Unmoderated Post on Moderation

I will allow comments through by default for repeat commenters again, first time commenters will still need an initial approval.

I will however now be a more active moderator and delete things that are useless or unnecessarily personal from now on, except on this thread.

This is unavoidably subjective but I will try to err on the side of permissiveness. The goal will be controlling the tone more so than the content. Readers should keep in mind the fact I am in an Australian time zone, so doomed comments may be visible for many hours. I expect this blog will remain pretty quiet for the time being, though I still hope to have more to say in the future. It is in some ways an interesting time in The Climate Wars (really wild weather, new global anomaly records, politics), but also in other ways it is all so much "same as it ever was".

More like this

As I mentioned yesterday, Orac is currently away at an undisclosed location that is someplace warm. He is there, taking a rare pre-solstice break, preparing for the Mayan apocalypse that is to come on the 21st of this month. (Actually, he's recharging his Tarial cell, the better to be prepared for…
As you can imagine, the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide attracts a lot of comment from people who are less than inclined to agree with the general thrust of the material. Most can be easily answered with a pointer to another article or a rephrasing or expansion on one of the points in the…
I get a fair number of emails from people who have blogs or other web stuff that they would like to advertise. I do look at most of the links I get sent, but I end up posting very few of them. Not because I dislike what I see, but because I just don't have the time or energy to thoroughly research…
You might have noticed that I've been...preoccupied. I posted a "rerun" on Thursday, and yesterday I didn't even post at all. That doesn't mean that I don't check in from time to time to see what you all are doing in my absence. That's how I saw this comment from Dangerous Bacon (cool 'nym, BTW—I'…

Of course it's going to be subjective. But what are the other options?

Don't apologise for something that is inevitable, it gives those wanting to demonise you a claim that is unwarranted. You either moderate and it MUST be subjective, or you don't and face the consequences of doing nothing. Which could be legal: removing links to Kiddie Porn is still moderation, and the choice of what you will moderate, even if it's "Well, I would be legally subject" is itself a subjective decision on what is moderable. Especially since those links won't say something as obvious as "Get your free pre-teen hentai pics here!".

I would suggest that a post that goes through one of the standard denier tropes listed on the SKS site being removed is as non-subjective a level of moderation as needed.

After all, if 20 years later and the disproof STILL hasn't stuck, what's the point wasting time over that 20 year old guff and reiterating the disproofs of the claim?

I think it is the right call; anonymous comments can really make a site thrive, but without management they can turn toxic. I'd consider making valued, long-term commenters voluntary mods, giving them the power to "hide" comments or the like, if it gets super annoying.

By Mordicai Knode (not verified) on 23 Jan 2016 #permalink

All things in moderation including moderation.

Happy 2016 Coby!

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 25 Jan 2016 #permalink

Mr. Halpern, also a good year, hopefully not too hot one for your senses, to you. Let me ask you, how you came to choose "Eli Rabett" as your nickname and why do you often say things like "Eli finds this interesting", talking in 3rd person speech about yourself? I would appreciate an explanation. Thank you.

Hi everyone.

Well, hasn't this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?
It's a long time since I last commented here, and
I'd just like to ask if any of you have changed your mind on AGW at all in the last few years?

I'm addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW.
I mean, do you still think the alarmism is justified, or are doubts creeping into your mind?
Whadayareckon, Wow?
I'd especially like to know what you think of the alarmist's sides most prominent SCIENTIST; Bill Nye. (haha)

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 05 May 2017 #permalink

"Well, hasn’t this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?"

Oh, well, I guess that's over now you're here. Oh. Bugger. No, you just wanted to start in yourself.

"I’m addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW."

Uhm, why? Are you a believer in fantasy? AGW is reality. You don't have to believe in it, it exists.

I take it, though, you haven't given up your fantasy and still insist it's a scam or some such rubbish, despite it being the warmest 2016 on record.

Because you never worried what reality said, so why the hell would more evidence change YOUR mind, eh?

"the alarmist’s sides most prominent SCIENTIST"

Who? Tony Watts? He's not a scientist.

I'm especially not at all bothered what the fuck you're trying to avoid saying either. You couldn't be bothered to say, so I really can;t be bothered to work it out. Bill Nye. Yup, he's an engineer and has a science show. But he's not a prominent scientist, not an alarmist, and accepts reality.

All of them 180degrees around from you, neither prominent, nor scientist, you're alarmist and in deep denial of reality.

I'm addressing this to you, retard.

Bahahaha!

Wow!
You are unreal!
So nasty, abusive and, desperate!
Bahahaha!

I can't believe you are STILL clinging on to this rubbish.
Your angst is obvious!
Your name-calling shows that you have NO actual science to back you up.

The wheels are falling off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
Bahahaha!

(by the way, I'm pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive.
If you were friendly, we could have a much nicer conversation..... but we'd still be talking about how the wheels are falling off this AGW hoax.)

Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming.

I was also hoping to hear from Mandas, who used to comment a lot here.
But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow.

Wow, why do you still bother?
What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly.
I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else's words, please explain it in your own words.
Thanks.
:-)

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 06 May 2017 #permalink

"So nasty, abusive and, desperate!"

If that's evidence of being wrong, you were wrong to begin with.

"(by the way, I’m pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive."

Go ahead. This is meaningless, though, just letting you know.

"Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming."

Really? Then what does it show is causing it?

"But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow."

Which you're now making pointless fighting between you and me. This invalidates this being any sort of complaint. You just want to join in.

And it doesn't prove AGW is wrong.

"Wow, why do you still bother?"

Why do you?

"What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly."

Uhm, the evidence.

Go look here yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch

Note I did not ask you what evidence convinces you it's wrong or failing or all that bollocks because we both know it's nothing to do with evidence.

You just want pointless arguing and to spew abuse and idiocy.

"I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else’s words"

There's no words you will listen to, you only listen to words you want to hear. You have stuck to your denial for no reasons, and there are none you will listen to, you only want to be abusive and nasty and blame someone else for all your flaws.

I will listen to you, wow, if you will summarise the evidence in your own words.
Surely you can sum it up pretty easily?

You seem to be a climate scientist, so, surely with the thorough knowledge you have, you can sum it all up in a few sentences?
There's no need to be nasty, mate.
Just explain why you are so convinced.
If you want credibility, don't just tell me to "google it", or click on some ipcc link.
That is intellectual laziness, when your credibility is at stake, mate.
It's obviously a topic that is very close to your heart.

C'mon, mate.
convince me!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 06 May 2017 #permalink

Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove that you cannot convince me, and I've been right about this whole AGW shite since 2007!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 06 May 2017 #permalink

"I will listen to you,"

Then what? what payoff for effort do I get? What end goal will happen to make the time investment valid?

Deniers deny. Listening then denying is no benefit, no change.

"Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove"

Nothing.
Only that I have no care or worries about your precious ego or feelings.

It does not prove a damn thing about AGW.

But that you will do so anyway is because you have nothing of reality to support your insanity and denial.

What made you so convinced in 2007? Convince me.

Wow!
What would you get?
Mate!
You would be famous!
You would have incredible wealth and massive scientific credibility!
Isn't that worth a few short sentences?

Wow!
You can't explain something that you understand so thoroughly?
This is surprising to me, wow.
The way you speak to people, I was quite convinced you were a scientist who understands the science of AGW very well.

Hmmm....

You've just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion.
You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me.
It doesn''t work that way, mate.
It's up to the "hypothesisor" to prove the hypothesis, is it not?

Are you able to sum it up in a few well-crafted sentences?
It's settled science, after all, innit?

Go ahead.
Earn your well-deserved credibility!

'course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet.
See how you go.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 06 May 2017 #permalink

"You would be famous!"

Wrong. And worthless to me in any case.

"You can’t explain something that you understand so thoroughly?"

Oh, no, I absolutely can.

But since you posit that not explaining it means that you are incapable, your lack of explanation of what convinced you in 2007 means you don't think you're capable of doing so.

"You’ve just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion."

So you've proven your AGW denial is complete bullshit? You've not explained what convinced YOU in 2007.

"It’s settled science, after all, innit? "

"It"? What do YOU mean by "it". If you mean AGW really exists and the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, then yes. That's settled. You have had 30 years at least, and 20 years even if you've been deliberately avoiding science to read the evidence and proofs yourself. And still you deny the problem, clutching at imaginary straws as "proof" that this religion you claim is wheel-less.

"‘course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet."

Nope. Does not, shithead.

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by concern trolls and sometimes as a derailment tactic, it is an informal fallacy.

"You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me."

No, I'm asking you to uphold the burden of proof on your claims.

1) religion?
2) proof the wheels are falling off?
3) Fame?
4) What convinced YOU in 2007.

I'm asking because I don't know what YOU considered proof enough in 2007. And you will whoosh those goalposts to avoid listening.

And that will happen even after you've said where those goalposts are, a thing which you are avoiding like anything to do, because you really REALLY do not want to debate.

Only bullshit.

For example, you claim I'm nasty and that proves AGW is failing.

But I can claim therefore that your use of blank assertion proves your AGW denial is driven by hope, prayer and ideology and completely avoids facts and evidence.

You cannot counter that by "But that's irrelevant!" or "I HAVE evidence!" because you've proclaimed without needing evidence other than the tone of argument made to come to your conclusion.

Bahahahaha!
Wow!
You seem to be "scrambling" for justification, wow.
(especially in the way you do that "point by point" replying. Can't you just write in normal sentences?)

It must be difficult for you to keep up your unwavering belief in such people as Michael Mann, Al Gore and Bill Nye.
AGW is settled science!
Bill Nye says so!

I will let you just go back to arguing with Freddy now, wow.

Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed.
You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who's clinging desperately to your failing ideology.
You can only defend it by nastiness and abuse.
You remind me of those anti-trump protestors who don't even know why they're protesting.
(haha!)

You have zero credibility,
and you are losing more and more each day as mother nature and especially, actual science, proves the hypothesis wrong.

I've said it before 'n' I'll say it again; it has been a political argument all along.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 07 May 2017 #permalink

You seem to be avoiding saying what constituted proof for you in 2007. That's clearly because there was no proof, you just decided.

"I’ve said it before ‘n’ I’ll say it again; it has been a political argument all along"

"IT"? What "it"? What to do about AGW IS a political argument. Whether there IS AGW is not political, it's science.

"AGW is settled science!
Bill Nye says so!"

No, Bill Nye says so because the science is settled on the subject of the reality of AGW.

PS. "It's a political argument because some random moron denier on the internet says so!", right? Oh, no, for YOU there's proof and evidence in your claims, you just won't provide them.

"Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed."

Honestly, you're talking bollocks there. You were convinced in 2007 it was wrong and there was no evidence required for you to be convinced. To convince you otherwise would require Ken Ham levels of evidence. There IS no evidence that would convince you otherwise.

And not convincing a denier that they're wrong when they're convinced they're right based on no evidence or logic is not my failure, but yours.

"You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who’s clinging desperately to your failing ideology."

Someone said, someone you listen to a lot, that this was merely political, and there you go making a politics claim. They also complained it was all abuse and pointless fighting, there you are hurling abuse and pointlessly arguing.

I guess this proves, as that person said, that your position is political and ideologically vacant rhetoric and the wheels have fallen off the AGW denial wagon, hence your sudden appearance and hate spewing vitriol.

This is so because someone you listen to a lot said that this constitutes proof of that claim.

Wow!
Good boy, Wow.
You managed to write a whole par without using one swear word!
Perhaps that means you DO care about your credibility?

But...
There's no climate science in your comment.
You are a climate scientist, wow.
Why are you not talking about climate science?
You just said the science is settled.
Can't you sum it up for me?

Also, I must mention;
You write as a classic leftist who constantly utilises ad hominems and obfuscation out of weakness of argument.

You also assume an awful lot of details to react to, I've noticed.
(whispering)
Those things only exist inside your own head, mate.
Who is "the person" you're talking about?

Again I must ask;
could you please write in standard, academic form and not this ridiculous "line-by-line" stuff, wow? It behoves you to write properly.

Lastly, I'll address your first sentence.

I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006.
I was a member of Greenpeace at the time and still consider myself an environmentalist.
I wanted more information about this global warming stuff and I can assure you, my mind was set to be changed, unwillingly at first, but gradually, my mind WAS changed.
At the time, (2009) I wrote to the Australian Greens Party to get more information, ("trusted information") and they sent me a link to this very page; A Few Things Ill Considered.
I learnt a lot from this page, both scientifically and politically.

I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines.
(surely you don't deny that?)

I wondered why politics was so prevalent in this issue and my mind was changed in that regard too.
Scientifically, the two things that first got me interested were:
1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period.
2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores.

Both of these things were "triggers" for my wanting to learn more and, to discovering the exceedingly non-scientific and indeed political nature of this particular field of science.
Is any other field of science "settled"?

So, I ask again for you to sum it up for me as the climate scientist you say you are.
Thanks.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 08 May 2017 #permalink

"You are a climate scientist, wow."

Nope.

Weren't you complaining about point list posting and how this demonstrates you are incompetent?

"1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period."

Nope, it never erased the MWP. It was never within MBH98 and MBH99 was extended to contain within it the period that is considered the MWP.

What YOU read was denier bullshit where they got the meaning completely wrong.

"2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores."

So which is it? Is it trailing or leading or nonexistent?

But the vostok cores show that CO2 cause temperature increases. Either by being released and starting off the temperature rise, meaning more CO2 is released, meaning more temperature rise, such as happened during the PETM, or by some other warming, such as Milankovich cycles meaning an increase in average insolation, which causes warming and that causes CO2 to be released which causes warming, which releases more CO2 which causes more warming, and so on.

So what lack of relationship are you talking about?

Pity you never managed a single post without abuse, though. Clearly YOU don't give a shit for your credibility.

Not that you had any to begin with, mind...

Oh, and MBH99 has a MWP. About 0.4C warmer than average. It's at the lower end of the range of reconstructions, but not hugely, even the largest difference of the weirdest reconstructions show little over 0.8C warming in the MWP.

Clearly all you did was read some denier trope in 2007 and never bothered to check up on it at any time since.

Oh, see if you can manage one single post without hurling abuse and instead stick to the facts. You've failed so far. Because if you're having to scream "leftist!" and "religion!" and other derogations against those who do not agree with you, you clearly have no actual facts to work with and have to instead scream and shout abuse at others to make them unwilling to interact with you.

But, like the retarded rightwing nutjob you are, you will be incapable of doing so and will do so as soon as it looks like you're not going to win and have no other way out than to accept the facts presented or scream abuse as if this somehow negates the need to accept reality because they're "bad people".

"I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006."

Soshould anyone who hadn't learned about global warming. Which shouldn't have been many since there was a Disney informational broadcast in the 60s about it. It's quite bleak what is happening.

"I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines."

Where did you learn that? And how do you know it's the left's fault and not the right? Moreover, how does that change reality? Either it's right or it's wrong, and it doesn't matter if you're rightwing or left.

Moreover, that's a false claim anyway. The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it's all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn't go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose "training" is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn't dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn't know who is and who isn't a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

How about Tim Ball claiming he's a climatologist when he wasn't? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he'd been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn't?

What about Soon and Ballunias' fraud? How about Wegman's plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

When Lomborg's CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there's a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can't increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the "documentary" (for want of a better word), whereas AIT's case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it's not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

Or did you take someone else's word for all this "proof" of AGW's falsity, and never looked? Then demand I spend time and effort trying to educate the ineducable denier moron that is you?

So musta convinced Michael there that the denial side was, if anything, less reliable than he thought the realist side was, so he clearly could not believe their claims.

Adam, freddy does not consider Al Gore a competent capacity in climate science and meteorology. Therefore freddy does not give a nut on what a naked layman exoresses as his beliefs in an area in which such an individual has no education, takent and competence whatsoever. Freddy recommends to Adam to learn to distinguish what science is from just daily bavarding in the media.

Ah, well, I'll let you talk to adam, then.

Oh, and we have yet another sciencelbogs sock from you. Ex-Deltoid troll Batshit Betula the tree pruning moron is you too.

Hey, were you posting as Mike from Brisbane too?

And I take it that your posting in the third person is to cover up another case of your sockpuppet support of your own claims being found out with the lameass trump-level "excuse" of "I was just talking in the third person" again.

Wow.
Blah blah blah.....
Wow! you can spout some bullshit, wow.

AGW is like a religion, and its followers, like you are like religious zealots.
I am accusing you of being a religious zealot, wow.
You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence, not me.

Your religion PRETENDS to be science.
It is not based on the previously well-established scientific method at all.
Your religion is anti-life, anti-human, pro-poverty, socialist rubbish.

You are obviously thoroughly convinced yourself, but you have done a shit job of convincing me or anyone else.

Here's another angle to try:
As a leftist/socialist, can you please explain how socialism is a good idea?
Feel free to reference the current situation in Venezuela to help you form your argument.
Perhaps you could include the CO2 emissions figures for water cannons and tanks, mowing down the awful and quite pesky, starving population?

Come at me, bro!
You are weak.
Your religion is based on nothing but political zealotry!
It's a doctrine that suits the weak-minded leftists like you.

Do you think this might be a reason why no-one else is commenting here to support your religion?

I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who will stand with Wow.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 13 May 2017 #permalink

Ah, you were supposed to refrain from blatant unsupported claims, "mike", given you want your complaints about a lack of evidence and fact-free proclamation to be taken as honest brokership.

Your "concerns" about AGW and its science were NONE of them about the science, but about the actions you saw and how they made you feel "alarm bells were ringing".

So I responded with the proof level you had to your insistence it is all fake: actions that should also make you feel "alarm bells were ringing" and therefore that the claims it was all wrong are also unsupportable and wrong. religious zealotry, as it were.

Do you not feel like alarm bells are ringing on your side about the actions taken by those who claim with foam-flecked screaming that AGW is a scam, a lie, a religion, proposed by leftists, entirely drawn along party political lines?

Because precisely the same proof, merely more of it, is clearly indicating that it is your side of the argument that is filled and promulgated by rightwing political hacks lying and scamming and pushing their religion like the most rabid zealots.

And if not, then clearly what you cited as "evidence" had no effect on you at all, since you ignore or clutch as holy writ that evidence at a whim to one side and not the other.

The choice of which you reject and which you refuse to accept or even acknowledge exists must therefore by from some other source.

What, then is that source for your screaming hatred of reality?

Convince me that you are capable of listening.

Oh, and thank you for yet more proof that you are projecting with your claims of political partisanship being the driver of stance.

You shout irrelevant accusations and propose "leftist" this and "socialist" that and demand I talk only of politics now.

When earlier you saw the demand to make it party political as somehow proof that the stance taken proved it was unsupportable by science.

"You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence"

I did:

The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it’s all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn’t go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose “training” is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn’t dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn’t know who is and who isn’t a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

How about Tim Ball claiming he’s a climatologist when he wasn’t? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he’d been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn’t?

What about Soon and Ballunias’ fraud? How about Wegman’s plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

When Lomborg’s CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there’s a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can’t increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the “documentary” (for want of a better word), whereas AIT’s case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it’s not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

There you go, proof exactly of the same calibre that you have been convinced with before.

Ergo it convinces you now.

When conversing with the right wing, all I can think is that memepic from Toy Story with Buzz and Woodie and subtitle it with "Snowflakes. Snowflakes everywhere!".

Such a bunch of thin skinned wusses offended by words that are "nasty". On the internet, nobody owes you a safespace, cupcake.

Oh look, the WoW-pollution has washed up here as well.

Don't these blog owners have cleaners?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Aug 2017 #permalink

Still whining to win, craig? I'd always guessed you looked up to trump.

Worried nobody will take notice of you, cupcake?

Sad.

Hey Craig,
Where else does WOW show up?

I'm surprised that Coby has allowed his blog to become Wow's scratching post.

Hey WOW.
Please post any evidence you may have, that does not rely solely on computer model output data.

Thanks.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 12 Aug 2017 #permalink

Actually, I ask that question of any reader here.

Please post any evidence of AGW that does not rely solely on computer modelling.
Thanks.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 12 Aug 2017 #permalink

"that does not rely solely on computer model output data."

MBH98.

Duh.

Svante Arrhennius also didn't have access to a computer. Check out his proof.

Wow! That's a piss-weak response, wow.
Typical of a lazy, leftist, alarmist, too.
It's up to you to provide evidence for your AGW religious beliefs.
Be a man!
Stand up for your faith!

Please post the evidence you have that doesn't rely solely on computer modelling.
I'm waiting.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

I'm not sure I understand the mechanism whereby computer modelling can be responsible for record low Arctic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

...how modelling could be causing the extensive world-wide retreat of most glaciers:
http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

Or how modelling could be causing the accelerating increase in sea levels:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ikXzCCe1bNc/U9h19XT0smI/AAAAAAAAN90/3BaMbOGCI…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

Also, for the basics of how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works, It isn't modelling that gives us the absoprtion spectrum of CO2:
http://mb-soft.com/public3/co2absoq.gif

...observations of which allow us to understand how the Earth's energy balance works out:
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/energy_balance.jpg

The only place where modelling comes in is in trying to understand the future of the trends we are already observing.

The worst of the modelling was the modelling done on Arctic sea ice, which vastly underestimating the rate of melting that has occurred in reality:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/sea_ice_prediction_med.jpg

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

Or, if I may be permitted to re-phrase that into the Einstein-like genius of Wow-speak,
I’m addressing this to you, retard.
Only bullshit
But, like the retarded rightwing nutjob you are, ...
Oh, and we have yet another sciencelbogs sock from you. Ex-Deltoid troll Batshit Betula the tree pruning moron is you too.
On the internet, nobody owes you a safespace, cupcake.
Worried nobody will take notice of you, cupcake?
Sad.
Duh.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

"Wow! That’s a piss-weak response, wow."

Proof plz, witless moron

"Please post the evidence you have that doesn’t rely solely on computer modelling.
I’m waiting."

Why? Already there in #41 and #42.

Just because you haven't ever heard of them apart from the denialist echo chamber where they dismiss it (and you swallow it whole) doesn't mean those fuckwits are correct.

That there is the evidence.

Actual measurements of AGW and the theory with predictions (that have all come to pass) sans computers.

Well well, Craig.
What a nasty, leftist, religious zealot you are!
Haha!
Algorhu Akbar!! (haha)

I'm pretty dumb, so perhaps I worded the question badly?

"Please provide evidence for CAGW alarmism that does not rely solely on computer modelling."

Everything you've mentioned is indeed evidence of climate change.
However, NONE of those things are evidence of mankind's contribution to natural atmospheric CO2 causing anything!

ALL of the alarmist predictions come from computer model evidence.
NONE of the alarm comes from actual evidence.
Surely you are aware of the ol' "correlation doesn't equal causation" thingy? (It's a bit sciency I know)

Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change!

You really are a very nasty person, to say such things to a complete stranger.
Leftists are fascinatin'!

Leftists are also THE ONLY segment of society that has fallen hook line and sinker for the crap spun by the politicians at the IPCC.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

Wow.

I thought you might have understood what I wrote.
I'm asking you to explain it.

It's up to you to prove your faith is justified.
Leftist dummies often try to turn the onus of proof onto others.
That doesn't work on me.

Explain to me how what you've mentioned at #41 and #42 are non-mathematical model evidence for AGW.
Explain your faith in the IPCC and the politicians who have ripped off the taxpayers of the world!
Algorehu Akbar!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

Oh, and to further clarify my point:

Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the "science" of AGW and CAGW is "settled science", with no further discussion allowed.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 14 Aug 2017 #permalink

"What a nasty, leftist, religious zealot you are!"

You keep bringing religion into it. And politics.

Projection (Psychological)

1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

"Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the “science” of AGW and CAGW is “settled science”"

Again, Svante Arrhenius.

Science uses maths as it s proof, so you're demanding a non science science. Which you moved to from "No computer models" because your arse was handed to you when you demanded and got what you never wanted.

Diddums.

"I thought you might have understood what I wrote."

Nope, I understood completely. You asked for a non-computer model proof of AGW. I gave it.

"I’m asking you to explain it."

Now you are. Because you're JAQing off and wasting time. Like "asking" for non-math proof of the science of climate change.

We both know it's meaningless because your only complaints against AGW have been that things "rang alarm bells". Yet far more and stronger alarm bells ring for the denialists whose bilge you spout, yet this rang nothing with you.

You do not want or demand evidence, you want to pretend it's all fake so your politics can remain undisturbed.

"That doesn’t work on me."

That's because you're in deep denial. There is so much evidence that you need proof it's all fake to discount it. It's 30 years too late to cry off that there's no evidence and no proof.

Where is that proof that it's all faked evidence?

"ALL of the alarmist predictions come from computer model evidence."

WRONG. See Svante.

"NONE of the alarm comes from actual evidence."

WRONG. See MBH98

"Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change!"

Science answers the question why the climate changes. And it's CO2 changing it now and we're doing it.

Logic proves human-caused climate change.

"Leftists"

And along with your religious projection, your politics too.

"are also THE ONLY segment of society that has fallen hook line and sinker "

Leaving the right to fall for the denial industry's proven lies. While reality shows the scientists are right and that the left is just accepting expertise.

"for the crap spun by the politicians at the IPCC."

Where is your proof and evidence?

"Explain your faith in the IPCC"

They are scientists who collate the work of thousands of other scientists. Expertise gives reason to believe their results.

"and the politicians"

The politicians have sold you a line that you swallowed. I don't believe the politicians. They mostly try their best to underplay the facts about AGW so that the big oil states and the USA can all continue to pretend there's nothing to worry about.

You're the one believing politicians and untrained idiots.

hey Wow.
This form of "copy and paste" writing you do, is it acceptable in your academic circles?
I must say I find it infantile and annoying.
Just like its content.
I suspect you are incapable of explaining the 'evidence' yourself, so you just use bluster.
(haha)
I also wonder where all the other commenters are these days.
Remember Mandas and all the others who used to comment here on your "believers" side?
I always respected Mandas, because he was never nasty like you STILL are.
Why are they not supporting you anymore?
Even Coby doesn't seem to comment much in support of you.
Have they woken up to this political hoax, or do they still believe, like you do, that the politicians at the IPCC are genuinely good people?
The UN is the vatican and the IPCC is the college of cardinals.
Al Gore is the pope. (haha)
(He's become very weatlthy on Big Climate, the holy father!)

Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?
(besides mathematical science of course)
Please explain how a complex system like the earth's climate is "settled science" when the only "evidence" for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter!

It's SUCH bullshit and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
I know it's time for your daily prayers, so I'll get in before you....
Algorhu Akbar!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 15 Aug 2017 #permalink

"I must say I find it infantile and annoying."

Good.

"It’s SUCH bullshit"

Ah, and your proof for that is you don't like its conclusions.

Sorry, that only is your bigotries and denial speaking. Rational humans, unlike yourself, need evidence for claims. You haven't got any. Just your feelings.

"Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?"

Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too.

"Please explain how a complex system like the earth’s climate is “settled science” "

Please explain why AGW is not. That's what you asked about before.

And it's settled science because the scientists have looked at the evidence and all come to the same conclusion: AGW is real and it's happening and explains the evidence extremely well while every other avenue of explanation is incapable of doing so.

"Why are they not supporting you anymore?"

They don't have to. Why does nobody support you, betty?

Trollidiots like yourself have driven them away, because answering morons luike yourself who demand A then when it's given say "no, I meant B" then "Nuh, uh, I asked C" is just meaningless.

You'd decided for your political and ideological outlook to deny reality and deny AGW based on your feels and until reality and AGW "feel" OK with you, you will not change, no matter what evidence is presented.

Like Svante Arrhenius and MBH98 and Cook et al. All non computer evidence and proof of AGW and it being settled science.

You don't feel right when presented, so you refuse to allow it to penetrate your denier skull. And no evidence will change your mind, since evidence never made it up in the first place.

So they left because you're a moron denier and like other moron deniers, there's no value in pandering to your idiocies and they have left.

"He’s become very weatlthy on Big Climate"

He became very wealthy long before it.

And odd that you hate the wealthy so much. Wealth envy is again a projection of the right. "How DARE they be rich without being like ME!!!!!". Because to the right success means you are right and if you are right you must agree with the rightwinger or they might be wrong, so if you're successful (which to the right means wealthy), you must either be a rightwinger like them or have scammed people which means you're not successful you're just a crook and they can ignore the weath as unearned.

Rich envy from the right.How pathetic.

"this political hoax"

Proof please.

" alarmism "

Proof please.

"when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter! "

Lie.

It's not based on one parameter. However you may be thinking of that denier loon Mad Christ Monkfish whose "model" was like an engineers' caricature of one and where the one parameter to work on was the climate sensitivity which he made to be very low then used his "model" to show that the climate sensitvity was low.

Climate science models do not use only one parameter.

"when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models"

Proof this is a problem, please.

Not playing any more, "mike"? (ha ha)

Need to get more ammo from your superiors in Right Wing Central? (ha ha)

Haha!
Your leftist thinking is funny.
But I find your writing difficult to read.
I know you'll try to insult me for that, but I think you're a bad writer.
I'm sceptical of whether your style is acceptable in academic circles.

I really must highlight this bit! (haha)

"Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too."

I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you've mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence.
I hope you will read your comment again and see how wrong you are.

I do admit to misusing the word "parameter"
I meant "a line of evidence", meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry.
I did not mean to imply that models use only one parameter.
I hope that clears that up.

Since your mind is obviously closed on the climate science aspect of the AGW hoax, perhaps I can get you to acknowledge a different aspect of the issue?

The Big Climate unelected government-corporations are pushing for shutting down of fossil fuel sources in place of inefficient and expensive renewable sources, which only result in two things:
Less reliable power, and
Increased cost of power.

The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity and fuel and groceries, etc, but the poor cannot.
Why would Big Climate be doing this?

Since you are closed-minded about the AGW hoax, I wonder if we could have a technical discussion about the various forms of electricity production and why it's against physics to be closing down fossil fueled power stations?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 18 Aug 2017 #permalink

"But I find your writing difficult to read."

Well, yes, a lack of education makes your reading skills inadequate to the task.

"I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you’ve mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence."

Determining the chemical characteristics of a molecule requires computation in quantum mechanics. 100% mathematical models and only capable of being done in a computer due to the massive amount of calculation done.

"I meant “a line of evidence”, meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry."

Then your claim was meaningless babble. Nothing new there.

"Less reliable power"

Lie.

"Increased cost of power."

Lie.

"The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity"

But not if you use renewables because they make more cash when you buy fossil fueled power which is only possible from their sources. Oil fields under your house are not yours.

Funny how you follow fake money and ignore the real money trail when it leads right to the rightwing nutjobs who feed you the line to keep you snookered.

" inefficient"

Irrelevant. Since no fuel is burned it matters not how efficient it is at turning a photon in to electrical potential.

And SPV at commercial scale is already as, or more, efficient than the internal combustion engine.

" and expensive"

Wrong.

"which only result in two things:"

Wrong again.

And i will note that you have yet to fulfill any obligations on proving any of your claims that have been questioned before. Also that you insist on making it based on party political lines, making the ones patently wrong on the subject you and your ilk.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/

Are you well-versed in the technical aspects of electricity generation?

You seem to think that solar and other renewables are more powerful and/or more efficient than fossil fuels?

I'd love to have a technical discussion with you on the various efficiencies and physics of all forms of electricity generation if you'd like?

Part of the reason I know AGW is a political hoax to feed the greed of UN elites, is that they are shutting down coal-fired power stations as a matter of "urgency", in place of renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker, more expensive and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production, as well as being inefficient at producing electricity.

You've been well and truly duped by politicians, wow.
WOW!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 19 Aug 2017 #permalink

The low educated misinformed is named Adam and has no clue about electrivity generation, but suffers from untreatable logorrhea.

Wow! Adam!
You've been well and truly duped by elite politicians.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 19 Aug 2017 #permalink

"renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker"

Bullshit.

", more expensive"

The reverse of reality.

" and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production,"

Complete codswallop.

" as well as being inefficient at producing electricity."

Still wrong. See previous. Repeating lies don't turn them into truths.

"You’ve been well and truly duped by politicians, wow."

Says someone who has been duped by the righwing politicians...

Sad

Freddie, boris, kai, sunspot, barry, michael, adding more socks won't change the fact you're talking bollocks, mate!

Haha!
Wow!/Adam!

You are actually weaker than I had thought.
Your responses are child-like.
To be honest, I think you and your ilk are sad and pathetic, and I mean that in a genuine and sincere way.
I don't mean it as an insult.

I feel a bit sorry for you, even after all your nastiness and carrying on.
I hope you'll keep following your religion, until it becomes so embarrassing, that even you can't stand it anymore.

The entire AGW hoax will be a half-day primary school subject in 300 years time.
People will study all these comments on the "ancient internet" and wonder how they evolved past such "global brainwashed thinking".

Keep up your good work Adam.
It seems you're a lone-voice these days, even on this blog, and I do feel sorry for you.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 20 Aug 2017 #permalink

"Your responses are child-like."

Since your argument is infantile, I see no need to put effort into it, freddy.

"I hope you’ll keep following your religion,"

Again you're the only one going on about religion.

"I don’t mean it as an insult."

Bullshit. It's your only desire. Hating the science, those who know it and those who say what it is.

Do you think I'm Freddy?
I can assure you, I'm not.

Your reply has cemented my previous comment regarding your aloneness and your childishness.

I do feel a bit sorry for you, mate.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 20 Aug 2017 #permalink

Sure you're freddy. Just like I'm adam.

Your confusion is really your creation, not mine. Live with. You put a lot of hate and anger into believing it's all a hoax because you've been fed lies.

I must say that for someone who seems to have ruled this forum with the iron-fist of a leftist dictator, you are surprisingly non-intellectual.

I s'pose you've spent a lot of time pondering the fact that you're the last alarmist here?
Maybe Coby is keeping the blog active just for you?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 20 Aug 2017 #permalink

For someone who lives inside their own anus, your claims there are nothing unexpected. It's meaningless whine and whinge, proposed because your arguments have been nonexistent and destroyed with little effort.

So you're attempting to make me wrong by the fact I've posted.

Sorry freddy, this won't float.

Just like your other "ideas".

Haha! You really do think I'm Freddy!

I assure you, Adamwow, I'm not.
You can't use that as an excuse.
I really must say I'm taken aback by your ineptitude regarding your ability to argue for your religious beliefs.

You are a typically weak-minded leftist who really has no idea of anything except your political religion, which is diminishing in its popularity and credibility with each passing day.

Algorehu Akbar!

Bahahahahaha!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 20 Aug 2017 #permalink

Sure. Just like you really think I'm Adam.

"You can’t use that as an excuse."

An excuse for WHAT?

"religious beliefs."

The only one calling religion and partisanship is you, freddykaiborismike. And you insisted that this proved the side making the claim of that absolutely wrong.

So you're merely proving your denial of AGW is a fraud.

"political religion"

And you're doing it again. Making batshit claims twice doesn't make it any less batshit or any less wrong.

Sorry, your rightwingnujob ideology is incapable of handling reality, but AGW is real and your denial of reality is a cranial infarction brought about by your stupidity and ease by which you are programmed by the politicians who are using you to keep lining the pockets of themselves, their friends and their donors.

sigh
For what? ....
as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought in defence of AGW.
I am not any of the other people you seem to think I am, wow.

How 'bout this?
Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?

That's a simple question. Let's see if you can give a simple answer, with only reasoned thought and not insults, or diversions.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 21 Aug 2017 #permalink

"For what? ….
as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought "

How on earth would you be freddykaiborismike be an excuse for that?

And I've already managed far more reasoned thought than you have in your unreasoned and irrational batshit crazy attacks against reality. But you don't WANT reality, since it doesn't conform to your political outlook.

"Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?"

If I answer, then what? JAQing off is what you#re doing and answering this will merely garner another twenty questions, all leading.

If I answer, then what?

Why is answering even necessary? Already been answered many many times.

So, it'll be easy for you to answer again, then.

Do you trust the source of the AGW alarm, the IPCC?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 21 Aug 2017 #permalink

I've answered your asinine and meaningless questions before, yet all that's happened is you've spammed "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics".

So what if I DO answer that one? 20 more questions?

"the AGW alarm"

That would be denier blogrolls like WtfUWT and co2scam et al.

You know, the sites YOU get your political hack job disinformation from.

I'm only asking 1 question, mate.
You're attempting to divert by making excuses for answering questions that don't exist anywhere but inside your paranoid, leftist mind.

Do you trust the IPCC?
The UN IPCC is the source of AGW alarm that is based solely on computer modelling.
Do you trust the politicians to give you, personally, the true and correct scientific advice on AGW?

It's a simple question, mate.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 21 Aug 2017 #permalink

And I'm only asking questions. My post #56answered your earlier ones, out of many, yet here you are bleating "alarmist" "religion" "leftwing" "politics".

So if I answer, what then? 20 more questions? More "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics"?

"The UN IPCC is the source of AGW alarm "

Lie.

"Do you trust the politicians"

WTF?

Make your fucking mind up, retard.

IPCC or politicians.

i take it you don't believe Inholf when he says that there is no AGW, then, moron? He's a politician. And you will not trust them at all. So you must think that AGW has to be real.

"based solely on computer modelling."

And you know this is a lie. Yet still you repeat it. Proof all on its own that climate denial such as yours is fake and a fraud.

Oh, well, I guess you do, implicitly. and faithfully, follow the teachings of the politicians at the IPCC.
I'll take your lack of answer as a resounding YES!

OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?
Haha.
Sorry, I shouldn't laugh.

I'm feeling more and more sorry for you, wow.
You're a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here at A few Things Ill Considered.
Is there no one that will speak up in support of you, the IPCC, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and Bill Nye?

The confusing but fascinating thing about your behaviour, is that you can be the only voice representing your beliefs on this blog, yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant.

From a psychological point of view, it's fascinating.
From a political point of view, it makes perfect sense.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 21 Aug 2017 #permalink

It's a pity you're so batshit crazy that you don't even comprehend what you're saying.

I take it that you accept SENATOR Jim Inhof's word that AGW doesn't exist, moron? Or do you reject the claims of politicians?

"OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?"

It is.

Sorry. Just because you "think" (in the loosest sense of the word) otherwise does not make it so.

"yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant."

You deserve nasty,shithead. If this offends you, try not being a scum sucking toerag.

And it's not arrogance when I do know more than you, it's plain fact. Try learning something and put some effort into catching up.

And neither nastiness nor arrogance are evidence of me being wrong or you being right. But you being wrong is in the evidence of reality in front of us. Even if you deny it.

"You’re a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here"

And you're the lone voice of insanity here on AFTIC. Therefore you are inherently wrong, apparently.

Haha! I love it when vacuous leftists attempt to "accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty".
Wow you are a vacuous leftist, wow.

You are the only voice on this once-respectable blog who still supports the politicians at the UN.
You have been totally and utterly fooled by their fake graphs and models.
You have also been thoroughly fooled by the ol' sciency thing of "correlation does not equal causation".
Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change.

Is there anyone reading this who will speak in defence of wow?
Anyone?
Anyone?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 23 Aug 2017 #permalink

So I take it that you do just believe whatever the politicians say when they admit to knowing nothing about the science, then freddy.

Sad.

"leftist,"

Again with the political insistence, proving your claims are invalid.

"their fake graphs and models."

Nope, they were real graphs and models.

Oh, and they were also accurate:

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…

How did your politicians do? Very badly.

"Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change."

But evidence of human caused climate change is evidence of human caused climate change. And magical thinking doesn't replace science. Human causation explains it. Magic (your option) does not.

But you just believe the politicians when they say they're not a scientist but that it's all fake.

Because you're a gullible rightwingnutjob.

"Is there anyone reading this who will speak in defence of wow?"

Ah, so you admit you have been incapable of proving me wrong and you want an easier target to try.

So sad.

And there you sit screaming like an incontinent monkey with sandpaper underpants repeating what your lords and masters in the senate and congress tell you.

Pitiful

And I note you're also on the conspiracy nut claims of a New World Order plot being hatched at "Jew Central" otherwise known as "The UN".

Dun dun duuuuun!

Pathetic. Anything your rightwingnutjob president and his lackeys push your way you swallow, no matter how insane or unbelievable.

" “accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty”.
Wow you are a vacuous leftist, wow."

So you're saying you're a vacuous leftist, dumbfuck.

Haha!
I think your swearing and salivating is hilarious!
Arguing with you is like arguing with a goat!
Haha!

erm...... what do you mean by using the term "Jew Central"?
Have you got something against Jewish people?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 23 Aug 2017 #permalink

So argue a lot with goats. Explains the badly formed half-thoughts you tried out.

Oh, right, I forgot, the dogwhistle you white supremacists use is "Globalists" which totally doesn't mean jews. Except when you do.

And I see you agree that you're a vacuous leftist.

Oh, notice how you insult and use foul language? You don't get to whine about it from others when you do it too. Not without being a hypocrite and negating any value or force behind the accusation.

Sorry.

I also see you agree that you will obey the exhortations of politicians.

Weak willed you are.

Go "Baaaaa" for your masters.They need to shear you.

On Facebook, click on the small "gif" button in any text bar; Type in the word "goat".
See the second gif that appears?
The goat with the tongue?

THAT'S YOU!
Bahahahahaha!

I'm finding you very entertaining, wowie!
Keep up the good work!

I've gotta ask you; Are you an Islamic Supremacist?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 24 Aug 2017 #permalink

Aaaaw. So you're still in junior school, mike.

And here you are with the grown ups,being all grown-uppy and stuff. How cute. Now go tell daddy how big and brave you've been.

But I guess this proves your crusade against reality has foundered.

I see you are still bleating for the shearing by your masters too.

Hitler was a socialist.

AGW is crap.

Allahu Akbar!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 24 Aug 2017 #permalink

Well that was short, meaningless and pointless. Just like you.

Still, you gotta protect your politicians' words against reality. Pesky liberal biased reality.

And you think North Korea a democratic republic too.

Reality is Nazis are rightwingers, hence your love for their politics (Trump won on those policies, progressive and liberal though they were, they were laden with authoritarianism and white nationalism, 100% nazi propaganda. Watch some Goebells sometime and see Trump and Spicer do the same thing), and NK is a dictatorship.

I'd love to talk more about conservatism, leftism, nazis, right-wingers, and all that wow.
But I don't think you'd be game.
:-(

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 24 Aug 2017 #permalink

Bleating again? Time for your masters to shear you again. You love it when they take advantage of you!

Heh. You draw the lines along politics, proving your denial machine is a scam!

Nah. I knew you would be way too chicken to talk to me about that stuff.

How about a technical discussion on the efficiencies of various sources of electricity?

Nup! Too chicken.

I notice that we're STILL waiting for someone to join in the conversation in support of you, wow.
I remember the good ol' days here, in 2009.
I was a rare "denier" back then.
You had lots and lots of friends.

How funny to think that you STILL think it's real.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 24 Aug 2017 #permalink

So you're still a lapdog of the rightwing politicians. Sad.

And envious of people who are clearly smarter than you. Sick.

Hey, you want to talk about science instead of your usual hobby horse obsessions of political parties and religion? How about we discuss the science of AGW:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1

Go through it page by page.

” “accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty”.

" Are you an Islamic Supremacist?"

Hmmm.

Revealing.

But do you have the chutzpah to go through the science instead of your go-to childish tantrums about your political naivete and religious indoctrination?

So, first page, first line of the summary for policy makers.

Liza V Alexander. Associate professor. University of New South Wales.

Politician or not politician? You make the claim they're all politiicans. Does this stand up to the first line of the first page of the WG1 report?

No.

Oopsie.

Never read what you whine about did you, dumbass.

Reading hard, are we?

You're right wow.
The IPCC is like the Holy See.
The holy priests/politicians would never lie to you.

You just continue to believe everything the IPCC tells you, mate. Good onya.
Nothing will change your mind.
Your science is settled.

Sadly though, you seem to be the only one holding onto your faith.
No-one here at AFTIC is coming to help you battle the heretics like me.
Surely, with such solid holy science from the Vatican... erm... the IPCC, there would be someone to back you up?

Hold onto your faith, wow.
It shows your strength of character!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 27 Aug 2017 #permalink

"You’re right wow."

Good. We both agree that you were 100% wrong about the IPCC before the first sentence of the IPCC report finished.

Not seeing any discussion about the science, though.

Not capable of it, are you.

Ok then wow.

Here are two simple questions for you regarding science.

Do you consider Geology to be science?
Do you consider Geology to be concomitant to study of climate?
(I have more questions, of course)
I'd love to talk about the science of climate if you'll acknowledge that climate science existed before the IPCC.

I do not trust the IPCC.
I do not hold any credibility for them at all.
The IPCC is a political organisation.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 28 Aug 2017 #permalink

None of that is in any of the IPCC report, dumbfucknuckle. Sorry you have been hallucinating. Stay off the heroin and go read the IPCC report for the first time in your meaningless existence. And when you get back to junior school ask teacher to teach you your letters again, you appear to have lost them since infants.

So the IPCC isn't written by politicians. You don't know what is in it. You don't WANT to know what's in it. You can't comprehend what is in it. You refuse to even try.

That about the shape of it?

What about mulish incompetence and ignorance is in your special-needs definition of science? Because that's the only "science" you have displayed so far.

When you've read the IPCC, then ask questions. If the answers to them is in the IPCC report, I'll just tell you to read it.

Nobody cares if you trust the IPCC. Such distrust is based on ignorance and assertion that is flat out fabrication.

Your assertion about it being written by politicians is wrong before the first sentence is finished when you read the IPCC report.

So you don't trust a figment you made up.

Nobody cares. Distrust your imagination all you like.

Suggestion for Michael:
Read what the IPCC publishes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

None of it is opinion. It is all published science from all over the world that is then collated by groups of people who all have to agree on which bits to include and which bits to leave out.
This committee style approach is the reason why the IPCC assessments have unerringly proven themselves to be very conservative in nature, as well as being grounded in solid and uncontroversial facts.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Aug 2017 #permalink

Here are answers to two simple questions.

Decimalisation happened in 1971
Montevideo.

Yes, they're answers to different questions, but then again you asked different questions to the ones invited. So precedent is set.

Hello Craig,
It's nice to see that at least one person is here in support of wow.

Sorry, but I simply do not trust the IPCC to release correct, real, and proper information, that doesn't serve the political agenda of the UN.
I've read a lot about the corruption of peer-review and everyone is aware of the money involved in Big Climate.

Also, ALL of the 'evidence' for alarmism comes from computer model data.
I simply do not agree that the science of AGW is "settled".
I remain sceptical.
You're obviously convinced though, aren'tcha?

I politely ask you to outline, in a few sentences of your own words; what evidence has convinced you so thoroughly that CO2 is the only/main cause of climate change?
(please do not post a link. I want to hear it from you, personally)

Thanks.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 29 Aug 2017 #permalink

"Sorry, but I simply do not trust the IPCC"

Sorry, nobody cares.

Your fear is clearly a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"Also,"

Your claim is also a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"I simply do not agree "

Your disagreement is also a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"I remain sceptical."

Except you have already made up your mind, hence are not skeptical. You could be deluded, though. Or faking.

"I politely ask you to outline"

Read the IPCC.

Although I was addressing my comment and question to Craig, and not you, wow, it still seems you are incapable of summing it up in your own words.
Anyway, AGAIN!
I challenge you, wow.
You, personally.
Please go ahead and sum up in your own words, the evidence that has convinced you so thoroughly of how exactly, mankind's emissions of CO2 is causing warming of the earth.

Have a go at replying without being abusive, or ridiculing, or obfuscating.
You purport to being an expert on AGW, so you must be able to explain it pretty easily, hey?

Craig, I'd still like to hear from you, as wow's only supporter so far.
Thanks.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 29 Aug 2017 #permalink

I did sum it up in my own words. It also reads as an instruction:

Read the IPCC report.

NOBODY cares who yo don't trust. Your distrust is either faked or the result of delusion.

Until you read the IPCC report, nobody cares what you claim about it because it's a claim based on pure and willful ignorance.

Read the IPCC report.

You have been challenged, personally, to read the IPCC report.

And refrain from any unfounded accusation based on your paranoia, delusion or political ideology defences.

Because every time you do that you prove AGW is right and terrifies the rightwinger and libertarian ideologues.

It is however very clear that you were whining about how I had no support (need none, that is a logical fallacy to claim it as indicative of anything at all) not to actually make the claim that there is nobody else accepting reality against your denial, but only so that you can find a new toy to play with that will not refuse your idiotic demands for the pointless denier runaround you want to engage in.

Read the IPCC.

You have never read it because you were told first that it was all a huge UN conspiracy. For something or other.

I'm sick of you, wow.
You're intellectually lazy and have zero credibility.

I'd rather wait for Craig to reply.
Craig, I'm hoping you can sum up your belief in AGW better than wow can.
Don't be lazy like wow and just say "read the IPCC".

I want your own words to sum up why you believe in AGW caused by human-kind's release of CO2.
It won't take long, since you seem to be pretty convinced, and you must have a solid understanding of it all.

I'm hoping for such statements as:
'I believe CO2 is the only cause of the current warming, because of numerous lines of evidence, such as the tropospheric hotspot, and ice-core data, and lessons from history'.... etc, etc...
You know what I mean?
Thanks.

Wow, I know you'll produce another few "stream-of-consciousness" comments, that don't say anything of value, so, to be honest, I'd prefer to hear back from Craig.
Cheers.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 30 Aug 2017 #permalink

"I’m sick of you, wow."

If you look on a map for "Oceanea" you;ll find where the people who care live.

"I’d rather wait for Craig to reply."

Yes, you want someone to play with who will play your game, your rules and hunt the goalposts for oyu.

The proclamation I have no credibility really doesn't work since you have made claims about the IPCC reports that are absolutely factually false and found to be so in the first sentence of the WG1 report. Moreover you have proclaimed you will NEVER read it because you don't trust it. Proving that you have made a decision proudly ignorant. There is no credibility there.

"I’m hoping for such statements as:"

Well go ahead then, answer your own question. Feel free. Saves bandwidth and time if you do it in notepad on your own computer.

Just a bit of helpful advice "mike".

Me? I looked at the IPCC reports. Read them. Checked them.

If there's anything in those you dispute, then come up with it.

"Wow, I know you’ll produce another few “stream-of-consciousness” comments,"

As opposed to your stream of unconsciousness comments.

Sorry, cupcake, you don't get to order me around. Make your own blog. Make demands there.

Nobody cares what you want here.

"I’d prefer to hear back from Craig."

Yes, you already said that.

Are you in the habit of repeating things so often? There's a minor mental affliction that causes that. I don't think you can ask for medication to treat it, though, they'll just take you to a specialist.

"It won’t take long,"

It doesn't from this end.

Read the IPCC.

The weeks long delay seems to be happening on your end of the internet. Just beyond the keyboard.

wow.
Sum up the IPCC report for me.
That is my challenge to you.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 30 Aug 2017 #permalink

Again, nobody cares what your paranoia tells you, it tells us that you are making claims out of a carefully inculcated ignorance that you are adamant at keeping.

And if you don't trust, them then reading their words doesn't make you trust them by hypnosis, so your terrified refusals indicate even more strange, unhinged crazy talk from you.

Read the IPCC.

Ask about it.

Sum it up?

"Here is the collected evidence and conclusions of thousands of scientists' work around the world".

And if you don't know what the IPCC report is, why are you so terrified of reading it?

And how can your ridiculous claims about the IPCC report be in any way, shape or form, based on knowledge when you don't even know what the IPCC report is?

Like I said, unhinged.

My god you are draining to deal with wow.
I've explained my position time and time again, to you.
You will never, ever understand.

As someone who arrogantly purports to be such an expert, you STILL haven't mentioned any detail of why you are SO convinced by the IPCC.

You are nothing more than a weak-as-piss leftist who seems easily led by corrupt politicians.
You pretend to be knowledgeable, but you really are not.

I'm also still waiting for Craig or anyone else, to support you.
Why is everyone so quiet here at AFTIC?

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 31 Aug 2017 #permalink

Again, not bothered about your paranoia.

Unless you've read the IPCC reports, you and everyone knows that your claims about them are based on ignorance.

"I’m also still waiting for Craig or anyone else, to support you."

Not what you said earlier.

"You will never, ever understand."

No, I absolutely understand. You're an ignorant paranoiac.

"You are nothing more"

And still more than you can handle.

Sad.

"leftist "

Just your paranoia and projection here. To you it is entirely party lines. So everyone else must be. So you blame them for it.

"led by corrupt politicians."

And this is your paranoia and ignorance speaking. But it actually describes you very well, if you were capable of seeing it.

"You pretend to be knowledgeable"

There's no pretense about it.

You're just ignorant and have no better recourse.

Sick.

By the way since you now claim this is what you're waiting for:

He did support me:

August 28, 2017

Suggestion for Michael:
Read what the IPCC publishes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

On August 30, 2017, Michael of Brisbane dribbled...

"Sum up the IPCC report for me".

Read it yourself.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

It is a very clear document, written with the layperson in mind.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2017 #permalink

On August 29, 2017, Michael of Brisbane babbled...

"... I simply do not trust the IPCC to release correct, real, and proper information, that doesn’t serve the political agenda of the UN..."

That opinion can have no merit whatsoever until you read the IPCC report and justify your opinion by showing what it is in the report that you think is incorrect.

If you haven't read it, you can't possibly know how reliable it is. It is fully referenced throughout so you can easily go and check the primary sources for all the information that is summarised in the report.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2017 #permalink

WOW!
You two dummies are totally incapable of defending your own beliefs!
Why are you so bad at this?
I'm asking you to defend your religion yourselves!
All you can do is tell me to read it myself?

You two leftists are funny!
I say leftists because only leftist thinkers are closed-minded enough to blindly and arrogantly follow Al Gore and his mates at the IPCC.
Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling.

C'mon! Defend yourselves!
Stand up to your intellectual enemy!
Explain your devotion to AGW!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 31 Aug 2017 #permalink

You seem to be missing it every time, moron.

We don't care what your paranoia says.

Read the IPCC.

Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it's not in which case you still know what convinced us.

But your claims about the IPCC and climate science are out of complete and willing ignorance and screamed out merely because you are a paranoid delusional maniac.

In which case obeying your demands is the worst thing we can do for you, since it will only feed your insanity.

Read the IPCC.

It's not hard at all.

Even a modest intellect, well within the remit of the vast majority of the human adult population in full mental heath, can read and comprehend the contents.

So far your claims are all 100% falsified by the contents of the IPCC, which is still valid because your crazy paranoia is ABOUT the report's content, not its evidence or conclusion.

We have one dummy completely unable to read.

You demanded to know what convinced me. Read the IPCC, say I.

"NOOOOOO!!!! I want you to say what convinced you!!11!".

Read the IPCC.

"***NO!!!!!***".

Read the IPCC.

"Is there nobody else here, you're here on your own, luzer, because you're a luzer and you ahve nobody here to support you!!!!"

Craig turns up (again). Says Read the IPCC

"I WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME WHAT CONVINCED THEM!!!!!!"

(oddly enough nothing is mentioned about how there's someone else here now. Nor that he's here alone. Luzer)

We have.

You do not want that answer, but it is the answer.

Read the IPCC.

You wanted to know what convinced us.

Read the IPCC

Then you'll know.

" follow Al Gore "

And again, a claim from your ignorance that if you read the IPCC report you would know is incorrect.

He's not in any of the report.

Meanwhile you follow Sen. James Inhofe. Your assertion of sheepdom is your way to cope with your woolly coat and frequent requirements to be shorn. Pure projection.

Religious Zealot 1:
"Read the bible! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Religious Zealot 2:
"Read the koran! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Religious Zealots Craig and wow:
"Read the IPCC report! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Bahahahaha!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 01 Sep 2017 #permalink

Well you don't want what you asked for. Not a lot anyone can do for you. The only thing that can be concluded is you never wanted it in the first place.

But your ridiculous projection is pretty much all you have.

I guess you'll be sticking with the false reality going forward. Because you just can't leave Inhofe alone, can ya?

"Read the IPCC.

Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it’s not in which case you still know what convinced us."

Can you read?

Read the bible!
Then you'll be convinced of my faith!

Read the IPCC report!
Then you'll be convinced of my faith!

Haha!
You are intellectually weak and cannot defend your beliefs at all.
You STILL haven't even tried!
(I s'pose I shouldn't laugh. It does seem a bit mean to laugh at someone who doesn't have the slightest chance of regaining credibility)

All I'm asking is for you to briefly sum up your beliefs in your own words.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 01 Sep 2017 #permalink

Good grief.

On September 1, 2017, Michael of Brisbane blathered:

"Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling."

Er, well if you had bothered to read the document which you assert is unreliable despite the fact you don't know what is in it, you would know that the document we advised you read contains nothing in relation to modelling. Nothing at all.

Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply repeating unsceptical propaganda you have imbibed from somewhere.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 01 Sep 2017 #permalink

Hello Craig.
Welcome back to the conversation.

I have actually read numerous IPCC reports.
That is the reason I don't trust them.
I have been interested in this debate for many years and have a pretty good understanding of it.

I truly do not understand why you cannot sum up your beliefs in just a short par or two.

I suspect it's because you know that no matter which "evidence" you point to, it is based on computer models.

innit.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 02 Sep 2017 #permalink

Adam and Craig: To make it easier for you to understand

WARMER IS BETTER THAN COLDER REGARDLESS OF WHY IT'S getting warmer, if it's even getting warmer at all.

You communists and green ideology fanatics move on lost ground abd nobody cares about what you cry here on a blog nobody but a few read, so you totally waste your energy.

"I have actually read numerous IPCC reports."

Bullshit.

Go read the IPCC reports. For real this time.

"WARMER IS BETTER THAN COLDER"

That's why the Sahara is where most of the biggest cities are...

Dumbass.

" it is based on computer models."

Svante.

MBH98/99/

Not models.

Never got an answer to mine. Why should anyone answer? If it's answered, what then? Because we both answered you in our own words, yet you are still here demanding we give a different answer.

Which is what I predicted would happen.

If you mean something to happen, explain what it is you intend to do when you are answered and what decides whether you will accept your complaint as answered.

Mike, you don't run the blog, so your demands are meaningless. the fact that you have to try to find a new plaything to JAQ off to and try to force into something you want them to say indicates how little you're capable of defending or even defining your "facts".

And breibart? Really? Want to cite Age of Aquarius too?

"like the mindless leftist fool"

You proclaimed that AGW was false because those pointing it out were partisan and rude.

So this spat of shite from you proves dellingpole is wrong.

Haha!
You're a classic, Wow!

I don't think I've met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you.

You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!
You are STILL clinging to your fellow authoritarians at the IPCC. (haha)

Luckily, these days, leftists like you don't have much credibility.
It turns out that when called out to back up your faith, you have nothing but insults and arrogance.
You are weak, and have no intellect by which to change your mind as new information comes to hand.
I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life.

I'm also wondering why you and I are the only ones here.
This blog used to be bustling, back in 2009.
Now there are just a few tumbleweeds, and wow sittin' on his porch, whittlin', ready to yell, toothlessly at any passers by.

Haha.

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 28 Oct 2017 #permalink

"I don’t think I’ve met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you."
Do you drive them off with your closed-minded arrogance and nastyness? Moreover, still an ad hom.

"You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!"
Since you're making this partisan, you're proving AGW denial is fake.

"You are weak, and have no intellect blah blah blah"

More ad hom. Tell me did you check ANY of the papers to see what they said? they don't say what dull old pole says they do. But he knows idiots like yourself will not check. It's been debunked by several people and you've never even researched if it's correct.

"I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life."
And you will believe in the shibolets of your righwing masters all your life.

"I’m also wondering why you and I are the only ones here."
Because you have nothing valid to say, cupcake.

"Now there are just a few tumbleweeds"
Ah, bit YOUR tumbleweedness proves AGW is false. Whereas my tumbleweedness proves AGW false too.... According to your intent here at bringing it up.

The total defeat of Adam in any "discussion" about "climate change" invented by the communists is documented. Now as scienceblogs is shutting down, Adam has lost everything and is forced to change his life, hopefully to the better for him and those who don't like him.

Did you read the article, wow?

To which papers do you refer when you say they've been debunked by several people?
(haha)

I love that you are STILL clinging nastily and arrogantly to your faith in the IPCC and Big Climate.

I love it!

By Michael of Brisbane (not verified) on 31 Oct 2017 #permalink

"Did you read the article, wow?"

Nope. Didn't need to. The source says enough. But then again YOU never read the source either, did you? What is the headline again? 400 papers saying global warming is a ,yth, right? So how come a section is about how wind turbines cause environmental damage? Nothing at all to do with AGW.

You complain *I* didn't read it? YOU didn't.