1. Scientist who warned of coming ice age in the 1970’s is still standing behind global cooling prediction
Excerpt: ‘Thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come.’
2. Another Scientist predicts cooling:
Solar output drives climate change: ‘We should prepare now for dangerous global cooling’
Climate scientist claims new research is shattering ‘myths’ about global warming
3. Report: Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
‘We have been unable to find a single scientific forecast to support the currently widespread belief in dangerous, human-caused “global warming”.
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/warmaudit31.pdf
4. Al Gore Gets Rich After White House – ‘Former Vice President Is Worth at Least $100 Million, Thanks to Smart Business Ventures’
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3281925
5. Environmental toilet water flow restrictions in Australia necessitate using toilet brush and flushing twice
‘Toilets that don’t do what toilets are supposed to do. Famous 19th-century British pioneer of sanitary plumbing, Thomas Crapper, would be rolling in his grave.’
6. Environmental group reports U.S. leading world in toilet paper use
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5142
7. Update: Worldwide reaction teaches fourth-graders who wrote global warming report a lesson on free-speech
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=115838&ac=PHedi
8. Flashback: Maine fourth-graders issue climate report: ‘Global warming is a huge pending global disaster’
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=113600
9. CLIMATE: Silly science of fourth-grade climate report – Paper: Fourth-grader’s ‘fed propaganda masquerading as science’
‘America’s schoolchildren are being fed propaganda masquerading as science, and as it is with the global-warmists’ computer models, it’s garbage in, garbage out.’
http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=25817
10. Left-winger counters global warming hysteria
http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=10038
11. President of Czech Republic: ‘Do you really ‘see’ any damage caused by current warming?’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e9df7200-19c7-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
12. Terrorism Fears Surpass Global Warming in U.S.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16199
13. Hold the Line on Global Warming
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070618.html
14. BBC’s Hypocritical Analysis of its Own Global Warming Coverage
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0620-climate_poll.html or alternate article: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/june20/warming-062007.html
16. Climate change movie “The Tipping Point” begins production
17. Going Green: The Media Reveal a Major Color Scheme
Journalists lose their jaded attitudes and embrace an environmental pallet for just about everything.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20070620155029.aspx
18. Too Busy Admiring Greens to Notice What They’re Really About
Environmentalists want to limit our society and your behavior, but you won’t hear that from the media.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070620135046.aspx
18. Farming the oceans to combat global warming
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/6823/
19. An American company wants to seed the oceans with iron, helping to grow plankton, and fight global warming.
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/6823/
—————
Thanks Marc Morano for all these links.
Happy reading.
I’m off to Noosa for the weekend.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jeez Jen – If I didn’t know better I’d reckon you’re biased. Checked Mark Morano out on Sourcewatch and Exxon Secrets. Anyway after Mottsa’s graph I reckon he’s got us pinned – we’re stumped. Cripes there’s a veritable gaggle of non-believers out there. Which non-believer to believe is the next problem.
But Luke, my ‘Mark Morano’ link, see above, was to Sourcewatch in an attempt to avoid the sort of useless comment you just posted above.
And Luke, if you want to put together a list of links, but from another perspective, I’ld be happy to post them … perhaps under the heading ‘Some Weekend Reading from Luke Walker’? Maybe if you sent me something next Friday?
PS. My favourite is no. 5
Environmental toilet water flow restrictions in Australia necessitate using toilet brush and flushing twice
‘Toilets that don’t do what toilets are supposed to do. Famous 19th-century British pioneer of sanitary plumbing, Thomas Crapper, would be rolling in his grave.’
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/flushed-with-the-best-intentions/2007/06/20/1182019196282.html?page=fullpage
I can’t Jen – Mottsa and Prof Carter have convinced me we’re in for global cooling. I’m busy trying to weasel out of all my bets.
Hi Jen,
Here is a response to the Miranda Devine toilet flushing article:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/down_the_toilet_with_miranda_d.php
Even if the original paper had merit it shows when a Journalist has no idea what they are writing about. By the way, just what was the point in tearing down some ten-year-old kids? It’s quite a sad reflection on the character of the anti-“climate warmists”
“Checked Mark Morano out on Sourcewatch and Exxon Secrets..”
really? Whatever happened to RealClimate luke? you were once one of their most fervent campfollowers.
Keep on reading all those conspiracy websites, it keeps you somehow occupied.
I was going to add “who checks out Sourcewatch and Exxon Secrets?”
Probably noone, outside of the increasingly incestuous conspiracy theorist circles they are of no importance.
Eh Luke, how about some “peer review”
I didn’t Rog. I just Googled the unknown name and those came up. Just makes you do that little “uh huh” tune. Peer review – why would you waste your time? I was just about to put some music on myself
Oh and I missed your one above too Rog … Realclimate – well yes they’re cranking out some good stuff – I’ve got Stormworld on order – but golly gee with quality posts like Senor Mottsa’s latest we’re back in the Australopithecine era of evolution. You just have to worry about not skinning your knuckles – I mean why get all sophistamuckated with RC – it starts Ian’s Tourettes up again.
There you go again Luke, relying on unsubstantiated links from whoever to support your prejudice.
Heres the Google search on “Mark Morano”, no Exxon secrets or sourcewatch on the first page, who cares about the rest?
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Mark+Morano%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Hope you wont indulge in any “swiftboating”
Mark Morano helps to stop the shameless exploitation of children. I await his comments on McDonalds and morning TV.
Rog – you do talk your share of crappola – I simply Googled Mark Morano AND climate – there’s enough leads there – sourcewatch, desmogblog, Inhofe – to light up any “good old boy” meter. All derivative in about 2 minutes from there I’m afraid. Take a library class in appropriate searching techniques.
By “swiftboating” Rog – I assume you’re talking about canoeing down the Cahulawassee River.
Well not all kids are falling for the AGW propaganda being dished out to them in school, thank goodness.
Kristen Byrnes the fabulous fifteen-year-old from Maine has torn apart Al Gore’s myths and is now taking on James Hansen of NASA fame. In her ‘Housten We Have A Problem’, she highlights Hansen’s bogus claim that he speaks as an independent authority. Well, did you know that Hansen received a $1/4M. grant from the Heinz Environment Award Foundation? And who is that group? a k a Dem. Senator John Kerry’s wife!! No wonder Hansen has been supporting Kerry’s nomination!
For a good read look Kristen up.-
http://newsbusters.org/node/13282
Well what a little skank Byrnes is. The award was for the Heinz Environment Award. It’s a well known try-on.
So obviously a little shill in training for a job at one of the shonk centrals. Like the objective newsbusters who have more good old boys than you can count.
Nicely staged bullshit photo too.
Sid obviously going to church hasn’t done a lot for your moral fibre has it.
No they’re not falling for the AGW propaganda dished out at schools – they’re falling for the excrement dished out by shonk groups and shills on the net. Wonder what Byrnes family does?
I reckon Hansen must be powerful medicine to attract this sort of libellous behaviour.
Isn’t Luke a delightful fellow?
Jen, re 18 above, “what they’re about”; the Greens, I mean,…We all know what they were about in trying to nail Richard Ness.
Which brings me to the point. ABC TV ‘Foreign Correspondent’ is to screen a job on Newmont and Richard Ness, this Tuesday night…Guess we’ll have to wait and see what they do with that. Don’t hold your breath!
Luke , Luke , Luke – ” a little skank” ??? ; even if said in jest that was pretty poor form.
I would have thought that teenagers interested enough to challenge the established wisdom and question what they’re being told is cause for celebration – even if they’re wrong.
This bloke’s film is probbaly worth seeing in that regard…
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
At any rate , I’m sure Hansen won’t be too troubled by her heresy.
So it’s alright for her to libel a serious scientist and cast asperations on him winning the prestigious Heinz Award. She’s now allowed herself to become part of the political debate. It ain’t a high school essay anymore. So if you wanna play that league expect to be told if you’re a dimwit. Skankiness involves socially and morally repugnant behaviour.
Show as much umbrage next time Mott describes scientists as scum or spivs. We appear to have 2 standards.
Luke wrote: “If you wanna play the league, expect to be told if you’re a dimwit.”
Luke, why do you hide behing a madeup name? Because you are a dimwit and a coward.
Luke, just because you don’t like Ian Mott is not reason to attack a kid.
Luke, there are decent people and you are not one of them.
Who’s a Denis?
And I love Motty – he’s a great guy unfortunately inflicted with extreme opinions – just because he displays the symptoms of coprolalia however is no reason to give him free rein.
Luke, I don’t give a damn about the abuse you and Ian heap upon each other ( in fact it’s quite entertaining ) and I’ve never criticised you or he for it.
But this is a personal attack of a pretty grubby nature against a kid.
I’m flabbergasted that you impugn her moral character simply because she challenges the zeitgeist – even if she is misinformed and self-important ( both characteristics of teenagers ).
Some of the points she makes you have also conceded – the criticism of Gore for example.
And finally , if you want to witness a true double standard , consider your reaction to her suggestion that money might influence Hansen’s opinion?
In just about every thread here, that accusation is raised as a self evident truth by the true believers.
Let’s be relaxed at non-conformity.
Still banging on about nothing I see Lukie – time to find another site to be a troll on you’ve gotting nothing left to say here!
Luke spends hours researching links to scientific research, the result is usually deafening silence.
He responds to repeated baiting and attacks, then it’s a cacophony.
Typical.
Don’t you love little ferals like “abc” who pop up have a little spit then disappear for months. Startling contribution “abc” you gimp.
Jim – all this stuff about attacking a kid is utter bulldust – we’ve got a “kid” that’s way past high school assignments that’s being picked up by all the right wing ra-ra sites across the world. And she thinks she’s on a roll.
And no Jim – Motty abuses anyone he disagrees with. It’s boundless.
Anyway back to Ms Byrnes – she has made a skanky scumbag attack on Hansen and deserves some incoming in return. Who the hell does she think she is.
Hansen was into this game before she was born. Do you seriously think this guy have been “persuaded” to continue his science philosophy coz he won the Heinz Award in 2001. A vast body of his work had been done at that point and his views well known. What does this say about the other recipients. Are they spivs and scumbags. Are the anonymous nominators all on the take. Are we to assume to that previous recipients are being “paid” for services?? Is this the implication. How stinky and skanky is that. And he voted democrat did he – well gee maybe he had some good taste perhaps. Maybe he was sympathetic to the side that may have been more pro-active on AGW and less war mongering. Who knows. I find her comments here utterly replusive. Byrnes’ snide comments here are a damn impertinence.
In terms of his “lying about extreme scenarios” – what an utterly desperate comment about one piece of text and how out of context can you get. When nobody was well aware of the implications of AGW he’s suggesting the science esatblishment perhaps put more emphasis on the high-end scenarios. Given some of the data currently trending at the high end and his current science beliefs perhaps he was acting totally responsibly. There is very little in this statement which has been seized upon by all sorts of ning nongs including Byrnes as some divine insight into Hansen’s soul. Again what a friggin disgrace.
In her pseudo temperature analysis – so she’s found a few dodgy stations. Are these stations actually used. Are the pictures faked. No analysis as to the effect of these. There is a literature of UHI analysis – any cited? So what’s the net effect on our interpretation of station error. In Australia we have high quality reference set to get around all this. We also have satellites, ocean measurements, species behaviour, boreholes, glacier behaviour, Artic melt, etc etc. Hands up who thinks on balance that the world hasn’t warmed in the last 30 years.
And pull-ease – if the surface data are no good please please nobody argue about global cooling coz you can’t have it both ways.
But oh she’s just an innocent little kiddie – what twaddle ! Don’t pick on the poor little kiddies. Nevertheless the internet adoration will assure her boundless popularity. Perhaps we should ask her for policy advice.
Did anyone notice where the other 5 of Hansen’s collection of “6 emminent scientists” were based? It seems that three of them were also employed at NASA. And as Hansen is a Director then we can reasonably assume that they were Hansen’s subordinates who would know exactly what their future prospects were if they refused to join their bosses little narcissistic media stunt.
It seems the best that Hansen could muster was only two completely independent “emminent scientists” at other institutions. One must wonder how many others were contacted and ran for cover.
“Nobody wants to know him, they can see that he’s just a fool on the hill”.
So Tryonus coprolaliensis var fabricatus pulls something out of his bum trying to disguise it as a factual statement. So do you know that or was it just fabricated from the ether for effect? I assume you did a Google Scholar on the authors to check their specific expertise. Of course you didn’t.
Hansen must be good – he has all these institutions in his pocket. Probably paid them all off with the $250K. Looks like the “hill” is pretty busy.
I said it once – I’m gonna say it again. You’re no good.
Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,1 Anny Cazenave,2 John A. Church,3 James E. Hansen,4 Ralph F. Keeling,5 David E. Parker,6 Richard C. J. Somerville5
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
1 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14482 Potsdam, Germany.
2 Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, 31400 Toulouse, France.
3 Marine and Atmospheric Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
4 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY 10025, USA.
5 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
6 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK.
Jim wrote:
>I would have thought that teenagers interested enough to challenge the established wisdom and question what they’re being told is cause for celebration – even if they’re wrong.
Luke wwrote:
>We appear to have 2 standards.
Jim wrote again:
>But this is a personal attack of a pretty grubby nature against a kid. I’m flabbergasted that you impugn her moral character simply because she challenges the zeitgeist – even if she is misinformed and self-important ( both characteristics of teenagers ).
There is a thread in the archives on Bindi Irwin. She was 8 years old at the time it was posted. She was roasted by Jennifer and a heap of others for suggesting that koalas may become extinct in her lifetime. Then her mother got a roasting too for allowing the kid to be in the media.
It’s interesting, but of course not surprising, to see who the attackers were then. Double standards indeed. Pathetic.
Tell you what Travis ; I haven’t checked the archive but you obviously have.
Post the thread where Jennifer referred to Bindi as a ” skank” – promiscuous woman according to the Macquarie Dictionary – or something equally derogatory or questioned Bindi’s moral fibre and I’ll unreservedly apologise.
Over to you.
No Jim, Travis obviously hasn’t read the thread, because no where on it was Bindi personally insulted.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001848.html
Luke, nevertheless, took umbrage at a comment by Ian Mott, and posted this;
“It’s OK to play this game pretty hard, an occasional bit of verbal biffo and the vernacular are fine, but I think there are some standards.” Presumably double ones.
And SJT, if you actually read some of Luke’s links, you’d realise how few of them support his argument. He gets quite snaky when this is pointed out to him, no matter how politely.
Calling a 15 year old girl a “skank” and a “shill in training”, is a bit low even by Luke’s “standards”.
Well we could also raise you a bullocky’s daughter and a host of others. Jim if you look up various definitions it does not necessarily mean that. And I didn’t mean it in the context you’ve associated. Byrnes moral fibre is judged by what she’s written – very specific.
But Jim to minimise any ongoing ambiguity, and on your advice, I’ll withdraw the term as inappropriate.
Well it’s all a matter of degrees Jim and Paul Williams isn’t it? And it seems you two are quite happy to set the temperature the rest of us have to abide by. Questioning a child’s mother about her parenting skills is pretty low as far as I am concerned, along with the other flak Bindi copped, particularly after their husband/father was recently killed…
However, you two obviously have your own standards, but I wonder how flexible they are, and whether they come down to really having a conscience, or singling out those you don’t like…I ask you both, if a ‘skank’ is a promiscuous woman, is it Ok to use it for anyone over the age of 15? Is it acceptable by the standards you two live and preach by to call a woman a ‘scrubber’, which means the same thing?
There are plenty of posters here who get away with all sorts of insults and abuse to others. When it is Luke, it is somehow then not acceptable.
Paul – now 16 and continuing to engage indiscriminately with full public discourse in an ongoing attack. So it’s OK then to want to write like an adult and maintain a public forum. She has now had acres of internet coverage and done immense damage to Hansen’s personal reputation simply by appealling to being a nice little girl speaking up. I think it’s disgusting. I can handle a critique on Gore or saying Hansen is an alarmist – but to directly and unambiguously imply he made up his research for money and spread around the internet in a most public way is way out of line for a 15 now 16 year old. Especially given the award was 2001. Hansen’s views were well known by that time.
Travis, I pointed out that the thread on Bindi didn’t actually carry any insults towards her. You might disagree with the comments on Terry’s parenting skills, but no one called Bindi a “skank”. The rest of your reply is meaningless waffle.
Luke, I’m a bit confused, you withdrew your comment to minimise ambiguity, (not because it was offensive), then your reply to me seems to seek to justify it, on the grounds that Hansen’s reputation is being damaged. Too bad Hansen is being prevented from speaking out by George Bush, so he needs you to slime a teenage girl to save his reputation.
>The rest of your reply is meaningless waffle.
Yep that says it all Paul. You would find it acceptable that others are insulted and abused here and even have a go yourself. Instead of addressing my question you have written it off as ‘meaningless waffle’. That in itself shows you live not by what is written but by who wrote it. Pathetic.
According to the link in the original article, “The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming.
The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.”
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece
So where were all the other “emminent scientists” that were willing to put their name to a claim that massive parts of Greenland could melt in a few centuries and sea levels rise by a couple of metres this century?
Hansen, two mates and the hired help? Give us a break. Next the Janitor will get a run off the bench.
Bravo Luke!
Back to the thread….
Hansen surely won’t be troubled or offended by this?
No more than you would be.
Isn’t it actually to be celebrated that she’s prepared to challenge waht she’s been taught and investigate further?
I just don’t see this as any great threat to the accepted majority scientific opinion and I think more damage is done to the AGW position by taking the position that it has to be rebutted.
Travis is up to his usual mock high dudgeon. No one attacked Bindi. The criticism was directed at her Father’s hypocritical double standards in running a dude ranch for Crocodiles etc while running a tax deductible charity that campaigns to prevent anyone else from sustainably farming wildlife.
And the subsequent media circus surrounding miss Irwin makes it very clear that the original criticism of her mother for exploiting her own child was well founded.
I just can’t wait for the “No Idea” feature on the new hit sensation, “Crocodiles on Ice”.
Ok Travis, the answer to your question is no.
I still can’t see the relevance of the question.
Good reading list. You’d better go easy on the Al Gore comments. Since you have linked global cooling heresy you are already on the Inquisitions watch list. Even gentle, implied criticism of Al “Torquemada” Gore could get you burned at the stake as a heretic.
Good reading list. You’d better go easy on the Al Gore comments. Since you have linked global cooling heresy you are already on the Inquisitions watch list. Even gentle, implied criticism of Al “Torquemada” Gore could get you burned at the stake as a heretic.
Good reading list. You’d better go easy on the Al Gore comments. Since you have linked global cooling heresy you are already on the Inquisitions watch list. Even gentle, implied criticism of Al “Torquemada” Gore could get you burned at the stake as a heretic.
The triple post was not intentional but the inevitable by product of excessive carbon useage.
Thank you Paul. I think the comment above yours speaks for itself, in typical fashion. This poster has been responsible for calling an adult female contributor basically what Luke is accused of calling the 16 year-old. There was no outcry then, but maybe it is because the adult female is considered to be on the ‘greenie’ side. I wonder if Kristen was on the ‘greenie’ side and such a comment was made there would be an outcry from say yourself, Sid and Jim, or if there would be the same silence that greeted the adult female?
Certain people here run rampant with really hideous comments (and in response willing post even more of the same). No matter how polite some contributors are in response to this, the assault persists, until the only way of getting a point across is to be just as obnoxious and defamatory. Surely there should be one rule for all(regardless of friendships away from the blog), and comments should be judged on content, not who wrote them, whether they are using their real name, or what persuasion they may be?
Let’s settle on this Travis ; forget ” basically the same ” ( black and blue are basically the same – they’re both colours ), if anyone personally abuses a child particularly with sexual overtones ( though Luke has said that was not his intent ) then I’ll be duty bound to criticise them.
Fair enough?
And if there are two “sides” to this debate , I question if they’re Green and Brown.
More likely , rationalist and ideologue.
Lastly – fully agree we should focus on substance and facts not political persuausions or conjecture about bias because of research funding.
Travis,
“Thank you Paul. I think the comment above yours speaks for itself, in typical fashion. This poster has been responsible for calling an adult female contributor basically what Luke is accused of calling the 16 year-old.”
Show me where Ian has called Terry Irwin a “skank”. He criticised her actions, that’s all.
And here’s the quote Luke was “accused” of making, “Well what a little skank Byrnes is. The award was for the Heinz Environment Award. It’s a well known try-on.
So obviously a little shill in training for a job at one of the shonk centrals.”
It was posted on this thread at 5.53pm on June the 24th. That should be within your capabilities to look up.
Luke should unconditionally withdraw the comment and apologise. But I doubt if he will, that would take a bit of intestinal fortitude.
Nasty personal insults directed at teenage girls generally don’t get a good response. Anyone who rushes in to defend such insults reveal more about themselves than they realize.
>Show me where Ian has called Terry Irwin a “skank”. He criticised her actions, that’s all.
Paul is Terri Irwin a ‘regular contributor’? Maybe she posts under the name of Gavin or SJT? Try and read what is written first before firing off comments. The regular contributor is Libby, who comments on the whaling threads. She was referred to as a ‘scrubber’, which is similar to ‘skank’. Pinxi has also copped quite a few deragotory terms along the way too. I guess though these two females are not ‘teenage girls’, which really seems to be the crux of it (that and the fact the girl in question was not pro-AGW).
So your comment ‘Nasty personal insults directed at teenage girls generally don’t get a good response. Anyone who rushes in to defend such insults reveal more about themselves than they realize’ Shows that you can accept nasty personal insults directed at adult females that contribute here, but not teenage girls. I’m not defending anyone Paul, I am simply pointing out the HUGE inconsistencies that regularly appear on this blog.
Jim, there is a big difference between questioning/challenging the established wisdom and coming out to say someone is deliberately misleading the public based on politics and lies. The latter looks a lot like mudslinging.
Point me in the direction where she (adequately) addresses the climate science to support her/a position and I will agree she deserves to be called anything other than a ‘little skank’.
If she is not, then all she is doing in making a grab for the headlines, either being pimped by someone else or selling herself on the open market for celebrity status, is acting, as Luke says, like a little skank.
Travis, the comment above mine was by Ian Mott, so I took it that you were referring to it and the Bindi Irwin example which YOU introduced into the discussion.
I don’t support calling anyone names, but nasty insults directed at third parties who are not involved in the discussion are pretty low. When the third party is a teenage girl, and the nasty comment is a demeaning term like “skank”, that’s even worse.
So you reckon you’re just pointing out the inconsistencies on this blog, do you? Then let’s see you have a go at Luke for his pathetic comment.
I don’t think pointing you in any direction will change your views after that moderate contribution Anthony.
And Luke has had the character and integrity to withdraw the comment.
C’mon Jim, don’t let that stop you… you can pursuade me
Paul,
>I don’t support calling anyone names, but nasty insults directed at third parties who are not involved in the discussion are pretty low. When the third party is a teenage girl, and the nasty comment is a demeaning term like “skank”, that’s even worse.
I don’t discriminate between ‘third parties’ or ‘teenage girls’, or Luke or Ian Mott. Slagging off Terri Irwin then and now when she is a third party is pretty low IMHO, given that the latest comment here (09:27) seemed to be for effect only. Slagging off regular contributors like Pinxi and Libby is just as pathetic, given that they have just as much right to post here as everyone else. The double standards of people accepting those insults but not others (based on who wrote them and who they were about) is sad indeed.
>So you reckon you’re just pointing out the inconsistencies on this blog, do you? Then let’s see you have a go at Luke for his pathetic comment.
Luke has has the dignity to withdraw his comment, and it isn’t the first time he has apologised for something or admitted to being wrong. I have yet to see Ian Mott have the decency to do the same. In fact I can well throw back at you what you wrote:-
>Anyone who rushes in to defend such insults reveal more about themselves than they realize.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.htm/?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b8468db1f4&p=4
Mud at the bottom of BC Fjords–
Sunspots—clouds….dangerous global warming…..???
So Travis, you think slagging off a teenage girl, using an offensive term, is ok? Not to be commented on unless one objects to every snarky exchange on this blog? I’ve never seen you defend Ian Mott when he gets attacked by Luke. Pots and kettles?
Luke crossed a line with his comment, and affirmed it on another thread, and only withdrew it on the grounds of ambiguity. He then made another post that implied the comment still stood. He made no apology.
Your attempts to conflate it with the Bindi Irwin comments, and now with some other comments, is pathetic and immature.
I wonder about your cognitive skills Paul.
Paul wrote:
>So Travis, you think slagging off a teenage girl, using an offensive term, is ok?
AFTER Travis had written:
>I don’t discriminate between ‘third parties’ or ‘teenage girls’, or Luke or Ian Mott.
Do I actually need to explain to you what that means? Unlike you Paul I don’t find it acceptable that teenage girls, adult women, contributors to the blog or people we will never meet are slagged off. That is pretty plain English, but I am sure you will find a way to twist it around again.
>I’ve never seen you defend Ian Mott when he gets attacked by Luke. Pots and kettles?
After the comments I have read from him levelled at all manner of people here no you haven’t and no you wont. He is the most deliberately obnoxious contributor and has over stepped the boundaries on so many occassions it’s disgusting. It doesn’t mean I agree with Luke or anyone else slagging off Ian Mott. What it means (concentrate here Paul), is that I don’t want to waste my time posting a comment in support of someone who has been so rude and disrepsectful to so many others, including myself. When Ian Mott shows some humility and decency, I may change my mind. As I wrote earlier ‘No matter how polite some contributors are in response to this, the assault persists, until the only way of getting a point across is to be just as obnoxious and defamatory’.
>Luke crossed a line with his comment, and affirmed it on another thread
I have not read Luke’s comment on the other thread. I took it that when he wrote at 08:40 he would withdraw the term he meant he would withdraw it. Whether or not he still privately believes in what he wrote is for Luke to decide, however, he withdrew a comment others found offensive from a public forum. If you are expecting people to actually change their personal/private opinions and thoughts because you or anyone else deems they should, you should perhaps be given the Thought Police tag.
>Your attempts to conflate it with the Bindi Irwin comments, and now with some other comments, is pathetic and immature.
Your discrimination and cronyism is vile. You’ve shown where your morals are Paul and it aint pretty.
Just as I predicted, it’s always time for a barney, but silence in response to anything about the science of AGW that Luke puts up.
I wonder about your cognitive skills Travis.
Travis wrote:
>Unlike you Paul I don’t find it acceptable that teenage girls, adult women, contributors to the blog or people we will never meet are slagged off.
AFTER Paul had written:
>I don’t support calling anyone names,
Do I actually need to explain to you what that means? Unlike you Travis I don’t find it acceptable that teenage girls, adult women, contributors to the blog or people we will never meet are slagged off. That is pretty plain English, but I am sure you will find a way to twist it around again.
Etc, etc
Well Luke,like many others, churns out a lot of figures and graphs and other data in support of the science of AGW. While they are in the majority, the fact is that there is a sizable and growing minority of climate scientists and experts who beg to differ, and likewise churn out a lot of figures and graphs and other data to either support their case against AGW, or to support their case, that there is too much yet to learn about our complex climate/weather systems to make knee jerk decisions which may be the wrong ones. It is very important for research and debate to continue on this important issue.
However, of great concern is that the former, the global warming industry, and an industry it is, is attempting to stifle debate, rubbish all scientific findings which oppose their own case, sometimes in a most offensive manner, as Luke for example does. This sinister attempt to shut down all debate smacks of totalitarianism.
It does seem that the AGW camp feel so insecure about their own position, (as well they should), that they ‘circle the waggons’ and lash out at the likes of a teenage girl who is prepared to challenge the wisdom of this multi billion dollar multi national industry,and …to question the propaganda on AGW that she has been taught.
Paul what you have just posted is indeed twisted to suit whatever argument you have decided this minute to put up. You have chosen to leave out a ‘but’ as well as some other additions you made in the chronological order of posts. It says a lot.
I’ll tell you what, you have your own opinions, which I will likely not change. I have my own opinions, which you will not change (well, not at the rate you are going anyway). I will accept that your opinions are different, although I do not agree with them, and settle it at that. I suggest you don’t accuse me of being immature again, given your most recent response and mine here.
Now hopefully others can have a go at a ‘meaningful’ discussion.
In terms of offensive Sid you are also offensive. The irony is that you can’t see it.
Totalitarians such as yourself simply aren’t used to being talked back to. Born to rule eh.
The internet has acres and acres of dissent – any comment about anti-AGW sentiment being put down is utter rot. I think contrarian/denialist/anti-AGW web sites are incredibly voluminous – far in excess of supporting sites. It’s an industry in its own right. Sinister attempt – ROTFL – just ongoing anti-AGW propaganda – keeping saying it Sid – you may convince a few.
A prime example on nonsense generation by Sid – show where Byrnes has received voluminous criticism from warmers – like where? Pulled some more porkies out of thin air Sid? Where’s the closed wagons?
And as for “an industry” – what like medical research and chemical research or automobile research. The word game you’re really playing is “snigger – surely it’s not worth spending any money on”. Well you have neo-cons galore in the White House – why have they allowed it. Why hasn’t Bush and Cheney cancelled the research program? Why haven’t states like China and Russia cracked down on AGW research engagement and withdrawn from all discussions. Perhaps a concern that there may actually be something in it? Risk management?
Frankly it would be wonderful if there was nothing in AGW and it was all wrong. Would save an incredible amount of negotiation and change that will be unwelcomed in the short term by a majority.
Travis, I’m very disappointed in you. Not only have you repeatedly twisted and turned the argument, now you have resorted to lying! “Additions to the chronological order of posts”, whatever that means.
I’ve tried to argue politely in the face of your repeated and unnecessary insults, but now I have no choice but to respond in kind. I have been vilified by you for merely pointing out the error in your comparison between Luke’s regrettable comment and the Bindi Irwin thread. A simple reference from you showing where anyone had personally insulted Bindi or her mother would have ended the discussion, with victory to you, but you were unable to provide such a link, as no such comment was made.
Rather than have the courage and maturity to concede, you have now gone on this ridiculous tirade of misrepresentation and abuse.
It pains me to have to respond in like fashion, believe me it gives me no pleasure to say that of all the “conga line of suck holes” attached to Luke’s nether region, you have pole position. (Jen, I hope it’s ok to quote Hansard here.)
Paul,
I have stumbled upon this thread and the above exchanges. Bindi Irwin was not insulted in the same way as Kristen Byrnes, but I would say that if she read what had been written about her (misleading the public, being pawned, should be playing with dolls, etc) she would feel hurt. The comments about Terri Irwin are pretty insulting if you are a mother, and likewise I think she would feel pretty hurt to read them. Kristen Byrnes would likely feel pretty hurt about the comments also written about her.
As someone who was called something similar to Kristen (look up the word scrubber) by Ian Mott, I have to say I was pretty hurt. At least Kristen will not read the comments and face any public humiliation. No one defended me Paul, and no comments were withdrawn, so I have to wonder if Travis has a point and it is more to do with either the girl’s age, what she represents, or that Luke wrote the comment. However, I have faith in you Paul that you are not actually discriminating here and that next time Ian Mott calls me or anyone else one of his many charming names you will be just as persistent and aggressive in your attack on him as you have been on Luke.
Btw, your commenting in kind to Travis because you have “no choice” demonstrates perfectly what nasty posters like Ian Mott do to people – and you wonder why others might resort to using the same disgusting language?
Great circular argument in the last para there Libby. I assume it was parody, in the same vein as my last post. Let’s hope Travis gets it too.
And no, I wouldn’t defend you in the same way I would defend a third party who happens to be a teenage girl. You are more than capable of defending yourself. No more do I defend Ian Mott or anyone else here who is insulted.
If you can’t tell the difference between calling a teenager a “skank” because she wrote a scientific article and criticising someones actions, then you probably need to exercise your powers of judgement a little more.
Oh so the argument is about capabilities of defending oneself? For a moment I thought it was about common courtesy on a public forum. You keep reducing the fine print.
I do indeed need to exercise my powers of judgement a little more- I had thought you might have been a decent human being.
Nice Libby. Now I’m really hurt.
Keep going, the contradictions in your last two posts make you look like a hypocritical fool. Of course I mean that in the most non-discriminatory way possible. And I would never call you a scrubber, you might get really nasty.
Of course, neither Libby nor Pinxie would ever stoop to abuse, invective or defamatory material. Butter simply wouldn’t melt in their mouths. Indeed, they, and Travis, were such a fine example of balanced, considerate and reasonable argument that their contributions have raised the standing of this blog considerably, Baaaaarrrf.
Terri Irwin is not some private parent seeking to quietly protect her children as they recover from one of the biggest emotional blows a human can endure. No, she is very much in the public domain, at the head of an international media circus, and actively promotiong views that impact on many other people. And as a stay at home parent of three children, I find this sort of exploitation and callous disregard for a child’s wellbeing deeply offensive.
And so, whether certain hypocrites may like to complain in exaggerated mock outrage or not, the head of “Irwin International Inc” will get ALL the feedback she deserves.
That girl didn’t write a scientific article, she wrote a polemic worthy of Ann Coulter.
Shit, imagine having you as a parent Mott. You and Williams must be one and the same. There can’t really be two individuals alive that are so bloody awful.
Further to our discussion on “Irwin International Inc”, I draw readers attention to todays news that Terri Irwin received a substantial sum of money for her appearance on the US ABC.
For the record, Bindi’s father died on the 4th September and his daughter was sold in a media exclusive on the 27th September, just three weeks later, for a “substantial sum of money”.
Note that Paris Hilton was recently offered $1 million for a similar exclusive and she didn’t even do us the courtesy of departing this mortal coil. So was the Irwin International Inc payment more, or less than $1 million?
And how much did Irwin International Inc receive for all the other appearances?
So pack up your high dudgeon and moralistic pronunciamentos, punters, your portrayal of a multinational commercial juggernaught as some sort of variation on a Bambi theme won’t cut the mustard here. On ya bike, punks.
Jennifer, in relation to items 1 & 2 of this thread, above, I believe that with reason and common sense, anyone should be aware of the fact that a general fall in world temperatures would be far more damaging then a rise in temps. Further, the refusal of government agencies in this country, (not to mention the IPCC), to address this wider issue, (in their obsession with promoting AGW), could be seen as an abrogation of their responsibilities.
The BoM is so obsessed with this AGW Belief, that it colours just about every utterence they make on matters climate.
Today, on ABC Country Hour, a typical example of this was heard. At 12.42pm a Bureau officer was giving a forecast on temps. through to the spring. (IN May they forecast a winter of above average temps. and June has blown a hole in that!) Well, still sticking to the profession of faith, she (the officer) announced that July and August would see above average temps. and ditto the coming spring. Some of what was said was useful, as well as being well qualified as usual.
An example of ‘BoM Speak’.-
BoM Speak: “Close to 50% chance of above average temps. for NSW”. (Gotta avoid that nasty word ‘below’)
Translated into plain english: “Above 50% chance of below average temps. for NSW.
I’ve read this comment thread, right through, having gotten on the boat in the middle of the ocean. (Did not know who the cast of characters were, the 15 year old girl, etc.) Since it reminded me of many others like it (polemic, name-calling, rampant hubris, moral sloth, etc), I made a conscious effort to put aside the object being contested (though something about the environment (change – probably warming) was involved.
Now this has been a pretty long thread, so there is lots of evidence. To wit: most of you are cracked pots – both sides. You also seem to enjoy wasting time, your own and of others.
General age/maturity estimation, about 18, sex, mostly all male (from voicing, sentence construction, and general pissing in public, which females usually avoid.)
Nothing here will be settled, it’s just an old male one-up-man-ship game, played nearly universally. All around, I’d say the term ‘wankers’ applies (ie. masturbaters) to almost all of you.
Just so you know that someone cares.
Sid – what utter drivel – seasonal forecasts like this have nothing to do with AGW. It would be a probabilistic seasonal forecast – could be (a) wrong or (b) minority odds. Not AGW related.
Close to 50% chance has been used for decades on rainfall in a totally non AGW context. Psychologically most people see this as no forecast skill – i.e. can go either way. 50% below is the same but cognitively perceived as lower.
Get fair dinkum and stop being such a bigot. Not everything is AGW Sid. I can accept a serve on not reporting record low temps if that occurs – but your bigotry is now verging on ridiculous. Which is which denialists can’t be trusted.
Incidentally Sid if you want to some quality science check out the latest two RC posts – excellent primer on radiative physics – possibly a bit much for yourself and Ian though. Plus puts the boot into a few contrarian try-on myths. Oh dear ! You’ll need a Bex and a good lie down after reading.
Ian’s just having a big sook coz he doesn’t like the Irwin’s position on wildlife conservation and land clearing, and the fact that is resonates so well with the Australian and American public. All the concerned parenting stuff is shrill crocodile (!!) tears. Get over it – they’re worth more than you are, so on your criteria of success in life drop and give them 20 and a heap of respect. Actually make it 40 for being rude about it, and send some flowers with an apology note too.
Hope Gerry hands around – he slagged us ALL off -WOW – how cool is that! (Betcha it’s a GWB sock puppet.
Of course he has great insight into simulation modelling. Has been compared to onanistic behaviour – an essentially pleasant and harmless activity for the idle but not be confused with the real thing (That’s a joke Joyce).
However I would add that the great climatologist Samuel Johnson once said that for the real thing the expense is damnable, the position is ridiculous, and the pleasure fleeting.
You’re right Ian. I’d never accuse you of being a fuckwit