So, I do attract the occasional nutter email, and they meet the trash can pretty quickly, but this fellow put so much verbal affort at this one sent to my Facebook account I thought I should share the laugh.
Check it out below:
Sat with numerous scientists in earth and climate science and laughed our collective asses off that someone actually believes the bullshit regarding AGW. the astronomers in the group quickly point out the idiots like yourself are far more likely to run headlong into the ice berg of global cooling before you realize the Titanic sized ship of stupidity lead by Captain MANN and his idiot minions realize their legions of hellish doom are wrong. Cut baby and wife, but shut the F up when it comes to your AGW crap. You are either a bad scientist or a sell-out for political purposes, but absolutely not right on your ridiculous answer in GRIST. Most "skeptics" are just exceptional scientists doing the real solid work of science and not pushing a political agenda like you. I am a LEED AP as well so sustainable design and building is of significant importance to me. CO2 has nothing to do with GCC. There is so little in science that is so blessedly understood as well with volumes of geophysical data to back it up that one can only surmise the frauds like you are intentionally leading people astray for some nefarious reason. We "skeptics" know science isn't behind your motive because the flaws in your data pints and assumptions are so incredibly obvious, Your summary reports (IGPCC and IPP) are just manipulative crap. Your answer on CO2 and volcanoes is very very wrong and it takes no genius to recognize it. It was estimated that the amount of CO2 emitted by Pinitubu alone equaled more than two years of net unabsorbed human output. Inasmuch as better than 80% of out-gassing is under the ocean's surface we are still trying to get a rational read on it, But any physics student can measure the enormous amount of energy required to heat the surface of the oceans (top 1 foot) by one degree and realizes it is an enormous number in BTU's....and that cannot come from Greenhouse gas at all. It is like trying to hear a freezing human with the latent heat from the beating wings of a nat. We aren't stupid dude. It's only possible to change surface temperatures and therefore climates by either changes in solar radiation received per m2, by actually thickening the atmospheric blanket so that the heat/energy exchange traps more heat right at the ocean's surface or via internal heat dissipation via the oceans and since ocean temps determine climate, you need to start there. Of those three scenarios, the changes in heat retention by adding one molecule of CO2 in 10,000 is by far and away the least likely to affect much of anything. You've mostly ignored the likely fluctuations in solar radiation and the environmental affects of the interstellar medium (the vacuuity of space). Oh sorry, I may be speaking way over your head. I am not sure why I am bothering you, but your lie disgusts me. You should be ashamed of the answer you put out there since it is at best an ignorant lie on your part. At worst, you are purposely leading humanity down a path that it may well wish it did not ever come across. The present temperature rate change is nothing unusual, in fact relatively small and minor in retrospect to numerous studies going back through the little Dryas to the beginning of the Holocene. For much of the first 5,000 years that ended about 2000-1500 BC, the earth was more than 3-5 degrees warmer than now....dude, so well established a fact that it seems unbelievable that you think we are all as dumb as polar bears...oh wait, they survived and thrived during warmer times....sorry to have burst your mythological bubble. In any event real scientists know the sham, we are on to all of you and fortunately the time will come when you will all be exposed for the bastard liars that you are. Have a nice day!
(formatting and misspelling from original)
I won't, but is there any useful reply to make to something like this?
Categories
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The natural world is complicated. Therefore, so is the science that tries to understand it.
Complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity are all a part of the story that describes processes that are as extraordinary as they are mundane. While these are the very characteristics of scientific study that…
People are asking me: Is the recent spate of tornadoes caused by global warming? The usual answer to that question is that you can't answer the question because a tornado is not caused by climate ... it is cause by weather ... and global warming (which is real, and which is cause by humans) is…
Well, it has finally happened - I've decided to make a place to keep all the comments I don't publish because they are noise, stupid, or whatever. And I'll take the opportunity to add here all the ones I feel obliged to partially censor, for whatever reason (other than simple gross personal attacks…
Header shamelessly stolen from Coby. But his post is so wonderful that I can't help re-saying it.
So: Roy Spencer says that the basic greenhouse effect mechanism is sound; or perhaps, more weakly, that the basic mechanism is phyically possible. You might think that is not very strange, after all it…
Oh dear, oh dear, ha ha ha... Doesn't say much for your education system does it!
viv in nz
"Astrology 101 is that way, you might want to take that course in order to learn how to spell the planets properly."?
Are there any (semi-)coherent sentences in spittle-soaked screed which are not not even wrong?
Dear Coby,
Sat with numerous scientists........you will all be exposed for the bastard liars that you are. Have a nice day!
Love
Crakar
Sat with numerous scientists in earth and climate science
I'd say it's a dead certainty that he in fact did no such thing. If I were going to engage him, I'd call him out on this one claim. The rest is noise. But to claim that he was sitting in a roomful of earth and climate scientists "laugh[ing] our collective asses off" speaks directly to his character and integrity. Make him defend this statement.
But that's the way I feel about all denialists. Most people don't have the knowledge to judge scientific evidence, and technobabble sounds no different from reasoned scientific discourse to them. But most people do understand the difference between sitting in a roomful of people and blowing smoke about sitting in a roomful of people. Make the debate about character and integrity.
Correct it for grammar, spelling, errors in math, logic, and scientific content. Return it with a letter grade.
That one seems to circulate a bit. I think I saw this first at some google.group or usenet.group some years back, maybe about 2002-3. The person who wrote that might not know it is still being circulated, and be ashamed of him/herself now.
It's actually a pretty perfect example of cargo-cult science, isn't it? Lots of technical-sounding points purporting to totally refudiate* the evil warmist consensus. It's a particular collection, too - there's a concept map to be done there. It will always, it seems, involve a reference to happy polar bears.
* Thanks to Sarah Palin for the great new word.
After that, I need more Data Pints. Lots and lots more.
No USEFUL response is possible, considering what his message demonstrates he is, but it would be fun to send a quick note to him that says "Obviously, you've just washed your brain and you can't do a think(g) with it. Contact me when you approach sanity and learn how to spell, since your inability to grasp the basics of your native language gives me ample reason to doubt your ability to handle even lower thought."
jyyh
Oh dear. Fancy having put this out in a drunken stupor then having it still haunting you 5+ years later.
I'm watching my spelling and grammar just a little bit more carefully just now.
jyyh
That one seems to circulate a bit. I think I saw this first at some google.group or usenet.group some years back, maybe about 2002-3.
I've just tried to google it to find other appearances, but without success. Do you have a ref for earlier iterations, please? I'd be grateful.
"is there any useful reply to make to something like this?"
yes, accept what the guy is asserting, accept it all...join us on the denier sideâ¦â¦drink our kool-aid.. drink..beleiveâ¦drink..believeâ¦â¦
JG, sorry to say I don't have. Tried myself to find it too.
jyyh
Tried myself to find it too.
Thanks for the effort.
Blast! I was hoping to cite this as an example of a comment the denialists thought so excellent they'd put it to multiple use.
It's heavy on ad-hominem, light on claims and facts. Let's take this claim for example:
According to a USGS report, the Pinatubo eruption released 42 to 234 megatons of CO2.
Let's take the larger estimate: 234 megatons. That's 2.34x1011 kg.
Skipping the details (which I can post if anyone wants to double-check) this comes to an increase of 0.027 ppmv in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
The annual increase in the concentration is typically about 2 ppmv, or about 74 times the Pinatubo output.
Now, even if it were true that Pinatubo releases more CO2 than what humans produce in many years, the guy is still missing the point. CO2 in nature is roughly at equilibrium. The concentration is historically fairly constant at the century scale. In contrast, after the relatively recent industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially, with no sign of leveling off just yet.
Mandas post 4,
You really are a very sad individual aren't you.
Nope - still laughing!!
Still laughing? Sorry Mandas but you have misunderstood my post. You are a very sad individual because you take pleasure from such childish remarks. I have no doubt you are still laughing.
I can categorically state this one is new - tried searching on about a dozen ~10-word quiotes from it, each time this page was the only hit on the WWW and Google Groups came up empty for usenet.
There is no way on earth this guy is a scientist, but nor a plagiarist. A pissed grad student, maybe.
Some americans keep chimpanzees for pets don't they?. Maybe one was trippin on LSD and let rip on the keyboard?
yeah i also tried to google it and no luck.
abso-frickin-lutely hilarious.
His most hilarious line:
"We aren't stupid dude."
Crakar,
You are so wrong about me being a sad individual.
Sad means sad or to put it another way not happy, so when you say "a sad individual" that means "a not happy individual". So we can have a time when I am "a not happy individual" and another when I am "a happy individual". Which of these times would you think I would get the majority of my happiness?
Also if you get a majority of happiness at one time and a minority of happiness in another it does not mean I am sad.
Understand now?
I would laugh but it hurts too much because I am lying in a tub of ice water with no kidneys.
Well, I'm sure I could make some insightful comment, or take apart this raving idiocy of an email sentence by sentence. But the only response it really needs is: Goats On Fire!
Re #23:
Just beautiful.
You could prepare a form letter:
Dear Sir or Madam;
Thank you for your contribution. We regret to inform you that it does not meet our intellectual standards for further consideration. An additional twenty or thirty years of education is recommended should you wish to submit it again in the future.
Cordially,
{insert name here}
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down." Jimmy Durante.
If the people ever do chase you with torches and pitchforks, you will wish you had been nicer to them.
Something along the lines of a gracious : " I do not agree with your opinions,but be assured I shall fight to the death for your right to hold them, and thank you for taking the trouble to write (rant?)."
But that sentiment is appropriate for politics and religion. Matters of empirical reality are not the same as political opinion.
As for being nice, I dare say I have exceeded his efforts there. AndI should thank him for his trouble? Seriously? LOL! If I met him in the street I would be more respectful, but probably even less grateful...
Anyway, I prefer no one take it too seriously.
I would advise you do take it seriously.
There is no other branch of "science" that evokes such strong feelings. Laugh it off if you must.
Recent events (death threat emails, talk of bodyguards etc) should remind you that policy advocacy is not without it's risks. Hostility does not always come in such harmless forms as a ranty email.
If you think there are no politics on display on your website, you are the one putting your head in the sand.
I would not put it past someone who can no longer afford to put gas in his SUV or heat his house in a few years time to be mulling over punching Al Gore in the snoot if they get a chance.
My advice. Play nice. All sides.
Point taken, I could do better.
Jack
I can't disgree with you more about this issue. The original email was clearly a nothing more than the rantings of an illiterate idiot. These sort of people talk tough and sometimes even make threats of violence etc, but they never follow through because they have difficulty tying their shoelaces in the morning, let alone putting some sort of plan into action. This guy should be dismissed as just another moron who thinks his worldview (which is probably limited to the view from his trailer) is more important than it really is.
It may have been cut and pasted from a different source, or it may have been made up by the sender. In either case, it doesn't mattter. Coby is correct in his approach here. It is just the sort of thing that should NOT be taken seriously and should be moved from the in-box to the recycle bin (after giving us all a laugh of course!).
Once again I am reminded of Bug Girl's comment on her anonymity:
"The one topic Iâd really like to write a book about would be the whole Rachel Carson/DDT BS business, but frankly the people who are promoting that stuff scare me. I have gotten many, many threats over those posts, most of them threats of sexual assault. I canât be force-fucked into believing their lies about a brave woman and a wonderful writer, but I have been convinced that I want to stay under their radar IRL. Iâve also had some rather unpleasant encounters with white supremacists, which further reinforces the need for me to write as Bug Girl, not my real name."
Jack - should she smile & say thank you to such threats as you say Coby should? At what point is it OK to not remain gracious?
@Chris S.
I do see your point,up to a point.
So you are saying that Bug Girl should put the threats up on her web site (if she has one) and use them to make fun of the people who are threatening her?
I sure do not want to be out drinking with you when you spill the big guy's beer and then ask him what he is going to do about it,fatso.
My advice still stands..or rather "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
If you believe it to be a genuine threat, tell the police. (that works here in the UK, they will get a visit) If it is just a rant, I would reply politely or, perhaps, just ignore it.
Maybe I am too old-fashioned, but I was taught not gratuitously to sneer or to hold anyone up to ridicule. It was regarded as bad manners. I guess times have changed.
I am not saying I have never ever done it, after all, we have a saying: "A gentleman is someoneone who is never unintentionally rude".
Savage said:
Don't you think that lying and supporting others who lie to be bad manners?
That is why people get so angry with the likes of you.