think that we can work within the current system and achieve sustainability and prosperity. I don't.
With respect to insults, I left you off the list, Stu2 so be happy. Its remarkable that, given this will be the warmest year by a country mile, the usual suspects refuse to change their views. Recall how Olaus was banging on about a 'hiatus' just 2-3 years ago., even though this was dismissed by the scientific community for the most part. The past 2 years in particular have been rough on AGW deniers, given the dramatic increase in surface temperatures, so they've had to regroup and have been busily and desperately reconfiguring their arguments. All they have left now is that NASA and the NOAA have been cooking the books. Tampering with data. Yes people, this is their latest mantra.
Note also how they are steering well away from discussing the extent of ice at both poles. This might be because both poles are currently at record low levels in terms of ice cover. Symptoms of AGW are everywhere. But deniers are stuck in their own cement shoes.
IMO anyone who raises the population issue use it as an excuse to avoid doing anything now. The current population's consumption is beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on a fall in numbers of people is unfeasible as it will take too long. The only variable that we can affect significantly is consumption.
#22 - there is a bad paradox in it. Since actually affluency leads to dropping birth rates.
'IMO anyone who raises the population issue use it as an excuse to avoid doing anything now.'
And perhaps to lure people into thinking about some sort of gigamurder.
The Monckton has decided to entertain us at Carbon Brief, Jeff may like to take in this crass statement of his
Everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adapt, and there will in any event be far more winners than losers.
Then there is a Pat Frank trying to take on climate models and pushing nonsense such as:
The warming indicated in climate model simulations is merely the expression of an assumption. It is not a unique solution derived from a valid physical theory of climate.
Thanks for pointing out more hilarious musings from Clueless Lord Monckton, Lionel.
"Everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adapt, and there will in any event be far more winners than losers"
Bullshit from a brainless twerp, Monckton. He's making this up. No empirical evidence at all to support it; its wishful thinking a man whose scientific acumen would land him a fail at high school. I wonder how this idiot explains the loss of almost 60% of genetci diversity across the biosphere since 1970. Yeah, we'll adapt. And so will nature. As systems implode and collapse around us, all will be well. This guy is like the fiddlers playing aboard the stricken Titanic. "It won't sink! It can't sink! Besides, a bit of salt water is good for us!".
"There you go Wow.
Jeff spotted the relevance to previous discussions"
Um, how do we know that? Not even you knew that was the relevance, and since you were the putative author (we know you don't do anything but echo someone else's postings), that cannot have been YOUR thoughts on its relevance.
So a fail again, StuPid.
"And perhaps to lure people into thinking about some sort of gigamurder."
Of, and this is real important, OTHER PEOPLE.
The population issue is only brought up to blame the third world and want THEM to die off, just so that the brainless idiot prattling can continue to overconsume and pretend they're not evil scumsucking morons.
Jeff Hardley and the other mentally ill wannabe communists on doltoid: you must learn that you offend American citizens who have elected President Trump. Therefore you are mean non-democratic assholes. You better hang yourself on the next tree. Should we democrats send you ropes?
Are you claiming that Attenborough and others want to blame the third world and want them to die off & also brainless & wanting to continue to overconsume & etc?
Kim, or whoever you are, please seek medical help immediately. There is clearly something wrong with you. Your posts are so utterly puerile and devoid of basic intellectuality that one can only wonder what twisted and demented thought processes are in your head. You aren't funny, you aren't intelligent, but you are clearly mentally challenged.
Stu, your style of debate is to lead us to directed conclusions. However, you aren't good at it. You ignore plenty of empirical evidence that humans are destroying our ecological life support systems in favour of trying to shift the debate in political directions that you think you can win. As I have said before, you can't debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag. Attenborough is partially correct, but as I and others have said, per capita consumption and social injustice are also major factors. You appear to want to debate the blame game while our planet goes to hell. Why stick with Attenborough? Plenty of scientists and economists have alluded to social injustice as a major driver. Either way, our species is in trouble. I have many times argued that we need full cost pricing and a steady state approach, and you, with your clearly limited knowledge base consistently dismiss this without any attempt at discussion. The current capitalist system under the guise of neoliberalism is clearly incompatible with a sustainable future. Try and address this if you can.
Kim, one final point. Since the average IQ of the average Trump voter is in single digits, I have no qualms in offending them.
Meanwhile, in cloud cuckoo land, Anthony Watts, a nothing blowhard with an ego almost as large as Donald Trump's, is celebrating 10 years of his scientifically obnoxious blog. I could not help but break out in laughter at his roll call of 'luminaries' that he wished to thank. Each and every one of these clowns is as obnoxious at Watts himself. And few if any of them are really statured scientists. Pick out your favourite comedian from this list:
Steven McIntyre, Dr. Roger Pielke Senior, Dr. William Gray (deceased), Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy, Dr. John Neilsen-Gammon, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Chip Knappenberger, Willis Eschenbach, Evan Jones, Bob Tisdale, Christopher Monckton, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. S. Fred Singer, Kenneth Haapala, Tom Nelson, John Goetz, Jim Steele, Gary Boden, Frank Lansner, Larry Hamlin, William Briggs, Dennis Ambler, Bill Illis. Jeff Id, Indur Goklany, Alec Rawls, Verity Jones, Joe D’Aleo, John Coleman, David Middleton, Eric Worrall. Dave Stealey, Mike Lorrey, Mike Jonas, Robert E. Phelan (deceased) Charles Rotter, Steven Mosher, David Little, Dr. Ira Glickstein, Dr. Susan Crockford, Marc Morano, Matt Dempsey, Chris Horner, Myron Ebell, David Schnare, E. Calvin Beisner, Caroline Kettle, Viv Forbes, Bob Fernley-Jones, Pat Frank, Larry Kummer, Kip Hansen, Rud Istvan, Kest Green, Andrew Montford, Barry Woods, Dr. Benny Peiser, Scott Gates, David Hoffer, Dr. David Demming, Wim Rost, David Burton, Ronald Voisin, Mr. James Waters, Richard Drake, David Archibald, Andy May, Jo Nova, Simon from Sydney, Andi Cockroft, Poptech, Dr. David Evans, Alan Moran, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Chris Field, John A., Mike Bastasch, Matt Drudge, Mark Steyn, Melissa Howes, Nic Lewis, Jos de Laat, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., James Delingpole, Paul Driessen, Russell Cook, Joseph Bast, Jim Lakely, James Taylor, Charlie Martin, Leo Goldstein, Roger L. Simon, Lucia Liljegren, Janice Moore, Marisa Mark, Ed Berardi, Dr. Robert Brown, Marcel Crok, Dr. Richard Tol, Stephen and Dr. Mary Graves, Juan Slayton and Josh (cartoonist extraordinaire).
Morano, Delingpole, et al ad nauseum. What a sordid cast of characters. And Watts pays homage to them. I'd round this lot up and send them all to the moon where they will deny the moon is made of anything other than green cheese. Yes folks, this is the best that AGW denial can dredge up. This is their creme de la creme.
Good list at #32 Jeff.
Dr Robert Carter (deceased)
The best of Monckton from Carbon Brief
The ideological monoculture of totalitarian pseudoscience lacks the self-critical faculty owing to social convenience, political expediency and, above all financial gain.
These canting profiteers of doom lack the capacity even to contemplate, still less to concede, the facts that the world has not warmed at even half the predicted rate; that sea level is barely rising; that the area of the globe under drought has declined; that changes in precipitation, in patterns of flooding and in storminess are within natural bounds, that south-polar temperature has not risen during the satellite era, that the current processes for determining climate sensitivity contain serious mathematical and physical errors that account for the wild official exaggeration of climate sensitivity, and that the cost of climate mitigation today exceeds by several orders of magnitude the later and far lesser cost of adaptation the day after tomorrow.
Perhaps it would be better if Mr Spiers actually did some research, rather than merely trotting out a long-outdated and discredited Party Line. I know what the Party Line says: the BBC broadcasts aspects of it daily.
No scientific or economic arguments to make, then: just a head-banging conformity with the Party Line. Six million people a year are dying because they do not have electricity. The international community could give them that by building coal-fired stations and grid interconnects, but instead they squander trillions on making barely-existent global warming go away, and allow a Holocaust a year to die. And Mr O'Brien doesn't care.
These are serious discrepancies. If Lachlan is not willing to face them, then he is - as so many in these threads (some of them paid) tend to - simply parroting a half-understood and long-outdated and discredited Party Line.
Fortunately, there is no need to "transition off fossil fuels". The chief reason why the "Democrats" (a misnomer, that) want to destroy the coal industry is because its captains used to be their Republican opponents' largest donors. There is no legitimate scientific case against fossil fuels, purely a totalitarian-Left political case.
The problem with so-called "renewables" is one of energy density, intermittency and cost. They should not be regarded as a panacea, and they should certainly not be subsidized. Carbon dioxide is net-beneficial, even on IPCC's analysis, until the world is at least 1 K warmer than it is today: and even then the imagined disbenefit is imaginary.
The world will continue to warm, but far more slowly than had been predicted. Everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adapt, and there will in any event be far more winners than losers. The climate scare is over. Move along.
Mr Smith appears to believe - for he is of that cohort that believes in the Party Line as it is handed down unto him - that "the climate is warming faster now than at any time since the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. That is not true.
There are many more such illogicalities in the current literature put out by the profiteers of doom and environmentalist totalitarians. But few now give them any serious credence.
It is ludicrous to assert that CO2 is killing coral reefs. Corals first achieved algal symbiosis when there was an order of magnitude more CO2 in the air than today. They are therefore well adapted even to quite sudden changes in its concentration or partial pressure.
The moral imperative is to give everyone affordable electricity as soon as possible: and that means coal-fired power.
It is not 6 million that need electricity: it is 1.2 billion. And coal-fired generation is indeed the cheapest source of electricity, taking account the levelized-cost analysis, which takes into account both the build-and-maintain cost and also the cost of fuel.
As for the hapless and very silly John Abraham, who was compelled by his own bible college to tone down his anti-Monckton rhetoric, he has been entirely refuted. He is a pathetic little ideologue who has no concern for the truth and very little knowledge of the relevant physics, mathematics or economcs. He is also a serial liar, having deliberately misrepresented me to various fellow-ideologues among the scientific community in order to get anti-Monckton quotes from them - quotes that, one by one, they are retracting.
Best not to quote him as an authority. He is unaware of the distinction between truth and falsehoodl.
Mr Abraham lost the scientific argument against me; he then tried to renew it, this time in the peer-reviewed journals, and lost again, badly. He now writes for The Guardian - and one need say no more than that.
What is fascinating about the ideologues who infest these threads is that their pseudo-moralizing certainty is inversely proportional to their scientific and economic knowledge.
With my distinguished colleagues, I have now prepared a further paper saying what the largest of these physical error is. It is now out for review. Watch this space.
Childish phrases such as "cherry-picking" and "Monckton's been debunked" do not advance the discussion, nor do they represent the truth, which is a) that global warming is occurring and will continue to occur at a rate substantially below that which had originally been predicted; and b) that the cost of mitigating global warming today is 100-1000 times the cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow; and c) that while the "international community" squanders trillions on trying to play King Canute six million people a year - a Holocaust - are dying because the "international community" is denying them the cheap, reliable, base-load electricity they could and would otherwise get from coal-fired power.
This, in the end, is the moral imperative, and those who have denied the world's poorest the electric power they urgently need will in due course be held to account for their frauds and their crimes against humanity.
And that is how we know that low estimates of climate sensitivity are correct. But this is perhaps a bit too sciencey for BBD
BBD is out of his league. Like so many totalitarian socialists, he parrots the Party Line and recites papers he thinks support the Party Line without having any interest in or understanding of either their arguments or their merits.
I was intending to carry through picking out his lordship’s indicators of a troubled mind but began to feel too nauseous at this juncture. Besides that is quite enough to present the picture.
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Way to go Kim trying to clog up space and make people shoot past my post at #34
Boy do you look clever, NOT!
You are ignoring the fact that there is plenty of evidence that overthrowing systems, attempting to shut down discussions and outright, out of control hubris do not create good outcomes for our ecological systems.
Kim: the popular vote elected Clinton. The "system" will probably elect Trump.
It looks like the Cold War was won by Russia after an own goal in extra time from the USA. I would how intelligence sharing with your allies in the Syria situation is going to fare once a Russian puppet is sitting in the White House...
"I wonder how..." Not "I would how..."
I don't know if you're going to be sad or happy about this. It looks like you've lost your crown as the dumbest contributor to Deltoid. It's sitting firmly on lil' Kim's pointy head. Friend of yours?
#27, well noted: that is the point.
Jeff, just because I don't bother come here and comment on your hate ramblings doesn't mean that the hiatus is gone. The warming is still not accelerating, ergo a hiatus. And the latest IPCC report agrees with me that there is a hiatus. :-)
Hate on, my friend.
Bark for us, lappers! Good boy, lappers!
"Kim: the popular vote elected Clinton. The “system” will probably elect Trump. "
Odd, isn't it, how whiney they get over "the system" and "the elites" overriding the popular opinions (theirs, of course), but when it comes down to it, they'll prefer the system if the popular vote doesn't go their way.
You are ignoring the fact that there is plenty of evidence that overthrowing systems, attempting to shut down discussions and outright, out of control hubris do not create good outcomes for our ecological systems.
You're not just ignoring it, Stupid, you're the one engaging in those deleterious activities. With gusto.
The problem isn't what you claim it to be, that's merely a smokescreen. If you REALLY cared, you'd act much differently, but that doesn't give the answer you want, so you reimagine reality as something more pleasing to your ego.
Are you claiming ..."
I'm claiming that YOU do not know what YOU are talking about, merely parroting without knowledge (or even care of knowledge) what you have been told to say. Then when others make your claim for you, you prate on about how that proves you knew what you were saying all along, when all it proves is that you will batten down on anything that hides your cowardice and ignorance.
Nothing at all about Attenborough, though this is merely another "LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!" attempt from your pitiful brain.
The moral imperative is to give everyone affordable electricity as soon as possible: and that means coal-fired power.
Even if we concede the claim of moral imperative (unsupported by anything more than the bare claim), there's nothing in that moral imperative that demands it be coal fired.
Mad Chris Monckfish hasn't lost the plot: there was no plot to begin with.
Attenborough is one of those who argue that population is an issue yet @#27 you make a strong claim about people who do that.
Well this is pretty shitty.
Bit at a loss for any other words.
...irrelevant to the fact that you didn't and still don't know what the hell you were talking about when you posted the link. And irrelevant to the fact that someone else here proposed a vague and pointless "point" for your post and you just latched onto it as if you meant to say that all along. And merely proves that you haven't a clue or reason for what you posted.
... warming is still not accelerating, ergo a hiatus.
In what language would that be a correct definition of hiatus?
Unfortunately, no definitions exist in fruitloop, since dictionary is a defined word, and fruitloops like Stupid don't do words with pre-defined meanings because they tie them down to an argument that can be traced.
Traceless fruitloop is all they can manage safely.
Our friend O'louse is not very bright, but he can for sure be very dishonest. As if we didn't notice the nice little sidestep (maybe he's a disco dancer) from pause in the warming to pause in the acceleration. But you can't discount the idea that he's so dumb he doesn't know what acceleration actually means.
And of course there a couple of other issues which the deniers don't address, either because it's very inconvenient to their narrative or they're just too dumb to understand: the one satellite data set which showed that pause had to be corrected and the corrected data shows no pause; even if the data were correct and there was a pause in the warming of 16 years, what significance does it have in terms of the long term trend. As the Skeptical Science escalator graph shows, you can cherry pick any number of so-called pauses and yet the warming trend is still up.
I think one has to accept the fact that O'louse and other deniers _ your typical Trump supporters _ cannot be reasoned with, either because they don't have the intelligence (look at his friend Kim _ he's even more stupid) or they suffer from severe cognitve dissonance. There's no point even getting frustrated or annoyed with them.
"Well this is pretty shitty"
Not to deniers _ they're dancing in the streets. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory (O'louse and Kim franctically looking it up...hahaha).
Jp, what you write is too silly for me to comment. There should be a minimum of intelligence to be visible in your blather, which is not, therefore:
*** Ignore button pressed down *****
Continuing to avoid the issues and resorting to personal insults does nothing to foster discussions.
Your behaviour here reveals more about you than anything else.
#53 " inconvenient to their narrative "
I think these words are very perceptive.
People looking for the truth of a matter are
compelled to seek out things that may falsify an idea as a way to a higher degree of certainty.
Ignorant people just ignore
any contrary data. Which ironicly #55 does
I see the same pattern repeated in
dialog involving xenophobic behavior
and attitudes and am often flummoxed
at how a xenophobic mentality operates when
faced with data.
Your words have brought some understanding
Jp and i thank you.
Late thought on above.
When reality is REALLY in ones
face but the denier ego still wont accept it,
often the mechanism of conspiracy theory
saves the day and ego is buttressed further.
Its a quite horrible affliction really.
But one that gets no pity from me.
Whats really amazing is the mostest convenient thing
to a deniers narrative, the Climategate emails, is
not remotely inconvenient to people looking for truth.
It was like a surprise audit and the systems and people
Shows just how wacked out deniers are.
This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics.
#60 article uses the idea
that dickheads are being pushed
into being dickheads.
Thats a load of crap and people
need to take responsibility for
Not " oh the greens made me a dickhead,
im not responsible "
How typically pathetic.
Dickheads orta learn about the difference
between proactive and reactive.
"Continuing to avoid the issues and resorting to personal insults does nothing to foster discussions."
Yes, that's precisely what you're attempting here yet again, StuPid. I already pointed out how your "best" options are to proclaim the errors of yourself onto others, yet here you are doing it still.
Not too bright, are you?
"This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics."
How, StuPid? Or do you want someone else to do your thinking for you yet again?
So far, 64 comments for November....27% of them from Wow.
Who said this blog isn't dead?
And your contribution to alleviating that situation is what, Betty? Making it worse? Really can't complain about a "problem" that you are part of, can you.
PS how is Tony's begging for money off you morons going, now that his audience is so still and quiet in the face of reality blowing a storm in their faces?
PPS if you were really offended by this blog, you wouldn't be visiting it, would you, dearie?
Thankfully Betula, the evidence behind AGW is stronger than ever, whatever the state of this blog. Problem is that you are so dense that you think that Deltoid is it as far as climate change is concerned. What a twit you are.
As for hatred, Olaus, that's your department. You loathe humanity because idiots like you are quite content to see humanity trash the biosphere and undermine the quality of life for future generations. Oh, and by the way, your hiatus never existed. This year has well and truly put that little canard into the ash heap. It's warming as rapidly as ever. Right now as I write ice extent at both pokes is lower than at any same date in recorded history. The situation in the Arctic is especially alarming. And all kinds of other biotic and abiotic proxies across the planet are proving categorically that it is warming. The science was well and truly settled 15 years ago. Right now the scientific community is focused on Working Group 4 of the IPCC document - what should we be doing about AGW. It's the kindergarten-level brigade of deniers like you who are stuck in Working Group 1. It shows how influential vested interest groups are that the public debate has been consistently dragged back to the beginning when the scientific community by and large had moved to the final chapter.
Oops... autocorrect... poles...
That's an interesting interpretation.
The article actually highlighted that perhaps current political behaviour - as you say - 'orta learn about the difference between proactive and reactive'.
Your problem, or shall I say one of your problems, Stu2, is that you rely on gutter journalism from the corporate media. I never took many of your links seriously, but the latest one from a comedy rag called 'Crikey' and your infamous SkyNews Interview with that reformed jihadist are among the most abominable. You are clearly supine in your mind set, swallowing whole whatever bullshit your mainstream media dishes out to you.
That's so hilarious and so spectacularly ironic Jeff Harvey.
Meanwhile. Out here where I live, a whole heap of us, including several PhD scientists, are quietly ignoring the politics and kicking some measureable, worthwhile TBL goals.
And what on Earth, Stu2 you simpleton, has that got to do with the appalling article you linked to above in a rag called 'Crikey'? For that matter, what the hell do you think I am doing every day? I am every bit if not more qualified than the scientists that you work with. I am teaching courses on science and advocacy, writing a paper on climate change and Polar bear demographics and doing y best to educate my students about the level of the dire predicament we are facing.
You cannot fucking well ignore the politics if humans are to scrape through this century. If we don't change course politically, then nothing scientists do is going to matter. What we do has to be incorporated into political and economic decisions and processes. Or don't you understand that!? I have little respect for you because in the past you've downplayed AGW by linking to shills and academics on the fringe in order to give the impression that its not a serious problem. You remind me of the worst kind of denier: the luke warmer. Now get this through your head: we are staring into the abyss as a result of worshipping the neoliberal capitalist God and attendant procrastination. We need more activists, rebels, and civil disobedience if we are going to have any change of a protracted survival. The evidence of collapse is all around us if you bothered to look and to read.
It's OK Jeff.
It's exactly your type of behaviour that the article I linked was highlighting.
And how would you know which scientists are more qualified and further, who cares?
It's results that actually matter.
Stu2, you know fuck all about me. The Crikey article was trash. The kind of garbage that people like you suck up. So far there are no results. We are speeding our descent to hell. Your puny efforts mean nada. A suitable analogy is that you are trying to block a massive hole in a leaking dike with a single grain of sand. Unless we dismantle the current form of capitalism we are screwed. No ands, ifs or buts.
Read and learn:
Here is the punch line: CAPITALISM IS, OVERWHELMINGLY, THE MAIN DRIVER OF PLANETARY ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
Hardley - "what the hell do you think I am doing every day?"....." I am teaching courses on science and advocacy, writing a paper on climate change and Polar bear demographics and doing y best to educate my students about the level of the dire predicament we are facing."
So when you aren't writing to yourself on this blog, you are attempting to brainwash others who you assume are as dumb as you are...
Your catastrophic view of humanity is the type of behaviour that the article was referring to.
People like me who do care about stuff you say we don't care about have no time for your incessant negativity.
So ironically, you're right @#73 when you say that you think so far there are no results.
There are plenty of 'results', just not the political and socio-economic results you want.
Betula, you don't need brainwashing. You are as thick as two planks as it is and clearly swallow the bullshit you read on blogs and in the media that you like. I am about a billion times more qualified than you to discuss the various scientific areas, but heck, don't let that get in the way of what you believe.
AGW deniers on this blog are people like you, Kim, Olaus and GSW; what a sordid lot you are. If you idiots represent the 'general public' then no wonder we are fucked.
An excellent point made by Mike Roddy (always reliably sensible post) over at Real Climate on the misuse of forest resources. The sad state of forests in the Pacific North West would be familiar already if our resident ignoramuses had bothered to take up my suggestion and read Carl Safina's Song for the Blue Ocean: Encounters Along the World's Coasts and Beneath the Seas.
They would also understand why I groaned inwardly when I noticed that a new series of 'Tanked' is being broadcast. Tanked is a series of stories of the construction of large and complex tropical fish tanks for the ultra-rich to imprison brightly coloured tropical fish, fish likely caught by using the rather nasty cyanide cloud technique ensuring most die before being shipped and even then many of the survivors succumb within weeks due to damaged internal organs. Sorry, it is not an activity which should be encouraged.
Humans are in severe need of reality checks, and they are now being delivered. Although the likes of David Rose once again in The Daily Mail Fail try to make readers avoid the obvious. See recent posts at 'Open Mind' and 'And Then There is Physics'.
Stu, I don't have a catastrophic view of humanity, I have a catastrophic and very realistic view of the predicament that humanity has created. This is not incessanmt negativity so much as being an honest interpretation of the current situation. You may think that data showing almost 60% of global ecosystems are on the brink of collapse, or that the planet has lost 50-60% of genetic diversity since 1970 to be trivial matters; I most certainly DO NOT. Like other intellectual lightweights who vastly exaggerate their knowledge base, you just do not understand the seriousness of the current situation. You believe that tweaking a program here, or slightly modifying a policy there will suffice to save the living world for destrcution. You talk abolut 'results': well the results of unbridled capitalism being wrought on nature is that we have pushed many natural systems to the brink, with the sheeple out there embracing more and more right wing populist governments, lashing out at minorities and immgrants for what has been wrought upon by the mutant form of capitalism called neoliberalism. Instead of facing the abyss into which we are headed we seem intent on speeding the descent. The election of a bonafide lying idiot like Trump, along with swings to the right in Europe and elsewhere, prove my point.
So don't come at me with your puerile comments about socio-economic 'results'. These results are a disaster for nature and ultimately for us.
As a presceint example, one has only to look at the state of ice extent in the Arctic and the global state of the cryosphere. Its a calamity. The graphs are terrifying. Anyone who says that they look OK needs their head examined. The loss of almost 60% of genetic diversity over less than 50 years is a total disaster. And yes, Stu, catastrophic.
Note how, despite this being by miles the warmest year on record, deniers have found new ways to spin and downplay it. First we had the 'data manipulation' canard; now its ALL down to El Nino and there is no warming. How utterly bloody pathetic can these vile vermin get? Clearly there are no lies that they won't embrace, no distortions they won't use, to promulgate their bankrupt arguments. All the while we are rapidly running out of time.
And Stu2 smiles through all of it, happily believing that we are on the right track. What a moron.
"Your problem, or shall I say one of your problems, Stu2, is that you rely on gutter journalism from the corporate media."
The other one being he parrots the meme he's been given whilst being unable or at least unwilling to find out WHY he's been given it.
Betty, meanwhile, thinks that numerology will hide the fact that what it REALLY means is "I want Wow to stop showing up StuPid's stupidity because it's embarrassing to my cause!".
"Your catastrophic view of humanity "
is your attribution of Jeff's view of humanity, and without any jot or tittle of evidence to support your whinging assertion. WHY is Jeff's view of humanity "catastrophic"? And what the hell is up with you chicken littles with your obsession over the word???
"So when you aren’t writing to yourself on this blog"
Oh dear, betty, do you not know how to read? From one of Jeff's posts:
Stu2, you know fuck all about me.
Or do you not know how to read posts unless they're empty of fact, such as yours and Stupid's?
I want better warmists here as the idiots are no intellectual challenge. "Genetic diversity" decreased? Only a 100% ill brain can express such bullshit. "Ecosystem Services": man, nature is no service institution, moron. "Corporate media"?? You are a nasty asshole.
JefHardWowLioNonames: you are wrong on all scales and exhausted by german angst
You don't want better "warmists" here (they're called "rational people who accept reality as it is, not as they wish it to be"), what you want to do is pretend that somehow you're winning because you claim to want better people to argue with.
However, this is not the truth.
The poor sod Jeff and his conspiracies. :-)
Good news on the model front:
"Global mean temperature over 1998 to 2015 increased at a slower rate (0.1 K decade−1) compared with the ensemble mean (forced) warming rate projected by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models (0.2 K decade−1). Here we investigate the prospects for this slower rate to persist for a decade or more. The slower rate could persist if the transient climate response is overestimated by CMIP5 models by a factor of two, as suggested by recent low-end estimates. Alternatively, using CMIP5 models’ warming rate, the slower rate could still persist due to strong multidecadal internal variability cooling. Combining the CMIP5 ensemble warming rate with internal variability episodes from a single climate model—having the strongest multidecadal variability among CMIP5 models—we estimate that the warming slowdown (<0.1 K decade−1 trend beginning in 1998) could persist, due to internal variability cooling, through 2020, 2025 or 2030 with probabilities 16%, 11% and 6%, respectively."
Your last sentence @#77 is exactly the sort of attitude that the article was highlighting.
You go for it again @#79.
The article actually said that people are being driven to elect 'right wing' by the behaviour of the left.
There is nothing inherently wrong or sinister with either 'Crikey' or the person who wrote the article.
I linked that article because it goes someway towards discussing the symptoms of current politics.
Unlike you apparently, I don't believe there is a silver bullet that belongs to any 'wing' of politics that will save us from ourselves.
The dark side of human nature resides in every wing and flavour of politics.
Your idea that it needs to be framed like we're barracking for our favourite football team is not smart IMHO.
Despite your assertions otherwise, the 'general population' especially in countries like mine, are better educated and do have a better understanding of a wide range of issues than they did a couple of generations ago.
Calling them names like 'sheople' etc is not achieving good outcomes.
You only succeed in starting pointless, abusive political arguments.
Don't worry Olaus. I spoke with the author of the paper you hash up and their data set stops at 2014. He told me that the warming of the past two years probably eclipses the slowdown. And several colleagues have already written rejoinders. You see, you idiot, science does not advance on the basis of cherry picking studies that you like and then distorting them to suit your own agenda. Oh, and the author also said that he thinks AGW deniers are a waste of time and reiterated that warming is a serious problem.
But of course you wouldn't know any of this since you have no scientific background and have never interacted with scientists in the first place.
My lord it's fun humiliating you. But then again, it's easy.
Kim, why don't you crawl back into the slimy orifice from which you emerged. You clearly don't understand basic science and make statements which are so utterly abominable that I don't know where to begin critiquing them. Just because you don't understand the basics about ecosystem services doesn't mean that they aren't taken very seriously by the scientific community as well as a large and growing number of economists. Indeed, entire academic departments study them, and they were the focus of one of the largest investigations, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment if 2005. When I juxtapose thousands of trained scientists and economists against an uneducated, semi literate schmuck like you, I know whose side I take.
It ain't yours, moron. If you have anything remotely useful to say, give it a try. But your vacuous, hit-and-run remarks don't make the grade. Like Olaus, it's clear you've never been near an elementary science class in your life. So please piss off.
Stu2, the public have been increasingly dumbed down by our pathetic, corporate beholden media. Look at the US, where a lying, sexist, racist misogynist climate change denying bigot is now President. The uneducated working class white males embraced him because they think he will somehow reverse 30 years of unrepentant neoliberalism when he is in fact not going to change a thing. Half of the US population is angry that he won and the other half is going to be mad as hell when they realise that they have been duped.
In Europe the public is also embracing right wing populism which lashes out at immigrants and migrants, erroneously blaming them for the deindustrialized rotting city centers that were gutted by deregulation and capital flight. We have known since the 1970s that humanity and nature are in a collision course yet we have done virtually nothing to address this; indeed, since the 1980s it can be argued that we have actually gone in reverse. Capitalism is wrecking the planet for short term profit and the public is as clueless as ever. I am not sparing liberals either, who in the US have been supine in the face of their party, the Democrats, increasingly prostituting itself to Wall Street and the corporate sector. Clinton was abominable; not as vile as Trump, of course, but not much better.
Unless the left can effectively regroup and get its act together, we are fucked. Well and truly. The signs are not good. The evidence is there. Look at the acumen of the deniers in Deltoid alone; brainless idiots like Kim and Olaus. These are the sheeple I referred to. Driven by simple slogans yet believing they are clever and informed. Their posts are so empty that it's actually embarrassing for ne to respond. The only reason I do is to underline their ignorance for the passers by who may inadvertently stumble into this site. Why aren't you challenging them for once? You can't ever hope to better me in an exchange on the simple basis that I am more qualified than you in the relevant fields. But the fact that you never respond to their garbage is telling. It suggests that you agree with them. That says a lot about you.
Several last points Olaus. First, the paper you linked to took 8 months to be published. It clearly did not have an easy ride through peer review. Second, it's a single study. I am sure you would like me to link piles more with very different conclusions. They exist. Third, as I said, the paper leaves off 2016 data. This year is going to be 0.15 C or more warmer than last year, which was the warmest in recorded history. Indeed, this year elevates the regression within predicted estimates. Fourth, the authors start with 1998 as their baseline year. Why not 1997 or 1999?
Of course all of this will be discussed in the rejoinders, papers or commentaries you won't be copy -pasting up here. It's clear that you scour the internet searching desperately for those few articles which you think in your unscientific approach vindicate you. Why not the new paper by my colleague Thomas Crowther in Nature which studies the effects of warming on soil in the Arctic? Just out, it paints a very different scenario from the one you link to here. But then again, because you are scientifically illiterate perhaps it's easy to understand your approach.
Jeffie dear, the only things your walls of nonse humilate are yourself and climate science.
The rise of GMT is not accelerating, which is acknowledged by the IPCC. A guy like you that believes a spider he saw while tracking is a scientific evidence of the opposite, is a fool.
In the temple of doom and gloom and conspiracies you live in Jeff, is science the major thing lacking. Outside the shaking cult tent of climate scientology you are a laughing stock.
And I know this is meaningless to tell you, but nobody rejects that climate changes or that GMT has risen the last ca 150 years.
Nonse? Olly comes up with a new word. The point is that GMT is indeed rising linearly. Between October of 2015 and August of 2016, every mont with the exception of June was the warmest in recorded history. July and August of 2016 WERE the warmest months ever recorded. Right now 2016 is 0.17 C ahead of 2015, the previous warmest year on record. Every major scientific organization in every nation on Earth acknowledges (1) the reality of AGW, (2) the seriousness of AGW and (3) the fact that urgent measures are necessary to keep the temperature rise under a critical threshold of 2 C. This was the crux of the Paris meeting last year, and there is hardly a scientist alive with any qualifications who denies it. Where on earth does a fucking idiot like you think that he knows what constitutes science? Come on Olaus, please tell us all here what unique qualifications you possess to dismiss the vast majority of the scientific community? Are you hiding from us all here the fact that you are a leading scholar with 400 publications in relevant fields? Of course not! If you did, you'd be shoutiung it from the rooftops. You are a layman suffering an extreme form of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
There are pilkes of studies - the latest from Crowther et al. at Nature - providing clear evidence of severe consequences of business-as-usual. They Cryosphere datga at present are terrifying. The Arctic has by far lower ice cover now at this time of year than at any time in recorded history, ditto for the Antarctic. Glacial retreat is pandemic and alarming in the extreme. Biotic proxies across the planet are clear indicators of rapid warming. And once again, every major scientific organization on Earth and every National Academy acknowledges the reality and seriousness of AGW. So don't you talk to me about fucking science. You don't know the first thing about it.
Bart Verheggen gave a great talk in my course in which he described in detail clowns like you with delusions of grandeur as to their self-taught wisdom. He also gave a clear message about the ridiculousness of the consensus gap between scientists and the lay public (e.g. people like you). In the IPCC document there are 4 working groups. The first examined the extent to which the planet is warming. Ther conclusion is that it is warming rapidly. the second examined the extent to which humans are responsible for this rapid warming. They concluded that we are the primary driver. The third examined what mankind can do about it, and it was made clear that there are many options. The fourth discusses what we should do about it and the concensus is to keep global temperatuires below a 2.0 C rise.
Bart said that the scientific debate is now in the fourth working group whereas, thanks to idiots like you and the supine media and greenwash, the public debate is still for some reason stuck in working groups 1 and 2. As a climate scientist he told me that it is extremely frustrating for him to have the focus on mitigation in working group 4 seeing the debate continaully dragged back by the public and deniers to groups 1 and 2.
You couldn't win a scientific debate if it bit you in the ass. What is remarkable is that you even try on the basis of absolutely zero qualifications. Dunning-Kruger indeed.
While I am at it, let's see Olaus try and dismiss the Crowther et al. paper. This should be worth a good laugh.
Jeff, inventing your usual straw-man doesn't falsify what the IPCC conclude. The rise of GMT hasn't accelerated, regardless of your 'first hand spider' and Crowther. :-)
You are so easy Jeffy. :-)
Looking forward reading your advocacy piece in NY about illuminati and what not. :-)
I am so easy? Ha! You are such an asshole. Here's your argument:
"GMT hasn't risen! I have no evidence whatsoever for this aside from denier blogs and my own brilliant educated guess and I know that my argument contrasts with the vast majority of scientists but I am right!!! I am Olus Petri, office worker and Dunning-Krugerite extraordinaire. I don't need science! I can mnake things up and know that they are right!!!"
Of course its easy to write such utter piffle. In a debate in a university you wouldn't find the going so easy though. You would be tarred and feathered and sent packing.
Now fuck off.
PS: No increase in GMT?
End of story. Olaus you lose. As I said go away.
It spectacular how you keep on inventing stuff Jeff. Where have I stated that GMT hasn't risen? Uncanny....
With all that hate and delusions trapped behind your ears Jeff, you are a very scary person.
Even this apparently 'dumbed down' person can understand the difference between 'not accelerating' and 'no increase'
So Stu2, increasing AGW is not a problem? And this year it most certainly has accelerated... but be are heading into dangerous territory....
Olaus Pathetic, here's again how you argue:
Scientist: The world isn't flat, it is more or less spherical. (The scientist then goers on to provide huge amounts of evidence to support this, plus support from every major acadeemy of science and major scientific body in every nation on Earth).
Olaus: Its not round its flat. Ha, ha! You are so easy! (No evidence of any kind procured).
What is scary is that there are so many dimwits like you out there with no relevant qualifications who think by some law of divinity that they know more than the experts in the field who have been studying climate and environmental science for decades. Witness your casual dismissal of Tom's Nature paper. You simply assert, "the world is flat" and go with it.
Note also how Stu2 backs anyone no matter how stupid if they downplay climate change. Again, this says everything about him. He's a luke warmer, like Olaus. On the basis of precisely ZERO acumen in the field.
And lastly, look at the graph again I posted at # 97 and tell me that 2016 is not exceptional. Its incredible.
Jeffie, my dear hating-everything-maggot-specialist, besides you knowing nothing about me, I have no trouble seeing a spike in GMT this year. Unlike you, however, I have enough of a climate scientific mindset to know that this spike is caused by an El Nino. ?
The only thing you master, at least hear in this skaking tent of climate scientology, is to hate and invent things in a way only Stalin would envy.
I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes.
Yet @# 100, there you are claiming I belong to some team called "luke warmer".
I have no interest in supporting personally abusive comments no matter which "team" said it.
I also don't "back" people based on which wing they might be flapping around with.
As I commented earlier, your behaviour here is appearing to confirm the points made in the Crilkey article.
No Stu, it is apparent from your past record on here that you quietly if not tacitly, supported arguments of idiots like Olaus, Betula and Kim. They hurl as many insults as anyone else on here yet I have never ever seen you step up to the plate to counter them. You may think that this is subtle but it isn't. It stands out like a sore thumb. You try, and miserably fail, of course, to debate me on social and political issues.
The Crikey article, which anyone with half a functioning brain should realise is abominable, us a case in point. It claims that the activities of environmentalists is driving people into the arms of far right parties. Please excuse me for 5 minutes while I curl up and laugh myself into a fit.
OK, I think I have gathered myself. How many green or environmental parties have ever been in power in any developed country? Well gee, that is a hard one. NONE. In fact, green parties rarely get even as much as 10% of the public vote. It's obvious why: policies aimed at protecting nature and more egalitarian societies are of course seen as a profound threat by the ruling corporate elites who own the media and are doing everything in their power to ensure the current neoliberal capitalist order remains intact. So they do everything they can to smear and dismiss any alternatives which they see as a threat to the status quo. Any support for more sustainable and compassionate systems such as socialist political parties, that aim to redistribute wealth and hold corporations to account are relentlessly smeared and dismissed. I read your Crikey article all right and it was one dimensional garbage that failed to address the policies of the generally right wing establishment parties that hold power and do so by dumbing down the populace through various means including scary stories about evil groups that want to take away our freedoms. The Crikey article is symptomatic of the gutter press and the decline in the quality of investigative journalism.
The real threats to the future and to democracy are of course based on the wholesale embrace of the current mutant form of deregulated capitalism called neoliberalism (which is neither new nor liberal). Capitalism is destroying our ecological life support systems bit by bit, ecosystem by ecosystem, across the biosphere and as the empirical data clearly and unambiguously shows we are approaching (and in some cases have passed) critical tipping points. My response to ypu here contains more integrity and reality by many factors than the trashy tabloidy Crikey article. Yet you link that here as if you are making a point. Earlier you linked to a four year old piece by David Attenborough in which he argues that overpopulation is a grave threat. Of course you did this to dismiss some of his more controversial comments. I know how you and people like you think Stu. You are as transparent as cellophane. Yet I never ever see you linking to articles detailing the serious nature of the current predicament or of the root causes of this destruction which are clear if you bothered to make any efforts to learn.
You are an intellectual lightweight Stu. Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. You have never once provided any indication that your understanding of environmental science in a political framework goes beyond the sophomoric. You latch onto slogans and some of the most puerile drivel in an attempt to make your points. You camouflage your ignorance behind a veneer of credibility. Your singular inability to see the signs and to be able to elucidate the root causes is telling. Most of the students in my recent Master's course on biological conservation and scientific advocacy are better informed than you.
Unlike you, however, I have enough of a climate scientific mindset to know that this spike is caused by an El Nino.
Oh look, Alas Olaus gets his science from David Rose, probably, and/or those echoing similar bilge.
This rather naive, malicious even meme has been debunked:
But the cretin Olaus will not understand the science as long as his &r$e points downwards. To use an old nautical expression.
I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes.
That is a gross distortion of what is happening here. When such as you persistently present arguments based upon selective factoids or complete BS then calling things as they are is proper. It is persons like you who have subverted the real discussion that we should be having which is what we should do about the problem having recognised its very real existence and the calamitous threat it poses to all life on Earth.
Your persistent hand waving and trying to pass the blame buck is dishonest. If a schmuck behave like a schmuck then it is a schmuck!
Here is an idea, why don't you try to make an effort to research the areas in which Jeff has been involved, ecosystem services, phrenological mismatch.
I recently saw a short video section of plans afoot in India (World Land Trust) to improve the width of a corridor which links tiger habitat between West and East of the peninsula. One reason is because of a similar issue facing the Adder in the UK. Can you think of what this is?
Lionel, ignore Olaus. he's an uneducated twerp who doesn't understand what he is saying much of the time. He's a copycat insulter and clearly works at some menial job where he craves attention. He also does not recognise his own blatant hypocrisy which stands out like a sore thumb to anybody capable of reading.
Note how Olaus was one of the most apparent on this thread for going on about the hiatus that never was. Note also how the hiatus selectively began in 1998 - a year in which the largest El Nino on record until that time was recorded. 1998 was exceptional in that it it was 0.20 C warmer than any year recorded previously. When the next 15 years failed to be statistically significantly warmer than 1998, voila! There was a hiatus. But of course most climate scientists recognised that deniers were using 1998 as their baseline year dishonestly. Despite that, there were several years that were warmer than 1998, even in then absence of an El Nino event. Then along comes 2015-16, with record warm month after record warm month occurring, significantly ahead of 1998 even though the strength of the El Nino was slightly less. So what do the deniers do? They claim the record warmth was only do to El Nino! So they excuse the El Nino event of 1998 to set that as their baseline starting year, but at then use it in now to dismiss the exceptional warmth of 2016.
We have a word for that but I will use two here to emphasise the point: fucking dishonesty. Or fucking hypocrisy. Take your pick. Moreover, El Nino only amplified greenhouse gas-induced warming. It does not create it. If that was the case, why was 2016 warmer than 1998 which was warmer than 1982? Each of these years experienced major El Nino events. Its warmer now because of the anthropogenic fingerprint.
Once again, debunking Olaus is like picking cherries. But its easy because he is so utterly stupid and does not even recognise it.
A simple presentation for the intellectually challenged.
Now what do you notice about the areas under the curves as you move along the graph from left to right?
It just so happens that another has picked up on that Crowther study. Now try and make out things don't look dire - the snowball is now running down the hill.
But that isn't all, we know that there are other carbon stores that could suddenly become unlocked as temperatures rise. We are on the track where increased atmospheric GHGs caused by human activities has raised temperatures which unlock more GHGs which enter the atmosphere, which causes increased warming, which unlocks other carbon sinks and so on and so on.
This is similar to what happens if you don't wind off the reel a very long extension lead, plug in and switch on a high wattage appliance - electric kettle, iron, bar fire, tumble drier. Many moons ago my dearest discovered what happens when plugging in one of those latter in such a way.
Read very slowly Jeff.
I. don't. support. any. particular. wing. or. political. party.
There is no evidence that turning politics into something like a football game where we're supposed to argue that only one side is purer than the driven snow is helping to achieve any sensible TBL outcomes.
Unlike you apparently, neither do I believe that only elitist academics have all the answers and should be the only ones to comment.
There's nothing amiss with my education or my intellectual capacity.
I'm a huge fan of education so congratulations on your PhD and all the hard work that goes in to attaining one.
In my experience however, high levels of education does not then automatically mean that people are somehow smarter or better.
I often work with academics.
Some of them know how to work with others and lead teams of people and help them to improve land and water management.
Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.
Stu, then get off your ass and start belittling the idiotic comments of Olaus and Kim on here. Instead, you seem to think that is environmentalists on the left who are the bad guys. Again, why the Crikey article was tosh is because people are responding to the media and right wing parties that immigration, refugees and migrants are a greave threat to our societies. Trump used this lie to explain deindustrialization of the American heartland (threats to American jobs and outsourcing) and he and European parties on the far right are using to to drive fear by suggesting that immigrants and migrants are threatening our supposedly civilised way of life (even though our foreign policies are anything but civilised; they are barbaric). It has nothing to do with environmentalism. Nothing at all. The fact that crikey writes such tosh says a lot about them. Scapegoating is in vogue at the moment. It is a useful tool for keeping the masses in line and for avoiding the real culprit that threatens everyone: unbridled, unregulated capitalism.
Now read this slowly.
I'm...not ...interested....in ...belittling.....anyone....including....you.
You are tempting me....but it won't happen.
Now read this slowly.
You.. are... very... selective... in... whose... views... you... challenge... on.. Deltoid. Meaning me, Lionel, Wow et al., but when our resident loonies make one of the many stupid comments we don't hear a peep from you.
Let me rephrase that. Your views are made quite clear by your silence when Kim makes one of his vile pro-Trump rants or Olaus hypocritically dismisses AGW on the basis of an El Nino event while using an earlier El Nino event as a baseline for his vacuous 'hiatus' argument.
Aas foer belittling, you can try to do that to me but since you are a complete nobody in science then it won't exactly sting.
I....challenge....the...negative....politics....of ....all....wings....brands....colours....flavours etc.
I don't believe that arguing which is the least guilty is helping the environment one little bit.
Far wiser to look at what has worked and why IMHO.
I can't see the point of arguing with vaccuos comments Jeff, no matter who makes them.
The 'cherry picking' argument from all flavours and wings is vaccuos.
By their nature all such models whether they be financial, climactic, demographic, yields & etc basically cherry pick as they need to use start/stop dates.
Anyone who has to run their own business and present their financial statements to institions like banks and taxation departments knows that.
It doesn't require a PhD in science or any other discipline.
Simply changing the start/stop dates can create quite different results.
Also updating inputs with real time data can radically change the outputs.
It's not rocket science.
But of course the people who figure out the algorithms etc that are needed to make such programs work as useful tools are extraordinarily talented.
Stu, don't go down that 'all sides are cherry picking' road. That is total and utter bullshit. There are two sides in debates on the environment. The scientific side, represented by intensively peer reviewed documents like the IPCC reports and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, as well as the empirical literature, and the contrarian side, represented by think tanks, blogs and the right wing corporate media. The latter distorts and cherry picks to downplay anthropogenic threats to the environment, in order to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.
When people like you claim that all sides are cherry picking, you are simply confirming what I thought about you before. You are as transparent as cellophane. And not even remotely clever at it. Humans are unambiguously simplifying and destroying a wide range of ecosystems across the biosphere. There are no ands, ifs, or buts. And we are quickly running out of time to make the major adjustments in policy needed to give much of nature - and ultimately ourselves - a chance at longer term survival.
There you go Jeff.
Framing the politics like it's some type of football match?
Two sides eh?
I have stated many times that calling people names and framing political arguments as if we are barracking for a football team is not creating any good outcomes."
Yet still you do this.
And never once complain when Lappers yaps away with that sole technique.... I wonder why?
Oh, that's right, you're talking out your arse, dear.
"Read very slowly Jeff.
I. don’t. support. any. particular. wing. or. political. party."
Read very slowly, StuPid: that isn't any valid argument for anything. NOTHING there rebuts or disavows what Jeff pointed out to everyone here as your operational status.
"There’s nothing amiss with my education or my intellectual capacity."
Like much else you spout, this is wrong. What isn't wrong is irrelevant.
"In my experience however, high levels of education does not then automatically mean that people are somehow smarter or better."
Like that, for example. Nothing there says that Jeff's comments are wrong or ill-informed. All you're really doing is pointing out that proclaiming someone said something isn't proof it's correct, but "neglected" to point out that it doesn't disprove it either.
Do like proper people do here: come up with an argument, not blather or irrelevancies and whinging. Hell, make a goddamned claim, a feature lacking from all your posts.
"Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping."
For which the existence in the general can be accepted, but no claim of an actual instance is given, making the whinge you make irrelevant and a claim nonexistent.
Of course, the reason why you make no claim, only generalities, is because you cannot support a claim with evidence.
"I’m…not …interested….in …belittling…..anyone….including….you."
So, what the hell was THIS
"Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping."
supposed to say, hmmm????
Framing the politics like it’s some type of football match?
Two sides eh?
Care to identify the multitudinous sides and how they aren't disposed of in the two Jeff delineated?
There YOU go Stu, trying to give the impression that the debate over climate change and human impacts on the environment are made up of two sides, both of which cherry pick. I told you that this is bullshit,. there is one side, made up primarily of scientists, most of whom agree as to the causes and potential consequences of warming and other anthropogenic threats to the environment. On the other side you have a small, vocal, well funded groups of mostly laymen or retired old researchers with little scientific pedigree, some on the corporate payroll, saying that everything is fine and that we shook stay the course.
One side is correct... and that's the one that I am on. Its the side of science and empirical evidence. The other is full of shills, greenwasher and propagandists.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Thanks for confirming what I said Jeff.
And thanks also for demonstrating exactly what the Crikey article was highlighting.
Clearly Stu-pid's cognitive framework is too Bourked to realise how lame that Crikey article is a load of self referential make believe tosh.
And thanks to the one eyed 'football club' fans who are also helping to confirm exactly the same thing.
When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?
I'm not into the over marketted and aggressive global team sports that much.
I prefer the friendlier local games.
I have found they bring out the best in people and actually achieve stated outcomes.
I guess if you really wanted to you could interpret my comment re my observations working with academics out in the field as an attempt to belittle an individual.
That was not the intention.
I realise you're spoiling for a fight.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
I'm still interested in achieving measurable improvements in land and water management.
I have never once noticed that engaging in personal abuse and construction straw men to beat up achieve any improvement in these fields.
And to save you somehow reading something else into it, auto correct got me and chose construction instead of constructing. I didn't catch it before I pushed submit.
Stu. You clearly have cognitive difficulties. The Crikey article is bullshit. The reason people are embracing far right parties is because of fear. Fear that our supposedly 'civilized' way of life is allegedly under threat from the bad, evil Muslims hiding under our beds. This fear is driven by our corporate media that aim to scapegoat minorities and refugees and migrants. Interestingly, this is linked with that abominable SkyNews interview you linked here a year ago with the rehabilitated jihadist. The connection should be blatantly obvious but you just don't see it. I excuse you because you are shallow. Crikey is embedded in this supine media system. That you swallow everything your media tells you is proof, if any were ever needed, that you are a dope.
Jeff and #27
I get stick on social media for pointing out the biased reporting on the MM with words like 'rubbish' appearing in responses, particularly if I have linked to a Guardian article. I figure Brexit was a bad idea one pushed by the use of inflammatory lies. If a towering intellect Stephen Hawking thinks it was wrong then I can stand being labelled 'a fanatic' (by those who clearly have a diet of Mail, Telegraph, Times, Express etc,) because of my arguments. Besides if Michael Gove is 'for' anything then I will be against it, his ideas on education were beyond the pale that being an area in which I have professional qualifications and experience.
Beware of tinkerers bearing gifts.
That you swallow everything your media tells you is proof, if any were ever needed, that you are a dope.
Dope on a rope, every time he replies he hangs himself. Clearly not taken the advice to study such as Derrick Jensen, John Pilger or Mark Curtis. Stu has no feel whatsoever for what makes the socio-political world tick. He always comes back with ill-informed drivel plucked from the gutter (press).
It just happens that Jeff, in December thread, linked to an article at Hot Whopper pointing out the lies of one Willis Eschenbach WRT Peter Gleick. Here I'll quote the kicker with the pith emphasised, it is that that Stu repeatedly fails to comprehend:
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
It is because you aid and abet the behaviour highlighted in the above that you are repeatedly denigrated Stu2. We have had more than enough of your obfuscation and evasion so stop complaining and throwing out statements with false implications such as this:
When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?
We have tried and it is you who goes off piste into the weeds.
"When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?"
We are discussing actual issues.YOU are the one making vague whinging claims and avoiding anything substantive in your assertions.
When you decide to start being specific, THEN you can make such an asinine complaint without having eviscerated it of all meaning by wallowing in inept baffle.
I rest my case fellas.
You never had a case, Stupid. Make believe isn't real.
But, reality isn't what you can manage, is it, dearie.
"I guess if you really wanted to you could interpret my comment re my observations working with academics out in the field as an attempt to belittle an individual."
So where in this is your not-belittling?
“Others, very unfortunately, have an over inflated opinion of themselves and totally tick off the people they are supposed to be helping.”
But deniers like yourself don't like reality, you prefer to fake things as you'd like them to be, rather than change yourself.
No seriously Wow.
You don't need to continue.
You've done a great job. :-)
Stu rests his case.
Verdict: He is found guilty of bias, incompetence and failing to listen to counter arguments.
Evidence: He wrote, "When you blokes are ready to actually discuss actual issues let me know OK?"
I responded to that abomindable Crikey article by saying - with plenty of evidence if he bothered to take his head out of his butt, that people are embracing more right wing populst parties out of fear. Not entirely fear of environmentalists, who have never held any political power or ever had any real influence on policy, but primarily fear of immigrants, refugees, and Islam that has been force-fed to the generfal population by our supine corporate media. Who owns Crikey? Private Media Partners:
Anyone with half a brain can see why populist movements are thriving under increased globalization. The masses are dumbed down by their media, which plays into the hands of right wing populists who see radical Islam as a threat to our supposedly civilized way of life. For instance:
Its always been easy to scapegoat minorities, refugees, immigrants, and in the case of the appalling Crikey article, environmentalists. The media, in line with the political right, are doing this now instead of going after the real culprit: deregulation and neoliberal capitalism, which are destroying the planet bit by bit. This is because the corporate media is embedded in the current system and the elites who own it don't want to change things.
Stu wanted a discussion, instead he gets a demolition. Easy come, easy go.
"Stu rests his case.
Verdict: He is found guilty of bias, incompetence and failing to listen to counter arguments."
Not to mention not having a case.
Evidence: 100% lack of any stated case to be rested.
This is becoming hilarious.
All I said was:
"This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics"
And you have done nothing but demostrate it.
Here is another article that IMHO is highlighting a symptom of the politics:
Take note fellas.
In this article here is the symptom:
" 2016 has seen big deviations in the political landscape with a major world-wide shift away from far left, socialist green ideology and what is considered by many as elitism.
I believe this change, in the main, has been shaped by ordinary hardworking men and women who are sick and tired of the never ending political correctness, weary of being preached at and abused by ideological elitists hell bent on creating their idiotic Utopian society, weighed down by the burden of high taxation with no logical reason for having to pay so much, who feel afraid that their traditions and nations are being overrun by foreign extremists who want to hurt them, who have become disenfranchised by insincere, self-serving, myopic politicians more interested in re-election than any substantial policy that reduces the burden on them.
The electorate are looking for someone like them."
And the attitude that is often behind it:
" And I detest, with all my being, the politics of division plaguing our society now.
We are preached to by self-proclaimed high priests of ethical behaviour who believe they have a sole claim on morality. These shamans are generally of the socialist green, far left of political ideology. Although the right of politics has slowly leant towards this extreme view.
Their strategy is simple: divide and conquer. These scare-mongers pick a cause, it doesn’t matter what or who, give it/them victim status then delegate a ‘deplorable’ anti-hero. From there comes the assurances of rescue and relief. Give aid to the ‘victim’ and/or take financial or legal action against the apparent oppressor. The ‘tyrant’ is often a larger organisation, usually called ‘big’ as in ‘big oil’, or ‘big pharma’ or ‘big polluter’, just so you know where to lay blame.
But you will never hear mention of ‘big academia’ or ‘big government’ from these Marxist moralists as those are patrons of the extreme left and are exempt from derision. Anyone who dares a disparaging comment of their divisive schemes is personally abused and labelled a bigot, a sexist, racist or (blank) aphobe.
They claim to stand for tolerance while employing severe intolerance when it comes to an opposing standpoint. Theirs is the only morally justifiable position, therefore tolerance is not required by them."
You don't have to demonstrate it again.
"All I said was:
“This article is highlighting a symptom of the politics”"
So what if it does? And how do you figure it to do that?
"And you have done nothing but demostrate it."
And what does that mean? What symptoms?
” 2016 has seen big deviations in the political landscape with a major world-wide shift away from far left, socialist green ideology and what is considered by many as elitism...
Yes, that is demonstrating a symptom of politics.
But I thought we were doing that? Were you talking to them? They won't hear you. You need to post there.
And it's weird. A rightwing rag sees the world going to the right, and sees the left as bad or even evil. Why is this surprising you? And why isn't the plain fact that they're biased even considered by you? Just because you're a rightwinger too?
And isn't that just demonstrating a symptom of the politics by you?
Given you've never appeared to understand what you're talking about on here, why do you even bother?
Even dumber is that the righwinger is taking the fact that his accusations on the left being discounted as valid by those he's accusing is, to his mind, more evidence of how wrong the leftwing is.
That his accusation could be wrong is NEVER contemplated.
Thanks again Wow.
You're really good at this.
I know. But yo;re REALLY bad at answering questions, aren't you. Even worse than you are at making a point.
Idiocy or mendacity? Or both?
Lewandowski would have a field day with you.
You're doing great Wow.
Perfect demonstration .
Thank you, but I wonder why you're so happy I'm tearing you a new one, metaphorically speaking.
But you're kind of the poster child for the post-truth world, aren't you.
There's probably no point but let me try to help you.
The symptom is that people have lost patience with all the finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity.
Your 'team' is not winning the political football game.
Your fans are deserting.
Trying to blame everything and everyone else as well as the other 'team' for your team's poor performance just looks like bad sportsmanship and is causing even more fans to desert.
Contrary to your assertions otherwise, that does not mean that people don't care about the environment or science or poverty & etc.
It does not mean that people lack, education, intelligence & etc.
It means, very simply, they're over having to listen to the incessant, misanthropic, negative political rhetoric and they're punishing the perpetrators of that via the ballot box.
It doesn't have much at all to do with flapping around with one wing.
If we took focusing on 'the politics' out and focused instead on 'the practical' and 'the possible' people are capable of making a difference.
"The symptom is that people have lost patience with all the finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity."
Well your evidence hasn't shown that, so really how is this meant to be taken except as blank assertion?
"If we took focusing on ‘the politics’ out and focused instead on ‘the practical’ and ‘the possible’ people are capable of making a difference."
The only one "focusing on 'the politics'" are deniers and other idiots, such as yourself (both denier and idiot), because you really REALLY don't want to have to do anything about AGW.
It's taken you, what? well over a dozen posts and you've only just actually stated what your claim re: "the symptom" is. True, you've done a shit job at showing evidence for it, but let's ignore that and get to the meat of the problem with you and your whinging.
It's only AFTER you eventually got round to making an actual claim that we could get "focused ... on ‘the practical’ ". If you had EVER genuinely wanted to do that, you wouldn't have spent a score of posts evading every attempt to get some concrete statement out of you. Even if you didn't know this was a problem, you do now.
But like I said, your assertion really doesn't have much evidence, and the only evidence you've given contains mostly "finger pointing and labelling and name calling and negativity." and the only evidence is anecdote of the random blogger's vague opinion (that even has to be interpreted into what you are now claiming this to be evidence for).
Never mind all the finger pointing you've been doing in trying to make pretend you have supporting your claim.
Maybe it is just best to let you demonstrate.
Well done :-)
Where you failed???
Ooh, was it that in not agreeing with your finger pointing I'm demonstrating how it's my fault there's finger pointing?
Is it that because you haven't shown evidence of your claim, pointing it out is somehow demonstrating something that, well, uh, I guess you still need to show what I'm supposedly demonstrating.
What fans? Reality doesn't need fans.
Where's this evidence "fans" are leaving?
How about evidence that the politics is lost?
Given the cries about getting politics out of science, why is it bad that the politics has been lost (if, indeed it has been)?
If you've "won" the politics, then isn't that proof you're bad people, since you're politicising science?
Is it bad when the realists are winning the politics, but good when deniers do? Why?
You are seriously doing an excellent job of demonstrating what both those articles were attempting to highlight and my post @#45.
What other evidence do you need?
You're still avoiding actually saying anything at all.
Try to make those words you're typing do something.
What highlighted problem in 45? You don't post anything about any article, completely link free!
But let me try to help you again.
Nobody and no political 'wing' has won anything of substance or anything connected with 'possible' or 'practical'
That's a symptom as well.
& perhaps you didn't see the links to the 2 articles?
You're only pretending that you want to help me so as to avoid answering any questions or making any further actionable or testable claims, given how you fucked them up on the one occasion you tried them.
Why do you think that works?
"& perhaps you didn’t see the links to the 2 articles?"
Yes, that was because there were no links to any 2 articles.
When you talk of "anything of substance or anything connected with ‘possible’ or ‘practical’", what on earth do you mean?
As far as reality is concerned, there's plenty being done.
Just go ask China, for one. Hows about Europe?
I linked 2 articles upthread.
It's a bit odd you claim they're not there as you even relinked one of them @#38.
Maybe you did, somewhere. But you claimed:
"my post @#45."
Up there, comment 56.
"It’s a bit odd you claim they’re not there"
They aren't there. Checked post 45 four times now.
Still not there.
You relinked one of the articles yourself @#38.
They're not @#45.
I didn't say they were.
My apologies if I have somehow inadvertently confused you.
Hope that helps?
"You relinked one of the articles yourself @#38."
That isn't in your post @45, though. 38 != 45.
"They’re not @#45.
I didn’t say they were."
You never said they weren't until just there. The only post you mentioned was 45.
If you want to help, then stop leaving out the information that makes your claims comprehensible to someone not occupying your brainstem.
"My apologies if I have somehow inadvertently confused you."
Remember: nobody knows what's going on in your head except (maybe) you.
Now, I'm counting the number of links in post 38.
I only get one.
Didn't you claim two?
I get 37, though.
But it still only has one.
Read my post following that one, and let me know what about it you don't understand.
I can only repeat that you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating what both those articles (first one @#60 previous page) were attempting to highlight as well as my post @#45 (was attempting to highlight).
Does that help you?
I can only repeat...
Something that doesn;t help at all.
I thought you wanted to help, that you wanted to work on “anything of substance or anything connected with ‘possible’ or ‘practical’”
Or is that empty post an example of what is "anything of substance" to you?
In which case, I have to tell you that much more of substance has been done with the system just the way it is, dumbass.
first one @#60 previous page
OK, so neither 45, the only post you mentioned regarding it.
Neither was it 38, which you EVENTUALLY said they were on.
And neither was it even on the same page as either of those two posts.
Tell me, did those links go to articles that indicated that giving people the runaround was the best way to get something of substance done?!?!? Because unless it did, you've just nuked any possibility of those articles being right.
So, StuPid, did you read the comment I made after the one with the second link in, that you ascribe to post 38?
If you understood the words in it, then your question in post 56 (where you pointed me solely to post 45) "What other evidence do you need?".
I need evidence, not stuff you think is evidence, but is just anecdote written by partisan hacks whose accuracy and honest cannot be relied upon.