Report this

00

Next, Sphaerica, you say:

February 28th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Gregoryno6,
Willis post was very, very, very far from “polite.” It was in fact one of the most abusive things I’ve read of late (and the Internet is an amazingly brutal place). The tone was both unnecessary and unprofessional. It may have seemed polite to you while you were cheering, but it was, in my opinion, unhelpful, unproductive, and uncivil.
If you want to tout it as true (in your opinion), that’s fine. “No nonsense,” absolutely.
But not polite.

If that is one of the most abusive things you’ve read on the internet, you must not get out much. I’ve been called every name under the sun. So let’s review the bidding here for a moment:

James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity.

Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors.

Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible.

David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.

DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals.(video)

Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.

Joe Romm wanted skeptics strangled in their beds.

A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers.

Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.

Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers.

Rajendra Pachauri hopes that skeptics rub their faces with asbestos.

And you think my comments were over the top? Really? The AGW supporters have been incredibly abusive, both in private and in public, to me and many others who did not toe the party line. I felt that my comments, while passionate, were directed at those who have substituted propaganda for science.

Meanwhile, the AGW supporters have not shown that there is actually anything at all to explain, whether with CO2 or anything else. Please see my post on this subject.

My best to all, keep up the good fight,

w.

Report this

10

There’s no middle ground with this to me. This hokey “climate science” is bunk or it isn’t.

Noting that it has accounted for no historical observations accurately, has reproduced no historical data accurately, has provided no understanding of the true climactic cycles that govern decade climate variability, and has produced nothing of value for the use by fishery, forestry, agriculture, or Government, it needs but one label:

JUNK

And I will take that back immediately if anyone can point to something otherwise.

Report this

00

The reason alarmist seldom exhibit a sense of humour is that saving the world is serious business.

“Save the world” and have a serious rock concert.

Save it from what? prey tell.

Report this

00

Condor is a bit stringy.

I still have a sense of humor…….

Report this

00

Have you guys noticed how the alarmists blogs just don’t have any humour at all? Seems only skeptics are humourous. Must be a confidence thingy.
Yep, I think it’s definitely a measure of their confidence in there “science” that they seem to be humor impaired.

The reason alarmist seldom exhibit a sense of humour is that saving the world is serious business.

Report this

00

Yeah, but I want to know how cornish game hen compares to California Condor.

Report this

00

After all that is said, Gore is still out there. He’s become marginalized to some degree but is that enough to make him relatively harmless? I think not yet. The self-righteous types are hard to nail to the wall permanently. To steal terminology from someone else without attribution isn’t PC but I don’t remember who first said this — anyway, Gore has become a “self-appointed guardian of his own opinion”. He’ll be preaching his Gorespel to anyone who’ll listen until Hell freezes over. Oops, I can’t believe I just used that metaphor. It might really happen.

Report this

00

In your post at #173 you quote me (at #156) as saying:

There is no point in seeking an alternative to a cheap and plentiful resource, but people look for alternatives when a resource becomes scarce and expensive. And discovered alternatives often provide advantages. Thus, civilisation advances.

And you respond to that by saying:

I quite disagree. There is a lot of value in looking for alternatives, because there is value in planning for the future when alternatives are needed.

But we do not disagree about this.

I was talking about society as a whole. Individuals and/or corporations can do what they want.

“To build a better mousetrap” is the goal of every inventive entrepreneur. Few are successful but everybody benefits when they achieve success. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies spend much money attempting to find chemicals that will have advantages over existing drugs: few of their researches are successful but they make large profits from those that are.

In my post at #156 (that your are disputing) I wrote:

Furthermore, greens compound their error by subsidising technologies of their choosing (e.g. wind, solar and wave).

There is an immense difference between individuals and/or corporations “looking for” and society “subsidising”. (Communists attempt to impose collective will on such things with ruinous consequences for their societies; e.g. it induced the demise of the Soviet Union).

So, in context, there is no conflict between my statement that you quoted and your stated view.

Richard

Report this

00

Thankyou for your comment at #168.

Matt B addressed his nasty comment to me in an obvious attempt to induce me to fall out with Louis.

Your answer says everything I would have wanted to say in response, and it was much better coming from someone other than Louis and me.

Again, thankyou.

Richard

Report this

00