The End of This Road
Many have remarked about how hot the world is this year. Not too surprising given the shift to a strong El Nino, with the global temperature anomaly moving up. Some have proclaimed it the end of the "hiatus"
Global warming continues apace. The pause button is broken. https://t.co/yqKv5Mvcre
— Simon Donner (@simondonner) August 15, 2015
whatsoever the hiatus may be. Ethically this is a problem. While Eli has always warned that global warming driving climate change is a sure thing, or as close to sure as you get these days, the outcomes are not going to be pretty. Many people are going to be seriously hurt, so what should one's attitude towards those who have spent their time belittling the IPCC, and climate science, and preaching delay in one sauce or another.
Not simple. Eli is of the opinion that reminding comes before forgiveness.
Posts
148 comments:
Don't worry, they won't repent. See, for example, the third to last Daily Show, where various crackpots glory in saying stupid things that 99% of people ridicule.
"reminding comes before forgiveness"
To that end, here is the latest pearl of wisdom from the Vice Chairman of the (US) House Science Committee: https://twitter.com/DanaRohrabacher/status/632759204768555008
It may not do much good to remind Rohrabacher of his idiocy, but perhaps stuff like this could be used to shame some of his supporters.
A dinner-table conversation snippet that I'd like to hear in many Orange County GOP households: "Dad -- how could you possibly vote for an idiot like Rohrabacher? Have you no shame?"
Weather.
Who do you think is going to come knocking at your door asking for either a reminder or forgiveness?
CIP, you only have to look at Russel's Jenny McCarthy reasoning to see how deniers will find a way to not worry or feel shame, even if it requires deep self delusion or deep seated idiocy.
But given nobody on the side of reality's results is CAUSING the end of the fake hiatus (more accurately the end of the hiatus meme, at least in a few years, it's still being touted widely at the moment, despite being defunct now), there's no guilt to seeing the very small upside to the increasing temperatures.
If temps were not going to raise at all until it was ready for a 5 degrees Celsius jump, you KNOW nobody would do a damn thing to even delay that event.
There can be no forgiveness until those physically and politically responsible for the problem have genuinely atoned and properly undone their share of the environmental damage.
That means that idiots like Fuller, who cherry pick so that they can cast red herrings such as "weather", learn to address the underlying physical changes and the climatic statistics that indicate that we're screwing the planet for future generations.
Bernard J, you scribble: "There can be no forgiveness until those physically and politically responsible for the problem have genuinely atoned and properly undone their share of the environmental damage."
Who is asking for forgiveness? No-one I see in the blogosphere. Why are you and Rabett bringing this up?
"Physically and politically responsible for the problem?" What problem? Rising CO2? I think those who are physically responsible for emissions are the nefarious bastards better known as us. You. Me. everybody.
Politically responsible for what? The UNFCC? The IPCC? Europe's Carbon Plan? The EPA Clean Power Plan? Fukushima? Germany's decision to turn to coal to compensate for shut down nuclear power plants? I don't think even Roy or Tony would say they had arranged that.
"That means that idiots like Fuller",
What a burn. What a cut. Stick a finger up your butt.
"who cherry pick so that they can cast red herrings such as "weather",
Are you saying that current hot temperatures are not weather? I read a wise man on the internet saying that statistics in climate tended to work best when using a 30-year period. Don't remember where. Hmm. Let me think.
"learn to address the underlying physical changes and the climatic statistics that indicate that we're screwing the planet for future generations."
Yes, Bernard J, you puling infant crying to mama, please teach us all how to address the underlying physical changes and climatic statistics.
Would Mr. or Mrs. be okay? Ms? Doctor? Lord High God of the Winds of the Caribbean?
Tom, why are YOU so scared of the deniers having to atone for their actions? Surely you aren't guilty of refusing to face reality merely for selfish ideology?
Surely you're not for those who are scamming vast numbers of people for personal gain should get away with their larceny? You DO want people who do wrong to face justice, right?
My analysis shows it's more sensible to look at 15 to 50 year trends, and consider both the reliability of the data as well as taking into account surface temperatures like this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
And heat content analysis like this:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov
Problem, though, FL, is that we know you're deliberately lying and purely to insist that your greed is fully justified "skepticism". Nobody buys this any more. It's 20 years too late for someone who claims to know enough to figure this out to be believable in claiming it's somehow no problem.
Your claims are entirely self serving lies constructed purely to keep your self image appearing to others to be reasoned when there is no reason remaining to your beliefs.
Seriously FL, nobody here cares what you think at this point.
So why do you keep showing up here to spew your latest unwanted opinion as if anybody here would care?
Hi Fernando,
I still like you.
Kyle, the reason is that he has to keep repeating the mantra to shield himself from thinking.
Think of it as the psychotics' version of a Zen chant.
Hi Fernando,
I still like you.
It's encouraging to see that Tom can still be relied upon to demonstrate that he is a staunch supporter of denialism.
A dinner-table conversation snippet that I'd like to hear in many Orange County GOP households: "Dad -- how could you possibly vote for an idiot like Rohrabacher? Have you no shame?"
He used to campaign on a surfboard.
/tthere doesn't appear to be anything in the post at all, so not even lack of reasoning, it's the absence of content.
It reminds me of the self opinionated wealthy brat in the school who always insisted on answering the teacher with a response to a question not asked. His dad was important, and teachers who didn't let him stand up whenever he wanted to or tried to keep things on topic were investigated for impropriety by the school board.
The brat just wanted to speak.
The noise meant attention. He probably thought it was adulation.
But he was a teenager with privilege.
What is your excuse, Russel?
As Eli says, ethically this is a problem. Of course getting one's just deserts is rare to vanishing for masters of the universe (or of the economy-- same thing to most). Getting apologies from such people is probably rarer still. As for forgiveness, well, that's going to take time and thought. We don't know yet just how much will need forgiving, and the variation in levels and forms of guilt is extreme, from the fellow-traveler who believes in nonsense because s/he's socially and politically affiliated with its spokes-things to the deliberate and conscious choice of the greedy and power-hungry to suppress the bad news until they've got theirs (and more). When it comes to society (yes, Margaret, there is such a thing), there is also collective guilt-- and we all have a share in that. In particular, those otherwise well-informed who embraced the meme of hiatus despite the lack of any sound statistical basis for declaring a change in trend may want to reflect on the influence of cherry-picked samples and the social pressure to accept there was a case for taking them seriously when in fact there was none.
Please stop spreading the meme that, "Germany's decision to turn to coal to compensate for shut down nuclear power plants?"
For one thing, it wasn't Germany, but the electricity companies who turned to coal. They did that because gas become relatively more expensive.
The German nuclear phase out was declared in 2000, over a decade before the Tsunami. In 2011 they shut down 8 of their older reactors with a capacity of about 9 Gw leaving over 10 Gw of nuclear power in operation. Since 2012 their electricity production from nukes has remained practically stable whilst generation from fossil fuels has dropped. Renewables have more than filled the gap. https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/EconomicSectors/Energy/Production/Tables/GrossElectricityProduction.html
Here's how I'd handle it: Once the Collapse happens (not before), we stand the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Rex Tillotson, and Roger Ailes et al. up against a wall and shoot them. We can have a Nuremburg style trial first or not; I don't much care.
BPL, they'll be gone. You'll have to stand their children and grandchildren up against a wall.
Best,
D
Dano & BPL
There's a rich history of digging them up and having a go. Not that it ever made any difference.
Ah, yes, in a post purportedly about ethics BPL advocates sacrificing the Koch Brothers et al for the grievous sin of giving consumers what they clamor for and Dano outdoes him by advocating the murder of their children to satisfy your collective lust for vengeance.
You Konsensus Kooks are sumpin. Nice to see the morals of Pol Pot have been revived for the Crusade to Climate Jerusalem.
Tom, you can't even score a point without making an own goal. What makes you think Dano supports going after children and grandchildren? The point is that most of the current crop of monsters working to prevent anything being done about climate change will be long gone when things get really bad.
Monsters? Working to prevent anything being done?
Wow.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/crusade-to-climate-jerusalem/
But you know what? It would be far more acceptable if the retarded greed driven morons decided to let reality have a word in and changed their damn minds.
Hell, the best result of removing these monsters from the gene pool is so that they won't interfere with fixing things because it may lead to them having less money than they do now. If they do that voluntarily, I'd happily forgo the pleasure of visiting justice upon them. As would anyone else.
However, this won't happen until they are personally affected, and by then billions will have been affected much worse and it will be far too late to stop even more death and destruction.
Yes, tom, monsters working to prevent anything done because they may not be quite as rich as before, but still staggeringly wealthy.
I guess you have the same problem too, just like Russel McCarthy and Fernando Leanonsomeoneelse.
As long as someone else is paying the cost of your inaction, you don't care.
That's what a monster is.
"the grievous sin of giving consumers what they clamor for"
So they clamour for tax cuts to the wealthy and the hoovering up of the wealth into the Koch's pockets? They are clamouring for more drilling of oil and fracking? They clamour for no action on climate change?
Where, exactly, do you see them clamouring for this?
Monsters? Working to prevent anything being done?
Wow.
Just to thank Tom for continuing to demonstrate that he is either absolutely clueless or actively working for the bad guys.
Remind them that we will NOT accept any 'wir haben es nicht gewusst'. Meantime call climate revisionists what they are: thugs, criminals.
Tom: Ah, yes, in a post purportedly about ethics BPL advocates sacrificing the Koch Brothers et al for the grievous sin of giving consumers what they clamor for and Dano outdoes him by advocating the murder of their children to satisfy your collective lust for vengeance.
You Konsensus Kooks are sumpin. Nice to see the morals of Pol Pot have been revived for the Crusade to Climate Jerusalem.
BPL: You denialist kooks are something else. Apparently in your worldview, "giving consumers what they clamor for" justifies lying propaganda on a vast scale to keep the demand up, and eventually, killing off most of the world, an order of magnitude more victims than Stalin, Mao and Hitler put together. God forbid someone should be punished for murder on a global scale.
The slave traders in the antebellum south were also "giving consumers what they clamor for." So were the people selling Thalidomide, and Laetrile. Heck, so are hit men. But as long as they're giving consumers what they clamor for, I guess all moral considerations go out the window, right?
BPL and Blogger Profile, it is so convenient to be able to conjure up monsters. Helps you forget that the emitters often have initials very similar to one of the petroleum majors.
Blame the seller, never the buyer.
Hot air.
Missing the point again, Tom. It's not about sellers and buyers of goods. It's about propaganda meant to protect the market the big sellers have until they've made still more money. Do you think tobacco execs and companies were no more guilty than the smokers they deliberately addicted?
Tom is giving a classic example of a straw man argument: BPL & BP (so like British Petroleum in so many ways!) want to kill businessmen just for selling stuff.
No, Tom, we want to kill a very few businessmen and media personalities for conducting a massive propaganda campaign of lies to block fixing a grave problem until it's too late, with the consequence that billions of people are going to die. Do you understand the difference? Most businessmen don't do that, so I have no beef with them.
We would have killed Goebbels for his propaganda if he hadn't committed suicide. Despite him never having killed (provably anyway) anyone outside of standard military practice. Why? Because despite him "giving people what they want" (someone to hate), what he did and what he enabled was abhorrent to any normal rational mind.
Koch, Watts, Monkfish and so on are all guilty of this level of toxic propaganda, and the result is likewise to garner personal power at the expense of the lives of others.
Likewise, despite sex traffickers "giving people what they are clamouring for" we do not accept their business practices. Despite the drug cartels giving people what they are clamouring for, we do not condone their actiions.
Anthony Watts is Goebbels?
I thought Lewandowsky was full of it on conspiracy ideation. Maybe he was just looking at the wrong people.
Idiots.
"Anthony Watts is Goebbels?"
Is he???? News to me. I'd heard they were different people. And one of them died fifty years ago.
Hey, "Serge", when you fucking berate Glenn "there aren't enough knives" Beck, THEN you can whine here.
This is a family blog. Calm down
OK, ER. Sorry to you and any kits who crossed those words. Not "Serge", though.
"I'm standing here; you make the move."
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Internet hard man sitting in his shorts in his mom's basement proclaims he's rock hard and dangerous! News at 11!
Listen you psychotic nutbar, you DO NOT SCARE ANYONE.
But happily you have proved my point. According to you, only YOU are allowed to be threatening. And Glenn Beck, of course, because you love him in a "rainbow" sort of way. BFF, as it were. So much so do you love him that you go INCANDESCENT at him being "maligned" for the very thing you wanted to upbraid others here for. Heck, he wasn't even maligned, you were asked to be consistent and upbraid that wannabe mass murderer too.
Go on, declare how you will kill this "infidel" and prove the difference between you WASP RWNJ is merely the colour of your skin.
Hypocrite. Coward. Bully. All the traits of the psycho deniers.
Sorry, "Serge", U fail.
should have been
"between ISIS and you WASP RWNJ".
There's some variation on Godwin's Law, wherein the chance of a climate thread having TF show up and make it about him approaches 1.
Yeah, but Godwin's law doesn't apply when the comparison is fully justified.
God's teeth- it is a psychotic nutbar !
Tom said...
But then I clicked on "said" and the irrelevant drivel that followed disappeared.
Seriously, don't give Fuller the oxygen he craves and comes here for.
Just click on said.
"I sort of meant it as a joke."
So threats of violence are a joke for you? Rather counterindicated by your shrinking violet act earlier.
Internet Hard Man when finding he's not intimidating anyone backs down with "I dint mean nuffin!". News at 11!
But you say: "Found that quote " ... You talking to me? ... " and sort of just went with the entire quote as found.". The answer to this should be laughable in its evasion or fantasy element, so I'll ask: WHY?
"I mean WTF, something from 5.5 years ago"
Yup, and NEVER ONCE in five and a half years has a single one of your psychotic maniacs decried his murder fantasies.
Yet five seconds after someone who actually visits reality on a regular basis and is on first name terms with it, oh, boy, you burst out in INCANDESCENT RAGE! NERD SMASH!!!!
Why?
Because the insanity drives you, "Serge".
Oh dear, yet more "hard talk" from a wimp with a bruised ego. What? You thought that was funny too? Couldn't help yourself?
Or are you just a squealing little tyrant who hates the world being other than "Reds under the bed" where you felt SPECIAL.
Instead of special needs.
Just like Russel McCarthy there.
"reminding comes before forgiveness" - Eli
"Perhaps he can join Al Gore in the Hall of Shame for climate opportunists, under the category of sex offender." - Tom Fuller
It doesn't take much time to figure out that the Tom Fuller that still has the preceding sentence on his blog - even though he's been 'reminded' many times that Al Gore was never charged with, much less convicted, of any sex crime. This is the big lie, the ad hominem, the any means to an end strategy of the Tom Fuller's of the world. A little deceit, deception and/or misdirection is just part of their standard toolbox (as is the faux outrage and righteousness). They never recant, they rarely admit they're wrong, and even when they try it's typically backhanded if not completely lacking in any true sense of remorse ... but eventually they die off. They say physics advances one funeral at a time. That can be a prolonged process. In the area of climate change we may not be able to afford decades of inaction, but fortunately many of the loudest skeptics are advanced in years.
Kevin, it;s more than that. It's tom's armour against changing his mind. As long as he holds that cherished lie to his breast, he will never be frightened of a world that isn't working like he thought it was.
He will never let go. If he does, he may find he was wrong about how the world is and he will never know the comfort of seeing everything happen as he expected.
"I do find your banter rather entertaining"
Yup. Passive. Why do you wish to tell me this?
"Take "Serge" for example" yup, I will continue with any means necessary to use that, "Serge".
"As to the cultural "You talkin' to me" reference,"
Except it wasn't cultural. It was the explosive hate of a moron found with his ass hanging out the window.
All you're doing is backpedalling.
And avoiding saying why you felt the need to say it. Preferring to leap from gish to gish and ride off on your hobby horse "irrelevant". Kimosabe.
I think it's a quote from "Taxi Driver."
Um, Blogger Profile
Except it wasn't cultural. It was the explosive hate of a moron found with his ass hanging out the window.
I have to say I did 'get' EFS's Taxi Driver joke and to be fair, while his intent may have been a satirical barb I didn't read it as a threat.
My interactions with EFS are not always happy ones, so be assured that I'm not here as his apologist. That said, I think there has been a misunderstanding.
BPL
Sorry - we crossed.
Blogger profile
I should have linked my earlier comment properly.
See Travis Bickle quote #3. It's all there, every word.
Oh, yeah, this thread was undoubtedly about ... me... not your raving psychotic fantasies.
It's like watching Travis Bickle... with a motor sickle...
You know, usually this level of incoherence is found only at Deltoid. Were the gatekeepers negligent or drugged?
Again we harken to Mr. Zimmerman: "It's a wonder you can even feed yourselves."
"We're idiots babe
It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves." - Bob Dylan
"Again we harken to Mr. Zimmerman: "It's a wonder you can even feed yourselves."" - Tom Fuller
Interesting to note the difference in the actual words versus the misquoted ones. Did I mention deceit and misdirection? There is of course the alternative explanation; i.e., sheer ignorance. I don't think that really flies, though.
It speaks more towards an ability to take something factual and make it untrue without (probably) consciously doing so. I doubt that Tom knew he was misquoting Dylan. In his mind it's always the *others* that are idiots - hence he has adjusted the lyrics in his mind *unknowingly*. It's then the adjusted version that rings true to Tom. The actual verse, which makes an otherwise whiny rant into something more powerful, is much too complicated and requires acknowledgement of self-blame. Indeed, the whole process of introspection is likely alien to Tom.
Mr. O'Neill, why do I find it typical of Katastrophist Kooks in general and you in particular that in your zeal to contradict absolutely everything your opponent of the day might write that you would fail to listen to the entire song?
Mr. Zimmerman indeed wrote both.
Do you just delight in proving my points for me?
Tom, you're wrong. Don't believe me - believe the official Dylan site. Read the lyrics. Show me where *your* quote is in the song. The lines as I quoted them are the last two lines in the song. I could not locate your version.
http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/idiot-wind
Or you can point at what time in the song it starts. Here's the youtube version made available by Sony
http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/idiot-wind
The lyric as *I* quoted Dylan begins at 6:54. I didn't hear your version.
Sorry, Youtube version of Idiot Wind is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbhRHzMWRvs
Hi Kevin
Okay, so Bob Dylan says you don't know how to breathe. I'm the one who is amazed that you can feed yourself.
Either way, you're an idiot.
Off topic for a long while here. Too bad. There's plenty to learn, if you're not like Tom et al.
Gosh Tom Fuller, I really picked a scab on your delicate constitution, didn't I?
I'll leave most of your drivel to stand as it does as a testament to your modus operandi. ONe thing though:
"I think those who are physically responsible for emissions are the nefarious bastards better known as us. You. Me. everybody. "
That was my point. Each should have to shoulder responsibility and pay according to their share. I'm glad to see that you're finally catching up with the rest of us.
Now all you need to do is to actually believe in the concept of responsibility, and to accept the science that you currently deny.
"while his intent may have been a satirical barb I didn't read it as a threat."
Yes, but that's because you wish to believe the best of people, even after they have demonstrated they are the worst.
I wasn't threatened, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended to threaten.
And his refusal to explain why he thought he should do it speaks volumes about how he doesn't want to reveal his motivation until he's had time to cook up something better than "I was joking!".
"Serge" just went ballistic and wanted to intimidate. It failed.
Simple as that.
"Backpedalling? How so? Please explain."
Saying (paraphrased)
"I dint mean nuffin"
"I wuz jokin"
"I fort it funny"
"U lame u not now where it cum frum?"
Tom's a 'lukewarmer' and a champion of the contrarian cause but Kevin is the idiot. Almost funny.
Tom's also an irrelevant pissant with a superiority complex, full of seething disdain and ignorant bluster.
Mostly comments fit for the walls of the bathroom stall. What a sorry waste of time and electrons. Crap like I just slugged through could have been put to death by a few keystrokes on RR's keyboard.
Problem, John. Your post didn't add anything other than bog-hall graffiti either.
Requiring someone else to slog through MORE "waste of time and electrons".
And something you could have managed without ANY keystrokes on your keyboard.
Consider it next time, unless you are willing to admit to yourself you're no better.
"Never argue with crazy people on the street.
Passers-by won't be able to tell which of you is crazy.
-- Street wisdom.
Hey, you guys are boring. Just click on "said" please. I have to admit "Tom" lowered my opinion of him some considerable amount, FL is a crashing bore, but some of you are so busy fighting with each other you haven't noticed the gang in the shadows cheering you on.
Fighting with each other is a loser's game.
Eli said some worthwhile stuff. Can we talk about it instead of fighting with each other, please?
Hiya Susan
Bernard J: "That means that idiots like Fuller..."
Blogger profile: "Problem, though, FL, is that we know you're deliberately lying and purely to insist that your greed is fully justified "skepticism""
and... "Think of it as the psychotics' version of a Zen chant."
Barton Paul Levenson: "Here's how I'd handle it: Once the Collapse happens (not before), we stand the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Rex Tillotson, and Roger Ailes et al. up against a wall and shoot them. We can have a Nuremburg style trial first or not; I don't much care."
Dano: "BPL, they'll be gone. You'll have to stand their children and grandchildren up against a wall."
CRR Kampen: "Meantime call climate revisionists what they are: thugs, criminals."
BPL: "BPL: You denialist kooks are something else. Apparently in your worldview, "giving consumers what they clamor for" justifies lying propaganda on a vast scale to keep the demand up, and eventually, killing off most of the world, an order of magnitude more victims than Stalin, Mao and Hitler put together. God forbid someone should be punished for murder on a global scale."
BPL again: "No, Tom, we want to kill a very few businessmen and media personalities for conducting a massive propaganda campaign of lies to block fixing a grave problem until it's too late, with the consequence that billions of people are going to die
The slave traders in the antebellum south were also "giving consumers what they clamor for." So were the people selling Thalidomide, and Laetrile. Heck, so are hit men. But as long as they're giving consumers what they clamor for, I guess all moral considerations go out the window, right?"
Everett F. Sargent: "Watts IS a butt plug of a gerbil though, and no ...
Watts will NOT make it out of there as Lemmiwinks did ...
The Death Camp of Tolerance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Camp_of_Tolerance"
Blogger profile: "Internet hard man sitting in his shorts in his mom's basement proclaims he's rock hard and dangerous! News at 11!"
Blogger profile: "Or are you just a squealing little tyrant who hates the world being other than "Reds under the bed" where you felt SPECIAL. Instead of special needs."
Exusian Transplant: "Tom's also an irrelevant pissant with a superiority complex, full of seething disdain and ignorant bluster."
So sorry Susan that your opinion of me was lowered by this thread.
Hey Tom Fuller., you seem to have overlooked several quotes from your own posts...
"haven't noticed the gang in the shadows cheering you on."
Susan, this is conspiracy ideation. Note that you have engendered several fallacies here too.
You think that they won't consider the complete lack of any disagreement as something other than a proof of hive mind?
You think "Serge" isn't a denier troll?
You think Russel McCarthy isn't a denier troll?
Both the above are fallacies of clique approval: an idea you agree with CAN COME FROM ANYONE, even someone you think is an irredemable dochecanoe. Thinking that just because they've said something sane means they're "on the same side" is the corollary of that fact.
Just because someone holds the same views doesn't mean they are always right either.
Truth matters, even when the overall goal is important.
Winning minds doesn't mean telling lies, even if insisting on the truth will lose them.
Of course, he did, Bernard.
You may think this is because he wants to hide is duplicity, but I think that he really is blind to his problems. His ego will not let him see is issues, and that extends even to not knowing what he said ("I didn't mean anything bad by it, so it is irrelevant here" or somesuch).
It is the basis of self-healing denial.
"Never argue with crazy people on the street."
-- Random quote.
"All that evil requires to win is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." GB Shaw.
When compromise is accepted as being required, then all you need to get the result you want is to go to the extreme nutbar position and the compromise will be placed nearer where you wanted it to end up. This is the basis of the movement of the Overton Window. All sides need their extremists as long as "reasonable men" will insist on the unreasonable position that compromise is a good thing.
Your efforts, Hank, are an aid to the world becoming a nuttier place because your efforts merely end up with the rational actor becoming more and more extreme in order that their position not be a priori excluded.
There is moderation at Deltoid, this one did not make it through. It also fits here.
May I ask the moderator to clean up this thread? The language used here is totally unacceptable.
For the people on the science side: Please do not let yourself be provoked into a shouting match; it does not help you, it only helps the mitigation sceptics. Nasty language makes people switch to tribal mode and hinders their mental processing of rational arguments.
The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies by Anderson et al., in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
"For the people on the science side: Please do not let yourself be provoked into a shouting match"
Why? This is saying "Please be a doormat". There is a psychology that makes angry and inflammatory rhetoric feel "more right". See the success of Trump. Not because he's got a single braincell operating, not because he has ideas, but because he is aggressive and angry and contemptuous of all who he disagrees with.
Why must your wishes rule others? Free speech isn't "as long as it's agreeable to Victor".
"Nasty language makes people switch to tribal mode and hinders their mental processing of rational arguments"
Logic also leads to the same issue. See the several papers on the subject, you can find them in a search of SkS.
But there doesn't appear to be any proof of your assertion. Do you have any?
The paper talks of the "risk". Not the actuality. Because it's 20 years or more too late for deniers to have anything other than intransigence and tribal horde thinking for their refusal to face facts today.
Last thing, Victor, have ANY of those who you upbraided for their incivility demanded that you join in effing and blinding against the denier idiots? No? Why? BECAUSE THEY RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR VIEW.
You refuse to do so for theirs.
Who, exactly, is the recalcitrant authoritarian shouting down and shaming others to get their way?
You, Victor.
Everett F Sargent, it was some days ago and yes I was a first time poster (don't think I will ever be back). The moderation was most likely automatic, I did not want to imply that Deltoid has problems with civil comments.
Blogger profile, I did not shout you down. I made a request and provided evidence why this may be a good idea for people who have science behind them. The mitigation are at least as good in shouting as we are, but have to lie about the science. That is their weakness.
Trump may be the number 1 Republican candidate, he is also number one in the disapproval ratings.
"I did not shout you down."
Oh, you did. It didn't work, but your rhetoric is to shout down people who don't think the way you want them to.
"I made a request"
When did anyone request you to be more aggressive to suit THEIR preferred method of posting on the internet? NEVER.
"and provided evidence why this may be a good idea"
And I told you what it means when you do that: it means you're shouting down people who don't think like you want them to. And provided arguments to support that conclusion.
Your assertion of evidence was also lacking in any relevance, as I explained with the "the only deniers left are the tribalist morons" et al.
You provided a paper that claimed "a risk". But no evidence that it will happen.
It is also contraindicated by evidence showing how logic and evidence will be thrown out if it doesn't fit the preconceptions of some, and will instead lead to more intransigence.
Since this would lead, if added to your evidence, to no dialogue being necessary, you should be requesting that all internet forums be shut down for comment, since they can only lead to the problem you are afraid of: reinforcing tribal identity and recalcitrance.
When you are told you should shout and swear at deniers more, you are free to tell them off for trying to make you change your attitude. Indeed your post here indicates you wish to refute and upbraid me for my refusal to admit to your "morality sermon" here. But you do not want anyone to do that to your opinion.
Sorry, free speech just doesn't work that way.
"The mitigation are at least as good in shouting as we are"
Nope, they're crap at it. Their only trick is ranting and insanity drivel.
The only ones left are loonies and their lunacy will never abate, but shouting at them makes their lunacy even more evident as they try to do better. And that isolates them even more, widening the chasm between their insane ideology driven stance and anyone who has even a vague sense of self-awareness.
I can shout as well as any other. And I have the facts on my side.
That is my strength. And their shouting with no facts on their side is their weakness. The stronger their shouting, the louder becomes the falsity of their support.
Trump is #1 with a better approval rating than any other candidate BY MORE THAN DOUBLE, and enough to split ANY possible vote to make a democrat win a landslide.
And he's approved by the same people who watch Fox and Trump AND THINK THAT WAY OF ARGUMENT IS VALID. Hell, not only valid, but BETTER, and that if you can't or don't act like that, then you're weak, ineffectual, wishy-washy and liable to flip-flopping and so weak of conviction of your case that you cannot mount up any passion for it, "proving" that NOT EVEN YOU believe it.
And they're not entirely wrong.
If you are not passionate about your aims, you won't achieve them. You will be compromised out of existence.
This is what happened to Obama. So busy trying to get everyone on board and so timid of those who brazenly said they would stymie EVERY SINGLE EFFORT HE MAKES that he, time and time again, offered a position ON FIRST OFFER that was a *compromise* of what he wanted to propose.
Faking swearwords is both dishonest and cowardly and dismissive of the intelligence of everyone, "Serge".
Crawl back under your bridge you meaningless troll.
Faking swearwords
Um, redacted Taxi Drive quote alert ;-)
@ EFS
A fine epithet. I might yet have it scrawled on the cardboard box they burn me in ;-)
EFS
And BEE as well. Goodness me.
This sad saga continues.
The bathroom stalls are now archives.
And, the boys have taken to the playground to settle their differences as men do.
Meanwhile, this warming planet is possibly going to experience more severe El Ninos, more often.
Any comments?
Tom, you already blew it. Your opinion on climate is political and nature isn't interested.
But I was actually complaining about the "bathroom stall" (exactly, thanks) stuff. If one is more polite than the other, remember egging on the boring is viewed by outsiders as just as much of a waste of time.
Please stick to the topic, and respect your host.
Susan, sorry to disappoint. I have no respect at all for our host. The latest example for why is the outright lie he posted on my weblog about economist Tim Worstall. Worstall himself showed up to confirm that Rabett lied about him. The document Rabett used to libel Worstall is also reproduced there--by Rabett himself, apparently thinking that I and my readers are illiterate.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/is-it-just-me-or-is-climate-change-making-everybody-crazy/
This entire weblog is nothing but what you label bathroom stall stuff. Rabett's schtick has always been to assassinate the character of all who oppose his point of view on climate change issues. His fans are those who enjoy this.
It's just another Deltoid.
Tom
Tim Worstall isn't to the right of the political spectrum???
Who knew?
It's just another Deltoid.
Normally this would merit a smiley, but following hard on the heels of EFS's satire as it does, you are going to need a carefully chosen quote from a film or book if you want to stay in the game.
Blogger profile should offer his services to Tom &Tim
Russel, you should grow up and learn something. Then show you've learned it.
Tom, I'm pretty certain that Eli could not give a quanta less care of what you think of him.
"is-it-just-me-or-is-climate-change-making-everybody-crazy/"
Yes. To both.
But the reason why is that you are too invested indenial that your entire identity and worldview is inextricably linked.
As reality encroaches on what you can claim with apparent sanity disappears, only insane claims are left for you and him and others of like "mind".
As to why you stick to it? Already answered above: fear of a world you no longer think you understand.
"And, the boys have taken to the playground to settle their differences as men do."
And here we have the male version of "slut shaming".
Sorry, Jon, you don't get to tell others what they're allowed to say.
What the hell ever happened to that voltaire quote you merkins keep bleating on about when proving how your country is so great because "free speech in our constitution!"?
It is now "I may not agree with what you say, but I will bite your ankles if you do it".
Hardly as heroic.
if I can paraphrase the whiners for clarity:
You're doing free speech wrong!!!!!
Wasn't there a difference between being a doormat and not having control over your emotions?
Wasn't there a difference between moderation and free speech?
Wasn't there a difference the right to be offensive and having to be offensive?
So many questions and a small bunny cannot know everything.
It's a very very wide corridor.
Unless you're prone to fallacious binary thinking.
You also need to explain why emotions must be controlled and what is wrong if they aren't.
When Maradona won the world cup with his boxing credentials :-) he was emotional. Does that make him wrong?
You must also ask whether you're mistaking emotion with passion. If you're not passionate about something, you will never achieve it.
Oh, and whining "You're doing free speech wrong!" is offensive.
And your claims of "the boys" is offensive too.
Seems to be not merely fine but NONEXISTENT when you do it.
You know what that's called, don't you? It's being two faced or hypocritical.
"This confession has meant nothing."
BAU for you, then "Serge".
Wow / Blogger profile
"This confession has meant nothing."
BAU for you, then "Serge".
It's a quote from a book also used in a film. I have read the book but not seen the film. Which is irrelevant to the fact that EFS is taking the piss out of you in a reasonably clever way and you are still missing it.
Sorry to have to say it in public, but what else can I do?
BP, I understand you're upset with Serge or whatever his name is, but please, calm down. This has gone on too long. Yes, you have to the right to free speech--but this blog is privately owned, and Eli can shut you down any time he wants to. The fact that he hasn't so far, and hasn't even shut down the egregious Tom, I think shows just how indifferent he is to these shenanigans.
Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea. You have every right, from natural to constitutional, to go into Bed-Stuy at 11 PM and call everbody a N*****, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
You've made a lot of good and interesting posts here, but you've really let EFS get under your skin, and it's been going on for days. Don't give him that much room in your head. Shut him off. That's why God made click-next-to-user-ID.
I am not being hypocritical by addressing you to this and not to EFS. You are, at heart, a rational person. Not everyone here is.
"this to you," I meant. Eli, I wish you'd let us edit these bloody things.
Especially in a thread that has devolved into petty complaints about how others are "doing it wrong", complaining that there's a lot of pointless shit to wade through is ironic.
Your whine is adding to it.
Ah, so, if I want to threaten someone, all I need to do is use selected quotes from, say, Kill Bill, or Reservoir Dogs and it is completely defensible.
No, I don't think that this is an admitted defence against threats by the police.
The ACTUAL police, that is, not self appointed ones.
Yours is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And that's an insult, but quoted from Shakespear, so DON'T YOU DARE be insulted by it!
Blogger Profile (and BPL for that matter), as someone wrote in my high school yearbook, "Please don't ever change."
Uhm, what, Tom?
OK, please change. Try being someone new. Someone different.
Same for you "Serge". Find something to say that actually is causally linked to reality rather than your egocentrism.
Tom, I can see you've taken your own advice seriously.
"Eli is of the opinion that reminding comes before forgiveness"
nuff said
Reality is not all it is cracked up to be Sometimes actually it is right depressing.
"I am not being hypocritical by addressing you to this and not to EFS."
Your hypocrisy, or nearest analogue, is in allowing EFS and the other idiotic morons the freedom to BE such idiotic morons, but wanting others "on your side" (everyone is on one side: theirs, we just draw vague boundaries based on situation and call that "the same opinion". humans are rarely that rational and consistent) to refrain.
I *understand* that you feel you have some possibility of getting it changed with me because you see evidence I am, and I quote, "at heart, a rational person".And that others, are not ("Not everyone here is."), therefore a waste of effort to try.
And you know, you would be right.
Except that ceding this ground is not going to stop "Serge" or Leanonsomeoneelse or Russ McCarthy from being batshit insane in defence of their cherished worldview.
It lets them win it every time.
I have given WHY yours and others claims are not going to be accepted by me.
I have given, after much, and insistent, criticism of my methods, why your methods are disastrously flawed (my opinion), MY difference is I do not want you to change to MY methods. Use your own. 100% absolutely and incontrovertibly YOUR CHOICE.
But please show the same courtesy.
This includes NOT criticizing my method, as I did not yours. It is purely the only sane and polite thing to do.
But do you know what WOULD make it a safer and saner place with less offtopic bollocks and insanity and flying metaphorical fists?
Well, lets start with the "force" of your insistence I change: this is Eli's blog and he can demand and enforce his standard.
SO DAMN WELL DO SO.
***YES THAT IS CENSORSHIP***
ADMIT IT.
And accept it. And let your dislike of censorship ensure to the best of your ability that you will be removing troll insanity or inflammatory posts BECAUSE THEY ARE INIMICAL to the purpose of discussion, and not because you just don't agree with them. The dislike DOES NOT work if you go "Oh, this isn't censorship, that's only when GOVERNMENT does it!". It is censorship. No ifs no buts. But you are legally and morally ALLOWED to censor.
When criticism of censorship arises, it is always assumed that it is BAD. "Because free speech". Yet here we see how it isn't the case. Free speech doesn't mean free to say what you like. Indeed this deification of your constitutional right of free speech is why these sites are so goddammed awful and troll infested.
Of course, WtfUWT have an out and therefore feel no compunction against censoring and feel this is the only moral thing to do: you're all in on a global scam to enslave them in a New World Order, and the ends justify the means.
I'm not saying Eli that you must censor.
I'm just saying that if you want to make reality less depressing, at least on this tiny fragment of reality, accept censoring, and accept it as NO DIFFERENT from being done by government. And that admission of problematic censorship will ensure you self police.
For everyone else who wants me to change, READ my other posts. Argue with me the extent of their validity and weight in the balance. Don't just bloody ignore them and continue with your prissy highhandedness. Because sans that, there is absolutely nothing to make be consider changing my methods.
Refusing to change my methods is reasonable because you have given no thought to the reasons for keeping them, only YOUR reasons for not.
I have no objection to censorship of a privately owned blog, and I have no problem with calling it that. Some things need to be censored. I don't want ISIS to know where they can get old Russian suitcase nukes, for instance. Nor do I want deniers to incessantly troll climate-science blogs. We agree on that much, at least.
I do see a lot of defence of especially "progressive" (or reality based) blogs where you call out censorship with the "It's only censorship IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT".
Which is 100% rubbish.
If it isn't accepted as what it really is, where is the fear of the downsides of censorship being done by you on "your blog" (it is a much less black and white picture because the intent is an offer to the public to enter, so it really isn't quite a private area. The trespass laws do not apply on the path leading up to your front door, and no trespass laws allow you to break the law because of it (see Cape Fear)) when you are make pretend not censoring?
Admission of it will create your own internal police force.
Refusal to see it will hide it happening. No internal police, nobody "custodiet ipsos custodes".
Not to mention that in a "discussion" about how some methods lead to tribalisation and reinforcement of preconceptions, waving around the banhammer threat will do exactly the same thing is moronically ironic in the match between professed intent and actual consequence. In a "To save Gotham City, we must destroy Gotham City" way. And is no better than the actions being complained about.
BP, you seem to be saying that open, hateful confrontation based on flinging insults and vulgar language back and forth is the only acceptable outcome, and anything else would be morally wrong somehow. I can't follow your logic. If that isn't what you're saying, please enlighten me.
"is the only acceptable outcome,"
Nope, it isn't the only acceptable outcome. It's not even an outcome any more than walking is a destination.
It's not an UNacceptable option. And all claims that it entrenches tribality fall foul of all the others having the same damn problem.
I don't know where you get this seeming from, though. Care to illuminate?
Oh, and it appears all you've done is take what people have been complaining about me and then pretending I have said the same thing to them. How?
No, the reason something is censorship is not because the government does it. If a government blog would moderate your comments that would still be moderation and not censorship.
It becomes censorship when publishing your ideas has (juridical) consequences for your or your publisher. When you get fined, locked up, tortured or killed. When terrorists bomb a French satirical newspaper that is also an attempt at censorship, even if they are not a government.
In case of being moderated at someone's blog you can simply start your own vitriolic blog and whoever is interested, I certainly not, can read it.
For everyone else who wants me to change, READ my other posts. Argue with me the extent of their validity and weight in the balance.
You said proof that foul language works is that Trump is ahead in the poll.
I agreed that he is ahead, but pointed to his disapproval ratings.
You reply he is ahead in the polls, which I agreed with, and ignore his disapproval ratings, which was my point.
And no, the end does not justify the means. Climate change is a solvable problem and we are close to the point of no return where the transition to renewable is unstoppable because it becomes so dirt cheap that nothing can stop the creative destruction. What worries me most about the climate "debate" is the lack of real adult debate in the USA. That cannot be good for progress in the USA, in the West, nor in the rest of the world. They do not seem to mind that the Open Society is destroyed that way, I as a democrat do mind.
When someone who claims to be in my group behaves like that, it is only natural that I respond to that because that is seen as behavior of my group and affects me. For this reason, I also complain about the behavior of my government more and stronger than about the government of Ghana.
Did Tom Fuller already write a blog post about how terrible the people on the science side are to ensure that his readers do not start thinking logically? Next they feel justified to harass scientist and greenies. When I point to inappropriate language, they will point me to Rabett Run or Deltoid, what should I respond then?
"BP, you seem to be saying that open, hateful confrontation based on flinging insults and vulgar language back and forth is the only acceptable outcome, and anything else would be morally wrong somehow. I can't follow your logic"
I believe it's called an election.
Victor Venema, I have written frequently in criticism of the nature of the debate and I more often criticize the consensus (or Konsensus) side than the skeptics. My most recent post on the subject is here:
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/crusade-to-climate-jerusalem/
I criticize the consensus more frequently than skeptics because their side has more responsibility and should be held to a higher standard. However, I have also frequently criticized people like Morano, Monckton, etc. Interestingly I wrote an open letter to Cuccinelli criticizing his attacks on Michael Mann, labeling it a witch hunt. That got picked up by mainstream media. Sadly, the only signatories to the letter were skeptics. I invited several prominent members of the consensus to sign. They refused.
I criticize the Konsensus even more frequently because they are stupid and make an easy target. Witness BP.
Please, BP. Stay just the way you are.
"And no, the end does not justify the means."
Tell Tony Watts and the deniers. They think that you (and myself, the IPCC, the UN, environmentalists and so on) are EVIL, you know ACTUAL SATANIC EVIL. And in their holy crusade to stop the New World Order and the Destruction Of Democracy Worldwide, they KNOW that any trick is acceptable.
Censorship, blatant lies, galloping gishes, multiple contradictory claims EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE are all fine, as long as it results in the lack of progress of this "evil cabal of scientists" that hide behind the IPCC propaganda front!
"You said proof that foul language works is that Trump is ahead in the poll."
And more, but yes, that was said.
"I agreed that he is ahead, but pointed to his disapproval ratings."
Yes, and?
I also said that there are many people out there who think that if you do not show passion in your argument, you are wishy-washy and don't even take your own position seriously.
"I agreed that he is ahead, but pointed to his disapproval ratings."
And I agree: YOU CAN DO DIFFERENTLY.
Is the problem that I am to you what Al Gore is to deniers: the entirety of the Climate Change justification and proof????
You're as dumb as the densest denier if you think that.
Dumber, actually. At least Al Gore is a recognisable figure and prominent.
"Did Tom Fuller already write a blog post about how terrible the people on the science side are to ensure that his readers do not start thinking logically?"
Do they leave Tom because he's terrible? No.
Why?
Because they were never going to think logically. Or change their mind.
So exactly what "damage" do you think is done?
"It becomes censorship when publishing your ideas has (juridical) consequences for your or your publisher"
No it doesn't. Deciding to not publish is censorship.
End of story.
"Please, BP. Stay just the way you are."
As requested, I have. Now, please return the favour, and change like I asked.
Oh, by the way, what about the "skeptic" konsensus: that the IPCC is wrong.
Ever complain about that?
Hi BP
I frequently write about when the IPCC is right. Occasionally I disagree with some of their findings and write about that as well.
I would respond to some of your other blather but I have misplaced my copy of the DSM IV.
But please, stay just the way you are.
BP, for example I even cite the IPCC here: https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/mainstream-science-specifically-denies-climate-catastrophe/
I somehow doubt that you will appreciate that.
Tom, you're being the worst sort of politician.
You answered a different question. I asked what about the "skeptic" konsensus: that the IPCC is wrong.
It's not a difficult read. Was it at too high a reading age? Or is it that you're deliberately disingenuous?
And is that why you claim the rest "blather", so you can pretend you don't have a question to answer? Cherry picking which question you want to answer then getting it wrong...?
And talking of blather, your link seems to be describing your "The IPCC is right" is that they're saying that your denier obsession over CAGW is nonexistent except WITH deniers obsessing over it.
IOW You claim the IPCC is talking about CAGW and then when they say "No we don't" (well, after a decade of going "You bloody well do!!!!"), you say "You're right, for once!".
Not merely circular reasoning, it's spherical. A load of them.
As to lies, Tom, here you say:
"I wrote an open letter to Cuccinelli criticizing his attacks on Michael Mann, labeling it a witch hunt."
YET IN THE ACTUAL LETTER:
"No matter what has prompted your investigation, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted as a witch hunt."
and
"being wrong is not a crime" may well be taken to say that the letter you wanted others to sign was saying Michael Mann was wrong and in error. something that slimeball idiot Steyn would DEFINITELY put in his cash-in-before-bail-out book.
Given how blatantly you lie, I predict you will consider this "blather" and not change your ways to be more honest.
Unsurprisingly, the only correct thing you wrote in your multiple posts was the last sentence.
So you deny your own post in the enquirer, Tom? That's where I got the ACTUAL letter from.
And your claim here is right up there, do you see it? Right next to your name and down a bit. You must remember, you wrote it.
But I totally called it on the "Oh, that's just blather!", didn't I.
Pity you didn't have the courtesy to do like I asked and become someone different...
BP, how do you feel about aliens?
Orange squash.
Eli, you have my sympathy.
Good lord what is man?
For as simple as he looks,
Do but try to develop
his hooks and crooks,
With his depths and his shallows,
his good and his evil,
All in all he's a problem must puzzle the devil.
Robert Burns, I think
Alternatively:
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust?
Shakespeare Hamlet 2:2
:-)
Roses are red,
And violets blue.
I have multiple personality disorder,
And so do I.
Shakespeare made me do it.
Post a Comment