This is what Denierism looks like …
BPSDB
One of the perpetual challenges for a climate blog is what to do about the Denier Troll spam. It is relentless, voluminous and distracting.
Simply deleting it (the obvious solution) leads to a barrage of accusations of censorship which, however baseless, cannot be refuted since the comment is now gone.
Ignoring them can create the impression that there is no rational answer to whatever irrational points they made, which is most definitely not the case.
“Feeding the Troll” ie responding (whether as if the author were making relevant, rational points, or otherwise) merely encourages them, although it can be a useful exercise in laying bare just how bare their case is. Regardless, it is immensely time consuming and mostly pointless.
Stoat reminded me that S2 earlier proposed the Dunce’s Corner as a solution, and so here it is. Judgmental though the title may be, you really have to earn it (see criteria for inclusion below).
Purpose of this page:
For the general Public:
1) You may judge whether you think my moving a comment to here was fair or not, and whether the commenter had a legitimate point. You can also assess the criteria I use and whether those are reasonable for judging comments to be spam;
2) Here you get to sample actual Denierism. This page is not a set up and the comments are actual comments that have been posted to this site … they are NOT fictional creations to make Deniers look like morons. This really is a fair representation of the intellectual quality of the Denialosphere.
For Denier Trolls:
See, you have not been censored or silenced, merely identified and correctly categorized.
For me and legitimate site users:
i) It gives me somewhere to put the dreck so that it does not clutter rational conversation and distract from the substance of the posts. I guess it’s analogous to the ‘quarantine’ folder where your virus protection software sticks infected files;
Anyone can assess whether I have been unfair in judging a particular comment of point to be spam;
Anyone can argue that my criteria are unreasonable & make a case to the contrary.
eg if someone wants to make the case that arguments that are no more than collections of logical errors should be part of legitimate intellectual discussion, go for it!
What is “Denier Troll Spam?”
Denier Troll spam is definitely NOT defined based on the conclusion or case it attempts to argue for, but rather by having one or more of the following qualities:
- No rational reference to actual facts, particularly accepted science;
- A level of “scholarship” that would be considered embarrassingly bad for middle school science homework;
- Mindless reposting of Denier talking points, all known to be drivel;
- No evidence of actually having read the article it purports to dispute, or even understanding what the topic was;
- Unsubstantiated claims that are easily shown to be idiotic nonsense, eg:
- “The IPCC forgot that climate changed in the past.”
- Right, that’s why they devoted Chpt 6 of the report to the topic;
- “You forget that CO2 is plant food.”
- Right, millions of scientists “forgot” Grade 4 science;
- “Al Gore’s global warming theories … ”
- Right, Gore was alive 150 years ago when global warming was first scientifically investigated.
- “The IPCC forgot that climate changed in the past.”
- No evidence of a logical argument;
- Reliance of logical errors to make the point;
- No point at all, just random rambling;
- Basing the argument on delusional conspiracy theories and other paranoid fantasies;
- No content other than name calling, juvenile boasting and generally sounding like an 8 yr old playground bully;
- Using rhetorical scams like JaQing Off and the Gish Gallop;
- Demanding that other people provide the evidence or references that a 12 yr old could find on the internet in 20 secs (Burden of Proof fallacy)(and naturally not looking at the evidence when people do provide it);
- Having committed one or more of the above and then whining that no one gives you a real answer to your point/question/abuse (whether they did or not).
Some excellent guides to what makes for Denier Troll spam are (hat tip to Bluerock):
How to keep your comment off this page:
Speak rationally and to the point, cite facts and provide evidence.
- Make a logical argument
- Acknowledge and deal with the facts;
- Check whether your argument has already been shown to be false.
Pretty simple really, and quite telling that apparently it is necessary to spell it out.
Now that your comment is on this page:
1) Unfortunately WordPress does not allow me to simply transfer comments from one page/post to another and as such I have to cut and paste. As the authors didn’t feel their thoughts worthy enough to bother investing some actual thought into, I will not bother separately copy/pasting author etc.
If you really want to take credit for some part of this collected silliness just reply to the comment in question.
Actually I consider this anonymity a kindness since it means that the Deniers are spared the embarrassment of family, friends, employers etc ever seeing their comments.
2) Don’t expect any response to anything on the page other than noting that the comment meets the criteria for inclusion here.
If you feel your thoughts are so worthless that they don’t deserve the 5 min required to frame them as a logical point then there is no reason to expect anyone else to invest any time into them.
HINT: If you want a different rational response try making a rational point.
NB That is not to say that some comments won’t get responses, particularly those that are more effective at masquerading as an actual point, just that it is not a given.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
@EvilPRGuy Wearing the Dunce Cap by emilydickinsonridesabmx
Some collected spam from the past and present:
=================================
Update from me: Heh, I knew you were a serious propagandist when I started. I just poked you to see the reaction. It was pitiful.
=================================
Oh, well, one last shot; something that you and Anne both miss. If this study by Meehl and van Loon, and others actually pans out and is describing a real, not just a modeled, process, then it leads to the explication of the sort of magnification of the sun’s effect which has been the Holy Grail for all the Sun Worshippers. It might explain how the sun, with minimal change in total energy from maximum to minimum, can effect much larger changes in climate on earth. So think this one through a little more, before you let your faith decide it for you. Me, I’m pretty skeptical of this one because what they are modeling is highly complex, even if it is real. They are blind men touching the elephant.
Anne’s off on the meaning of the solar cycles, too. Sure, #24 seems to be on the rise, at least by 10.7 strength if not sunspots. But it’s going to be a weak one, on a century scale, and we may well learn a lot from it. Google Livingston and Penn for the sunspots becoming like the smile on a Cheshire Cat by 2015-2017. Now, just what effect will that have on climate? Well, adieu, kind friend, and stubborn host. You should call this blog the ‘Open Ear’.
=================================
Eh, you forget that they explain the temperature record without much recourse to the CO2 effect. But I sense you aren’t interested in the truth, pal. Sorry ’bout dat.
===========================
Yeah, you are funny; a scientist and a self-acknowledged authority on rhetoric, and you don’t even want to talk. I’m trying for a simple conversation, which I realize may be above your paygrade. This is your blog, you know its architecture, you moderate it, and you move my post of it so moves you. Me, I’ll talk, but I’m already tired of your games. I see little evidence of science here, or skepticism. You, sir, are boring me.
The oversimplified concept of CO2 as an important greenhouse gas pales in comparison to the grand overarching question of just what determines climate. The earth is a gigantic heat engine functioning as huge analog computer in ordering its climate and we don’t know how it all works. Least of all, apparently, you.
=================================
We’ll take just your last one, the supposedly “Open Mind” who deletes and bans even worse than you do. He says he believes that deniers denigrate climate models because they don’t like their output. Well, no, I denigrate the models because they’ve utter failed, at the 95% confidence level, see lucia’s rank exploits, at their projection of 2 degrees C warming in a century and failed in only 8 short years. They could hardly have been more wrong. I actually like their output, because it is a huge nail in the coffin of the climate fraud.
Also, do you have any idea what validating and verifying formally mean in the computer model world? Hindcasting ain’t even in it, Bro.
—-
(Response) 1) So obviously you have no background in the sciences. Thank you for sharing that. IF this comment is moved I will share why your “analysis” is so misguided as to be breathtaking. Regardlesss, this copy is being deleted.
2) An easier and more to the point way of saying “I don’t understand any of it” is to just state “I don’t understand any of it.” We will take your word on it, no need to prove it at such length as you have done here
btw you are now flagged as a spammer, anymore posts in the wrong thread will be deleted without ever appearing on the blog
UPDATE You now realize I was serious (3 comments in spam folder deleted) … the appropriate thread is linked, post there and move these … everything else gets deleted
=================================
Blind faith, me boys. My God, the kind of faith you place in unvalidated and unverified global climate models, with mistaken assumptions about the feedback of water vapor, and fatally inadequate parameterizations of clouds and convection.
—-
(Response) How about you get a clue?
This Year’s Model
The Climate Models Have it Right
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
Myth: Models are unreliable
The 16 Climate Models
One dimensional climate models
Climate Models
Not Computer Models
rather than wasting peoples time with unsubstantiated claims well known to be unscientific drivel?
Mike
======================================
Pew poll says 57 percent of Americans think there is credible evidence of global warming, which is a 20 loss in points over three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. The Copenhagen treaty is a bust.
This trend despite (perhaps because of the) constant barrage exagerated disaster forcasts must tell you people are seeing thru the hype.
The are important issues confronting people, global warming is not one of them. Promoting a fast to draw attention to your pet folly is silly and just reenforces the ridiculous nature of you argument.
=================================
Then whats this “consensus” constantly being shoved in our face…. BS?
Well actually it is and I agree, so when and if science can demonstrate we are negitively influencing climate lets by all means address it. To date they have failed to accomplish that.
A lot of credit is given to the Evil empire’s PR campaign but they have been outspent 100 to 1? by AWG proponents without convincing people they are in danger.
I can claim a lot of things are happening and can assure you its mostly bullsh#t. It is not the role of detractors to prove global warming does not exhist. Its AWG burden to prove its happening.
Mostly I think you are up against the fact it was a really really nice day…a little cold but a really nice Fall day.
=================================
As I said, predictable.
Given your seeming difficulty in understanding the use of quotation marks: ‘business as usual’ , ‘prove’, ‘settled’ and ‘catastrophe’ it is hardly surprising that you appear to believe AGW appears well past the point of inductive reasoning. [1]
And given the breadth and depth of published literature on the subject, one might anticipate a certain effortlessness in highlighting five key articles which you believe are seminal in rejecting the null hypothesis of AGW and taking the deductive direction toward an incontestable scientific law. [2]
Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks. [3]
This in itself rather appears to highlight a shortfall in your assertion that (sic) ‘politics & economics have no bearing one the truth of the science’. One is compelled to reject your utopian world view, as in fact most reasoning people might, whilst nevertheless accepting the ideal. [4]
However, explicitly denying an inextricable linkage of economics, politics and science suggests a certain naivete at best, or more likely, disingenuousness. [5]
[1] Nice try at avoiding the actual point, but it didn’t work.
[2] Nice try at attempting to obfuscate the actual point and not acknowledging the points I made, but it didn’t work.
[3] Pointing out and documenting that you have no idea of what you are talking about and no grasp of even basic science is not an ad hominem attack, it is simple taxonomy.
[4] More vacuous verbiage; check your thesaurus for “sesquipedality” while you’re at it. You attempted to conflate economics and politics with science, apparently failing to grasp the difference between things that influence one another vs things that are synonymous.
[5] Do you even understand the concept of making a rational argument using evidence based on facts which one cites?
Thank you for your baseless opinions and unsubstantiated assertions. Now please go spam someone else because back here in the real world we have to deal with actual reality, not fantasies that we imagine are somehow material because they are stated emphatically.
=================================
Ian Forrester
Let the observed reality be our judge.
For the record, here is the comparison of IPCC projections and my predictions for global mean temperature.
http://bit.ly/cO94in
IPCC:
Year=>Temp (deg C)
2005=>0.5
2010=>0.6
2015=>0.7
2020=>0.8
Orssengo:
Year=>Temp (deg C)
2005=>0.5
2010=>0.4
2015=>0.3
2020=>0.2
Let the observed reality be our judge.
Cheers
=================================
Ben & Ian
“There is an obvious upward trend in these data.”
I agree.
But that is only about 0.06 deg C per decade, not the 0.2 deg C per decade warming of the IPCC, which is an exaggeration by 3.33 (0.2/0.06) times!
Here is the IPCC’s projection statment:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 deg C per decade would be expected.”
=================================
Such a lovely open forum, just as he claims
Publish anything so long as he agrees.
I like it! Should run for president:)
=================================
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Funny, because I remember the ice age concern during the ’70’s. I dont refer to it as a panic because it wasn’t for most people, mainly because, unlike AGW, the common person was not being blamed for it. So why worry about something you can’t change?
However I remember the Time Magazine and/or National Geographic articles at the time, [1] and if you doubt there was a cooling, try looking at the Atlantic Ice records of the time. [2]
Check out this paper as well.
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1974iceagereport.pdf [3]
Incidently your post lack credibility especially because you rely/resort on name calling and accuse people of lying etc.
Its OK to have different beliefs and opinions, so in my view, if you want credibility, try sticking to the facts and logic. [4]
Consensus does not prove anything, [5] there was once a consensus that the world was flat. [6]
What does matter that facts should be ascertained in a scientific logical manner.
My main problem with what you call “the consensus” is that they rely on correlations and unproven hypothesis’ and present them as fact, or the next best thing.
If there was good evidence for AGW, well I would be right up there with you. [7]
Another serious omission by the IPCC, is the economic cost to western countries of meeting their CO2 emission requirements and the cost of the wealth transfers. [8]
As an economist, I can see with half an eye that these will destroy western economies which will result in poverty, deprivation and starvation. [9]
First of all this issue should be analysed at length by the IPCC. It is not.
Secondly, if this is to be the cost of saving the planet, it is not unreasonable to demand a reasonable standard of proof that AGW is fact before we starve our families and children.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
This conversation will also be published at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com [10] for the benefit of my readers who will view your reply with interest.
—-
—-
“However I remember the Time Magazine and/or National Geographic articles at the time, [1] and if you doubt there was a cooling, try looking at the Atlantic Ice records of the time. [2]”
“[1] Pls actually read the article before pretending to comment on it: the whole thrust is that no matter how much media hype there was, it was still a fringe idea in the scientific world;
[2] no one contesting the 1940s to 1970s cooling, just as I state in the article (3rd section)”
[1] & [2] are a comment on your title “The 1970s ‘Ice Age 9′ Myth” Excuse me for thinking that you were denying that the 1970’s Ice age fears ever existed. Perhaps you should review your title if you want readers to think differently. [1]
“Check out this paper as well.
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1974iceagereport.pdf [3]
[3] I should check out the report that I link and discuss in sec 2? How about you actually read the article”
I cant even find where you discuss that report in sec 2. Even when I am looking for it! [2]
“Incidently your post lack credibility especially because you rely/resort on name calling and accuse people of lying etc.
Its OK to have different beliefs and opinions, so in my view, if you want credibility, try sticking to the facts and logic. [4]
“[4] The piece is packed with both facts and logic … how about you drop the ad hominem fallacy and respond to them with facts and logic? (which will require actually reading the post)”
This phrase definitely still holds because you are not discussing facts and logic especially in your answer which we are discussing now. The very fact that you call people who do not hold similar views to your own some sort of derogatory name (would you like me to list the number of times you do this in your blog) implies that you know your own logic is weak and you need to bluster to try and “win” your argument. [3]
“Consensus does not prove anything, [5]”
“[5] I didn’t claim that it did, what’s your point?”
You mention the word “Consensus” 27 times in your blog so you must think it is an issue and your following statement implies that a consensus for AGW is important too.
“OBVIOUS ALERT 2: We know that there is currently a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change thanks to the statements by all of the worlds important scientific organizations.”
You are correct! “Consensus” does not mean anything in science INCLUDING anthropogenic climate change. If it does not carry any weight in your mind, why mention it? [4]
“there was once a consensus that the world was flat. [6]”
“[6] There was never such a consensus of the scientific community so that would be a false analogy fallacy, and the learned classes (ie what might be considered a comparable group) did not believe that post 5th century BC.”
I suggest you read the journal and commentaries of Christopher Columbus. The church was burning people even well past his day for suggesting that the world was anything but flat and therefore not the center of the universe. In those days the official “scientific” community was the church and they certainly enforced their “consensus”.
(CC sailed in 1492 in case you have forgotten.) [5]
“What does matter that facts should be ascertained in a scientific logical manner.
My main problem with what you call “the consensus” is that they rely on correlations and unproven hypothesis’ and present them as fact, or the next best thing.
If there was good evidence for AGW, well I would be right up there with you. [7]”
“[7] Your unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are worth even less than an unproven hypothesis. Refute the evidence with peer reviewed science or accept it, but spare us vacuous claims.”
Well there you are attacking the person again, instead of asking where I think the evidence is failing. [6] If you have the time, I can show you exactly where the IPCC falls down and I have plenty of peer reviewed papers to support any avenue you may care to argue. [7]However the truth is that I do not have to prove anything [8], all I need do is to ask questions on key issues regarding AGW and search/wait for a logical answer [9]. If the key issue cannot be satisfactorily supported, any sensible person will discard it as unproven or a fallacy. This is perfectly in line with proper scientific practice.
“Another serious omission by the IPCC, is the economic cost to western countries of meeting their CO2 emission requirements and the cost of the wealth transfers. [8]
[8] How can it be an omission when that was not their mandate? Do you understand terms of reference? And what are you suggesting? that (by analogy) your Dr should only diagnose cancer if it is cheap to treat? Is this fallacious reasoning supposed to be an example of logic?”
Of course it is the IPCC’s mandate to present all relevant issues on science as pertaining to climate change. Of course in my opinion they are failing on all counts. However if the cost of combating Global Warming is to bring starvation and impovershment to the western economies, how can you say that it is not worth a mention? This is a serious omission and consequently it cannot be possibly claimed that IPCC publications are in the least bit balanced. Although the cost may not effect the outcome, it quite reasonably demands a high standard of proof before we are commited to paying a cost of such magnitude. [10]
“the comments policy here is that we do not accept mindless reposting of arguments that have long since been shown to be false, frauds, and/or scientific twaddle, so do not waste my time with the kind of dreck that you fill your blog with … any 10 yr old with access to google can discover why those arguments are nonsense “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says”
There you are blustering and attacking the person again. By the way Skeptical Science is well written and looks convincing at first, but with careful intelligent analysis it is easily seen (like the IPCC) relying on correlations and mathematical models which have the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a basic assumption. I must say in my discussions with them, they simply resorted, like you, to ad hominem remarks and could not tolerate my incisive comments on their web site. i.e. they used the ultimate weapon of the believer without facts by spamming my questions, which I admit were difficult answer seeing as how they questioned points where there are actually no facts to support them. [11]
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
P.S. I hope this clears up your little misunderstanding so if you would like to discuss some real science and facts in a reasonable manner, I am quite happy to help you. [12]
—–
greenfyre,
Im not going to even attempt to counter your, well, bluster. [1]
From your tirade it is difficult to find anything that approaches a logical argument. [2] All you have done is call anyone who disagrees with you derogatory names with insults and thereby excusing yourself of actually addressing the issue.
However, you did state that you would like a good scientific question, (well at least I think thats what you say) [3] so see if you can answer this one without resort to ad hominem attacks. [4]
Without claiming that correlations are sufficient, direct me to the evidence that gives reasonable empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. [5]
Cheers
Roger
—-
Greenfyre,
Well actually I was expecting you to supply some proper academic papers, definitely not a link to your own blog or anyone elses for that matter.
Blogs may offer opinion but definitely not hard evidence.
I’m sure you have hundreds of academic papers that you have read, surely you can choose at least one which gives reasonable empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.
“Give even one specific example where I used an ad hominem”
OK
Its quite a list I am afraid.
The word “Denier” appears 48 times in your post although some of that number can be attributed to your like minded friends.
The word “lie” appears 5 times.
The word “Denialosphere” appears twice.
The word “Myth” appears 25 times.
“Warmist” appears 1 time.
“You need to get up to speed on the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change science, basic logic, and simple good manners … you are seriously lacking in all three.” (By the way you should try looking at yourself a little harder on that one:))
“accept mindless reposting of arguments that have long since been shown to be false, frauds, and/or scientific twaddle”
“so do not waste my time with the kind of dreck that you fill your blog with ”
“This site is for adults who have the basic maturity to speak rationally and to the point”
“a non sequitor and straw man fallacy ” Interesting that one. Are you by any chance a member of the Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church?
“adult thing to do is to admit it, not to try and bluff your way through”
“Red Herring & straw man fallacy again. Noting and documenting that you made unsubstantiated, false claims is not an attack, it is merely a statement of fact.”
“spare us the juvenile bluster”
“That particular sophistic technique is popularly known as JAQing off.” Interesting because I have no idea what you were refering to with that one.:)
“reliance on logical fallacies and shoddy thinking to try and disguise your lack of a rational argument is simply embarrassing.”
“are you totally incapable of the simplest logical thought?”
Etc. Etc.
I looked up the definition of Ad Hominem for your benefit.
This what I found.
“An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,
“Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”
So I seriously suggest that you clean up your blog and try discussing with reasoning. Considering your heavy usage of Ad Hominems I think it would be reasonable to state,without being guilty myself, that you simply are unable to hold a discussion about anything on which you hold contrary opinions and you are resorting to personal attacks to hide your state of knowledge.
Now don’t forget the academic papers requested above.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
—-
From accepted palaeoclimatic research the planet ‘Earth’ has
been mainly in the last 1.5 million years fluctuating from a
glacial periods with interstadials (interglacials) that last approximately 10 to 15,000 years and then plunge into another glacial period. (That’s what we expect but not proven 100% because we can’t be sure what drives a full on glacial period? Probably something to do with the sun, earth and moon and cosmic configurations that we have no control over) The last 10,000 or so have given the genus Homo sapien sapien, abilities to move from a hunter, gatherer, fisher existence to agricultural and then industrial.
During these interglacials, there are periods of colder periods and warmer periods, non of which can be contributed to human activity. The arguments are that the cooler or colder periods did not effect the global community. They did. North America, Asia and Europe could not give any human habitation. It wasn’t until 10,000 years ago these areas were gradually inhabited by humans and multiplied and developed as we see now.
But the Southern Hemisphere had people living there and survived in a hunter/gatherer/fisher existence but the natural environment in which they lived did change.
Monsoons in the Northern Part of Australia and SE Asia for example. Rain forests appeared where there weren’t any before.
So all this bull shit about global warming AGW is a load of crap. [1] CO2 emissions and heavy particles etc., do cause
pollution that threatens human health locally or regionally.
Mostly in third world countries I might add. CO2 is 99%
a non toxic gas, that is naturally provided not human provided. So is methane. Global temps are cooling probably naturally and hopefully not heading into another mini ice age or glacial period. Urban areas and cities and the urban heat island effect will create micro climates in that area but not globally.
So all this political nonsense that AGW is changing the global temps is a myth. Carbon traders are investing (not all legally) on this myth and so are those hoping that clean energy investors like Al Gore will reap benefits because of the lie they have told people, that their energy output is causing global warming and subsequent catastrophes. And subsequently will be taxed for their carbon footprint.
—-
Mike (and – AKA S2), you just hate the fact that the general public are realising that the claim that our use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change is nothing but propaganda. You can delete comments as you please but you can’t change that fact. The scam is collapsing and your dishonesty is exposed – accept it and acknowledge your real objectives, which have nothing to do with trying to control global climates.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Interesting …
On November 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm we have a comment from rogerfromnewzealand.
Minutes later at 1:13 pm we have a comment from Pete Ridley …. with the same gravatar, the same email address and (crucially) the same ip address as Roger’s.
Which one of you is the sock puppet, I wonder? 🙂
S2
S2,
The only thing Pete Ridley and I have in common appears to be our opinions.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
… apart from your gravatar, your ip address and your email address?
Although I note that you have both switched back to your original email addresses since I posted my comment. 🙂
Does this look familiar to anyone?
S2.
—-
Mike, welcome back to the blog. It has been painful for sceptics like me trying to get comments posted here since S2 took over as moderator. Back in August I complained about his double standards, particularly in relation to exchanges between my and dear old Ian (see https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/lily-the-pink/ on 22nd Aug.).
I’m not sure if it was Stewart or you who cut most of my 13th Nov. comment on the “About” thread but it was very like Stewart. I hope that it wasn’t you as it would be a shame if you’ve been forced to adopt his tactic of trying to silence the sceptics by cutting their comments rather than responding intelligently. It must be very disappointing for you that that the general public are realising that the claim that our use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic global climate change is nothing but propaganda. Blogs such as this that support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis can delete comments as they please but they can’t change the facts. The scam is collapsing and the dishonesty of power/money-hungry politicians, environmental extremists and some scientists has been well and truly exposed by Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates.
The UN’s COP15 extravaganza in Copenhagen was a fiasco and the hoped-for recovery of the situation at the up-coming COP16 in Cancun is fizzling out. It’s time for the catastrophic human-made global climate change propagandists to accept that the game is up. Get used to it and look around for some other scam with which to push your various agenda, which have nothing to do with trying to control global climates..
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Mike, it’s good to see you acknowledging that we are in an interglacial and are heading into another ice [1] age but you seem reluctant to acknowledge that during an interglacial there are natural warming and cooling sequences, with all previous such occurrences having no correlation with human activities. What persuades you that this one is different? [2]
You say “ .. the Denier movie “Not Evil Just Wrong” (debatably an even bigger fraud than ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle .. ” but again fail to maintain balance by mentioning that even bigger fraud, “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, one of those who had hopes of making a financial killing (along with friends Soros, Strong, etc.) out of the catastrophic human-made global climate change scam.
You give quite an airing to Stephen Schneider’s opinions in this thread but missed out some important ones. Let me refresh your memory about some of these. Schneider was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR; and a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the AR4 What he said about climate change was important not only in respect to the science but also in how it was presented, e.g. through the publications of the politically sponsored IPCC, so it is worth taking a look at his opinion on how to present the science to the public.
In an interview with Discovery magazine in October1989 [3] Schneider made some disturbing observations about scientists and honesty which were commented on in the Detroit News. Schneider attempted to refute the Detroit News criticism of his opinion in December 1989 (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf) then tried again in 2005 in his article ““Mediarology – The Roles of Citizens, Journalists, and Scientists in Debunking Climate Change Myths” (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html). Schneider had said “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”.
In my opinion there is no justification for scientists not being honest about any uncertainty relating to those very very complex and poorly understood climate processes and drivers. The leaked UEA CRU files showed that some of the most significant scientists involved with the IPCC have done science the greatest disservice possible, undermining the credibility of all involved. We do not expect this of scientists, who we are supposed to be able to trust.
On the other hand we expect dishonesty all of the time from politicians, exemplified by the UK MP’s expenses scandal. The IPCC is controlled by the UN, which is a political institution with a quite obvious agenda of:
– redistributing wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishing a framework for global government, made clear in the draft Copenhagen treaty,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
Anyone who has read the Commission on Global Governance’s 1995 report “Our Global Neighbourhood” understands what the UN has planned. Also, anyone who has read the UK’s “Rules of the Game” (http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf) produced in 2005 by media company FUTERRA Sustainability Communications Ltd for DEFRA will recognise the basics for political spin, especially from QUOTE:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do. UNQUOTE.
If the politicians want to win this game they are going to have to invent a new set of rules because the old ones have failed miserably. The old rule book concluded with a quote from Mohatma Ghandi “First they laugh at you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win. Who’s laughing now Mike, Stewart, Ian, Martha, etc?
You may be interested in reading the article “Stephen Schneider Greenhouse Superstar” by highly respected sceptic John Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm).
One thing that you should not overlook is that biologist Schneider, like many others who pontificate about The Hypothesis, have demonstrated no expertise in researching the processes and drivers of global climates, only in the possible impacts of climate change, which appear to arise from natural, not human-made, causes.
So what is your real agenda with this blog Mike? I repeat part of the comment that I posted to your “About” thread on 24th August but which has been removed, probably by Stewart, considering his double standards on comments. If this comment is posted by you then at least you are living up to your claim “So that would be key point # 1 – this is meant as a resource to be used over and over by anybody and everybody”. QUOTE:
The following statement from Mike sums up the purpose of this blog. “I left research to get involved in public education and activism. We already know more than we need, it’s long past time to act. I also teach political action”. As I see it we have it all there. This blog is not for the purpose of improving understanding of those horrendously complex processes and drivers of global climates. It is based upon the assumption that we need to know no more about those processes and drivers. It’s purpose is to teach the environmentalist message, inspire environmental activism and use political methods to achieve his agenda. This is not education it is evangelism, not science but dogma. I am not an environmental activist.
Mike is not “in it for the money” but is in it to spread the environmentalist gospel UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
—-
DavidCOG, I fully agree with all that you said there, especially “Those of us who grasp what is happening and have a shred of decency have every right to be very angry – and every justification to express it. Say it like you feel it” even though I suspect that we are poles apart over the (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.
S2 acted as moderator while Mike was elsewhere but did so in a very biased manner [1], allowinf much of what “warmers” had to say but cutting much of what us “deniers” submitted. Lets hope that Mike lives up to his claim in “key point # 1 – this is meant as a resource to be used over and over by anybody and everybody”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
Mike, as you can offer no convincing evidence that our continuing use of fossil fuels to power economic growth in developing economies will lead to catastrophic global climate change are you now having to resort to semantic arguments. [1]
The word “believer” simply means “someone who accepts the truth of” but is very frequently used to describe someone who is convinced of religious “truths”. Often it is used in a derogatory manner by those who reject those same “truths”.
On more than one occasion this blog has had articles referencing “deniers” in a manner quite clearly meant to be derogatory, the two that I found after a quick Google were written by Al Gore’s disciple S2. [2]
Mike, you fool no-one with you clever use of words. [3]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
Hi folks,
I have copied my conversation (if you can call it that) with greenfyre at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/
If you want to make a reasonable comment abut greenfyre and his wisdom feel free to comment there without fear of ad hominem attacks, bluster or just plain idiocy.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
—–
The links, as I indicated, did not copy with the script, if you want to comment them in on my site, thats absolutely fine.
Incidently though, I think your attitude is doing your supposed cause more harm than good.
Why dont you have a sane conversation once in a while?
Cheers
Roger
—-
Just curious and do not mean to issue insult, but are you actually an adult?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
—-
“Desciple v Sceptic” also warrants consideration, since many of those contributing here fall into the disciple category, however, it is clear to all that this blog does not encourage balanced debate. [1]
Mike, S2), Ian, Martha and other Al Gore disciples, [2] have you seen the 18th Nov article “In China’s Orbit” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622531909154228.html?KEYWORDS=NIALL+FERGUSON) by Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University and a Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. [3] If you have dreams of a reduction in the global use of fossil fuels then I suggest that you read it and wake up to reality. [4]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
LOL, it didn’t take long for Greenfyre to censor my comments
—-
Are you sheeple still believing in man-made global warming – can you not see that this cause your championing is establishing a precedent that will reach towards taxing your ass into non-existence in the future.
Honestly how dumb do you have to be to not see through this scam.
30 years ago global cooling was the big scare, now that global warming has been demonstrably discredited these days, its cleverly been switched to Climate Change. Hmm what do we all have in common that could be taxed – i know we all breathe and we all leave behind a “carbon footprint”. Itd be raucously funny if it werent so sad. The problem is its not just the same idiots worshipping this propaganda who will be destroyed by it, by design we all will- even the ones sane enough to see through this nonsense.
newsflash – throwing money at a genuine climate problem wouldnt do anything. Climate change/temp is driven by the sun, and carbon follows accordingly, not the other way around.
Its an obvious double edged depopulation/profit scheme(and arguably a third edge for depriving resource rich nations like africa from undergoing an industrial revolution of their own….bankers cant have rich brown or black people now can they) Somebody please tell china to stop building coal plants at the rate of 2 a week if this is such a legit threat.
—-
This propaganda blog fails… extra hard. I feel bad for these morons, honestly, still believing in man-made global warming. Oh weve been such naughty humans, time to pay penance with taxes.
FYI parroting terms like “deniers” really just proves my point of how retarded the worshippers of this new green religion are. Denier is quite clearly a clever term (and rather dirty psycho-linguistic trick) used to put skeptics on par with Holocaust deniers. I’ll take skeptic over that any day thanks. And by the way, should I remind this “science blog”, that science is nothing but skeptics all day everyday. Science is never settled – if someone has any new information challenging an understanding of something, then it needs to be given a fair look. All this ” the science is settled were done here” shit sounds like a borderline cult/religion to me.
THE FACTORS THAT RESULTED IN THE 20th CENTURY GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RUN-UP HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED.
The contribution of added atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant. The time-integral of sunspot numbers (which correlates with the average altitude and thus average temperature of clouds) and effective sea surface temperature are the main contributors.
A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy (87.6% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
From 2001 through October, 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21.8% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of the average of the five reporting agencies from 2001 through 2009 is actually down. The 21.8% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
—-
Wow
Seems to me that you guys are really terrified of Judith and the posters ate ClimateEtc. You spend enough energy and effort slagging it off
But its the only blog around where the Alarmists and Sceptics come together without intrusive ‘party-based’ moderation and where the issues can really get a good airing.
We’ve recently covered (inter alia) the Radiative Transfer model, Judith’s submission (and follow up) to Congress, the validation and verification (or not) of climate models, forcings and feedbacks.
Lots of good tekkie stuff to get stuck into – and some more discursive stuff as well.
I commend it to you all
I think I’ll leave you guys working yourselves into a frenzy of fourth form self-righteousness and sooooo admiring each others cleverness. I think I’ll go back to adult discussions.
But it is clearly a mark of Judith’s influence that you are so excited by her actions. She clearly is a force to be reckoned with. And the more you froth at the mouth, the more you demonstrate that truth
Toodle Pip
LA (FATFC)
Poodle Tip,
“She clearly is a force to be reckoned with”
Yes, for you, she is trying to communicate the reality of the human-caused climate crisis. Please go speak with her. She wants to help and you respect her, so it’s the win-win situation we’ve been hoping for. 🙂
—-
Wow
Yet more obsession about Climate Etc. and Judith Curry. To spend all of Christmas preparing an article is one thing, but to spend New Year on a second as well is really something else.
She really really really has got you running scared.
I suppose the very idea of a blog existing without rigidly imposed rules from the owner of what constitutes allowable and unallowable commentary is so alien to you that you need to warn everyone else about the evils that would come from adopting such an idea.
I just wonder if you have ever been a moderator at the Guardian’s laughingly entitled ‘Comment is Free’? You seem to share many of their ideas about rigid adherence to orthodoxy.
—-
So your answer is no you won’t debate when you can’t make the rules. No problem, I’ll post my response on several other places and let everyone know the Greenfyre chicken likes to stay in the hen house. That says a lot about you.
—-
The powers the be in this world are in charge today. To have one’s work published in a peer reviewed journal is to be a political player, someone who totes the party line, espouses the agenda. It is NOT POSSIBLE to have an honest, well-considered, thoughtful series of data published and have it be received with anything other than debunking, unless it fits within the agenda.
It’s so much a ridiculous statement to say that there’s not only value, but WHOLE value in the published bathymetry and aging data. It reveals the entire story in grandest, most spectacular fashion, though the fullness of that realization is extremely difficult to attain without the aid of large computers and someone devoted to finding the truth. But it is there brilliantly, and plain as day.
Research Sam Carey for starters. See what he was on about. And then you’ll find the rest.
I do pray you will reconsider your political career, for that is all you have here. There is no real science involved, nor do I see ANY interest in getting at real facts. You are citing published-by-the-powers-that-be data sources and agendas. And their focus and purpose is as evident as anything is that there is.
Pursue truth, author, and nothing else. That should be your earnest goal and desire. Peace.
—-
Additional posts by John Q. Citizen, all moved from wrong comment thread.
—-
Proof positive.
—-
Author, I’m curious if you are interested in getting at the truth. I ask this question legitimately, though I must honestly state that from your blog here I see that you are pushing an agenda rather substantially, so much so that my comments today are actually the culmination of quite some time of observing you in action.
If there were evidence presented which seemed logical, which was described so as to fit observed facts, and so on, but which ran contrary to the current belief system you are trying to establish here … would you want to know about it? And would you publish it?
I ask for specific reasons, and await your answer.
—-
Let me put it another way … I live in the midwest. I would be willing to meet with you and show you evidence, facts and derived theories based upon it all.
Would you be willing to listen honestly to an alternative position? Or are you cast in stone against it?
Your call.
—-
I see a great effort in place here to silence anything I would write, with moderated comments appearing, and moving my comments to the Dunce’s section.
Do you care about the truth? Will you listen to alternate theories which satiate observations and facts?
—-
I cannot say I’m surprised. It does prove what I’ve written about your political agenda though.
I again ask you, please consider the damage you’re doing to the multitudes with this false information. You are harming people, not helping them.
Repent of these doings, author. Falseness does not lead you to God (Jesus Christ), who is truth. But it does lead you in the other direction, and that to your entire loss.
What is important?
Ask yourself that question, and then proceed. Good bye.
—-
The above post was mine from https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/climate-change-deniers-dark-minds-lost-in-their-own-shadows/.
The authur will not accept opposing views.
—-
I am in the process of doing exactly that, though my work will not be published for those express reasons I have stated.
Case in point: Sam Carey sought throughout the majority of his esteemed career to propose through viable proof an alternate theory, one which completely fit the facts, yet his verifiable work was silenced in favor of the theory which is in every textbook today. Still, he was right. His conclusions are self-evident by any examination using any reasonable form of determinism.
So … seriously … what are you doing here? Day after day you post the same manner of post, pushing the same agenda.
If you are not being paid to do this, what is your impetus? And if your impetus is not money, why would you not listen to an alternate theory which is not going to be published because it is not part of this agenda you’re pushing?
It doesn’t make sense.
—-
PS – When I say “published,” I mean by any mainstream scientific journal. Anybody can publish anything they want to, as through something like this WordPress blog you have.
—-
There are dozens of scientists who have published articles which knock down all manner of prevailing scientific theory. However, for the reasons stated, they are not not accepted because there is a POLITICAL agenda at work. There is money and power to be had by pushing the AGW agenda, to which you are a part. Period.
The truth is silenced because it is not popular and there is no money to be made from it. It is what it is.
Good bye, author. Again I implore you: seek the truth. Peace.
—-
Wow. Untrue, but entertaining to see peddled as though it were fact.
—-
What you call “correct thread” is your opinion. And as you run this site … your opinion is the rule. But such does not make it a correct action, only the one applied.
Very confusing what is going on here. You are so very clearly pushing a particular agenda with post day after day after day doing the same.
I have asked you … if there were alternate data which could explain what we are seeing, would you be interested in hearing about it? And if you heard it and saw value in it, would you switch your argument?
If the answer is no, then I don’t see how it could be anything other than a political agenda you are on. If the answer is yes, then when should we meet?
—-
—-
@ligne, nope. It’s just this: With an issue the size of the entire planet’s ecosystem, and whether or not it’s warming, for there to be SO many people on board with the idea that it’s definitely, absolutely, positively a) happening and b) that man is of any factor, it all serves so clearly to indicate how political it is, that it’s not a matter of science at this point, but of policy and agenda.
Make sense now?
—–
It’s because the author has no desire to get at the truth, but is desiring only to push the paid-for agenda. It’s very clear. For example, look at the ferocity with which the posts on this site accumulate, and the wording used, and the specific angels taken on various points.
This is not an idle hobby or personal interest, but rather a paid professional agenda at work.
—-
@Marco, I’m aware of the reports which state that they DID affect global temperature reporting. I’m also aware of the contrary reports which indicate as you state.
Our global temperatures before they were decommissioned were a particular level. Now they are NOTABLY higher … you do the math. 🙂
—-
IT’S SO EMBARRASSING !!! THIS WEBSITE IS A PAID-FOR GLOBAL-WARMING AGENDA SHILL !!!
AND WHY? ***ONLY*** for political gain, which extends to the bottom line dollar.
MONEY is driving this travesty. Very sad.
—-
—-
You’re censoring my submissions completely now?
—-
“All 12 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997”
This rise occurred after more than half of the global ground-level temperature sensing stations were decommissioned in the 1990s, with the remaining ones focusing more on rural areas, which maintain a greater ambient temperature due to un-natural structures and their heat absorption and release rates, and lower elevations strictly, which are generally warmer across the board.
In addition, several independent “truth seeking” researchers personally visited many of the remaining stations. They demonstrated through photographic evidence that many of the remaining stations are affected by local conditions, to include even close proximity to man-made heat sources such as air conditioning exhaust and sun-facing brick walls.
We have photographic evidence of glacial shrinkage from the 1870s through today. This does not mean the earth is warming as the result of man-made contributions, but only that it is warming.
—-
By removing my posts and not even sending them to any other forum, you’ve demonstrated absolutely clearly your intentions here with this site. You have no interest in getting at the truth or hearing alternate explanations for what is being observed.
I again reiterate my assertion that it is both embarrassing and sad that you are doing this. Were you not an adult at least capable of acting properly, meaning you are doing this by choice and not by accident of age, I would simply say: “Grow up.” But as it is, I must say: “You need to come to know Jesus Christ, and in that way, to know the truth.”
Can you hear it? Do you know it when you hear it?
I will pray for you, sir. The time you operate upon this Earth is limited, just a tick of the clock. Eternity goes on forever thereafter.
Seek the truth and you will be made free, both now and in eternity. Continue on as you have, and you will be lost forever.
Your choice. One leads to life, the other to temporary gain and eternal loss.
I pray you will choose life.
—-
If you are so sure of yourself and your “facts” why dont you simply publish all these comments that you disagree with and answer them rationally?
Cheers
Roger
—-
Every blog should have a Dunce’s Corner or Bore Hole (as they call it at RC). Reading them is like watching a soccer team score on their own goal and then run around hugging and congratulating each other on a fine play.
I think places like Dunce’s Corner are a good resource to send reporters too. Have them read through the comments to see what passes for arguments and logic among deniers. Even some reporters will be able to spot the bad reasoning and fact-free arguments and perhaps learn to avoid those mistakes themselves.
I wonder if you would care to point out some good reasoning, fact full arguments and logic in YOUR posts and comments.
Set us an example maybe.
Cheers
Roger
—-
Oh I have read, and unless I am a moron, [1] or illiterate I find
good reasoning, facts, full arguments and logic conspicuously missing.
Furthermore, when a fact or question that is just a little difficult for you to answer rationally, or the answer/truth threatens you beliefs, you immediately brand it as being stupid or simply delete the comment. [2]
Its great though really, because on my blog your blog is held as an example of the alarmist religion, [3] the proponents of which simply ignore any facts or arguments that contradict their “faith”, and if you are for real, you are undermining any credibility that AGW supporters still enjoy; If you are not for real, you are doing a great job showing the futility of the AGW religion.
Why don’t you quieten down, answer comments properly and with respect, and be prepared to seek the truth whether it agrees with you religion or not. [4]
Cheers
Roger
—-
PS
Published at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/a-conversation-with-greenfyre-if-you-can-call-it-that/
Cheers
Roger
[…] about alarmist cultists then? You should check out the comments and replies at this blog https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/dunces-corner-this-is-what-denierism-looks-like and then browse through this one http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com to see what […]
Wonderful to hear from you! But i must point out a few truths:
Its hard to find errors [1] in your delusional nonsense, so pointing them out is pretty difficult. After all its YOUR fantasy and delusion not mine. I know in your world its all reasonable and sane, but to the rest of us…..
Still, I admire your chutzpah for promoting this stuff as part of the reasoned debate on CAGW. It does your cause no end of good to have material of such quality backing up the …ahem….’climate science’ that you promote. I will be sure to promote your ramblings to demostrate the opposition to the ‘denialist’ side of the debate.
Keep up the good work, im off to bask in denial somewhere. Oh, and drive my car.
Chin chin 😉
by the way, do you know bj edwards?
—-
Are you sat at home stroking a wispy beard marvelling at how insufferably smug, i mean, smart you are? Go on, you are, arent you? Yeah, I can see right through you watermelons.
Im not sure what the point of your post is to be honest, it certainly doesnt advance the debate on the essential lunacy of this site and its content. When first directed to it I actually thought it was a joke set up by a ‘denier’ to poke fun at CAGW cultists (and im serious, I really did!) but turns out it isn’t. That was the essence of my post. Feel free to ignore it.
Still, you have got to laugh! As I say its a wonderful addition to the canon of ‘great’ CAGW works.
Chin Chin 😉
ps. Thanks for the faux-concern re: the children (Im sure i can hear someone shrilly shouting ‘wont somebody think of the children?’), but i think you’ll find that my allusion is accurate.
The dunces corner (a petty form of child abuse) sits very well with the other abuses perpetrated at the hands of sadistic teachers and is a valid comparison. Perhaps thats an issue for greenfyre and his conscience, after all if allusions to one form of child abuse is used as a part of the site content are others not equally applicable?
It was also the first thing that popped into my head when I saw mention of the Dunces corner. These things where still a part of schooling back in my day.
oh, and pompus legal advice duly noted.
Cheers!
—-
—-
Dunces corner, brilliant! Back from the school days of old with canings and peodophile teachers. On an unrelated topic, do you work with children? no matter….
Your response are illuminating as they are utterly predictable. However, theres no such thing as debate with you people is there? Then again I think thats the whole purpose behind much of the garbage you spout on this website.
Still, I will use this website as an example of the kind of mediocrity that stands in for intelectualism when it comes to the CAGW debate. Your work will be promoted if only to highlight the fringe lunatic end of the eco-nazi spectrum.
Seriously, you people do such good work and admire your balls for posting this stuff, how do you keep a straight face?
Cheerio!
Ps I fully understand its your website/fantasy/delusion. Do what you like with my post. No one reads this garbage anyway.
—-
Oh, one last thing. When you refer to science and the content of this thread, you are joking right? Or are you the kind of person who thinks astrology is science?
This ‘Climate change Deniers: dark minds lost in their own shadows’ article contains no science [1] just an absurd denunciation of ‘deniers’. Hence the content of my post.
But if this is what passes for science in the CAGW extemists view then go ahead….promote it all you can. Cant do you any harm can it?
See you in the nonces corner 😉
—-
—-
Nice work censoring the comments here, never let the other guy get a word in edgewise, especially when you have the technology to erase it hey 😉
Still, its a typical left wing tactic and I fully appreciate its your propaganda website and its here to promote your own brand of cultism.
cheerio 😉
—-
Well, at least you have a small shred on intellectual honesty WRT to the dunces corner (rather than just deleting like the shower of manure over at the guardian), even if you put the posts out of order and out of context and change the authors names and edit them to fit you own absurd agenda.
Still, this website is a wonderful resource for us ‘deniers’, it really is. Its such a treasure trove of delusion and quackery that it just goes to highlight a good portion of the CAGW cultists cause. I fully intend to link to this on a regular basis when I have a point to make. If this is what passes for science its no wonder your cause is dying.
Keep up the fantastic work.
Chin Chin 😉
—-
I say Catweazle, Dont waste your time here Catweazle, litteraly any response you make will end up in the ‘Dunces Corner’ (its no suprise that Greenfyre identifies with the petty abuse of children and thinks its funny).
Ever heard of Matthew Hopkins?
In the 17th century Matthew Hopkins decided to become the ‘Witchfinder General’. He granted himself this title and announced he was an expert on the discovery of witches.
Now, a person would be denounced as a witch and Hopkins would question them. Every answer was futile, for you see every answer was proof of witchcraft.
‘Are you a witch?’
‘no’
‘Ahhh, but a witch would never admit to it and would lie as such you have denied being a witch and satan has made you lie’
‘eerr wtf?’
‘do you weigh more than a duck?’
‘seriously???’
‘A witch!!!’
Yes im paraphrasing, but thats the essential elements of it. Not only was Hopkins an self proclaimed expert on witchcraft he also had a damning document to assist his good ‘works’. He had a book entitled ‘The Discovery of Witches’ which he wrote (naturally no one was asked to ‘peer review’ this work) and he also claimed he had the devils own list of the witches of england. He would travel from town to town investigated those denounced as witches and would receive a hefty sum (or grant in modern parlance) for their discovery. For the unfortunate witch this often meant death by hagning, but by now Hopkins was long gone.
What Hopkins actually was was someone with a smattering of knowledge (as witchcraft was a crime at the time), an overarching sense of entitlement and importance to the point of arrogance, and the skillful manipulator of the current scare in order to persoanlly profit from the suffering of others. This suffering did not, or course, impinge on his conscience as he was ‘doing the right thing’.
Greenfyre here would very much like to be a modern day ‘Denier finder general’ as indeed he can be, but only within his tiny mind and on his barely read website. He has all the traits. The arrogance, the sense of entitlement and importance. A basic, but not thourough, grasp of the basic knowledge required to manipulate the current scare (CAGW) for personal gain. He has an answer for everything that does not accord to his views. He is a delusional fantacist and one of the main aspects of delusion is that the person has to have mechanisms in place so that the fantasy does not unravel. Just take a look at this site and you will see what I mean.
However even in his own tiny ineffectual way he is dangerous, as all socialists and eco-nazis are. He believes he is right regardless of real science, common sense or logic (like bjedwards…theres a lot of similarities) and therefore the devastating consequences of acting on this CAGW scam, such as not building flood defence in queensland as this is not necessary, (no they built a desalination plant as it was never gonna rain again) of the starvation and death caused by biofuels. The appaling price of fuel because of eco-taxes which in this country contribute to the deaths of thousands of the elderly who struggle to make the choice between fuel and food.
Still, like BJe over at the DT blogs makes a mockery of the CAGW cult by its blind adherence to the mantra, so does Greenfyre. I intend to link to this site often now just to demonstrate the unending lunacy and delusion of the GACW cultists. Perhaps it will go some way to ending this utter fraud sooner. No sensible person reading this site will be swayed towards belief in CAGW.
See you in the nonces corner ‘Denier Finder General’
—-
—-
Not strictly CAGW scaremongering, but interesting non the less. Very apt in many ways in fact: Also an example of the kind of videos you are talking about.
This is what its like to ‘argue’ with CAGW cultists: How Liberals Argue [1]
youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU [2]
Are you going to prove the meme of the video correct and send me to the Dunces Corner? [3]
Chin chin 😉
—-
I see you have given up the child abuse meme with the deniers corner. About time really as it leaves a rather nasty taste trying to debate with people who equate a difference of opinion to abusing children.
Still keep up the good work, this site is a precious resourch for us’ deniers’.
[…] Adelady originally put me on to the idea which is in many aspects the same as Greenfyre’s Dunce’s corner. There are a few characters that I won’t even entertain there however and I explain who and […]
[…] Adelady originally put me on to the idea which is in many aspects the same as Greenfyre’s Dunce’s corner. There are a few characters that I won’t even entertain there however and I explain who and […]