Have a look at this edit, where Lumidek loses his rag.
Slightly less wacko, but not losing touch with the septic, the AAPG seems to be coming closer to reality whilst being careful not to get there.
Meanwhile someone calling themselves SFredSinger, who may or may not actually be Singer, tried this on for size but it didn't work. [Oops, and I missed the connection with item 1].
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Nowadays I seem to rely on wikipedia for my news stories. Not necessarily for the truth, but that something has occurred. So this little thread at global warming piqued my interest (note, BTW, how the poor dear septics don't even bother trying to edit the page any more, having been crushed so often…
My criticism of Mark Armitage's "research" published in the ICR "journal" seems to have struck a nerve — he just sent me (and his colleagues at the ICR) an angry letter in which I think he is attempting sarcasm, he just isn't very good at at it. Poor baby. Here it is:
I am SO THANKFUL and indebted…
My previous post refers. There are lots more things to say; this post doesn't really say any of them but veers off at a tangent. Let me know if you get bored.
The tangent to start with is "no-one from outside understand how wikipedia works". An obvious example of this is Lawrence Solomon (my…
I don't normally blog on religion, but there has been an jump in foolish writing coming from the wacky end of the religious spectrum. On the top of the list are folks like Vox Day and Geisler and Turek (I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST). For some Christians, faith isn't enough,…
Lubos is right! People that disagree with him are criminals, and since they cannot be swayed by his compelling arguments, they must be liquidated, like soup.
Where do I sign up for this collaboration? Do we get to wear uniforms? I recommend something in a dark hue, or with an apron.
William,
seems like you would consider Lubos to be a serious septic ;-)
Does it make any sense? ;-) In fact, there is NO climate topic, which Lubos would agree with - in context of "climate alarmism", though I would call it climate "realism" ;-)
Also, please look at the next to last section, #60, POV: environmental propaganda on the Talk tab of Climate_Change_Denial:
Quote:
I've returned POV. This article is absolutely outrageous POV. It is like written from the servers of an ecoterrorist movement. All comments in this text are plain lies. It is neither true that the oil corporations fund people who are called in this way nor it is true that it would matter.
This article should honestly explain that the term "climate denier" is used by radical environmental activists to insult honest but inconvenient people, including scientists, by associating them with holocaust denial. Everything else is absolutely unacceptable at Wikipedia and contradicts every single rule of this encyclopedia. --Lumidek 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
End Quote.
Interesting discussion follows, illustrating sincere effort of Wikipedians to focus on actual sources, asking Lumidek to cite sources for his stated opinion.
Never in the field of human science have so many tried so hard to silence the few.
Lubos suffers from climate autism, the symptoms of which are a repetitious and childish withdrawal from the reality of climate change.
I think that trash like yourself cannot be debated. It must be destroyed. What is written on the "climate denial" page is just crime, the people who are responsible for it are criminals, and as soon as I get the opportunity to collaborate with someone on their liquidation, I will do it.
HHmmm.
Renegade String theorist and global warming denialist Lubos Motl said yesterday as he was led away in handcuffs:
"I didn't mean them to take it seriously, I am not responsible for their actions, just because they chose to misinterpret me saying " I think that trash like yourself cannot be debated. It must be destroyed. What is written on the "climate denial" page is just crime, the people who are responsible for it are criminals, and as soon as I get the opportunity to collaborate with someone on their liquidation, I will do it."
How could they ever think that I really wanted people killed?"
When I say to liquidate them, I don't mean anything illegal. I just mean the same thing that was eventually done with the Nazis during the second war.
[Amusingly, I was reading Popper on the Marxists just last night. He lays into them very strongly for using ambiguous language to avoid explicit advocation of violence, but the implications are clear. How odd to find Lubos having this in common with them.
But: please note: personal attacks will be reomved if they exceed a decency threshold. Anyone who thinks they have been so attacked can complain to me -W]
I often wonder how Lubos talks to his family, friends, colleagues. Or is wife/girlfriend. Does he speak to them in the same demeaning and hypocritical language as he uses here? Does it ever revert to physical violence? Or is he meek in public and just aggro online?
It's a pity that someone who is evidently smart in some things has to revert to such childish behaviour. He should also be careful he doesn't verge the incitement of violence - and consider that his behaviour online does not occur in a vacuum.
Speaking of Wikipedia, William, some help is needed with their definition of "feedback" -- it's continuing to confuse, as evidenced here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/arctic-sea-ice-wa…
There were many collaborators killed and imprisoned after WWII. Much of this was street-lamp justice Lubos might want to read a bit about what happened in one place. Whether there was justification or not, they were bloody times and to pretend otherwise is wrong.